Continuation from July 1799 to July 1805.--Various motions within this
period.
The question had now been brought forward in almost every possible way,
and yet had been eventually lost. The total and immediate abolition had
been attempted; and then the gradual. The gradual again had been tried
for the year 1798, then for 1795, and then for 1796, at which period it
was decreed, but never allowed to be executed. An Abolition of a part of
the trade, as it related to the supply of foreigners with slaves, was
the next measure proposed; and when this failed, the abolition of
another part of it, as it related to the making of a certain portion of
the coast of Africa sacred to liberty, was attempted; but this failed
also. Mr. Wilberforce therefore thought it prudent, not to press the
abolition as a mere annual measure, but to allow members time to digest
the eloquence, which had been bestowed upon it for the last five years,
and to wait till some new circumstances should favour its introduction.
Accordingly he allowed the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803, to pass
over without any further parliamentary notice than the moving for
certain papers; during which he took an opportunity of assuring the
House, that he had not grown cool in the cause, but that he would
agitate it in a future session.
In the year 1804, which was fixed upon for renewed exertion, the
committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade elected James Stephen,
Zachary Macaulay, Henry Brougham, Esqrs., and William Phillips, into
their own body. Four other members, also, Robert Grant, and John
Thornton, Esqrs., and William Manser and William Allen, were afterwards
added to the list. Among, the reasons for fixing upon this year, one may
be assigned, namely, that the Irish members, in consequence of the union
which had taken place between the two countries, had then all taken
their seats in the House of Commons; and that most of them were friendly
to the cause.
This being the situation of things, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 30th of
March, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the Slave
Trade within a limited time, Mr. Fuller opposed the motion. A debate
ensued. Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Devaynes, Mr. Addington, and Mr. Manning
spoke against it, however, notwithstanding his connection with the West
Indies, said he would support it, if an indemnification were offered to
the planters, in case any actual loss should accompany the measure.
Sir William Geary questioned the propriety of immediate abolition.
Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Barbara spoke in favour of
the motion.
Mr. William Smith rose, when the latter had seated himself, and
complimented him on this change of sentiment, so honourable to him,
inasmuch as he had espoused the cause of humanity against his supposed
interest as a planter. Mr. Leigh said that he would not tolerate such a
traffic for a moment. All the feelings of nature revolted at it. Lord de
Blaquiere observed, "it was the first time the question had been
proposed to Irishmen as legislators. He believed it would be supported
by most of them. As to the people of Ireland, he could pledge himself
that they were hostile to this barbarous traffic." An amendment having
been proposed by Mr. Manning, a division took place upon it, when leave
was given to bring in the bill, by a majority of one hundred and
twenty-four to forty-nine.
On the 7th of June, when the second reading of the bill was moved, it
was opposed by Sir W. Yonge, Dr. Laurence, Mr. C. Brook, Mr. Dent, and
others. Among these Lord Castlereagh professed himself a friend to the
abolition of the trade, but he differed as to the mode. Sir J.
Wrottesley approved of the principle of the bill, but would oppose it in
some of its details. Mr. Windham allowed the justice, but differed as to
the expediency, of the measure. Mr. Deverell professed himself to have
been a friend to it; but he had then changed his mind. Sir Laurence
Parsons wished to see a plan for the gradual extinction of the trade.
Lord Temple affirmed that the bill would seal the death-warrant of every
White inhabitant of the islands. The second reading was supported by Sir
Ralph Milbank, Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis,
Barham, and Grenfell, and Sir John Newport. Mr. Grenfell observed, that
he could not give a silent vote, when the character of the country was
concerned. When the question of the abolition first came before the
public, he was a warm friend to it; and from that day to this he had
cherished the same feelings. He assured Mr. Wilberforce of his constant
support. Sir John Newport stated that the Irish nation took a virtuous
interest in this noble cause. He ridiculed the idea that the trade and
manufactures of the country would suffer by the measure in
contemplation; but, even if they should suffer, he would oppose it.
"Fiat justitia, ruat coelura," Upon a division, there appeared for the
second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.
On the 12th of June, when a motion was made to go into a committee upon
the bill, it was opposed by Messrs. Fuller, C. Brook, C. Ellis, Dent,
Deverell, and Manning: and it was supported by Sir Robert Buxton, Mr.
Barham, and the Hon. J.S. Cocks. The latter condemned the imprudence of
the planters. Instead of profiting by the discussions, which had taken
place, and making wise provisions against the great event of the
abolition, which would sooner or later take place, they had only thought
of new stratagems to defeat it. He declared his abhorrence of the trade,
which he considered to be a national disgrace. The House divided: when
there were seventy-nine for the motion, and against it, twenty.
On the 27th of June the bill was opposed in its last stage by Sir W.
Young, Messrs. Dickenson, Mr. Rose, Addington, and Dent.; and supported
by: Messrs. Pitt, W. Smith, Francis, and Barham; when it was carried by
a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was then taken up to the
Lords; but on a motion of Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of that House,
the discussion of it was postponed to the next year.
