--Continuation from July 1805 to July 1806--Author returns to his duty
in the committee--Travels again round the kingdom--Death of Mr.
Pitt--His character, as it related to the question--Motion for the
abolition of the foreign Slave-Trade--Resolution to take measures for
the total abolition of it--Address to the King to negotiate with
foreign powers for their concurrence in it--Motion to prevent any new
vessel going into the trade--these carried through both Houses of
Parliament.
It was now almost certain, to the inexpressible joy of the committee,
that the cause, with proper vigilance, could be carried in the next
session in the House of Commons. It became them therefore to prepare to
support it. In adverting to measures for this purpose, it occurred to
them, that the House of Lords, if the question should be then carried to
them from the Commons, might insist upon hearing evidence on the general
subject. But, alas, even the body of witnesses, which had been last
collected, was broken by death or dispersion! It was therefore to be
formed again. In this situation it devolved upon me, as I had now
returned to the committee after an absence of nine years, to take
another journey for this purpose.
This journey I performed with extraordinary success. In the course of it
I had also much satisfaction on another account. I found the old friends
of the cause still faithful to it. It was remarkable, however, that the
youth of the rising generation knew but little about the question. For
the last eight or nine years the committee had not circulated any books;
and the debates in the Commons during that time had not furnished them
with the means of an adequate knowledge concerning it. When, however, I
conversed with these, as I travelled along, I discovered a profound
attention to what I said; an earnest desire to know more of the subject;
and a generous warmth in favour of the injured Africans, which I foresaw
could soon be turned into enthusiasm. Hence I perceived that the cause
furnished us with endless sources of rallying: and that the ardour which
we had seen with so much admiration in former years, could be easily
renewed.
I had scarcely finished my journey, when Mr. Pitt died. This event took
place in January 1806, I shall stop therefore to make a few observations
upon his character, as it related to this cause. This I feel myself
bound in justice to do, because his sincerity towards it has been
generally questioned.
The way, in which Mr. Pitt became acquainted with this question, has
already been explained. A few doubts having been removed, when it was
first started, he professed himself a friend to the abolition. The first
proof, which he gave of his friendship to it is known but to few; but it
is, nevertheless, true, that so early as in 1788, he occasioned a
communication to be made to the French government, in which he
recommended an union of the two countries for the promotion of the great
measure. This proposition seemed to be then new and strange to the Court
of France; and the answer was not favourable.
From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own
power. As far, however, as he had scope, he exerted them. If we look at
him in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all, that
he took an active, strenuous, and consistent part, and this year after
year, by which he realized his professions. In my own private
communications with him, which were frequent, he never failed to give
proofs of a similar disposition. I had always free access to him. I had
no previous note or letter to write for admission. Whatever papers I
wanted, he ordered. He exhibited also in his conversation with me on
these occasions marks of a more than ordinary interest in the welfare of
the cause. Among the subjects, which were then started, there was one,
which was always near his heart. This was the civilization of Africa. He
looked upon this great work as a debt due to that continent for the many
injuries we had inflicted upon it: and had the abolition succeeded
sooner, as in the infancy of his exertions he had hoped, I know he had a
plan, suited no doubt to the capaciousness of his own mind, for such
establishments in Africa, as he conceived would promote in due time this
important end.
I believe it will be said, notwithstanding what I have advanced, that if
Mr. Pitt had exerted himself as the Minister of this country in behalf
of the abolition, he could have carried it. This brings the matter to an
issue; for unquestionably the charge of insincerity, as it related to
this great question, arose from the mistaken notion, that, as his
measures in Parliament were supported by great majorities, he could do
as he pleased there. But they who hold this opinion, must be informed,
that there were great difficulties, against which he had to struggle on
this subject! The Lord Chancellor Thurlow ran counter to his wishes
almost at the very outset. Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Dundas, did the same.
Thus, to go no further, three of the most powerful members of the
cabinet were in direct opposition to him. The abolition then, amidst
this difference of opinion, could never become a cabinet measure; but if
so, then all his parliamentary efforts in this case wanted their usual
authority, and he could only exert his influence as a private man[A].
[Footnote A: This he did with great effect on one or two occasions. On
the motion of Mr. Cawthorne in 1791, the cause hung as it were by a
thread; and would have failed that day, to my knowledge, but for his
seasonable exertions.]
But a difficulty, still more insuperable, presented itself, in an
occurrence which took place in the year 1791, but which is much too
delicate to be mentioned. The explanation of it, however, would convince
the reader, that all the efforts of Mr. Pitt from that day were rendered
useless, I mean, as to bringing the question, as a Minister of State, to
a favourable issue.
But though Mr. Pitt did not carry this great question, he was yet one of
the greatest supporters of it; He fostered it in its infancy. If, in his
public situation, he had then set his face against it, where would have
been our hope? He upheld it also in its childhood; and though in this
state of its existence it did not gain from his protection all the
strength Which it was expected it would have acquired, he yet kept it
from falling, till his successors, in whose administration a greater
number Of favourable circumstances concurred to give it vigour, brought
it to triumphant maturity.
Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, having been called to the head of the
executive government on the death of Mr. Pitt, the cause was ushered
into Parliament under new auspices. In a former year His Majesty had
issued a proclamation by which British merchants were forbidden (with
certain defined exceptions) to import slaves into the colonies, which
had been conquered by the British arms in the course of the war. This
circumstance afforded an opportunity of trying the question in the House
of Commons with the greatest hope of success. Accordingly Sir A. Pigott,
the Attorney-General, as an officer of the crown, brought in a bill on
the thirty-first of March 1806, the first object of which was, to give
effect to the proclamation now mentioned. The second was, to prohibit
British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into the
colonies of any foreign power whether hostile or neutral. And the third
was, to prohibit British subjects and British capital from being
employed in carrying on the Slave Trade in foreign ships; and also to
prevent the outfit of foreign ships from British ports.
Sir A. Pigott, on the introduction of this bill, made an appropriate
speech. The bill was supported by Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook,
and Mr. Bagwell; but opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr.
Rose, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir Charles Price. On the third reading, a
division being called for, there appeared for it thirty-five, and
against it only thirteen.
On the 7th of May it was introduced into the Lords. The supporters of it
there were, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of
London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire and the Lords Holland,
Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough. The opposers were, the
Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of
Westmoreland, and the Lords Eldon and Sheffield. At length a division
took place, when there appeared to be in favour of it thirty-three, and
against it eighteen.
