THE SLAVE TRADE
Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free;
They touch our country, and their shackles fall;
That’s noble, and bespeaks a nation proud
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then,
And let it circulate through every vein
Of all your Empire--that where Britain’s power
Is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too.
COWPER.
Great movements are too often connected with the names of one or two
prominent men, to the neglect of others whose services are highly
meritorious. Laziness rather than unfairness may be assigned as the
cause of this mistake. The popular consciousness, unable to hold
together names, according to gradation of merit, settles on one or two
as convenient pegs for the memory, and discards the remainder. Hence
it comes about that commanders acquire undying fame which may be due
to their chiefs of staff; and statesmen are reputed the authors of
measures which they accepted doubtfully from their permanent officials.
It is by some such process of hasty labelling that the name of
Wilberforce is often affixed alone to the movement for the liberation
of the slaves. True, he deserves to hold a very high place in the
roll-call of the champions of philanthropy. But the following short
summary will suffice to suggest that many other names, now wellnigh
forgotten, deserve to be held in equal honour. Of those who helped
to arouse public opinion on this question George Fox and William
Edmundson come first in point of time. They lifted up their voice
in and after the year 1671 against the cruelties inflicted on negro
slaves in Barbadoes and elsewhere; but we do not find that their views
on slavery affected a large number of their co-religionists until
the year 1727, when the Society of Friends in their annual meeting
at London passed a resolution condemning both the slave trade and
the owning of slaves.[730] This conviction spread to the Quakers of
Pennsylvania (the “Quaker State”) where worthy members of the Society
succeeded in arousing public opinion even against the institution of
slavery.
Reverting to England, with which alone we are concerned, we find the
Quakers striving to stop the worst abuses of the Slave Trade. The
Treaty of Utrecht (1713) had handed over to England a great part
of that traffic; and Chatham himself boasted that his conquests in
Africa during the Seven Years’ War had placed almost the whole of it
in British hands. When a man of his elevation of thought held this
language, we can imagine that the many looked on the trade as a pillar
of the Empire, and derided its few opponents as lunatics.
Not that public opinion was wholly blind to its evils. In the year 1750
Parliament had passed an Act forbidding the kidnapping of negroes; but
it proved wholly ineffective; and, as the horrors connected with the
Slave Trade became better known, the Society of Friends warned all
its members to abstain from any connection whatever with so unholy
a traffic (1758). Three years later it resolved to disown any who
should disregard this warning.[731] Thus, to the religious zeal and
consistency of the Friends we are indebted for the first attempts to
abolish this traffic. No small community has ever rendered a greater
service to the cause of religion and humanity.
It should be noted in passing that their action and that of later
abolitionists helped to link together these two ideals in a manner
which was to be infinitely fruitful. In this connection Granville
Sharp, John Wesley, Clarkson, Paley, Wilberforce, Buxton, Zachary
Macaulay, and many others may be named as proving the close union
that subsisted between religious conviction and the philanthropic
movement. The power of religion to impel to good works shone forth in
all of them. Wilberforce gave scarcely a thought to the slaves until
the work of grace began in his own heart. In 1774 Wesley published his
work, “Thoughts upon Slavery,” which greatly furthered the cause.
Indeed, it should be noticed as one of the influences marking off the
philanthropic movement in England from that of France that here for
the most part it was an offshoot of the Evangelical Revival, whereas
in France the efforts of Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists imparted
to similar efforts a strongly anti-Catholic bias. These facts were
destined to mould the future of religion and politics in the two lands.
Here philanthropists and statesmen were the mainstay of religion. There
the slow cessation of persecution and the reluctant abandonment of
privileges by the Roman Church ranged social reformers against her,
with results that were to appear in the Revolution.
Fortunately, in England law reinforced the efforts of philanthropists.
In 1772, Chief Justice Mansfield gave a decision that a slave who
landed on English soil became a free man. The case arose out of the
conduct of a West India merchant settled in London, who by sheer
brutality had rendered a slave useless for work, had turned him
adrift, but again claimed him when healed by a kind-hearted physician.
Granville Sharp thenceforth made it the business of his life to see
justice done to the negro race, and was chiefly instrumental in
bringing the whole question to a practical issue by founding in 1787
the first Abolitionist Society.
Before adverting to its labours, with which Pitt so deeply sympathized,
we may notice a few facts connected with the traffic in human flesh.
The evidence of Robert Norris, of Liverpool, before a Parliamentary
Commission in the year 1775 showed that of the 74,000 negroes believed
to be taken annually from Africa to the New World, British ships
carried about 38,000; French, 20,000; Portuguese, 10,000; Dutch, 4,000;
Danish, 2,000. The greater part came from Bonny, New Calabar, the
Gold Coast, and Loango. Gambia is credited with exporting only 700,
a suspiciously low estimate. The same witness asserted that only one
slave in twenty-seven died on the voyage, while one seaman in sixteen
succumbed.[732] Estimates, however, varied very greatly. Macpherson
gave 97,000 as the number of slaves imported into the New World from
Africa in the year 1768.[733] Efforts were made by merchants to depict
the passage on the ocean as pleasant, amusements being provided on the
way. But it soon transpired that the chief amusement was compulsory
singing, while the “dancing” proved to be jumping in chains at the
sound of the lash. It was also known that very many negroes died soon
after landing during the process known as seasoning to the climate and
work; that the whip was freely used in the plantations; and that the
mortality among the slaves was extremely heavy. In this connection the
name of Burke deserves to be held in honour; for he proposed that the
Attorney-General in each colony should be empowered to act as Protector
of the negroes.
