for ever remain in a state of barbarism. If once an enlightened prince
were to rise up there, his first act would be to annihilate the Slave
Trade. If the light of heaven were ever to descend upon that continent,
it would directly occasion its downfall. It was their interest then to
contrive a mode of supplying labour, without trusting to precarious
importations from that quarter. They might rest assured that the trade
could not continue. He did not allude to the voice of the people in the
petitions then lying on the table of the House; but he knew certainly,
that an idea not only of the injustice, but of the impolicy, of this
trade had been long entertained by men of the most enlightened
understandings in this country. Was it then a prudent thing for them to
rest on this commerce for the further improvement of their property?
There was a species of slavery, prevailing only a few years ago, in the
collieries in certain boroughs in Scotland. Emancipation there was
thought a duty by parliament: but what an opposition there was to the
measure! Nothing but ruin would be the consequence of it! After several
years struggle the bill was Carried. Within a year after, the ruin so
much talked of vanished in smoke, and there was an end of the business.
It had also been contended that Sir William Dolben's bill would be the
ruin of Liverpool: and yet one of its representatives had allowed, that
this bill had been of benefit to the owners of the slave-vessels there.
Was he then asking too much of the West Indians, to request a candid
consideration of the real ground of their alarms? He would conclude by
stating, that he meant to propose a middle way of proceeding. If there
was a number of members in the House, who thought with him, that this
trade ought to be ultimately abolished, but yet by moderate measures,
which should neither invade the property nor the prejudices of
individuals, he wished them to unite, and they might then reduce the
question to its proper limits.
Mr. Addington, the speaker, (now Viscount Sidmouth,) professed himself
to be one of those moderate persons called upon by Mr. Dundas. He wished
to see some middle measure suggested. The fear of doing injury to the
property of others, had hitherto prevented him from giving an opinion
against a system, the continuance of which he could not countenance.
He utterly abhorred the Slave Trade. A noble and learned lord, who had
now retired from the bench, said on a certain occasion, that he pitied
the loyalty of that man, who imagined that any epithet could aggravate
the crime of treason. So he himself knew of no language which could
aggravate the crime of the Slave Trade. It was sufficient for every
purpose of crimination, to assert, that man thereby was bought; and
sold, or that he was made subject to the despotism of man. But though he
thus acknowledged the justice due to a whole continent on the one side,
he confessed there were opposing claims of justice on the other. The
case of the West Indians deserved a tender consideration also.
He doubted, if we were to relinquish the Slave Trade alone, whether it
might not be carried on still more barbarously than at present; and
whether, if we were to stop it altogether, the islands could keep up
their present stocks. It had been asserted that they could. But he,
thought that the stopping of the imputations could not be depended upon
for this purpose, so much as a plan for providing them with more
females.
With the mode suggested by his right honourable friend, Mr. Dundas, he
was pleased, though he, did not wholly agree to it. He could not grant
liberty to the children born in the islands. He thought, also, that the
trade ought to be permitted for ten or twelve years longer, under such
arrangements as should introduce a kind of management among the slaves
there, favourable to their interests, and of course to their future
happiness. One species of regulation which he should propose, would be
greater encouragement to the importation of females than of males, by
means of a bounty on the former till their numbers should be found
equal. Rewards also might be given to those slaves who should raise a
certain number of children; and to those who should devise means of
lightening negro-labour. If the plan of his honourable friend should
comprehend these regulations, he would heartily concur in it. He wished
to see the Slave Trade abolished. Indeed it did not deserve the name of
a trade. It was not a trade, and ought not to be allowed. He was
satisfied, that in a few years it would cease to be the reproach of this
nation and the torment of Africa. But under regulations like these, it
would cease without any material injury to the interests of others.
Mr. Fox said, that after what had fallen from the two last speakers, he
could remain no longer silent. Something so mischievous had come out,
and something so like a foundation had been laid for preserving, not
only for years to come, but for ever, this detestable traffic, that he
should feel himself wanting in his duty, if he were not to deprecate all
such deceptions and delusions upon the country.
The honourable gentlemen had called themselves moderate men: but upon
this subject he neither felt, nor desired to feel, anything like a
sentiment of moderation. Their speeches had reminded him of a passage in
MIDDLETON'S _Life of Cicero_. The translation of it was defective,
though it would equally suit his purpose. He says, "To enter into a
man's house, and kill him, his wife, and family, in the night, is
certainly a most heinous crime, and deserving of death; but to break
open his house, to murder him, his wife, and all his children in the
night, may be still very right, provided it be done with moderation."
Now, was there anything more absurd in this passage, than to say, that
the Slave Trade might be carried on with moderation; for, if you could
not rob or murder a single man with moderation, with what moderation
could you pillage and wound a whole nation? In fact, the question of the
abolition was simply a question of justice. It was only, whether we
should authorize by law, respecting Africa, the commission of crimes,
for which, in this country, we should forfeit our lives: notwithstanding
which, it was to be treated, in the opinion of these honourable
gentlemen, with moderation.
Mr. Addington had proposed to cure the disproportion of the sexes in the
islands, by a bounty on the importation of females; or, in other words,
by offering a premium to any crew of ruffians, who would tear them from
their native country. He would let loose a banditti against the most
weak and defenceless of the sex. He would occasion these to kill
fathers, husbands, and brothers, to get possession of their relatives,
the females, who, after this carnage, were to be reserved for--slavery.
He should like to see the man, who would pen such a moderate clause for
a British parliament.
Mr. Dundas had proposed to abolish the Slave Trade, by bettering the
state of the slaves in the islands, and particularly that of their
offspring. His plan, with respect to the latter, was not a little
curious. They were to become free, when born; and then they were to be
educated, at the expense of those to whom their fathers belonged. But it
was clear, that they could not be educated for nothing. In order,
therefore, to repay this expense, they were to be slaves for ten or
fifteen years. In short, they were to have an education, which was to
qualify them to become freemen; and after they had been so educated,
they were to become slaves. But as this free education might possibly
unfit them for submitting to slavery; so, after they had been made to
bow under the yoke for ten or fifteen years, they might then, perhaps,
be equally unfit to become free; and therefore, might be retained as
slaves for a few years longer, if not for their whole lives. He never
heard of a scheme so moderate, and yet so absurd and visionary.