During the discussions, to which this bill gave birth, Lord Grenville
and Mr. Fox declared in substance, in their respective Houses of
Parliament, that they felt the question of the Slave Trade to be one,
which involved the dearest interests of humanity, and the most urgent
claims of policy, justice, and religion; and that, should they succeed
in affecting its abolition, they would regard that success as entailing
more true glory on their administration, and more honour and advantage
on their country, than any other measure, in which they could he
engaged. The bill having passed, (the first, which dismembered this
cruel trade,) it was thought proper to follow it up in a prudent manner;
and, as there was not then time in the advanced period of the session to
bring in another for the total extinction of it, to move a resolution,
by which both Houses should record those principles, on which the
propriety of the latter measure was founded. It was judged also
expedient that Mr. Fox, as the Prime Minister in the House of Commons,
should introduce it there.
On the 10th of June Mr. Fox rose. He began by saying that the motion,
with which he should conclude, would tend in its consequences to effect
the total abolition of the Slave Trade; and he confessed that, since he
had sat in that House (a period of between thirty and forty years), if
he had done nothing else, but had only been instrumental in carrying
through this measure, he should think his life well spent; and should
retire quite satisfied, that he had not lived in vain.
In adverting to the principle of the trade, he noticed some strong
expressions of Mr. Burke concerning it. "To deal in human flesh and
blood," said that great man, "or to deal, not in the labour of men, but
in men themselves, was to devour the root, instead of enjoying the fruit
of human diligence."
Mr. Fox then took a view of the opinions of different members of the
House on this great question; and showed that, though many had opposed
the abolition, all but two or three, among whom were the members for
Liverpool, had confessed, that the trade ought to be done away. He then
went over the different resolutions of the House on the subject, and
concluded from thence, that they were bound to support his motion.
He combated the argument, that the abolition would ruin the West Indian
islands. In doing this he paid a handsome compliment to the memory of
Mr. Pitt, whose speech upon this particular point was, he said, the most
powerful and convincing of any he had ever heard. Indeed they, who had
not; heard it, could have no notion of it. It was a speech, of which he
would say with the Roman author, reciting the words of the Athenian
orator, "Quid esset, si ipsum audivissetis!" It was a speech no less
remarkable for splendid eloquence, than for solid sense and convincing
reason; supported by calculations founded on facts, and conclusions
drawn from premises, as correctly as if they had been mathematical
propositions; all tending to prove that, instead of the West Indian
plantations suffering an injury, they would derive a material benefit by
the abolition of the Slave Trade. He then called upon the friends of
this great man to show their respect for his memory by their votes; and
he concluded with moving, "that this House, considering the African
Slave Trade to be contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and
policy, will, with all practicable expedition, take effectual measures
for the abolition of the said trade, in such a manner, and at such a
period, as may be deemed advisable."
Sir Ralph Milbank rose, and seconded the motion.
General Tarleton rose next. He deprecated the abolition, on account of
the effect which it would have on the trade and revenue of the country.
Mr. Francis said the merchants of Liverpool were at liberty to ask for
compensation; but he, for one, would never grant it for the loss of a
trade, which had been declared to be contrary to humanity and justice.
As an uniform friend to this great cause, he wished Mr. Fox had not
introduced a resolution, but a real bill for the abolition of the Slave
Trade. He believed that both Houses were then disposed to do it away. He
wished the golden opportunity might not be lost.
Lord Castlereagh thought it a proposition, on which no one could
entertain a doubt, that the Slave Trade was a great evil in itself; and
that it was the duty and policy of Parliament to extirpate it; but he
did not think the means offered were adequate to the end proposed. The
abolition, as a political question, was a difficult one. The year 1796
had been once fixed upon by the House, as the period when the trade was
to cease; but, when the time arrived, the resolution was not executed.
This was a proof, either that the House did not wish for the event, or
that they judged it impracticable. It would be impossible, he said, to
get other nations to concur in the measure; and even if they were to
concur, it could not be effected. We might restrain the subjects of the
parent-state from following the trade; but we could not those in our
colonies. A hundred frauds would be committed by these, which we could
not detect. He did not mean by this, that the evil was to go on for
ever. Had a wise plan been proposed at first, it might have been
half-cured by this time. The present resolution would do no good. It was
vague, indefinite, and unintelligible. Such resolutions were only the
slave-merchants' harvests. They would go for more slaves than usual in
the interim. He should have advised a system of duties on fresh
importations of slaves, progressively increasing to a certain extent;
and that the amount of these duties should be given to the planters, as
a bounty to encourage the Negro population upon their estates. Nothing
could be done, unless we went hand in hand with the latter. But he
should deliver himself more fully on this subject, when any thing
specific should be brought forward in the shape of a bill.
Sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor-General, differed from Lord Castlereagh;
for he thought the resolution of Mr. Fox was very simple and
intelligible. If there was a proposition vague and indefinite, it was
that advanced by the noble lord, of a system of duties on fresh
importations, rising progressively, and this under the patronage and
co-operation of the planters. Who could measure the space between the
present time and the abolition of the trade, if that measure were to
depend upon the approbation of the colonies.
The cruelty and injustice of the Slave Trade had been established by
evidence beyond a doubt. It had been shown to be carried on by rapine,
robbery, and murder; by fomenting and encouraging wars; by false
accusations; and imaginary crimes. The unhappy victims were torn away
not only in the time of war, but of profound peace. They were then
carried across the Atlantic, in a manner too horrible to describe; and
afterwards subjected to eternal slavery. In support of the continuance
of such a traffic, he knew of nothing but assertions already disproved,
and arguments already refuted. Since the year 1796, when it was to cease
by a resolution of Parliament, no less than three hundred and sixty
thousand Africans had been torn away from their native land. What an
accumulation was this to our former guilt!
General Gascoyne made two extraordinary assertions: First, that the
trade was defensible on Scriptural ground.--"Both thy bondmen and thy
bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen, that are
round about thee; of them shall you have bondmen and bondmaids. And thou
shalt take them as an heritance for thy children after thee to inherit
them for a possession; they shall be thy bondmen for ever." Secondly,
that the trade had been so advantageous to this country, that it would
have been advisable even to institute a new one, if the old had not
existed.
Mr. Wilberforce replied to General Gascoyne. He then took a view of the
speech of Lord Castlereagh, which he answered point by point. In the
course of his observations he showed that the system of duties
progressively increasing, as proposed by the noble lord, would be one of
the most effectual modes of perpetuating the Slave Trade. He exposed,
also, the false foundation of the hope of any reliance on the
co-operation of the colonists. The House, he said, had, on the motion of
Mr. Ellis, in the year 1797, prayed his Majesty to consult with the
colonial legislatures to take such measures, as might conduce to the
gradual abolition of the African Slave Trade. This address was
transmitted to them by Lord Melville. It was received in some of the
islands with a declaration, "that they possibly might, in some
instances, endeavour to improve the condition of their slaves; but they
should do this, not with any view to the abolition of the Slave Trade;
for they considered that trade as their birth-right, which could not be
taken from them; and that we should deceive ourselves by supposing, that
they would agree to such a measure."