Thus, even before the Abolitionist Society began its labours, public
opinion was beginning to brand the traffic with infamy. The year 1783
saw efforts made in Parliament to repress some of its worst abuses;
and the Society of Friends then sent up the first petition for the
total abrogation of the traffic in British vessels.[734] The year 1785
witnessed the publication of Clarkson’s Latin essay on the subject; and
a twelvemonth later it came out in English. In 1783 also the efforts of
the Rev. James Ramsay, Rector of Teston, Kent, who had seen the evils
of slavery during his residence at St. Kitt’s, brought the subject
home to the mind of his neighbour, Lady Middleton; and she in her
turn impressed it as a Christian duty on Wilberforce to bring forward
a motion in Parliament. As this appeal harmonized with the strong
religious convictions now swaying the nature of the young member for
Yorkshire, he felt strongly moved to take up the cause of the negroes.
In the year 1786 he made many inquiries among African and West India
merchants, and found much error in their information. After probing the
matter, he resolved to consult Pitt as to his making this question the
chief object of his life.
The conversation took place under an old oak-tree in Pitt’s grounds
at Holwood, above the steep descent into Keston vale. The opinions
of the two friends, as we have seen, had somewhat diverged. Pitt
did not sympathize with the pietism which now dominated the life of
Wilberforce; but his religion was of a working type, and he may have
welcomed the growth of convictions of a more practical kind, which
would wean his friend from excessive introspection. Certain it is that
he urged him to take up the cause of the slaves as one well suited
to his character and talents. Wilberforce therefore resolved to give
notice of his intention to bring the subject before Parliament. Would
that we knew the details of that conversation illustrative of the
character of two of the most interesting men of the age. Even so, the
resolve there formed renders illustrious the tree under which it was
formed, fitly called “Wilberforce’s oak.”[735]
The three strands of effort which we have traced from their feeble
beginnings, viz., those originating with the Quakers, Granville Sharp,
and Ramsay, were now to combine. In 1787, as we have seen, Granville
Sharp, in connection with London Friends, formed a “Committee for
procuring Evidence on the Slave Trade,” which was to become the famous
Abolitionist Society. At the first meeting on 22nd May 1787, only ten
were present. Their names deserve to be recorded. Granville Sharp
(Chairman), J. Barton, Thomas Clarkson, W. Dillwyn, S. Hoare (junr.),
J. Hooper, J. Lloyd, R. Phillips, P. Sanson, J. Woods. All but two were
Quakers, and the minutes and letters abound in “thous” and “thees.”
One of the aims of the Committee was to distribute Clarkson’s and
other pamphlets on the subject. In October 1787 the Committee received
a letter from Brissot and Clavière, the future leaders of the French
Girondins, expressing the wish to promote their views in France, where,
as is well known, the abolitionists achieved a speedy but illusory
triumph in 1790.
[Illustration:
_Emery Walker Ph. sc._
_William Wilberforce_
_from an unfinished painting by Sir T. Lawrence_
]
As there has been some controversy respecting the initiation of this
movement, it is well to note that not until 30th October 1787 did
the Committee receive a letter from Wilberforce. He then asked for
information as speedily as possible. The Minutes of the Committee
show that he was not a member until the year 1794, and it is an
exaggeration to say that “he directed their endeavours.”[736] Their
aim was to stir up the great towns to petition to Parliament. In this
they achieved a marked success. Indeed, it was rather the formation
of a strong public opinion by the labours of the Committee, than the
many motions in Parliament, which at last brought triumph to the cause.
Manchester and Birmingham soon displayed great interest in the subject.
A kindred society was formed at the latter town. That at London grew
in importance, and funds came in rapidly. Wilberforce wrote to
Eden on 18th January 1788: “The fire is kindled in various parts of
the Kingdom and the flame spreads wider and wider.”[737] One of the
petitions resulting from the labours of the parent committee deserves
mention here. It came from 769 freemen cutlers of Sheffield, was dated
24th April 1789, and stated that, though the exports of petitioners to
the African coast might fall off if the Slave Trade were abolished, yet
they were so convinced of its inhumanity that they begged Parliament to
sweep it away.[738]
Petitions of the same tenour had long been coming in, and Pitt
therefore instituted an inquiry by the Privy Council respecting
the whole question, including the condition of the slaves in the
colonies.[739] One of the replies, that from Bermuda, of 10th June
1788, is typically optimistic. Governor Browne affirmed that the slaves
in those islands were exceedingly well treated. Out of 4,900 slaves not
more than five a year deserted. During the late war many had served on
privateers and, when captured and taken to the United States, nearly
all managed to make their way back to their masters. This report is a
specimen of the arguments which compelled Ministers to some measure of
caution.[740]
There is, however, abundant proof that Pitt, though a recent recruit
to the movement, espoused it with enthusiasm. During the difficult
negotiations with France in the autumn of 1787, we find Wilberforce
informing Eden, our envoy at Paris, of Pitt’s interest in the endeavour
to stop the Slave Trade, a matter which would be greatly facilitated
if France would agree to take the same step.[741] On 2nd November Pitt
followed up his friend’s letter by another appeal to Eden to induce the
French Government “to discontinue the villainous traffic now carried on
in Africa.”[742] The following letter, hitherto unpublished, from Pitt
to Eden, further shows his hope that Eden, who was soon to take the
embassy at Madrid, would be able to influence that Court also:
Downing Street, _Dec. 7, 1787_.[743]
Mr. Wilberforce has communicated to me your last letter respecting
the African business. The more I reflect upon it, the more anxious
and impatient I am that the business should be brought as speedily
as possible to a point; that, if the real difficulties of it can
be overcome, it may not suffer from the prejudices and interested
objections which will multiply during the discussion. Of course it
cannot yet be ripe for any official communication; and when you
transmit the memorandum, which I see you were to draw up, I hope
it will be quite secret for the present. If you see any chance
of success in France, I hope you will lay your ground as soon as
possible with a view to Spain also. I am considering what to do in
Holland, but the course of business there makes the secrecy, which
is necessary at least for a time, more difficult.