The same honourable gentleman had observed, that the conduct of other
nations should not hinder us from doing, our duty; but yet neutrals
would furnish, our islands with slaves. What was the inference from this
moderate assertion, but that we might as well supply them ourselves? He
hoped, if we were yet to be supplied, it would never be by Englishmen.
We ought no longer to be concerned in such a crime.
An adversary, Mr. Baillie, had said, that it would not be fair to take
the character of this country from the records of the Old Bailey. He did
not at all wonder, when the subject of the Slave Trade was mentioned,
that the Old Bailey naturally occurred to his recollection. The facts,
which had been described in the evidence, were associated in all our
minds with the ideas of criminal justice. But Mr. Baillie had forgot the
essential difference between the two cases. When we learnt from these
records, that crimes were committed in this country, we learnt also,
that they were punished with transportation and death. But the crimes
committed in the Slave Trade were passed over with impunity. Nay, the
perpetrators were even sent out again to commit others.
As to the mode of obtaining slaves, it had been suggested as the least
disreputable, that they became so in consequence of condemnation as
criminals. But he would judge of the probability of this mode by the
reasonableness of it. No less than eighty thousand Africans were
exported annually by the different nations of Europe from their own
country. Was it possible to believe that this number could have been
legally convicted of crimes, for which they had justly forfeited their
liberty? The supposition was ridiculous. The truth was, that every
enormity was practised to obtain the persons of these unhappy people; He
referred those present to the case in the evidence of the African
trader, who had kidnapped and sold a girl, and who was afterwards
kidnapped and sold himself. He desired them to reason upon the
conversation which had taken place between the trader and the captain of
the ship on this occasion. He desired them also to reason upon the
instance mentioned this evening, which had happened in the river
Cameroons, and they would infer all the rapine, all the desolation, and
all the bloodshed, which had been placed to the account of this
execrable trade.
An attempt had been made to impress the House with the horrible scenes
which had taken place in St. Domingo, as an argument against the
abolition of the Slave Trade; but could any more weighty argument be
produced in its favour? What were the causes of the insurrections there?
They were two. The first was the indecision of the National Assembly,
who wished to compromise between that which was right and that which was
wrong on this subject. And the second was the oppression of the people
of colour, and of the slaves. In the first of the causes we saw
something like the moderation of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Addington. One day
this Assembly talked of liberty, and favoured the Blacks. Another day
they suspended their measures and favoured the Whites. They wished to
steer a middle course; but decision had been mercy. Decision even
against the planters would have been a thousand times better than
indecision and half measures. In the mean time, the people of colour
took the great work of justice into their own hands. Unable, however, to
complete this of themselves, they called in the aid of the slaves. Here
began the second cause; for the slaves, feeling their own power, began
to retaliate on the Whites. And here it may be observed, that, in all
revolutions, the clemency or cruelty of the victors will always be in
proportion to their former privileges, of their oppression. That the
slaves then should have been guilty of great excesses, was not to be
wondered at; for where did they learn their cruelty? They learnt it from
those who had tyrannized over them. The oppression, which they
themselves had suffered, was fresh in their memories, and this had
driven them to exercise their vengeance so furiously. If we wished to
prevent similar scenes in our own islands, we must reject all moderate
measures, and at once abolish the Slave Trade. By doing this, we should
procure a better treatment for the slaves there; and when this happy
change of system should have taken place, we might depend on them for
the defence of the islands as much as on the whites themselves.
Upon the whole, he would give his opinion of this traffic in a few
words. He believed it to be impolitic--he knew it to be inhuman--he was
certain it was unjust--he thought it so inhuman and unjust, that, if the
colonies could not be cultivated without it, they ought not to be
cultivated at all. It would be much better for us to be without them,
than, not abolish the Slave Trade. He hoped therefore that members would
this night act the part which would do them honour. He declared, that,
whether he should vote in a large minority or a small one, he would
never give up the cause. Whether in Parliament or out of it, in whatever
situation he might ever be, as long as he had a voice to speak, this
question should never be at rest. Believing the trade to be of the
nature of crimes and pollutions, which stained the honour of the
country, he would never relax his efforts. It was his duty to prevent
man from preying upon man; and if he and his friends should die before
they had attained their glorious object, he hoped there would never be
wanting men alive to their duty, who would continue to labour till the
evil should be wholly done away. If the situation of the Africans was as
happy as servitude could make them, he could not consent to the enormous
crime of selling man to man; nor permit a practice to continue, which
put an entire bar to the civilization of one quarter of the globe. He
was sure that the nation would not much longer allow the continuance of
enormities which shocked human nature. The West Indians had no right to
demand that crimes should be permitted by this country for their
advantage; and, if they were wise, they would lend their cordial
assistance to such measures, as would bring about, in the shortest
possible time, the abolition of this execrable trade.
Mr. Dundas rose again, but it was only to move an amendment, namely,
that the word "gradually" should be inserted before the words "to be
abolished" in Mr. Wilberforce's motion.
Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Earl of Liverpool) said, that the opinions of
those who were averse to the abolition had been unfairly stated. They
had been described as founded on policy, in opposition to humanity. If
it could be made out that humanity would be aided by the abolition, he
would be the last person to oppose it. The question was not, he
apprehended, whether the trade was founded in injustice and oppression:
he admitted it was. Nor was it, whether it was in itself abstractedly an
evil: he admitted this also; but whether, under all the circumstances of
the case, any considerable advantage would arise to a number of our
fellow-creatures from the abolition of the trade in the manner in which
it had been proposed.
He was ready to admit, that the Africans at home were made miserable by
the Slave Trade, and that, if it were universally abolished, great
benefit would arise to them. No one, however, would assert, that these
miseries arose from the trade as carried on by Great Britain only. Other
countries occasioned as much of the evil as we did; and if the abolition
of it by us should prove only the transferring of it to those countries,
very little benefit would result from the measure.