He desired to add to this the declaration of General Prevost in his
public letter from Dominica. Did he not say, when asked what steps had
been taken there in consequence of the resolution of the House in 1797,
"that the act of the legislature, entitled an act for the encouragement,
protection, and better government of slaves, appeared to him to have
been considered, from the day it was passed until this hour, as a
political measure to avert the interference of the mother country in the
management of the slaves."
Sir William Yonge censured the harsh language of Sir Samuel Romilly, who
had applied the terms rapine, robbery, and murder to those, who were
connected with the Slave Trade. He considered the resolution of Mr. Fox
as a prelude to a bill for the abolition of that traffic, and this bill
as a prelude to emancipation, which would not only be dangerous in
itself, but would change the state of property in the islands.
Lord Henry Petty, after having commented on the speeches of Sir Samuel
Romilly and Lord Castlereagh, proceeded to state his own opinion on the
trade; which was, that it was contrary to justice, humanity, and sound
policy, all of which he considered to be inseparable. On its
commencement in Africa the wickedness began. It produced there fraud and
violence, robbery and murder. It gave birth to false accusations, and a
mockery of justice. It was the parent of every crime, which could at
once degrade and afflict the human race. After spreading vice and misery
all over this continent, it doomed its unhappy victims to hardships and
cruelties which were worse than death. The first of these was
conspicuous in their transportation. It was found there, that cruelty
begat cruelty; that the system, wicked in its beginning, was equally so
in its progress; and that it perpetuated its miseries wherever it was
carried on. Nor was it baneful only to the objects, but to the promoters
of it. The loss of British seamen in this traffic was enormous.
One-fifth of all, who were employed in it, perished; that is, they
became the victims of a system, which was founded on fraud, robbery, and
murder; and which procured to the British nation nothing but the
execration of mankind. Nor had we yet done with the evils which attended
it; for it brought in its train the worst of all moral effects, not only
as it respected the poor slaves, when transported to the colonies, but
as it respected those who had concerns with them there. The arbitrary
power, which it conferred, afforded men of bad dispositions full scope
for the exercise of their passions; and it rendered men,
constitutionally of good dispositions, callous to the misery of others.
Thus it depraved the nature of all who were connected with it. These
considerations had made him a friend to the abolition, from the time he
was capable of reasoning upon it. They were considerations, also, which
determined the House, in the year 1782, to adopt a measure of the same
kind as the present. Had anything happened to change the opinion of
members, since? On the contrary, they had now the clearest evidence,
that all the arguments then used against the abolition were fallacious;
being founded, not upon truth, but on assertions devoid of all truth,
and derived from ignorance or prejudice.
Having made these remarks, he proved, by a number of facts, the folly of
the argument, that the Africans laboured under such a total degradation
of mental and moral faculties, that they were made for slavery.
He then entered into the great subject of population. He showed that in
all countries, where there were no unnatural hardships, mankind would
support themselves. He applied this reasoning to the Negro population in
the West Indies; which he maintained could not only be kept up, but
increased, without any further importations from Africa.
He then noticed the observations of Sir William Yonge, on the words of
Sir Samuel Romilly; and desired him to reserve his indignation for
those, who were guilty of acts of rapine, robbery, and murder, instead
of venting it on those, who only did their duty in describing them.
Never were accounts more shocking than those lately sent to government
from the West Indies. Lord Seaforth, and the Attorney-General, could not
refrain, in explaining them, from the use of the words murder and
torture. And did it become members of that House (in order to
accommodate the nerves of the friends of the Slave Trade) to soften down
their expressions, when they were speaking on that subject; and to
desist from calling that murder and torture, for which a Governor, and
the Attorney-General, of one of the islands could find no better name?
After making observations relative to the co-operation of foreign powers
in this great work, he hoped that the House would not suffer itself to
be drawn, either by opposition or by ridicule, to the right or to the
left; but that it would advance straight forward to the accomplishment
of the most magnanimous act of justice, that was ever achieved by any
legislature in the world.
Mr. Rose declared, that on the very first promulgation of this question,
he had proposed to the friends of it the very plan of his noble friend
Lord Castlereagh; namely, a system of progressive duties, and of
bounties for the promotion of the Negro population. This he said to show
that he was friendly to the principle of the measure. He would now
observe, that he did not wholly like the present resolution. It was too
indefinite. He wished, also, that something had been said on the subject
of compensation. He was fearful, also, lest the abolition should lead to
the dangerous change of emancipation. The Negroes, he said, could not be
in a better state, or more faithful to their masters, than they were. In
three attacks made by the enemy on Dominica, where he had a large
property, arms had been put into their hands; and every one of them had
exerted himself faithfully. With respect to the cruel acts in Barbados,
an account of which had been sent to government by Lord Seaforth and the
Attorney-General of Barbados, he had read them; and never had he read
anything on this subject with more horror. He would agree to the
strongest measures for the prevention of such acts in future. He would
even give up the colony, which should refuse to make the wilful murder
of a slave felony. But as to the other, or common, evils complained of,
he thought the remedy should be gradual; and such also as the planters
would concur in. He, would nevertheless not oppose the present
resolution.
Mr. Barham considered compensation but reasonable, where losses were to
accrue from the measure, when it should be put in execution; but he
believed that the amount of it would be much less than was apprehended.
He considered emancipation, though so many fears had been expressed
about it, as forming no objection to the abolition, though he had
estates in the West Indies himself. Such a measure, if it could be
accomplished successfully, would be an honour to the country, and a
blessing to the planters; but preparation must be made for it by
rendering the slaves fit for freedom, and by creating in them an
inclination to free labour. Such a change could only be the work of
time.
Sir John Newport said that the expressions of Sir S. Romilly, which had
given such offence, had been used by others; and would be used with
propriety, while the trade lasted. Some slave-dealers of Liverpool had
lately attempted to prejudice certain merchants of Ireland in their
favour. But none of their representations answered; and it was
remarkable, that the reply made to them was in these words. "We will
have no share in a traffic, consisting in rapine, blood, and murder." He
then took a survey of a system of duties progressively increasing, and
showed that it would be utterly inefficient; and that there was no real
remedy for the different evils complained of, but in the immediate
prohibition of the trade.
Mr. Canning renewed his professions of friendship to the cause. He did
not like the present resolution; yet he would vote for it. He should
have been better pleased with a bill, which would strike at once at the
root of this detestable commerce.
Mr. Manning wished the question to be deferred to the next session. He
hoped compensation would then be brought forward as connected with it.
Nothing, however, effectual could be done without the concurrence of the
planters.
Mr. William Smith noticed, in a striking manner, the different
inconsistencies in the arguments of those, who contended for the
continuance of the trade.