The reply of the French Government in January 1788 was discouraging.
Montmorin and his colleagues avowed their sympathy with the cause,
but, fearing that it would not succeed in England, refused to commit
themselves.[744] The advent of Necker to power in August aroused Pitt’s
hopes;[745] but he too temporized, thereby prejudicing the success of
the cause in these islands. Spain refused to stir in the matter.
Meanwhile Wilberforce had given notice of a motion on the subject, but
a severe illness in February and March 1788 left him in a state of
weakness which precluded the least effort. Before leaving for Bath, he
begged Pitt to bring forward the motion for him. The Prime Minister
consented, says Wilberforce, “with a warmth of principle and friendship
that have made me love him better than I ever did before.” Nevertheless
he acted with caution. Up to the beginning of the year 1788, at least,
he had not brought the matter before the Cabinet, probably because he
knew that most of its members would oppose him. In the country also
a formidable opposition was arising, and, as usually happens in such
cases, enthusiasts clamoured at delay as treason to the cause.[746]
Perhaps it was this which led him to request a conference with Sharp.
It took place on 21st April, and is thus reported in the Minutes of the
Committee:
He [Granville Sharp] had a full opportunity of explaining that
the desire of the Committee went to a full abolition of the Slave
Trade. Mr. Pitt assured him that his heart was with us, and that
he considered himself pledged to Mr. Wilberforce that the cause
should not sustain any injury from his indisposition; but at the
same time that the subject was of great political importance,
and it was requisite to proceed in the business with temper and
prudence. He did not apprehend, as the examination before the Privy
Council would yet take up some time, that the subject could be
fully investigated in the present session of Parliament, but said
he would consider whether the forms of the House would admit of any
measures that would be obligatory on them to take it up early in
the ensuing session.[747]
On 9th May Pitt brought his motion before the House, but pending the
conclusion of the official inquiry, he offered no opinion on the
subject, for which he was sharply twitted by Fox and Burke. His conduct
was far from pleasing to the more ardent spirits. One of them, the
venerable Sir William Dolben, member for the University of Oxford,
after inspecting a slave-ship in the Thames, determined to lose no
time in alleviating the misery of the many living cargoes that crossed
the ocean. He therefore brought in a Bill for temporarily regulating
the transport of slaves in British ships. In the course of the
discussions Pitt declared that, even though the proposed regulations
involved the trade in ruin, as was maintained, he would nevertheless
vote for them; and if the trade could not be regulated, he would vote
for its abolition as “shocking to humanity, abominable to be carried
on by any country, and which reflected the greatest dishonour on the
British Senate and the British nation.” He further startled the House
by proposing that the regulations should become operative from that
day--10th June. The hold which he had on members was shown by the
division, fifty-six voting for the measure and only five against it.
In the Upper House no minister save the Duke of Richmond ventured to
defend this unusual enactment; and the Chancellor, Thurlow, spoke
strongly against it. Sydney also opposed it, though with moderation
(25th June). Pitt’s feelings when he heard of their action are shown
in a phrase of his letter to Grenville, dated Cambridge, 29th June,
that if the Bill failed he and the opposers would not remain members
of the same Cabinet. This declaration does honour to his heart and his
judgement. It proves the warmth of his feelings on the subject and
his sense of the need of discipline in the Cabinet. Had the measure
failed to pass the Lords, a Cabinet crisis of the gravest kind would
have arisen. As it was, however, the great efforts put forth by Pitt
among his friends sufficed to carry the day against Thurlow by a
majority of two. We catch a glimpse of what an average man thought of
this incident in the pages of Wraxall. After adverting to the nobility
of Pitt’s motives and the strength of Thurlow’s arguments against the
retrospective action of the Bill, the chronicler thus passes judgement:
“Thurlow argued as a statesman, Pitt acted as a moralist.” We also have
the warrant of Wraxall for stating that, not until George III gave his
assent to the measure, did Pitt “allow” him to prorogue Parliament.[748]
Ship-owners and slave-owners had, however, been driven only from the
first outwork of their citadel, and had time to strengthen their
defences before the matter came up again in 1789. After a delay, caused
by the King’s malady and by the length of the inquiry into the Slave
Trade by a committee of the Privy Council, Wilberforce brought the
question before the House on 12th May in one of the ablest and most
eloquent speeches of that age. For three and a half hours he held the
attention of the House as he recounted the horrors which slave-hunting
spread through Africa, and the hell of suffering of the middle passage.