What then was the probability of our example being followed by foreign
powers? Five years had now elapsed since the question was first started,
and what had any of them done? The Portuguese continued the trade. The
Spaniards still gave a bounty to encourage it. He believed there were
agents from Holland in this country, who were then negotiating with
persons concerned in it in order to secure its continuance. The
abolition also had been proposed in the National Assembly of France, and
had been rejected there. From these circumstances he had a right to
infer, that if we gave up the trade, we should only transfer it to those
countries: but this transfer would be entirely against the Africans. The
mortality on board English ships, previously to the regulating bill, was
four and an-eighth per cent. Since that time it had been reduced to
little more than three per cent[A]. In French ships it was near ten, and
in Dutch ships from five to seven, per cent. In Portuguese it was less
than either in French or Dutch, but more than in English ships since the
regulating bill. Thus the deaths of the Africans would be more than
doubled, if we were to abolish the trade.
[Footnote A: Mr. Wilberforce stated it on the same evening to be between
ten and eleven per cent. for the last year. The number then exported
from Africa to our islands was rather more than 22,000, of whom more
than 2,300 died.]
Perhaps it might be replied, that the importations being stopped in our
own islands, fewer Africans would experience this misery, because fewer
would be taken from their own country on this account. But he had a
right to infer, that as the planters purchased slaves at present, they
would still think it their interest to have them. The question then was,
whether they could get them by smuggling. Now it appeared by the
evidence, that many hundred slaves had been stolen from time to time
from Jamaica, and carried into Cuba. But if persons could smuggle slaves
out of our colonies, they could smuggle slaves into them; but
particularly when the planters might think it to their interest to
assist them.
With respect to the slaves there, instances had been related of their
oppression, which shocked the feelings of all who heard them: but was it
fair to infer from these their general ill usage? Suppose a person were
to make a collection of the different abuses, which had happened for a
series of years under our own happy constitution, and use these as an
argument of its worthlessness; should we not say to him, that in the
most perfect system which the human intellect could form some defects
would exist; and that it was unfair to draw inferences from such partial
facts? In the same manner he would argue relative to the alleged
treatment of the slaves. Evidence had been produced upon this point on
both sides. He should not be afraid to oppose the authorities of Lord
Rodney, and others, against any, however respectable, in favour of the
abolition. But this was not necessary. There was another species of
facts, which would answer the same end; Previously to the year 1730 the
decrease of the slaves in our islands was very considerable. From 1730
to 1755 the deaths were reduced to only two and a-half per cent, above
the births; from 1755 to 1768 to only one and three-fourths; and from
1768 to 1788 to only one per cent. This then, on the first view of the
subject, would show, that whatever might have been the situation of
slaves formerly, it had been gradually improved. But if, in addition to
this, we considered the peculiar disadvanges under which they laboured;
the small proportion of females to males; and the hurricanes, and
famines, which had swept away thousands, we should find it physically
impossible, that they could have increased as related, if they had been
treated as cruelly as the friends of the abolition had described.
This species of facts would enable him also to draw still more important
conclusions; namely, that as the slaves in the West Indies had gradually
increased, they would continue to increase; that very few years would
pass, not only before the births were equal to the deaths, but before
they were more numerous than the deaths; and that if this was likely to
happen in the present state of things, how much more would it happen, if
by certain regulations the increase of the slaves should be encouraged?
The only question then was, whether it was more advantageous to breed or
to import. He thought he should prove the former; and if so, then this
increase was inevitable, and the importations would necessarily cease.
In the first place, the gradual increase of the slaves of late years
clearly proved, that such increase had been encouraged. But their price
had been doubled in the last twenty years. The planter, therefore, must
feel it his interest to desist from purchasing, if possible. But again,
the greatest mortality was among the newly imported slaves. The diseases
they contracted on the passage, and their deaths in the seasoning, all
made for the same doctrine. Add to this, that slaves bred in the islands
were more expert at colonial labour, more reconciled to their situation,
and better disposed towards their masters than those who were brought
from Africa.
But it had been said, that the births and deaths in the islands were now
equal; and that therefore no further supply was wanted. He denied the
propriety of this inference. The slaves were subject to peculiar
diseases. They were exposed also to hurricanes and consequent famines.
That the day, however, would come, when the stock there would be
sufficient, no person who attended to the former part of his argument
could doubt. That they had gradually increased, were gradually
increasing, and would, by certain regulations, increase more and more,
must be equally obvious. But these were all considerations for
continuing the traffic a little longer.
He then desired the House to reflect upon the state of St. Domingo. Had
not its calamities been imputed by its own deputies to the advocates for
the abolition? Were ever any scenes of horror equal to those which had
passed there? And should we, when principles of the same sort were
lurking in our own islands, expose our fellow-subjects to the same
miseries, who, if guilty of promoting this trade, had, at least, been
encouraged in it by ourselves?
That the Slave Trade was an evil, he admitted. That the state of slavery
itself was likewise an evil, he admitted; and if the question was, not
whether we should abolish, but whether we should establish these, he
would be the first to oppose himself to their existence; but there were
many evils, which we should have thought it our duty to prevent, yet
which, when they had once arisen, it was more dangerous to oppose than
to submit to,--The duty of a statesman was, not to consider abstractedly
what was right or wrong, but to weigh the consequences which were likely
to result from the abolition of an evil, against those which were likely
to result from its continuance. Agreeing then most perfectly with the
abolitionists in their end, he differed from them only in the means of
accomplishing it. He was desirous of doing that gradually, which he
conceived they were doing rashly. He had therefore drawn up two
propositions. The first was, That an address be presented to His
Majesty, that he would recommend to the colonial assemblies to grant
premiums to such planters, and overseers, as should distinguish
themselves by promoting the annual increase of the slaves by birth; and
likewise freedom to every female slave, who had reared five children to
the age of seven years. The second was, That a bounty of five pounds per
head be given to the master of every slave-ship, who should import in
any cargo a greater number of females than males, not exceeding the age
of twenty-five years. To bring, forward these propositions, he would now
move that the chairman leave the chair.
Mr. Este wished the debate to be adjourned. He allowed there were many
enormities in the trade, which called for regulation. There were two
propositions before the House: the one for the immediate, and the other
for the gradual, abolition of the trade. He thought that members should
be allowed time to compare their respective merits. At present his own
opinion was, that gradual abolition would answer the end proposed in the
least exceptionable manner.
Mr. Pitt rejoiced that the debate had taken a turn, which contracted the
question into such narrow limits. The matter then in dispute was merely
as to the time at which the abolition should take, place. He therefore
congratulated the House, the country, and the world, that this great
point had been gained; that we might now consider this trade as having
received its condemnation; that this curse of mankind was seen in its
true light; and that the greatest stigma on our national character,
which ever yet existed, was about to be removed! Mankind, he trusted,
were now likely to be delivered from the greatest practical evil that
ever afflicted the human race--from the most severe and extensive
calamity recorded in the history of the world.