Mr. Windham deprecated not only the Slave Trade, but slavery also. They
were essentially connected with each other. They were both evils, and
ought both of them to be done away. Indeed, if emancipation would follow
the abolition, he should like the latter measure the better. Rapine,
robbery, and murder, were the true characteristics of this traffic. The
same epithets had not indeed been applied to slavery, because this was a
condition, in which some part of the human race had been at every period
of the history of the world. It was, however, a state, which ought not
to be allowed to exist. But, notwithstanding all these confessions, he
should weigh well the consequences of the abolition before he gave it
his support. It would be, on a balance between the evils themselves and
the consequences of removing them, that he should decide for himself on
this question.
Mr. Fox took a view of all the arguments, which had been advanced by the
opponents of the abolition; and having given an appropriate answer to
each, the House divided, when there appeared for the resolution one
hundred and fourteen, and against it but fifteen.
Immediately after this division, Mr. Wilberforce moved an address to His
Majesty, "praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct a
negotiation to be entered into, by which foreign powers should be
invited to co-operate with His Majesty in measures to be adopted for the
abolition of the African Slave Trade."
This address was carried without a division. It was also moved and
carried, that "these resolutions be communicated to the Lords; and that
their concurrence should be desired therein."
On the 24th of June, the Lords met to consider of the resolution and
address. The Earl of Westmoreland proposed that both counsel and
evidence should be heard against them; but his proposition was
overruled.
Lord Grenville then read the resolution of the Commons. This resolution,
he said, stated first, that the Slave Trade was contrary to humanity,
justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity was obvious;
for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or
a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the
Slave Trade convey ideas the very reverse of this definition? It
deprived men of all those comforts, in which it pleased the Creator to
make the happiness of his creatures to consist,--of the blessings of
society,--of the charities of the dear relationships of husband, wife,
father, son, and kindred,--of the due discharge of the relative duties
of these--and of that freedom, which in its pure and natural sense was
one of the greatest gifts of God to man.
It was impossible to read the evidence, as it related to this trade,
without acknowledging the inhumanity of it, and our own disgrace. By
what means was it kept up in Africa? By wars instigated, not by the
passions of the natives, but by our avarice. He knew it would be said in
reply to this, that the slaves, who were purchased by us, would be put
to death, if we were not to buy them. But what should we say, if it
should turn out, that we were the causes of those very cruelties, which
we affected to prevent? But, if it were not so, ought the first nation
in the world to condescend to be the executioner of savages?
Another way of keeping up the Slave Trade was by the practice of
man-stealing. The evidence was particularly clear upon this head. This
practice included violence, and often bloodshed. The inhumanity of it
therefore could not be doubted.
The unhappy victims, being thus procured, were conveyed, he said, across
the Atlantic in a manner which justified the charge of inhumanity again.
Indeed the suffering here was so great, that neither the mind could
conceive, nor the tongue describe, it. He had said on a former occasion,
that in their transportation there was a greater portion of misery
condensed within a smaller space, than had ever existed in the known
world. He would repeat his words; for he did not know, how he could
express himself better on the subject. And, after all these horrors,
what was their destiny? It was such, as justified the charge in the
resolution again: for, after having survived the sickness arising from
the passage, they were doomed to interminable slavery.
We had been, he said, so much accustomed to words, descriptive of the
cruelty of this traffic, that we had almost forgotten their meaning. He
wished that some person, educated as an Englishman, with suitable powers
of eloquence, but now for the first time informed of all the horrors of
it, were to address their lordships upon it, and he was sure, that they
would instantly determine that it should cease. But the continuance of
it had rendered cruelty familiar to us; and the recital of its horrors,
had been so frequent, that we could now hear them stated without being
affected as we ought to be. He intreated their lordships, however, to
endeavour to conceive the hard case of the unhappy victims of it; and as
he had led them to the last stage of their miserable existence, which
was in the colonies, to contemplate it there. They were there under the
arbitrary will of a cruel task-master from morning till night. When they
went to rest, would not their dreams be frightful? When they awoke,
would they not awake--
--only to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges?--
They knew no change, except in the humour of their masters, to whom
their whole destiny was entrusted. We might, perhaps, flatter ourselves
with saying, that they were subject to the will of Englishmen. But
Englishmen were not better than others, when in possession of arbitrary
power. The very fairest exercise of it was a never-failing corrupter of
the heart. But suppose it were allowed that self-interest might operate
some little against cruelty; yet where was the interest of the overseer
or the driver? But he knew it would be said, that the evils complained
of in the colonies had been mitigated. There might be instances of this;
but they could never be cured, while slavery existed. Slavery took away
more than half of the human character. Hence the practice, where it
existed, of rejecting the testimony of the slave: but, if this testimony
was rejected, where could be his redress against his oppressor?
Having shown the inhumanity, he would proceed to the second point in the
resolution, or the injustice of the trade. We had two ideas of justice,
first, as it belonged to society by virtue of a social compact; and,
secondly, as it belonged to men, not as citizens of a community, but as
beings of one common nature. In a state of nature, man had a right to
the fruit of his own labour absolutely to himself; and one of the main
purposes, for which he entered into society, was that he might be better
protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases therefore it
was manifestly unjust, that a man should be made to labour during the
whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labour. Hence the
Slave Trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very
principle, upon which all law for the protection of property was
founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade, to an individual,
it was derived from dishonour and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy
victim of it that, which the latter did not wish to give him; and he
gave to the same victim that, which he in vain attempted to show was an
equivalent to the thing he took,--it being a thing for which there was
no equivalent; and which, if he had not obtained by force, he would not
have possessed at all. Nor could there be any answer to this reasoning,
unless it could be proved, that it had pleased God to give to the
inhabitants of Britain a property in the liberty and life of the natives
of Africa. But he would go further on this subject. The injustice
complained of was not confined to the bare circumstance of robbing them
of the right to their own labour. It was conspicuous throughout the
system. They, who bought them, became guilty of all the crimes which had
been committed in procuring them, and when they possessed them, of all
the crimes which belonged to their inhuman treatment. The injustice in
the latter case amounted frequently to murder. For what was it but
murder to pursue a practice, which produced untimely death to thousands
of innocent and helpless beings? It was a duty, which their lordships
owed to their Creator, if they hoped for mercy, to do away this
monstrous oppression.