He showed how legitimate trade would increase with the growth of
confidence between man and man in that Continent, and he asserted
that the sympathies of King Louis XVI, Necker, and the French nation
would probably lead that country to follow our example in abolishing a
traffic degrading to all concerned in it. He then proved from official
information concerning the slaves in our West India islands, that wise
treatment of them and suppression of vice would ensure a sufficient
increase of population to meet the needs of the planters. He concluded
by moving twelve resolutions setting forth the facts of the case as
detailed in the Report of the Privy Council. This mode of procedure
earned general approval. Burke bestowed his blessing on the proposal
(for such it was in effect) to abolish so hateful a traffic. Pitt gave
the measure his warm approval, but stated that he was prepared to give
a hearing to all objections. One such he noticed, namely, that foreign
nations would step in and secretly supply our West India islands with
slaves. He declared that Great Britain was strong enough to prevent
so insidious a device; but he hoped, rather, that other peoples would
desire to share in the honour of abolishing the trade; and we might
confidently negotiate with them to that end, or wait for the effect
which our example would produce. Fox followed in the same strain, and
prophesied that France would soon “catch a spark from our fire and run
a race with us in promoting the ends of humanity.”[749]
But these unanswerable arguments were of no avail against shippers,
slave-owners, and colonial traders. In vain did Wilberforce point
out that the prosperity of Liverpool did not depend upon the Slave
Trade; for the tonnage of the slave-ships was only one-fifteenth of
that of the whole port. Liverpool saw nothing but ruin ahead; and it
must be admitted that that class of traffic was then by far the most
lucrative to the growing city on the Mersey. It has been computed
that in the decade 1783–93, Liverpool slave-ships made 878 “round
voyages” (_i.e._ from Liverpool to the Guinea Coast, thence to the
West Indies, and back to the Mersey), carried 303,737 slaves and sold
them for £15,186,850.[750] It is not surprising, then, that Clarkson
was mobbed when he went there to collect evidence as to the terrible
mortality of our seamen engaged in the trade,[751] and was known to be
purchasing “mouth-openers,” those ingenious devices by which slavers
forced open the mouths of those of their victims who sought release by
voluntary starvation. Bristol, though it had only eighteen ships in the
trade, was also up in arms; for it depended largely on the refining of
sugar and the manufacture of rum. Even the veteran reformer, Alderman
Sawbridge, foresaw ruin for his constituency, the City of London, if
the trade were further interfered with. Persons of a rhetorical turn
depicted in lurid colours the decay of Britain’s mercantile marine,
the decline of her wealth, and the miseries of a sugar famine. Others
sought to frighten the timid by declaring that, as shippers and
planters had embarked large sums of money in the trade in reliance
on Parliament, they were entitled to absolutely full compensation
for the heavy losses which must result from its abolition or further
curtailment.[752] In short, all the menaces, based on assumed legal
rights, were set forth with vehemence and pertinacity.
The result was seen in the increasing acrimony of the opponents of
abolition in Parliament. They poured scorn on the evidence adduced
before the Privy Council in a way which brought from Pitt a sharp
retort, but they insisted, and with success, on the hearing of evidence
at the bar of the House. These dilatory tactics protracted the
discussion until it was necessary to postpone it to the next year.
Before the end of the session of 1789 an important change came about in
the Cabinet. Sydney had long disagreed with Pitt respecting the Slave
Trade, and therefore, early in June, offered his resignation. There
could be but one opinion as to his successor. William Wyndham Grenville
had long shown high capacity both in diplomatic affairs and more
recently in his conduct of the Speakership of the House. His speech
on the trade marked him out as a strong supporter of Pitt; and on 5th
June he became Secretary of State for Home Affairs with a seat in the
Cabinet. His accession was a gain for the Administration and a further
source of strength for Pitt, who had long felt great confidence in his
judgement and tact.[753] Henry Addington, son of the physician who long
attended the first Earl of Chatham, was chosen Speaker of the House of
Commons by a large majority over the Whig nominee, Sir Gilbert Elliot.
One other change ought to have taken place. The language used by
Lord Thurlow against Pitt had long been petulant, and his irritation
against the abolitionists led him to strange lengths in the summer
of 1789.[754] Their differences caused an almost complete rupture.
But, for the present, Pitt could not insist on his resignation. On
the question now at issue George III agreed with Thurlow.[755] He
also seems to have been quite unaware of the shifty course adopted
by the Chancellor at the beginning of his late malady and believed
him to be thoroughly devoted to his person. It argues no small amount
of self-restraint and honourable reticence in Pitt that he should
have taken no steps to inform the King of the meditated defection of
Thurlow. George III therefore continued to believe in the whole hearted
devotion of the Lord Chancellor; and on two occasions during the year
1789 he wrote to Pitt expressing his desire that the two Ministers
should endeavour to work together cordially for the good of the
realm.[756] It is consonant with what we know of Thurlow’s character
that he presumed on the King’s partiality towards him, and played the
part of the one necessary man in a way highly exasperating to Pitt.
But the precarious state of the King’s health and his known dislike
of dismissing old servants availed to postpone the inevitable rupture
until the year 1792. The retention of Thurlow may be considered one of
the causes of the failure of the abolitionists at this time.
In the spring of the year 1790 the champions of the Slave Trade
believed that they saw signs of waning enthusiasm on the part of the
public, and on 23rd April sought to stop the further examination of
witnesses at the bar of the House. Wilberforce, Fox, and Pitt protested
against these tactics, but Pitt intimated that he did not consider the
question one which Ministers were pledged to support. The case for a
free and full inquiry was overwhelming, and it was continued. That Pitt
acted in close connection with Fox on this whole question appears by
his letter to Wilberforce on 22nd April, which further shows that he
also considered the evidence so voluminous and important as to afford
little hope of the question being disposed of in that session.[757]
This was most unfortunate. The friends of abolition never had a better
opportunity than in the early part of 1790. Later on in that year the
risk of war with Spain (see Chapter XXIV) and the prospect of a revolt
of the slaves in the French West Indies began to turn Britons against a
measure which, they were told, would weaken the mercantile marine and
lead to the loss of the West Indies. In this case, as in many others,
the influence of the French Revolution militated against the cause of
steady reform in England. The National Assembly had early declared the
principle of freedom of the slaves in the French colonies; but owing
to the violent opposition of the planters and merchants, the decree
remained a dead letter. In the spring of 1790 the question came up once
more; but again the majority sought to shelve the question. Lord Robert
Stephen Fitzgerald, the British envoy at Paris, commended the prudence
and self-restraint of the Assembly “in not agitating the two great
questions concerning the emancipation of the negroes and the abolition
of the Slave Trade, which had at the first setting out raised so
violent a spirit of party.”[758] The planters and West India merchants
still threatened that the Colonial Assemblies (established in the year
1787) would declare their independence if those decrees were passed, on
the ground that they were not bound by the acts of the French Assembly.