His honourable friend (Mr. Jenkinson) had insinuated, that any act for
the abolition would be evaded. But if we were to enforce this act with
all the powers of the country, how could it fail to be effectual? But
his honourable friend had himself satisfied him, upon this point. He had
acknowledged, that the trade would drop of itself, on account of the
increasing dearness of the commodity imported. He would ask then, if we
were to leave to the importer no means of importation but by smuggling;
and if, besides all the present disadvantages, we were to load him with
all the charges and hazards of the smuggler, would there be any danger
of any considerable supply of fresh slaves being poured into the islands
through this channel? The question under these circumstances, he
pronounced, would not bear a dispute.
His honourable friend had also maintained, that it would be inexpedient
to stop the importations immediately, because the deaths and births in
the islands were as yet not equal. But he (Mr. Pitt) had proved last
year, from the most authentic documents, that an increase of the births
above the deaths had already taken place. This then was the time for
beginning the abolition. But he would now observe, that five years had
elapsed since these documents were framed; and therefore the presumption
was, that the black population was increasing at an extraordinary rate.
He had not, to be sure, in his consideration of the subject, entered
into the dreadful mortality arising from the clearing of new lands.
Importations for this purpose were to be considered, not as carrying on
the trade, but as setting on foot a Slave Trade, a measure which he
believed no one present would then support. He therefore asked his
honourable friend, whether the period he had looked to was now arrived?
whether the West Indies, at this hour, were, not in a state in which
they could maintain their population?
It had been argued, that one or other of these two, assertions was
false; that either the population of the slaves must be decreasing,
(which the abolitionists denied,) or, if it was increasing, the slaves
must have been well treated. That their population was rather increasing
than otherwise, and also that their general treatment was by no means so
good as it ought to have been, were both points which had been proved by
different witnesses. Neither were they incompatible with each other. But
he would see whether the explanation of this seeming contradiction would
not refute the argument of expediency, as advanced by his honourable
friend. Did the slaves decrease in numbers?--Yes. Then ill usage must
have been the cause of it; but if so, the abolition was immediately
necessary to, restrain it. Did they, on the other hand, increase?--Yes.
But if so, no further importations, were wanted. Was their population
(to take a middle course) nearly stationary, and their treatment neither
so good nor so bad as it might be?--Yes. But if so, this was the proper
period for stopping further supplies; for both the population and the
treatment would be improved by such a measure.
But he would show again the futility of the, argument of his honourable
friend. He himself had admitted that it was in the power of the
colonists to correct the various abuses, by which the Negro population
was restrained. But, they could not do this without improving the
condition of their slaves; without making them approximate towards the
rank of citizens; without giving them some little interest in their
labour, which would occasion them to work with the energy of men. But
now the Assembly of Grenada had themselves stated, "that though the
Negroes were allowed the afternoons of only one day in every week they
would do as much work in that afternoon, when employed for their own
benefit as in the whole day, when employed in their masters' service."
Now, after, this, confession, the House might burn all his calculations
relative to the Negro population; for, if it had not yet quite reached
the desirable state which he had pointed out, this confession had
proved, that further supplies were not wanted. A Negro, if he worked for
himself, could do double work. By an improvement then in the mode of
labour, the work in the islands could be doubled. But if so, what would
become of the argument of his honourable friend? for then only half the
number of the present labourers were necessary.
He would now try this argument of expediency by other considerations.
The best informed writers on the subject had told us, that the purchase
of new Negroes was injurious to the, planters. But if this statement was
just, would not the abolition be beneficial to them? That it would, was
the opinion of Mr. Long, their own historian. "If the Slave Trade," says
he, "was prohibited for four or five years, it would enable them to
retrieve their affairs by preventing them from running into debt, either
by renting or purchasing Negroes." To this acknowledgment he would add a
fact from the evidence, which was, that a North American province, by
such a prohibition alone for a few years from being deeply plunged in
debt, had become independent, rich, and flourishing.
The next consideration was the danger, to which the islands, were
exposed from the newly imported slaves. Mr. Long, with a view of
preventing insurrections, had advised, that a duty equal to a
prohibition, might be laid on the importation of Coromantine slaves.
After noticing one insurrection, which happened through their means, he
speaks of another in the following year, in which thirty-three
Coromantines, "most of whom had been newly imported, murdered and
wounded no less than nineteen Whites in the, space of an hour." To the
authority of Mr Long he would add the recorded opinion of a committee of
the House of Assembly of Jamaica, which was appointed to inquire into
the best means of preventing future insurrections. The committee
reported, that "the rebellion had originated, like most others, with the
Coromantines," and they proposed that a bill should he brought in for
laying a higher duty on the importation of these particular Negroes,
which should operate as a prohibition. But the danger was not confined
to the introduction of Coromantines. Mr. Long accounts for the frequent
insurrections in Jamaica from the greatness of its general importations.
"In two years and a-half," says he, "twenty-seven thousand Negroes have
been imported.--No wonder that we have rebellions!" Surely then, when
his honourable friend spoke of the calamities of St. Domingo, and of
similar dangers impending over our own islands, it ill became him to be
the person to cry out for further importations! It ill became him to
charge upon the abolitionists the crime of stirring up insurrections,
who only recommended what the legislature of Jamaica itself had laid
down in a time of danger with an avowed view to prevent them. It was,
indeed, a great satisfaction to himself, that among the many arguments
for prohibiting the Slave Trade, the security of our West Indian
possessions against internal commotions, as well as foreign enemies, was
among the most prominent and forcible. And here he would ask his
honourable friend, whether in this part of the argument he did not see
reason for immediate abolition. Why should we any longer persist in
introducing those latent principles of conflagration, which, if they
should once burst forth, might annihilate the industry of a hundred
years? which might throw the planters back a whole century in their
profits, in their cultivation, and in their progress towards the
emancipation of their slaves? It was our duty to vote that the abolition
of the Slave Trade should be immediate, and not to leave it to he knew
not what future time or contingency.