With respect to the impolicy of the trade, (the third point in the
resolution,) he would say at once, that whatever was inhuman and unjust
must be, impolitic. He had, however, no objection to argue the point
upon its own particular merits: and, first, he would observe, that a
great man, Mr. Pitt, now no more, had exerted his vast powers on many
subjects, to the admiration of his hearers; but on none more
successfully than on the subject of the abolition of the Slave Trade. He
proved, after making an allowance for the price paid for the slaves in
the West Indies, for the loss of them in the seasoning, and for the
expense of maintaining them afterwards; and comparing these particulars
with the amount in value of their labour there, that the evils endured
by the victims of the traffic were no gain to the master, in whose
service they took place. Indeed, Mr. Long had laid it down in his
_History of Jamaica_, that the best way to secure the planters from ruin
would be to do that which the resolution recommended. It was notorious,
that when any planter was in distress, and sought to relieve himself by
increasing the labour on his estate, by means of the purchase of new
slaves, the measure invariably tended to his destruction. What then was
the importation of fresh Africans, but a system tending to the general
ruin of the islands?
But it had often been said, that without fresh importations the
population of the slaves could not be supported in the islands. This,
however, was a mistake. It had arisen from reckoning the deaths of the
imported Africans, of whom so many were lost in the seasoning, among the
deaths of the Creole slaves. He did not mean to say that, under the
existing degree of misery, the population would greatly increase; but,
he would maintain, that if the deaths and the births were calculated
upon those, who were either born, or who had been a long time in the
islands, so as to be considered as natives, it would be found that the
population had not only been kept up, but that it had been increased.
If it was true, that the labour of a free-man was cheaper than that of a
slave; and, also, that the labour of a long-imported slave was cheaper
than that of a fresh-imported one; and, again, that the chances of
mortality were much more numerous among the newly-imported slaves in the
West Indies, than among those of old standing there, (propositions,
which he took to be established,) we should see new arguments for the
impolicy of the trade.
It might be stated also, that the importation of vast bodies of men, who
had been robbed of their rights, and grievously irritated on that
account, into our colonies, (where their miserable condition opened new
sources of anger and revenge,) was the importation only of the seeds of
insurrection into them. And here he could not but view with astonishment
the reasoning of the West Indian planters, who held up the example of
St. Domingo as a warning against the abolition of the Slave Trade;
because the continuance of it was one of the great causes of the
insurrections and subsequent miseries in that devoted island. Let us but
encourage importations in the same rapid progression of increase every
year, which took place in St. Domingo, and we should witness the same
effect in our own islands.
To expose the impolicy of the trade further, he would observe, that it
was an allowed axiom, that as the condition of man was improved, he
became more useful. The history of our own country, in very early times,
exhibited instances of internal slavery, and this to a considerable
extent. But we should find that; precisely in proportion as that slavery
was ameliorated, the power and prosperity of the country flourished.
This was exactly applicable to the case in question. There could be no
general amelioration of slavery in the West Indies, while the Slave
Trade lasted: but if we were to abolish it, we should make it the
interest of every owner of slaves to do that, which would improve their
condition, and which, indeed, would lead ultimately to the annihilation
of slavery itself. This great event, however, could not be accomplished
at once; it could only be effected in a course of time.
It would be endless, he said, to go into all the cases, which would
manifest the impolicy of this odious traffic. Inhuman as it was, unjust
as it was, he believed it to be equally impolitic; and if their
Lordships should be of this opinion also, he hoped they would agree to
that part of the resolution, in which these truths were expressed. With
respect to the other part of it, or that they would proceed to abolish
the trade, he observed, that neither the time, nor the manner of doing
it, were specified. Hence, if any of them should differ as to these
particulars, they, might yet vote for the resolution, as they were not
pledged to anything definite in these respects, provided they thought
that the trade should be abolished at some time or other: and he did not
believe that there was any one of them, who would sanction its
continuance for ever.
Lord Hawkesbury said, that he did not mean to discuss the question, on
the ground of justice and humanity, as contradistinguished from sound
policy. If it could fairly be made out that the African Slave Trade was
contrary to justice and humanity, it ought to be abolished. It did not,
however, follow, because a great evil subsisted, that therefore it
should be removed; for it might be comparatively a less evil, than that
which would accompany the attempt to remove it. The noble lord, who had
just spoken, had exemplified this; for though slavery was a great evil
in itself, he was of opinion that it could not be done away, but in a
course of time.
A state of slavery, he said, had existed in Africa from the earliest
time; and, unless other nations would concur with England in the measure
of the abolition, we could not change it for the better.
Slavery had existed also throughout all Europe. It had now happily, in a
great measure, been done away. But how? Not by acts of parliament, for
these might have retarded the event, but by the progress of
civilization, which removed the evil in a gradual and rational manner.
He then went over the same ground of argument, as when a member of the
Commons in 1792. He said that the inhumanity of the abolition was
visible in this, that not one slave less would be taken from Africa; and
that such as were taken from it, would suffer more than they did now, in
the hands of foreigners. He maintained also, as before, that the example
of St. Domingo afforded one of the strongest arguments against the
abolition of the trade. And he concluded by objecting to the resolution,
inasmuch as it could do no good, for the substance of it would be to be
discussed again in a future session.
The Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, began, by noticing the concession of
the last speaker, namely, that if the trade was contrary to humanity and
justice, it ought to be abolished. He expected, he said, that the noble
lord would have proved that it was not contrary to these great
principles, before he had supported its continuance; but not a word had
he said to show that the basis of the resolution in these respects was
false. It followed then, he thought, that as the noble lord had not
disproved the premises; he was bound to abide by the conclusion.
The ways, he said, in which the Africans were reduced to slavery in
their own country, were by wars,--many of which were excited for the
purpose,--by the breaking up of villages, by kidnapping and by
conviction for a violation of their own laws. Of the latter class many
were accused falsely, and of crimes which did not exist. He then read a
number of extracts from the evidence examined before the privy council,
and from the histories of those, who, having lived in Africa, had thrown
light upon this subject before the question was agitated. All these, he
said, (and similar instances could be multiplied,) proved the truth of
the resolution, that the African Slave Trade was contrary to the
principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy.
It was moreover, he said, contrary to the principles of the religion we
professed. It was not superfluous to say this, when it had been so
frequently asserted that it was sanctioned both by the Jewish and the
Christian dispensations. With respect to the Jews he would observe, that
there was no such thing as perpetual slavery among them. Their slaves
were of two kinds, those of their own nation, and those from the country
round about them. The former were to be set free on the seventh year;
and the rest, of whatever nation, on the fiftieth, or on the year of
Jubilee. With respect to the Christian dispensation, it was a libel to
say that it countenanced such a traffic. It opposed it both in its
spirit and in its principle; nay, it opposed it positively, for it
classed men-stealers, or slave traders, among the murderers of fathers
and mothers, and the most profane criminals upon earth.
The antiquity of slavery in Africa, which the noble lord had glanced at,
afforded, he said, no argument for its continuance. Such a mode of
defence would prevent for ever the removal of any evil; it would justify
the practice of the Chinese, who exposed their infants in the streets to
perish; it would also justify piracy, for that practice existed long
before we knew anything of the African Slave Trade.