Mirabeau, along with all practical statesmen, forebore from pressing
the point; and it is highly probable that the politic caution of the
French reformers, despite their sensibility and enthusiasm, told upon
public opinion in England.
Such were the discouraging conditions amidst which a General Election
was held in the summer of 1790. It increased Pitt’s hold on the House
of Commons; but, as he had refrained from making the Slave Trade
a ministerial question, the result did not imply the victory of
abolition. In the month of November he took a step which furthered
the prospects of the cause. He recommended Grenville for the peerage
as Baron Grenville, partly in recognition of his services, but mainly
because he needed a trusty friend and capable debater in the Upper
House as a check on Thurlow. He assured Wilberforce that distrust of
the Lord Chancellor was the true reason that prompted the transfer of
Grenville to the Lords.[759] We find Pitt writing on 24th November
1790 to his mother in high spirits. He hoped for great things from
Grenville in the Upper House. As for “prophets of schisms,” they would
be refuted. The opening of the new Parliament would find the Ministry
in “more strength than has belonged to us since the beginning of the
Government.”[760]
The question came before Parliament on 18th and 19th April 1791, when
Wilberforce in a masterly way summarized the official evidence and
moved for leave to bring in a Bill abolishing the Slave Trade. Some
of the arguments on the other side were curious. Grosvenor admitted
that the trade was an “unamiable” one, but he declined to “gratify his
humanity at the expense of the interests of his country, and thought we
should not too curiously inquire into the unpleasant circumstances with
which it was perhaps attended.” Less finnikin was the objection raised
by Lord John Russell and others, that, if we suppressed the trade,
France, Spain, and Holland would step in to take it up. This and the
question of vested interests formed the only reply to Wilberforce,
Fox, and Pitt. The Prime Minister declared that he had never been more
interested in the fate of any proposal than the present one. He brushed
aside the pleas of opponents, as wholly untenable, “unless gentlemen
will in the first place prove to me that there are no laws of morality
binding upon nations, and that it is no duty of a Legislature to
restrain its subjects from invading the happiness of other countries
and from violating the fundamental principles of justice.” He then
proved from the statistics then available that the numbers of the
slaves in the West Indies would under proper treatment increase in such
a degree as to supply the labour needed for the plantations, without
bringing ruin upon Africa. But argument and reasoning were useless.
Mammon carried the day by 163 to 88.[761]
The events of the year 1791 further depressed the hopes of
philanthropists. After much wobbling on the subject the National
Assembly of France passed a decree liberating the slaves in French
colonies, and granting to them the full rights of citizenship (15th
May). The results were disastrous. Already there had been serious
trouble in the French West Indies, owing to the progress of democratic
ideas among the mulattos and slaves; and the news that they were
thenceforth politically the equals of planters and merchants, who had
ever resisted their claims, led to terrible risings of the slaves,
especially in the west of St. Domingo, where plantations and cities
felt the blind fury of their revenge. By the end of the year the most
flourishing colony of France was a wreck.[762]
The heedless haste of French reformers worked ruin far and wide.
Extremes are fatal to the happy mean; for the populace rarely takes
the trouble to distinguish between reckless innovation and the healing
of a palpable grievance. Among the unfortunate results of the French
Revolution not the least was the tendency to extremes of feeling
produced by it in France and all neighbouring peoples. Those who
approved its doctrines generally became giddy with enthusiasm; those
who disapproved turned livid with hatred. Burke in his “Reflections
on the French Revolution” had lately set the example of treating the
whole subject in a crusading spirit. The flood of sentimentality,
unloosed by that attractive work, was now near high-water mark; and for
a space the age of chivalry seemed about to return.
The news of the horrors at St. Domingo came opportunely to double
the force of his prophecies. The cause of the slaves suffered untold
harm.[763] Any change in existing customs was dubbed treason to the
Commonwealth. Men did not stop to contrast the rash methods of the
_Amis des Noirs_ with those advocated by Pitt. Still less did they ask
how the stoppage of the importation of infuriated negroes into the West
Indian colonies, and the more humane treatment of those who were there,
could lead to a servile revolt. Wilberforce was fain to exclaim that
nothing was so cruel as sensibility. His campaign against the Slave
Trade made little or no progress in the early part of 1792. “People
here,” he wrote, “are all panic-struck with the transactions in St.
Domingo and the apprehension, or pretended apprehension, of the like in
Jamaica.” Many friends advised him to postpone all further action for
a year until the panic was over. Among these was Pitt, so we may judge
from the curt reference of Wilberforce to what went on at an informal
committee meeting on the subject: “Pitt threw out against Slave motion,
on St. Domingo account.” He also speaks of a slackening of their
cordiality.
The folly of Clarkson in advocating Jacobinical ideas at a meeting
held at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand further damaged the
cause. Nevertheless, detestation of the Slave Trade was still very
keen. Friends of the slaves began to forswear sugar and take to
honey. Petitions against the traffic in human flesh poured in at St.
Stephen’s; and those who spoke of delay were held to be backsliders.