Having now done with the argument of expediency, he would consider the
proposition of his right honourable friend Mr. Dundas; that, on account
of some patrimonial rights of the West Indians, the prohibition of the
Slave Trade would be an invasion of their legal inheritance. He would
first observe, that, if this argument was worth anything, it applied
just as much to gradual as to immediate abolition. He had no doubt,
that, at whatever period we should say the trade should cease; it would
be equally, set up; for it would certainly be just as good an argument
against the measure in seventy years hence, as it was against it now. It
implied also, that Parliament had no right to stop the importations: but
had this detestable traffic received such a sanction, as placed it more
out of the jurisdiction of the legislature for ever after, than any
other branch of our trade? In what a situation did the proposition of
his honourable friend place the legislature of Great Britain! It was
scarcely possible to lay a duty on anyone article, which might not in
someway affect the property of individuals. But if the laws respecting
the Slave Trade implied a contract for its perpetual continuance, the
House could never regulate any other of the branches of our national
commerce.
But any contract for the promotion of this trade must, in his opinion,
have been void from the beginning: for if it was an outrage upon
justice, and only another name for fraud, robbery, and murder, what
pledge could devolve upon the legislature to incur the obligation of
becoming principals in the commission of such enormities by sanctioning
their continuance?
But he would appeal to the acts themselves. That of 23 George II. c. 31,
was the one upon which the greatest stress was laid. How would the House
be surprised to hear that the very outrages committed in the prosecution
of this trade had been forbidden by that act! "No master of a ship
trading to Africa," says the act, "shall by fraud, force, or violence,
or by any indirect practice whatever, take on board or carry away from
that coast any Negro, or native of that country, or commit any violence
on the natives, to the prejudice of the said trade; and every person so
offending, shall for every such offence forfeit one hundred pounds." But
the whole trade had been demonstrated to be a system of fraud, force,
and violence; and therefore the contract was daily violated, under which
the Parliament allowed it to continue.
But why had the trade ever been permitted at all? The preamble of the
act would show: "Whereas the trade to and from Africa is very
advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the
Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of
Negroes at reasonable rates, and for that purpose the said trade should
be carried on."--Here then we might see what the Parliament had in view,
when it passed this act. But no one of the occasions, on which it
grounded its proceedings, now existed. He would plead, then, the act
itself as an argument for the abolition. If it had been proved that,
instead of being very advantageous to Great Britain, it was the most
destructive to her interests--that it was the ruin of her seamen--that
it stopped the extension of her manufactures;--if it had been proved, in
the second place, that it was not now necessary for the supply of our
Plantations with Negroes;--if it had been further established, that it
was from the beginning contrary to the first principles of justice, and
consequently that a pledge for its continuance, had one been attempted
to be given, must have been absolutely void--where in this act of
parliament was the contract to be found, by which Britain was bound, as
she was said to be, never to listen to her own true interests and to the
cries of the natives of Africa? Was it not clear, that all argument,
founded on the supposed pledge of Parliament, made against those who
employed it?
But if we were not bound by existing laws to the support of this trade,
we were doubly criminal in pursuing it; for why ought it to be abolished
at all? Because it was incurable injustice. Africa was the ground on
which he chiefly rested; and there it was, that his two honourable
friends, one of whom had proposed gradual abolition, and the other
regulation, did not carry their principles, to their full extent. Both
had confessed the trade to be a moral evil. How much stronger, then, was
the argument, for immediate than for gradual abolition! If on the ground
of a moral evil it was to be abolished at last, why ought it not now?
Why was injustice to be suffered to remain for a single hour? He knew of
no evil, which ever had existed, nor could he imagine any to exist,
worse than the tearing of eighty thousand persons annually from their
native land, by a combination of the most civilized nations, in the most
enlightened quarter of the globe; but more, especially by that nation,
which called herself the most free and the most happy of them all.
He would now notice the objection, that other nations would not give up
the Slave Trade, if we were to renounce it. But if the trade were
stained, but by a thousandth part of the criminality which he and
others, after a thorough investigation of the subject, charged upon it,
the House ought immediately to vote for its abolition. This miserable
argument, if persevered in, would be an eternal bar to the annihilation
of the evil. How was it ever to be eradicated, if every nation was thus
prudentially to wait till the concurrence of all the world should be
obtained! But it applied a thousand times more strongly in a contrary
way. How much more justly would other nations say, "Great Britain, free
as she is, just and honourable as she is, not only has not abolished,
but has refused to abolish, the Slave Trade. She has investigated it
well. Her senate has deliberated upon it. It is plain, then, that she
sees no guilt in it." With this argument we should furnish the other
nations of Europe, if we were again to refuse to put an end to this
cruel traffic; and we should have from henceforth not only to answer for
our own, but for their crimes also. Already we have suffered one year to
pass away; and now, when the question was renewed, not only had this
wretched argument been revived, but a proposition had been made for the
gradual abolition of the trade. He knew, indeed, the difficulty of
reforming long established abuses; but in the present case, by proposing
some other period than the present, by prescribing some condition, by
waiting for some contingencies, perhaps till we obtained the general
concurrence of Europe, (A concurrence which he believe never yet took
place at the commencement of any one improvement in policy or morals,)
he fared that this most enormous evil would never be redressed. Was it
not folly to wait for the stream to run down before we crossed the bed
of its channel? Alas! we might wait for ever. The river would still flow
on. We should be no nearer the object which we had in view, so long as
the step, which could alone bring us to it was not taken.