He then combatted the argument, that we did a kindness to the Africans
by taking them from their homes; and concluded, by stating to their
lordships, that, if they refused to sanction the resolution, they would
establish these principles, "that though individuals might not rob and
murder, yet that nations might--that though individuals incurred the
penalties of death by such practices, yet that bodies of men might
commit them with impunity for the purposes of lucre;--and that for such
purposes they were not only to be permitted, but encouraged."
The Lord Chancellor (Erskine) confessed that he was not satisfied with
his own conduct on this subject. He acknowledged, with deep contrition,
that, during the time he was a member of the other House, he had not
once attended when this great question was discussed.
In the West Indies he could say, personally, that the slaves were well
treated, where he had an opportunity of seeing them. But no judgment was
to be formed there with respect to the evils complained of; they must be
appreciated as they existed in the trade. Of these he had also been an
eye-witness. It was on this account that he felt contrition for not
having attended the House on this subject, for there were some cruelties
in this traffic which the human imagination could not aggravate. He had
witnessed such scenes over the whole coast of Africa; and he could say,
that if their lordships could only have a sudden glimpse of them, they
would be struck with horror, and would be astonished that they could
ever have been permitted to exist. What then would they say to their
continuance year after year, and from age to age?
From information, which he could not dispute, he was warranted in
saying, that, on this continent, husbands were fraudulently and forcibly
severed from their wives, and parents from their children; and that all
the ties of blood and affection were torn up by the roots. He had
himself seen the unhappy natives put together in heaps in the hold of a
ship, where, with every possible attention to them, their situation must
have been intolerable. He had also heard proved, in courts of justice,
facts still more dreadful than those which he had seen. One of these he
would just mention. The slaves on board a certain ship rose in a mass to
liberate themselves, and having advanced far in the pursuit of their
object, it became necessary to repel them by force. Some of them
yielded, some of them were killed in the scuffle, but many of them
actually jumped into the sea and were drowned, thus preferring death to
the misery of their situation; while others hung to the ship, repenting
of their rashness, and bewailing with frightful noises their horrid
fate. Thus the whole vessel exhibited but one hideous scene of
wretchedness. They who were subdued and secured in chains were seized
with the flux, which carried many of them off. These things were proved
in a trial before a British jury, which had to consider whether this was
a loss which fell within the policy of insurance, the slaves being
regarded as if they had been only a cargo of dead matter. He could
mention other instances, but they were much too shocking to be
described. Surely their lordships could never consider such a traffic to
be consistent with humanity or justice. It was impossible.
That the trade had long subsisted there was no doubt, but this was no
argument for its continuance. Many evils of much longer standing had
been done away, and it was always our duty to attempt to remove them.
Should we not exult in the consideration, that we, the inhabitants of a
small island, at the extremity of the globe, almost at its north pole,
were become the morningstar to enlighten the nations of the earth, and
to conduct them out of the shades of darkness into the realms of light;
thus exhibiting to an astonished and an admiring world the blessings of
a free constitution? Let us then not allow such a glorious opportunity
to escape us.
It had been urged that we should suffer by the abolition of the Slave
Trade; he believed that we should not suffer. He believed that our duty
and our interest were inseparable; and he had no difficulty in saying,
in the face of the world, that his own opinion was, that the interests
of a nation would be best preserved by its adherence to the principles
of humanity, justice, and religion.
The Earl of Westmoreland said, that the African Slave Trade might be
contrary to humanity and justice, and yet it might be politic; at least,
it might be inconsistent with humanity, and yet not be inconsistent with
justice; this was the case when we executed a criminal, or engaged in
war.
It was, however, not contrary to justice, for justice, in this case,
must be measured by the law of nations. But the purchase of slaves was
not contrary to this law. The Slave Trade was a trade with the consent
of the inhabitants of two nations, and procured by no terror, nor by any
act of violence whatever. Slavery had existed from the first ages of the
world, not only in Africa, but throughout the habitable globe, among the
Persians, Greeks, and Romans; and he would compare, with great advantage
to his argument, the wretched condition of the slaves in these ancient
states with that of those in our colonies. Slavery too had been allowed
in a nation which was under the especial direction of Providence; the
Jews were allowed to hold the heathen in bondage. He admitted that what
the learned prelate had said relative to the emancipation of the latter
in the year of jubilee was correct; but he denied that his quotation
relative to the stealers of men referred to the Christian religion. It
was a mere allusion to that which was done contrary to the law of
nations, which was the only measure of justice between states.
With respect to the inhumanity of the trade, he would observe, that if
their lordships, sitting there as legislators, were to set their faces
against everything which appeared to be inhuman, much of the security on
which their lives and property depended might be shaken, if not totally
destroyed. The question was, not whether there was not some evil
attending the Slave Trade, but whether by the measure now before them
they should increase or diminish the quantity of human misery in the
world. He believed, for one, considering the internal state of Africa,
and the impossibility of procuring the concurrence of foreign nations in
the measure, that they would not be able to do any good by the adoption
of it.
As to the impolicy of the trade, the policy of it, on the other hand,
was so great, that he trembled at the consequences of its abolition. The
property connected with this question amounted to a hundred millions.
The annual produce of the islands was eighteen millions, and it yielded
a revenue of four millions annually. How was this immense property and
income to be preserved? Some had said it would be preserved, because the
black population in the islands could be kept up without further
supplies; but the planters denied this assertion, and they were the best
judges of the subject.
He condemned the resolution as a libel upon the wisdom of the law of the
land; and upon the conduct of their ancestors. He condemned it also,
because, if followed up, it would lead to the abolition of the trade,
and the abolition of the trade to the emancipation of the slaves in our
colonies.
The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley) said, that, allowing the slaves in
the West Indies even to be pampered with delicacies, or to be put to
rest on a bed of roses, they could not be happy, for--a slave would be
still a slave. The question, however, was not concerning the alteration
of their condition, but whether we should abolish the practice, by which
they were put in that condition? Whether it was humane, just, and
politic in us so to place them? This question was easily answered; for
he found it difficult to form any one notion of humanity, which did not
include a desire of promoting the happiness of others; and he knew of no
other justice than that, which was founded on the principle of doing to
others, as we should wish they should do to us. And these principles of
humanity and justice were so clear, that he found it difficult to make
them clearer. Perhaps no difficulty was greater than that of arguing a
self-evident proposition, and such he took to be the character of the
proposition, that the Slave Trade was inhuman and unjust.
It had been said, that slavery had existed from the beginning of the
world. He would allow it. But had such a trade as the Slave Trade ever
existed before? Would the noble Earl, who had talked of the slavery of
ancient Rome and Greece, assert, that in the course of his whole
reading, however profound it might have been, he had found anything
resembling such a traffic? Where did it appear in history, that ships
were regularly fitted out to fetch away tens of thousands of persons
annually, against their will, from their native land; that these were
subject to personal indignities and arbitrary punishments during their
transportation; and that a certain proportion of them, owing to
suffocation and other cruel causes, uniformly perished? He averred, that
nothing like the African Slave Trade was ever practised in any nation
upon earth.