This is the sense which we must attach to a phrase in a letter sent
to Wilberforce: “From London to Inverness Mr. Pitt’s sincerity is
questioned, and unless he can convince the nation of his cordiality in
our cause, his popularity must suffer greatly.”[764] The questioning
was needless. Pitt considered the time inopportune for bringing the
motion before a Parliament which had already rejected it. When,
however, Wilberforce persisted, he gave him his enthusiastic support.
The debate of 2nd April 1792 was remarkable in more ways than one.
The opponents of the measure now began to shift their ground. Colonel
Tarleton, member for Liverpool, continued to harp on the ruin that
must befall his town; but others, notably Dundas, and the Speaker
(Addington) admitted the evils of the trade, and the probability that
in a few years the needs of the planters might be met from the negro
population already in the islands. Dundas therefore moved an amendment
in favour of a “moderate” reform, or a “gradual” reform. Fox manfully
castigated this proposal, which assumed that there might be moderation
in murder. Nevertheless Jenkinson (the future Earl of Liverpool) made a
trimming speech in favour of regulating, not abolishing, the trade.
Pitt then arose. The rays of dawn were already lighting up the windows
on the east when he began his memorable speech. First, he expressed his
satisfaction that members were generally agreed as to the abolition
of the traffic being only a question of time. Mankind would therefore
before long be delivered “from the severest and most extensive calamity
recorded in the history of the world.” Grappling with the arguments of
Jenkinson and Dundas, he proceeded to show that the immediate abolition
of the Slave Trade would in many ways be an advantage to the West
Indies, as it would restrict the often excessive outlay of the planters
and deliver our colonies from the fear of servile insurrections like
that of St. Domingo. Planters must rely upon the natural increase of
the black population which would accelerate under good treatment. If,
said he, that population decreases, it can be only from ill treatment.
If it is increasing, there is no need for a trade which involves a
frightful loss of life both on sea and in the process of “seasoning”
the human freitage in the West Indies.
Adverting to the Act of 1750, which was claimed as authorizing the
trade, Pitt proved from its wording that the supply of negroes for our
colonies was then deemed to be essential, and that a clause of it,
which was continually violated, expressly forbade the use of fraud or
violence in the procuring of the cargo. But, even if that law rendered
the trade legal, had any Legislature a right to sanction fraud and
violence? As well might a man think himself bound by a promise to
commit murder. He next scouted the argument that, if we gave up the
trade, other peoples would rush in and take our place. Would France,
now that she had abolished slavery? Would Denmark, seeing that she had
resolved gradually to abolish the trade? As to other lands, it was more
probable that they would follow the example soon to be set by this land.
Having traversed the statements of opponents, Pitt raised the whole
question to a higher level by reminding the House of the export of
slaves from Britain to Rome, and by reconstructing with mordant
irony the arguments of Roman senators on its behalf, as a legitimate
and useful device for using the surplus population of a hopelessly
barbarous people. Warming to his theme, he thrilled his hearers by
contrasting the state of these islands, had they continued to supply
the Roman slave-mart, with the freedom, happiness, and civilization
that now were their lot. He besought members, as they valued these
blessings, to see to it that they were extended to Africa; and,
catching inspiration from the rays of the sun which now lit up the
Hall, he pictured the natives of Africa in some not distant future
“engaged in the calm occupations of industry, in the pursuits of a
just and legitimate commerce. We may behold the beams of science and
philosophy breaking in upon their land, which, at some happy period
in still later times may blaze with full lustre; and, joining their
influence to that of pure religion, may illuminate and invigorate the
most distant extremities of that immense Continent. Then may we hope
that even Africa, though last of all the quarters of the globe, shall
enjoy at length in the evening of her days, those blessings which have
descended so plentifully upon us in a much earlier period of the world.
Then also will Europe, participating in her improvement and prosperity,
receive an ample recompense for the tardy kindness (if kindness it
can be called) of no longer hindering that Continent from extricating
herself out of the darkness, which, in other more fortunate regions,
has been so much more speedily dispelled:
Nos ... primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis,
Illic sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.”[765]
Continuing in this lofty strain, in which enthusiasm and learning,
reason and art, voice and gestures, enforced the pleadings of a noble
nature, he avowed his faith in the cause of immediate abolition of
the Slave Trade. The House thought otherwise. By 192 votes to 125 it
accepted Dundas’s amendment in favour of gradual abolition.[766] So
far do the dictates of self-interest outweigh with many men those of
righteousness and mercy, even when these are reinforced by the most
moving appeals. Fox, Grey, and Windham agreed that Pitt’s speech was
one of the most extraordinary displays of eloquence ever heard. If such
was the opinion of opponents, we may imagine the impression produced
on friends. Wilberforce declared that the speaker was as if inspired
when he spoke of the hope of civilizing Africa--a topic which he
(Wilberforce) had suggested to him on the previous morning.[767]
* * * * *
The outcome was not wholly disappointing. Three weeks later Dundas
brought forward his resolutions for a gradual abolition of the trade.
Wilberforce and Pitt failed to induce the House to fix 1st January
1795; but they carried it with them for 1st January 1796, though Dundas
proposed a date four years later. The House of Lords, however, in
deference to the speeches of the Duke of Clarence, and Lords Hawkesbury
and Thurlow, proceeded to involve the whole question in uncertainty by
deciding to hear the evidence on it at their own bar (8th May, 1792).