He would now proceed to the civilization of Africa; and, as his eye had
just glanced upon a West Indian law in the evidence upon the table, he
would begin with an argument, which the sight of it had suggested to
him. This argument had been ably answered in the course of the evening;
but he would view it in yet another light. It had been said, that the
savage disposition of the Africans rendered the prospect of their
civilization almost hopeless. This argument was indeed of long standing;
but, last year, it had been supported upon a new ground. Captain Frazer
had stated in his evidence, that a boy had been put to death at Cabenda,
because there were those who refused to purchase him as a slave. This
single story was deemed by him, and had been considered by others, as a
sufficient proof of the barbarity of the Africans, and of the inutility
of abolishing the Slave Trade. But they, who had used this fact, had
suppressed several circumstances relating to it. It appeared, on
questioning Captain Frazer afterward, that this boy had previously run
away from his master three several times; that the master had to pay his
value, according to the custom of the country, every time he was brought
back; and that partly from anger at the boy for running away so
frequently, and partly to prevent a repetition of the same expense, he
determined to destroy him. Such was the explanation of the signal
instance, which was to fix barbarity on all Africa, as it came out in
the cross-examination of Captain Frazer. That this African master was
unenlightened and barbarous, he freely admitted; but what would an
enlightened and civilized West Indian have done in a similar case? He
would quote the law, passed in the West Indies in 1722, which he had
just cast his eye upon in the book of evidence, by which law this very
same crime of running away was by the legislature, of an island, by the
grave and deliberate sentence of an enlightened legislature, punished
with death; and this, not in the case only of the third offence, but
even in the very first instance. It was enacted, "That, if any Negro or
other slave should withdraw himself from his master for the term of six
months, or any slave, who was absent, should not return within that
time, every such person should suffer death." There was also another
West Indian law, by which every Negro was armed against his fellow
Negro, for he was authorized to kill every runaway slave; and he had
even a reward held out to him for so doing. Let the House now contrast
the two cases. Let them ask themselves which of the two exhibited the
greater barbarity; and whether they could possibly vote for the
continuance of the Slave Trade, upon the principle that the Africans had
shown themselves to be a race of incorrigible barbarians?
Something like an opposite argument, but with a like view, had been
maintained by others on this subject. It had been said, in justification
of the trade, that the Africans had derived some little civilization
from their intercourse with us. Yes; we had given them just enough of
the forms of justice to enable them to add the pretext of legal trials
to their other modes of perpetrating the most atrocious crimes. We had
given them just enough of European improvements, to enable them the more
effectually to turn Africa into a ravaged wilderness. Alas! alas! we had
carried on a trade with them from this civilized and enlightened
country, which, instead of diffusing knowledge, had been a check to
every laudable pursuit. We had carried a poison into their country,
which spread its contagious effects from one end of it to the other, and
which penetrated to its very centre, corrupting every part to which it
reached. We had there subverted the whole order of nature; we had
aggravated every natural barbarity, and furnished to every man motives
for committing, under the name of trade, acts of perpetual hostility and
perfidy against his neighbour. Thus had the perversion of British
commerce carried misery instead of happiness to one whole quarter of the
globe. False to the very principles of trade, misguided in our policy,
unmindful of our duty, what almost irreparable mischief had we done to
that continent! How should we hope to obtain forgiveness from heaven, if
we refused to use those means which the mercy of Providence had still
reserved to us for wiping away the guilt and shame, with which we were
now covered? If we refused even this degree of compensation, how
aggravated would be our guilt! Should we delay, then, to repair these
incalculable injuries? We ought to count the days, nay the very hours,
which intervened to delay the accomplishment of such a work.
On this great subject, the civilization of Africa, which, he confessed,
was near his heart, he would yet add a few observations. And first he
would say, that the present deplorable state of that country, especially
when we reflected that her chief calamities were to be ascribed to us,
called for our generous aid, rather than justified any despair, on our
part, of her recovery, and still less a repetition of our injuries. On
what ground of theory or history did we act, when we supposed she was
never to be reclaimed? There was a time, which it might be now fit to
call to remembrance, when human sacrifices, and even this very practice
of the Slave Trade existed in our own island. Slaves, as we may read in
HENRY's _History of Great Britain_, were formerly an established article
of our exports. "Great numbers," he says, "were exported like cattle
from the British coast, and were to be seen exposed for sale in the
Roman markets."--"Adultery, witchcraft, and debt," says the same
historian, "were probably some of the chief sources of supplying the
Roman market with British slaves--prisoners taken in war were added to
the number--there might be also among them some unfortunate gamesters,
who, after having lost all their goods, at length staked themselves,
their wives, and their children." Now every one of these sources of
slavery had been stated to be at this hour a source of slavery in
Africa. If these practices, therefore, were to be admitted as proofs of
the natural incapacity of its inhabitants, why might they not have been
applied to ancient Britain? Why might not then some Roman senator,
pointing to British barbarians, have predicted with equal boldness, that
these were a people who were destined never to be free; who were without
the understanding necessary for the attainment of useful arts; depressed
by the hand of nature below the level of the human species, and created
to form a supply of slaves for the rest of the world? But, happily,
since that time, notwithstanding what would then have been the justness
of these predictions, we had emerged from barbarism. We were now raised
to a situation which exhibited a striking contrast to every circumstance
by which a Roman might have characterized us, and by which we now
characterized Africa. There was indeed one thing wanting to complete the
contrast, and to clear us altogether from the imputation of acting even
to this hour as barbarians; for we continued to this hour a barbarous
traffic in slaves; we continued it even yet, in spite of all our great
pretensions. We were once as obscure among the nations of the earth, as
savage in our manners, as debased in our morals, as degraded in our
understandings, as these unhappy Africans. But in the lapse of a long
series of years, by a progression slow, and for a time almost
imperceptible, we had become rich in a variety of acquirements. We were
favoured above measure in the gifts of Providence, we were unrivalled in
commerce, pre-eminent in arts, foremost in the pursuits of philosophy
and science, and established in all the blessings of civil society; we
were in the possession of peace, of liberty, and of happiness; we were
under the guidance of a mild and a beneficent religion; and we were
protected by impartial laws and the purest administration of justice; we
were living under a system of government, which our own happy experience
led us to pronounce the best and wisest, and which had become the
admiration of the World. From all these blessings we must for ever have
been excluded, had there been any truth in those principles, which some
had not hesitated to lay down as applicable to the case of Africa; and
we should have been at this moment little superior, either in morals,
knowledge, or refinement, to the rude inhabitants of that continent.
If then we felt that this perpetual confinement in the fetters of brutal
ignorance would have been the greatest calamity which could have
befallen us; if we viewed with gratitude the contrast between our
present and our former situation; if we shuddered to think of the misery
which would still have overwhelmed us, had our country continued to the
present times, through some cruel policy, to be the mart for slaves to
the more civilized nations of the World;--God forbid that we should any
longer subject Africa to the same dreadful scourge, and exclude the
sight of knowledge from her coasts, which had reached every other
quarter of the globe!