If the trade then was repugnant, as he maintained it was, to justice and
humanity, he did not see how, without aiding and abetting injustice and
inhumanity, any man could sanction it: and he thought that the noble
baron (Hawkesbury) was peculiarly bound to support the resolution; for
he had admitted that if it could be shown, that the trade was contrary
to these principles, the question would be at an end. Now this
contrariety had been made apparent, and his lordship had not even
attempted to refute it.
He would say but little on the subject of revealed religion, as it
related to this question, because the reverend prelate, near him, had
spoken so fully upon it. He might observe, however, that at the end of
the sixth year, when the Hebrew slave was emancipated, he was to be
furnished liberally from the flock, the floor, and the wine-press of his
master.
Lord Holland lamented the unfaithfulness of the noble baron (Hawkesbury)
to his own principles, and the inflexible opposition of the noble earl
(Westmoreland), from both which circumstances he despaired for ever of
any assistance from them to this glorious cause. The latter wished to
hear evidence on the subject, for the purpose, doubtless, of delay. He
was sure, that the noble earl did not care what the evidence would say
on either side; for his mind was made up, that the trade ought not to be
abolished.
The noble earl had made a difference between humanity, justice, and
sound policy. God forbid, that we should ever admit such distinctions in
this country! But he had gone further, and said, that a thing might be
inhuman, and yet not unjust; and he put the case of the execution of a
criminal in support of it. Did he not by this position confound all
notions of right and wrong in human institutions? When a criminal was
justly executed, was not the execution justice to him who suffered, and
humanity to the body of the people at large?
The noble earl had said also, that we should do no good by the
abolition, because other nations would not concur in it. He did not know
what other nations would do; but this he knew, that we ourselves ought
not to be unjust because they should refuse to be honest. It was,
however, self-obvious, that, if we admitted no more slaves into our
colonies, the evil would be considerably diminished.
Another of his arguments did not appear to be more solid; for surely the
Slave Trade ought not to be continued, merely because the effect of the
abolition might ultimately be that of the emancipation of the slaves; an
event, which would be highly desirable in its due time.
The noble lord had also said, that the planters were against the
abolition, and that without their consent it could never be
accomplished. He differed from him in both these points: for, first, he
was a considerable planter himself, and yet he was a friend to the
measure: secondly, by cutting off all further supplies, the planters
would be obliged to pay more attention to the treatment of their slaves,
and this treatment would render the trade unnecessary.
The noble earl had asserted also, that the population in the West Indies
could not be kept up without further importations; and this was the
opinion of the planters, who were the best judges of the subject. As a
planter he differed from his lordship again. If, indeed, all the waste
lands were to be brought into cultivation, the present population would
be insufficient. But the government had already determined, that the
trade should not be continued for such a purpose. We were no longer to
continue pirates, or executioners for every petty tyrant in Africa, in
order that every holder of a bit of land in our islands might cultivate
the whole of his allotment; a work, which might require centuries.
Making this exception, he would maintain, that no further importations
were necessary. Few or no slaves had been imported into Antigua for many
years; and he believed, that even some had been exported from it. As to
Jamaica, although in one year fifteen thousand died in consequence of
hurricane and famine, the excess of deaths over the births during the
twenty years preceding 1788 was only one per cent. Deducting, however,
the mortality of the newly imported slaves, and making the calculation
upon the Negroes born in the island or upon those who had been long
there, he believed the births and the deaths would be found equal. He
had a right therefore to argue that the Negroes, with better treatment
(which the abolition would secure), would not only maintain but increase
their population, without any aid from Africa. He would add, that the
newly imported Africans brought with them not only disorders which
ravaged the plantations, but danger from the probability of
insurrections. He wished most heartily for the total abolition of the
trade. He was convinced, that it was both inhuman, unjust, and
impolitic. This had always been his opinion as an individual since he
was capable of forming one. It was his opinion then as a legislator. It
was his opinion as a colonial proprietor; and it was his opinion as an
Englishman, wishing for the prosperity of the British empire.
The Earl of Suffolk contended, that the population of the slaves in the
islands could be kept up by good treatment, so as to be sufficient for
their cultivation. He entered into a detail of calculations from the
year 1772 downwards in support of this statement. He believed all the
miseries of St. Domingo arose from the vast importation of Africans. He
had such a deep sense of the inhumanity and injustice of the Slave
Trade, that, if ever he wished any action of his life to be recorded, it
would be that of the vote he should then give in support of the
resolution.
Lord Sidmouth said, that he agreed to the substance of the resolution,
but yet he could not support it. Could he be convinced that the trade
would be injurious to the cause of humanity and justice, the question
with him would be decided; for policy could not be opposed to humanity
and justice. He had been of opinion for the last twenty years, that the
interests of the country and those of numerous individuals were so
deeply blended with this traffic, that we should be very cautious how we
proceeded. With respect to the cultivation of new lands, he would not
allow a single Negro to be imported for such a purpose; but he must have
a regard to the old plantations. When he found a sufficient increase in
the Black population to continue the cultivation already established
there, then, but not till then, he would agree to an abolition of the
trade.
Earl Stanhope said he would not detain their lordships long. He could
not, however, help expressing his astonishment at what had fallen from
the last speaker; for he had evidently confessed that the Slave Trade
was inhuman and unjust, and then he had insinuated, that it was neither
inhuman nor unjust to continue it. A more paradoxical or whimsical
opinion, he believed, was never entertained, or more whimsically
expressed in that house. The noble viscount had talked of the interests
of the planters; but this was but a part of the subject; for surely the
people of Africa were not to be forgotten. He did not understand the
practice of complimenting the planters with the lives of men, women, and
helpless children by thousands, for the sake of their pecuniary
advantage; and they, who adopted it, whatever they might think of the
consistency of their own conduct, offered an insult to the sacred names
of humanity and justice.
The noble Earl (Westmoreland) had asked what would be the practical
effect of the abolition of the Slave Trade. He would inform him. It
would do away the infamous practices which took place in Africa; it
would put an end to the horrors of the passage; it would save many
thousands of our fellow-creatures from the miseries of eternal slavery;
it would oblige the planters to treat those better, who were already in
that unnatural state; it would increase the population of our islands;
it would give a death-blow to the diabolical calculations, whether it
was cheaper to work the Negroes to death and recruit the gangs by fresh
importations, or to work them moderately and to treat them kindly. He
knew of no event, which would be attended with so many blessings.