Some votes were decided by Thurlow’s asseveration that this would
not involve delay. The Archbishop of Canterbury soon came to see his
mistake; and after a sleepless night he wrote on 9th May to Pitt that
he was tortured by doubts as to the outcome of the affair. “My vote was
given under a strong impression from the Chancellor’s solemn statement
that an examination before a committee of the whole House would not be
a cause of delay.... My conviction of the necessity of the abolition of
the horrid trade is firm and unshaken.” He adds that he will explain
his vote on the first possible occasion, and hopes that Pitt will show
this letter to Grenville and Wilberforce.[768]
The Archbishop ought to have known that, with Thurlow, solemnity was
often the cloak of maliciousness. It was so now. The examination of
witnesses proceeded very slowly. On 5th June, after hearing only five
of them, the Lords decided to postpone the hearing of others until the
following year.[769] The dismissal of Thurlow, which (as we see in a
later chapter) followed on 15th June 1792, was due in the last instance
to his pert censures of Pitt’s finance; but it may be ascribed also to
his acrimonious opposition to Pitt on the question of abolition, and to
his underhand means of defeating him in the House of Lords.
Other events also seemed to tell against the philanthropists. The
connection of some of them with the Radical clubs, and their use of
addresses and petitions to overbear the opposition in Parliament
clearly made a bad impression on Pitt. After issuing the royal
proclamation against seditious writings in May 1792 he showed his
disapproval of their methods; and during the subsequent negotiations
for a union with the moderate Whigs, in order to form a truly national
administration, he confessed to Loughborough that he must make some
concession to the Whig Houses on the question of abolition.[770] This
is the first clear sign of his intention to shelve the measure until
the return of more settled times.
They were not to come for wellnigh a decade. The declaration of war
by the French Republic on 1st February 1793 turned men’s minds away
from philanthropy to destruction. The results were soon visible. A
measure proposed by Wilberforce, to prohibit the supply to foreigners
of slaves in British ships, failed to pass the Commons, despite the
able speeches of Pitt, Fox, and Francis in its favour (5th June 1793).
In the Lords meanwhile the Duke of Clarence (the future William IV)
spoke against the original proposal with great bitterness, denouncing
the abolitionists as fanatics and hypocrites, and expressly naming
Wilberforce among them. This insolence was far from meeting with the
chastisement that it deserved; but his words were taken as a sign that
the royal family was pledged to the support of the odious traffic.
It may be well to notice here a remarkable effort of the chief
abolitionists, and to add a few words about the men themselves. Early
in the year 1791 some of them sought to show that under favourable
conditions negroes were capable of self-government. Accordingly they
formed a Sierra Leone Committee for the purpose of settling liberated
slaves on that part of the coast of West Africa. In the Pitt Papers is
a letter of 18th April 1791, from the first overseer, Falconbridge,
to Granville Sharp, which the latter forwarded to Pitt, giving a
heartrending account of the state of the thirty-six men and twenty
women who formed the settlement. Fevers and ulcers were rife. Outrages
by white men had made the tribes defiant, and a native chief hard by
was far from friendly. Falconbridge adds: “That lump of deformity, the
Slave Trade, has so debauched the minds of the natives that they are
lost to every principle of honor and honesty. The scenes of iniquity
and murder I daily hear of, occasioned by this damnable traffic, make
my nature revolt.” He had named the bay and village Granville Bay and
Town; but, as the latter was already overgrown with bushes, he was
planting another at Fora Bay. He concludes--“For God’s sake send me a
ship of force (warship).”[771] Such were the feeble beginnings of a
colony of which Zachary Macaulay was to be the first Governor.
Here, as in other parts of this philanthropic movement, Pitt displayed
little or no initiative. To the cause of abolition he gave the support
of his eloquence and his influence in Parliament; but he gave no
decided lead in these and cognate efforts, a fact which somewhat
detracts from his greatness as a statesman in this formative period.
The merit of starting the movement and of utilizing new openings
belongs to the Quakers, to Granville Sharp, Clarkson, Wilberforce and
his friends. The member for Yorkshire had grouped around him at his
abode, Broomfield, Clapham Common, or at his town house in Palace Yard,
Westminster, a number of zealous workers, among whom Henry Thornton,
James Stephen (his brother-in-law), Thomas Babington, and Zachary
Macaulay were prominent. His chief correspondents were Dr. Milner (Dean
of Carlisle), Lord Muncaster, Sir Charles Middleton, Rev. John Newton,
and Hannah More. With these and other members of the Abolitionist
Society he was in constant touch; and their zeal for social reform and
for the evangelical creed (which led to his Clapham circle being styled
the “Clapham Sect”) led to great results. In the religious sphere
Wilberforce and his friends were largely instrumental in founding the
Church Missionary Society (1798) and the Bible Society (1803). Their
efforts on behalf of the poor and the mitigation of the barbarous penal
code (a matter ever associated with the name of Romilly) were also to
bear good fruit.
For the present all their efforts against the Slave Trade seemed to
be in vain. It was pressed on feverishly in the year 1792. Between
5th January and 4th May of that year there sailed from London 8 slave
ships, from Bristol 11, from Liverpool 39. The total tonnage was 11,195
tons. Another official return among the Pitt Papers (No. 310) gives the
following numbers of slaves taken in British ships from West Africa to
the West Indies in the years 1789 to 1795 (the figures for 1790 are
wanting):
-------+---------------+--------------------
YEAR. | SLAVES TAKEN. | DIED ON THE VOYAGE.