The session being ended, the committee for the abolition of the Slave
Trade, increased its number, by the election of the Right Honourable
Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeek, as members.
In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year.
Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Puller, and Mr. Gascoyne
opposed it. Leave, however, was given him to introduce his bill.
On the second reading of it, a serious opposition took place; and an
amendment was moved for postponing it till that day six months. The
amendment was opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone. The latter could
not help lifting his voice against this monstrous traffic in the sinews
and blood of man, the toleration of which had so long been the disgrace
of the British legislature. He did not charge the enormous guilt
resulting from it upon the nation at large; for the nation had washed
its hands of it by the numerous petitions it had sent against it; and it
had since been a matter of astonishment to all Christendom, how the
constitutional guardians of British freedom should have sanctioned
elsewhere the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world.
He said that a curse attended this trade even in the mode of defending
it. By a certain fatality, none but the vilest arguments were brought
forward, which corrupted the very persons who used them. Every one of
these was built on the narrow ground of interest--of pecuniary
profit--of sordid gain--in opposition to every high consideration--to
every motive that had reference to humanity, justice, and religion--or
to that great principle which comprehended them all. Place only before
the most determined advocate of this odious traffic the exact image of
himself in the garb and harness of a slave, dragged and whipped about
like a beast; place this image also before him, and paint it as that of
one without a ray of hope to cheer him; and you would extort from him
the reluctant confession, that he would not endure for an hour the
misery to which he condemned his fellow-man for life. How dared he,
then, to use this selfish plea of interest against the voice of the
generous sympathies of his nature? But even upon this narrow ground, the
advocates for the traffic had been defeated. If the unhallowed argument
of expediency was worth anything when opposed to moral rectitude, or if
it were to supercede precepts of Christianity, where was a man to stop,
on what was he to draw? For anything he knew, it might be physically
true, that human blood was the best manure for the land; but who ought
to shed it on that account? True expediency, however, was, where it ever
would be found, on the side of that system which was most merciful and
just. He asked how it happened, that sugar could be imported cheaper
from the East Indies than from the West, notwithstanding the vast
difference of the length of the voyages, but on account of the impolicy
of slavery; or that it was made in the former case by the industry of
free men, and in the latter by the languid drudgery of slaves.
As he had had occasion to advert to the Eastern part of the world, he
would make an observation upon an argument, which had been collected
from that quarter. The condition of the Negroes in the West Indies had
been lately compared with that of the Hindoos. But he would observe that
the Hindoo, miserable as his hovel was, had sources of pride and
happiness, to which not only the West Indian slave, but even his master,
was a stranger. He was to be sure a peasant; and his industry was
subservient to the gratifications of an European lord; but he was, in
his own belief, vastly superior to him. He viewed him as one of the
lowest cast. He would not on any consideration eat from the same plate.
He would not suffer his son to marry the daughter of his master, even if
she could bring him all the West Indies as her portion. He would
observe, too, that the Hindoo peasant drank his water from his native
well; that, if his meal were scanty, he received it from the hand of
her, who was most dear to him; that, when he laboured, he laboured for
her and his offspring. His daily task being finished, he reposed with
his family. No retrospect of the happiness of former days, compared with
existing misery, disturbed his slumber, nor horrid dreams occasioned him
to wake in agony at the dawn of day. No barbarous sounds of cracking
whips reminded him, that with the form and image of a man his destiny
was that of the beast of the field. Let the advocates for the bloody
traffic state what they had to set off on their side of the question
against the comforts and independence of the man, with whom they
compared the slave.
The amendment was supported by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteney,
Colonel Tarleton, Messrs. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On
dividing the House upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but
against it only seventy.
This loss of the question, after it had been carried in the last year by
so great a majority, being quite unexpected, was a matter of severe
disappointment; and might have discouraged the friends of the cause in
this infancy of their renewed efforts, if they had not discovered the
reason of its failure. After due consideration it appeared, that no
fewer than nine members, who had never been absent once in sixteen years
when it was agitated, gave way to engagements on the day of the motion,
from a belief that it was safe. It appeared also, that out of the great
number of Irish members, who supported it in the former year, only nine
were in the House, when it was lost. It appeared also that, previously
to this event, a canvass, more importunate than had heard of on any
former occasion, had been made among the latter by those interested in
the continuance of the trade. Many of these, unacquainted with the
detail of the subject, like the English members, admitted the dismal
representations, which were then made to them. The desire, of doing good
on the one hand, and the fear of doing injury on the other, perplexed
them; and in this dubious state they absented themselves at the time
mentioned.
The causes of the failure having been found accidental, and capable of a
remedy, it was resolved that an attempt should be made immediately in
the House in a new form. Lord Henry Petty signified his intention of
bringing in a bill for the abolition of the foreign part of the Slave
Trade; but the impeachment of Lord Melville, and other weighty matters
coming on, the notice was not acted upon in that session.