There was but one other matter, which he would notice. The noble baron
(Hawkesbury) had asserted, that all the horrors of St. Domingo were the
consequence of the speculative opinions which were current in a
neighbouring kingdom on the subject at liberty. They had, he said, no
such origin. They were owing to two causes; first, to the vast number of
Negroes recently imported into that island; and, secondly, to a
scandalous breach of faith by the French legislature. This legislature
held out the idea not only of the abolition of the Slave Trade, but also
of all slavery; but it broke its word. It held forth the rights of man
to the whole human race, and then, in practice, it most infamously
abandoned every article in these rights; so that it became the scorn of
all the enlightened and virtuous part of mankind. These were the great
causes of the miseries of St. Domingo, and not the speculative opinions
of France.
Earl Grosvenor could not but express the joy he felt at the hope, after
all his disappointments, that this wicked trade would be done away. He
hoped that his Majesty's ministers were in earnest, and that they would,
early in the next session, take this great question up with a
determination to go through with it; so that another year should not
pass before we extended the justice and humanity of the country to the
helpless and unhappy inhabitants of Africa.
Earl Fitzwilliam said he was fearful lest the calamities of St. Domingo
should be brought home to our own islands. We ought not, he thought, too
hastily to adopt the resolution on that account. He should therefore
support the previous question.
Lord Ellenborough said, he was sorry to differ from his noble friend
(Lord Sidmouth), and yet he could not help saying that if after twenty
years, during which this question had been discussed by both Houses of
Parliament, their lordships' judgments were not ripe for its
determination, he could not look with any confidence to a time when they
would be ready to decide it.
The question then before them was short and plain. It was, whether the
African Slave Trade was inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. If the premises
were true, we could not too speedily bring it to a conclusion.
The subject had been frequently brought before him in a way which had
enabled him to become acquainted with it; and he was the more anxious on
that account to deliver his sentiments upon it as a peer of Parliament,
without reference to anything he had been called upon to do in the
discharge of his professional duty. When he looked at the mode in which
this traffic commenced, by the spoliation of the rights of a whole
quarter of the globe; by the misery of whole nations of helpless
Africans; by tearing them from their homes, their families, and their
friends; when he saw the unhappy victims carried away by force; thrust
into a dungeon in the hold of a ship, in which the interval of their
passage from their native to a foreign land was filled up with misery,
under every degree of debasement, and in chains; and when he saw them
afterwards consigned to an eternal slavery, he could not but contemplate
the whole system with horror. It was inhuman in its beginning, inhuman
in its progress, and inhuman to the very end.
Nor was it more inhuman than it was unjust. The noble earl,
(Westmoreland,) in adverting to this part of the question had considered
it as a question of justice between two nations, but it was a moral
question. Although the natives of Africa might be taken by persons
authorized by their own laws to take and dispose of them, and the
practice, therefore, might be said to be legal as it respected them, yet
no man could doubt, whatever ordinances they might have to sanction it,
that it was radically, essentially, and in principle, unjust; and
therefore there could be no excuse for us in continuing it. On the
general principle of natural justice, which was paramount to all
ordinances of men, it was quite impossible to defend this traffic; and
he agreed with the noble baron (Hawkesbury) that, having decided that it
was inhuman and unjust, we should not inquire whether it was impolitic.
Indeed, the inquiry itself would be impious; for it was the common
ordinance of God, that that which was inhuman and unjust, should never
be for the good of man. Its impolicy, therefore, was included in its
injustice and its inhumanity. And he had no doubt, when the importations
were stopped, that the planters would introduce a change of system among
their slaves which would increase their population, so as to render any
further supplies from Africa unnecessary. It had been proved, indeed,
that the Negro population in some of the islands was already in this
desirable state. Many other happy effects would follow. As to the losses
which would arise from the abolition of the Slave Trade, they, who were
interested in the continuance of it, had greatly over-rated them. When
pleading formerly in his professional capacity for the merchants of
Liverpool at their lordships' bar, he had often delivered statements,
which he had received from them, and which he afterwards discovered to
be grossly incorrect. He could say from his own knowledge, that the
assertion of the noble earl (Westmoreland), that property to the amount
of a hundred millions would be endangered, was wild and fanciful. He
would not however deny, that some loss might accompany the abolition;
but there could be no difficulty in providing for it. Such a
consideration ought not to be allowed to impede their progress in
getting rid of an horrible injustice.
But it had been said that we should do but little in the cause of
humanity by abolishing the Slave Trade; because other nations would
continue it. He did not believe they would. He knew that America was
about to give it up. He believed the states of Europe would give it up.
But, supposing that they were all to continue it, would not our honour
be the greater? Would not our virtue be the more signal? for then
--Faithful we
Among the faithless found:
to which he would add, that undoubtedly we should diminish the evil, as
far as the number of miserable beings was concerned, which was
accustomed to be transported to our own colonies.
Earl Spencer agreed with the noble viscount (Sidmouth), that the
amelioration of the condition of the slaves was an object, which might
be effected in the West Indies; but he was certain, that the most
effectual way of improving it would be by the total and immediate
abolition of the Slave Trade; and for that reason he would support the
resolution. Had the resolution held out emancipation to them, it would
not have had his assent; for it would have ill become the character of
this country, if it had been once promised, to have withheld it from
them. It was to such deception that the horrors of St. Domingo were to
be attributed. He would not enter into the discussion of the general
subject at present. He was convinced that the trade was what the
resolution stated it to be, inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. He wished
therefore, most earnestly indeed, for its abolition. As to the mode of
effecting it, it should be such as would be attended with the least
inconvenience to all parties. At the same time he would not allow small
inconveniences to stand in the way of the great claims of humanity,
justice, and religion.
The question was then put on the resolution, and carried by a majority
of forty-one to twenty. The same address also to His Majesty, which had
been agreed upon by the Commons, was directly afterwards moved. This
also was carried, but without the necessity of a division.
The resolution and the motion having passed both Houses, one other
parliamentary measure was yet necessary to complete the proceedings of
this session. It was now almost universally believed, in consequence of
what had already taken place there, that the Slave Trade had received
its death-wound; and that it would not long survive it. It was supposed,
therefore, that the slave-merchants would, in the interim, fit out not
only all the vessels they had, but even buy others, to make what might
be called their last harvest. Hence, extraordinary scenes of rapine and
murder would be occasioned in Africa. To prevent these, a new bill was
necessary. This was accordingly introduced into the Commons. It enacted,
but with one exception, that from and after the first of August, 1806,
no vessel should clear out for the Slave Trade, unless it should have
been previously employed by the same owner or owners in the said trade,
or should be proved to have been contracted for previously to the 10th
of June, 1806, for the purpose of being employed in that trade. It may
now be sufficient to say that this bill also passed both Houses of
Parliament; soon after which the session ended.