He trusted we should no longer continue this commerce, and that we
should no longer consider ourselves as conferring too great a boon on
the natives of Africa in restoring them to the rank of human beings, He
trusted we should not think ourselves too liberal, if, by abolishing the
Slave Trade, we gave them the same common chance of civilization with
other parts of the World. If we listened to the voice of reason and duty
this night, some of us might live to see a reverse of that picture, from
which we how turned our eyes with shame. We might live to behold the
natives engaged in the calm occupations of industry, and in the pursuit
of a just commerce. We might behold the beams of science and philosophy
breaking in upon their land, which at some happy period in still later
times might blaze with full lustre; and joining their influence to that
of pure religion, might illuminate and invigorate the most distant
extremities of that immense continent. Then might we hope, that even
Africa (though last of all the quarters of the globe) should enjoy at
length, in the evening of her days, those blessings, which had descended
so plentifully upon us in a much earlier period of the world. Then also
would Europe, participating in her improvement and prosperity, receive
an ample recompense for the tardy kindness (if kindness it could be
called) of no longer hindering her from extricating herself out of the
darkness, which, in other more fortunate regions, had been so much more
speedily dispelled.
--------Nos primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis;
Illìc sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.
Then might be applied to Africa those words, originally used indeed with
a different view:
His demùm exactis------
Devenere locos laetos, et amoena vireta
Fortunatorum nemorum, sedesque beatas;
Largior hìc campos aether et lumine vestit
Purpureo.
It was in this view--it was as an atonement for our long and cruel
injustice towards Africa, that the measure proposed by his honourable
friend Mr. Wilberforce most forcibly recommended itself to his mind. The
great and happy change to be expected in the state of her inhabitants
was, of all the various benefits of the abolition, in his estimation the
most extensive and important. He should vote against the adjournment;
and he should also oppose every proposition which tended either to
prevent, or even to postpone for an hour, the total abolition of the
Slave Trade.
Mr. Pitt having concluded his speech (at about six in the morning), Sir
William Dolben, the chairman, proposed the following questions:--The
first was on the motion of Mr. Jenkinson, "that the chairman do now
leave the chair." This was lost by a majority of two hundred and
thirty-four to eighty-seven. The second was on the motion of Mr. Dundas,
"that the abolition should be, gradual;" when the votes for gradual
exceeded those for immediate by one hundred and ninety-three to one
hundred and twenty-five. He then put the amended question, that "it was
the opinion of the committee that the trade ought to be gradually
abolished." The committee having divided again, the votes for a gradual
abolition were, two hundred and thirty, and those against any abolition
were eighty-five.
After this debate, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade
held a meeting. They voted their thanks to Mr. Wilberforce for his
motion, and to Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and those other members of the House
who had supported it. They resolved, also, that the House of Commons,
having determined that the Slave Trade ought to be gradually abolished,
had by that decision manifested their opinion, that it was cruel and
unjust. They resolved, also, that a gradual abolition of it was not an
adequate remedy for its injustice and cruelty; neither could it be
deemed a compliance with the general wishes of the people, as expressed
in their numerous and urgent petitions to Parliament; and they resolved
lastly, that the interval in which the Slave Trade should be permitted
to continue, afforded a prospect of redoubled cruelties and ravages on
the coast of Africa; and that it imposed therefore an additional
obligation on every friend to the cause to use all constitutional means
to obtain its immediate abolition.
At a subsequent meeting they voted their thanks to the right honourable
Lord Muncaster, for the able support he had given to the great object of
their institution by his _Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade, and of
its Effects in Africa_; addressed to the people of Great Britain; and
they elected the Rev. Richard Gifford, and the Rev. Thomas Gisborne,
honorary and corresponding members; the first on account of his
excellent sermon before-mentioned, and other services; and the latter on
account of his truly Christian and seasonable pamphlet, entitled
_Remarks on the Late Decision of the House of Commons, respecting the
Abolition of the Slave Trade_.
On the 23rd of April, the House of Commons resolved itself into a
committee of the whole House, to consider the subject again; and Mr.
Beaufoy was put into the chair.
Mr. Dundas, upon whom the task of introducing a bill for the gradual
abolition of the Slave Trade now devolved, rose to offer the outlines of
a plan for that purpose. He intended, he said, immediately to abolish
that part of the trade, by which we supplied foreigners with slaves. The
other part of it was to be continued seven years from the 1st of January
next. He grounded the necessity of its continuance till this time upon
the documents of the Negro population in the different islands. In many
of these, slaves were imported, but they were re-exported nearly in
equal numbers. Now, all these he considered to be in a state to go on
without future supplies from Africa. Jamaica and the ceded islands
retained almost all the slaves imported into them. This he considered as
a proof that these had not attained the same desirable state; and it was
therefore necessary, that the trade should be continued longer on this
account. It was his intention, however, to provide proper punishments,
while it lasted, for abuses both in Africa and in the Middle Passage, He
would take care, as far as he could, that none but young slaves should
be brought from the Coast of Africa. He would encourage establishments
there for a new species of traffic. Foreign nations should be invited to
concur in the abolition. He should propose a praedial rather than a
personal service for the West Indies, and institutions, by which the
slaves there should be instructed in religious duties. He concluded by
reading several resolutions, which he would leave to the future
consideration of the House.
Mr. Pitt then rose. He deprecated the resolutions altogether. He denied
also the inferences which Mr. Dundas had drawn from the West Indian
documents relative to the Negro population. He had looked aver his own
calculations from the same documents again and again, and he would
submit them, with all their data, if it should be necessary, to the
House.
Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Fox held the same language. They contended also,
that Mr. Dundas had now proved, a thousand times more strongly than
ever, the necessity of immediate abolition. All the resolutions he had
read were operative against his own reasoning. The latter observed, that
the Slave-traders were in future only to be allowed to steal innocent
children from their disconsolate parents.
After a few observations by Lord Sheffield, Mr. Drake, Colonel Tarleton,
and Mr. Rolle, the House adjourned.
On the 25th of April it resumed the consideration of the subject. Mr.
Dundas then went over his former resolutions, and concluded by moving,
"that it should not be lawful to import any African Negroes into any
British colonies, in ships owned or navigated by British subjects, at
any time after the 1st of January, 1800."
Lord Mornington (now Marquis Wellesley) rose to propose an amendment. He
congratulated his countrymen, that the Slave Trade had received its
death-wound. This traffic was founded in injustice; and between right
and wrong there could be no compromise. Africa was not to be sacrificed
to the apparent good of the West Indies. He would not repeat those
enormities out of the evidence, which had made such a deep impression
upon the House. It had been resolved, that the trade should be
abolished. The question then was, how long they were to persevere in the
crime of its continuance? One had said, that they might be unjust for
ten years longer; another, only till the beginning of the next century.
But this diversity of opinion had proceeded from an erroneous statement
of Mr. Dundas against the clear and irrefragable calculations of Mr.
Pitt. The former had argued, that, because Jamaica and the ceded islands
had retained almost all the slaves which had been, imported into them,
they were therefore not yet in a situation to support their population
without further supplies from Africa. But the truth was, that the
slaves, so retained, were kept, not to maintain the population there,
but to clear new land. Now the House had determined, that the trade was
not to be continued for this purpose. The population, therefore, in the
islands was sufficient to continue the ordinary cultivation of them.
He deprecated the idea, that the Slave Trade had been so sanctioned by
the acts of former Parliaments, that the present could make no
alteration in it. Had not the House altered the import of foreign sugar
into our islands? a measure, which at the time affected the property of
many. Had they not prohibited the exports of provisions from America to
the same quarter; Again, as to compacts, had the Africans ever been
parties to these? It was rather curious also, when King James the Second
gave a charter to the slave-trader, that he should have given them a
right to all the south of Africa, and authority over every person born
therein! But, by doing this, it was clear that he gave them a right
which he never possessed himself. After many other observations, he
concluded by moving, "that the year 1793 be substituted in the place of
the year 1800."
In the course of the debate, which followed, Mr. Burdon stated his
conviction of the necessity of immediate abolition; but he would support
the amendment, as the shortest of the terms proposed.
Mr. Robert Thornton would support it also, as the only choice left him.
He dared not accede to a motion, by which we were to continue for seven
years to imbrue our hands in innocent blood.
Mr. Ryder (now Earl of Harrowby) would not support the trade for one
moment, if he could avoid it. He could not hold a balance with gold in
one scale, and blood in the other.
Mr. William Smith exposed the wickedness of restricting the trade to
certain ages. The original motion, he said, would only operate as a
transfer of cruelty from the aged and the guilty to the young and the
innocent. He entreated the House to consider, whether, if it related to
their own children, any one of them would vote for it.
Mr. Windham had hitherto felt a reluctance to speaking, not from the
abstruseness, but from the simplicity, of the subject; but he could not
longer be silent, when he observed those arguments of policy creeping
again out of their lurking-places, which had fled before eloquence and
truth. The House had clearly given up the policy of the question. They
had been determined by the justice of it. Why were they then to be
troubled again with arguments of this nature? These, if admitted, would
go to the subversion of all public as well as private morality. Nations
were as much bound as individuals to a system of morals, though a breach
in the former could not be so easily punished. In private life morality
took pretty good care of itself. It was a kind of retail article, in
which the returns were speedy. If a man broke open his neighbour's
house, he would feel the consequences. There was an ally of virtue, who
rendered it the interest of individuals to be moral, and he was called
the executioner. But as such punishment did not always await us in our
national concerns, we should substitute honour as the guardian of our
national conduct. He hoped the West Indians would consider the character
of the mother-country, and the obligations to national as well as
individual justice. He hoped, also, they would consider the sufferings,
which they occasioned both in Africa, in the passage, and in the West
Indies. In the passage, indeed, no one was capable of describing them.
The section of the slave-ship; however, made up the deficiency of
language, and did away all necessity of argument, on this subject.
Disease there had to struggle with the new affliction of chains and
punishment. At one view were the irksomeness of a goal, and the miseries
of an hospital; so that the holds of these vessels put him in mind of
the regions of the damned. The trade, he said, ought immediately to be
abolished. On a comparison of the probable consequences of the abolition
of it, he saw on one side only doubtful contingencies, but on the other
shame and disgrace.
Sir James Johnstone contended for the immediate abolition of the trade.
He had introduced the plough into his own plantation in the West Indies,
and he found the land produced more sugar than when cultivated in the
ordinary way by slaves. Even for the sake of the planters, he hoped the
abolition would not be long delayed.
Mr. Dundas replied: after which a division took place. The number of
votes in favour of the original motion were one hundred and fifty-eight,
and for the amendment one hundred and nine.
On the 27th of April the House resumed the subject. Mr. Dundas moved, as
before, that the Slave Trade should cease in the year 1800; upon which
Lord Mornington moved, that the year 1795 should be substituted for the
latter period.
In the course of the debate, which followed, Mr. Hubbard said, that he
had voted against the abolition, when the year 1793 was proposed; but he
thought that, if it were not to take place till 1795, sufficient time
would be allowed the planters. He would support this amendment; and he
congratulated the House on the prospect of the final triumph of truth,
humanity, and justice.
Mr. Addington preferred the year 1796 to the year 1795.
Mr. Alderman Watson considered the abolition in 1796, to be as
destructive as if it were immediate.
A division having taken place, the number of votes in favour of the
original motion were one hundred and sixty-one, and in favour of Lord
Mornington's amendment for the year 1795, one hundred and twenty-one.
Sir Edward Knatchbull, however, seeing that there was a disposition in
the House to bring the matter to a conclusion, and that a middle line
would be preferred, moved that the year 1796 should be substituted for
this year 1800. Upon this the House divided again; when there appeared
for the original motion only one hundred and thirty-two, but for the
amendment one hundred and fifty-one.
The gradual abolition having been now finally agreed upon for the year
1796, a committee was named, which carried the resolution to the Lords.
On the 8th of May, the Lords were summoned to consider it; Lord
Stormont, after having spoken for some time, moved, that they should
hear evidence upon it. Lord Grenville opposed the motion on account of
the delay, which would arise from an examination of the witnesses by the
House at large: but he moved that such witnesses should be examined by a
committee of the House. Upon this a debate ensued, and afterwards a
division; when the original motion was carried by sixty-three against
thirty-six.
On the 15th of May, the Lords met again. Evidence was then ordered to be
summoned in behalf of those interested in the continuance of the trade.
At length it was introduced; but on the 5th of June, when only seven
persons had been examined, a motion was made and carried, that the
further examinations should be postponed to the next session.