-------+---------------+--------------------
1789 | 11,014 | 1,053
1791 | 15,108 | 1,397
1792 | 26,971 | 2,468
1793 | 11,720 | 869
1794 | 14,611 | 394
1795 | 7,157 | 224
-------+---------------+--------------------
Total | 86,581 | 6,405
-------+---------------+--------------------
These figures suggest a reason for the falling off of interest in
the question after 1792. The trade seemed to be falling off; and the
mortality at sea declined as the cargo was less closely packed. This,
however, was but a poor argument for not abolishing a trade which was
inherently cruel and might revive with the return of peace. In 1794 the
Commons seemed friendly to abolition. Pitt, Fox, Whitbread, and other
friends of the cause pleaded successfully on behalf of Wilberforce’s
Bill of the previous year. Once more, however, the influence of the
Duke of Clarence, Thurlow, and Lord Abingdon availed to defeat the
proposal. Grenville also voted against it as being premature. The Lords
proceeded to illustrate the sincerity of their desire for further
information on the topic by shelving the whole inquiry.
A sense of despair now began to creep over many friends of the
movement. If abolitionist motions could only just pass the Commons, to
be at once rejected by the Lords, what hope was there for the slaves?
Their cause was further overclouded by the sharp disagreement of
Wilberforce and Pitt respecting the war with France. As we shall see in
a later chapter, Pitt and the majority of his supporters, together with
the Old Whigs, believed that the war must go on until a solid peace
could be obtained. Wilberforce and many of the abolitionists thought
otherwise. During the latter part of the year 1794 and the first weeks
of 1795 the two friends were scarcely on speaking terms; but even
during that sad time Pitt wrote to Wilberforce (26th December 1794):
“Nothing has happened to add either to my hopes or fears respecting
the Slave Question with a view to the issue of it in the next session,
but I think the turn things take in France may be favourable to the
ultimate abolition.” Pitt spoke powerfully against Dundas’s amendment
in favour of gradual abolition at some time after the conclusion of
the war; but these procrastinating tactics carried the day by 78 to 61
(26th February 1795).
In the following year matters at first seemed more hopeful. Twice
did Pitt and Wilberforce beat the supporters of the trade by fair
majorities; but on the third reading of the Abolition Bill it was
lost by four votes. Wilberforce noted indignantly that enough of its
supporters were at the Opera to have turned the scale. The same apathy
characterized the session of 1797, when the mutinies in the fleet and
the sharp financial crisis told heavily against a measure certain to
entail some losses in shipping and colonial circles. At this time Pitt
seems to have lost heart in the matter. This appeared in his attitude
towards a plausible but insidious proposal, that the Governors of
Colonies should be directed to recommend the local Assemblies to adopt
measures which would improve the lot of the negroes and thus prepare
the way for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Than this nothing could
be more futile; for the Governors and Assemblies were known to desire
the continuance of the trade. Yet Pitt urged Wilberforce to accept the
motion if it were modified; but, on Wilberforce refusing, he “stood
stiffly by him.” They were beaten by a majority of thirty-six--a proof
that the House wished to postpone abolition to the distant future.[772]
The negotiations for peace with France, which went on at Lille during
the summer of that year, offered an opportunity for including a mutual
guarantee of the two Powers that they would abolish the Slave Trade.
Pitt seems to have disapproved of introducing this question into the
discussions, either from a fear of complicating them, or from a belief
that it would be treated better after the conclusion of peace.[773] His
reluctance was misconstrued by Wilberforce, who sent him the following
letter:
Hull, August 1, 1797.[774]
... I am afraid the negotiation is not in such a state as to render
the idea I started of negotiating unconditionally for the abolition
of the Slave Trade a practical question very necessary to be just
now discussed. But if the negotiation should wear a more promising
aspect, let me beg you seriously to weigh the matter. Dundas is
friendly to the notion, as indeed I must do him, and myself too,
the justice to say that I believe he would. Grenville ought to be
so, and all the rest except Lord Liverpool are either neutral or
friendly. I must honestly say, I never was so much hurt since I
knew you as at your not receiving and encouraging this proposal,
which even Lord Liverpool himself ought to have approved on the
ground on which he used to oppose.[775] Do, my dear Pitt, I entreat
you reconsider the matter. I am persuaded of your zeal in this
cause, when, amidst the multitude of matters which force themselves
on you more pressingly, it can obtain a hearing; but I regret that
you have so been drawn off from it. Indeed regret is a very poor
term to express what I feel on this subject. Excuse this, from the
fulness of my heart, which I have often kept down with difficulty
and grief.
My dear Pitt let me intreat you, as I see another bishop is dead,
to consider well whom you appoint. I am persuaded that if the
clergy could be brought to know and to do their duty, both the
religious and civil state of this country would receive a principle
of life.
The rupture of the Lille negotiation by the French falsified these
hopes and served to justify Pitt for not weighting it with a
contentious proposal. But for the present at least, he had lost hope
in the cause. It is true that he always spoke strongly on its behalf
during the ensuing efforts put forth by Wilberforce.[776] But the
buoyancy of his belief was gone, and some even of his friends accused
him of apathy.[777] This is probably unjust. A man may believe firmly
in a measure, and yet be convinced that it cannot pass under present
conditions. In that case he will do his best, but his efforts will be
those of an overburdened horse unable to master the load.
More than once he annoyed Wilberforce by preventing a useless
discussion of the question.[778] Insinuations of insincerity were
therefore hurled at Pitt. Indeed they seem to have gained wide
credence. We find his young admirer, Canning, writing at Brooksby,
near Leicester, on 15th December 1799, that very many friends doubted
whether he now desired to carry abolition, while some even commended
his prudence in doing less than he professed in the matter. Canning
found it far from easy to eradicate this notion from the minds of his
hosts, the Ellises, by informing them of the object of a secret mission
to the West Indies then undertaken by Smith.[779]
* * * * *
It may be well to postpone to a later chapter the question of Pitt’s
attitude towards abolition in his second Ministry, that of 1804–6. But
we may notice here certain criticisms which apply mainly, of course,
to the years 1788–1800. He has been censured for not making abolition
a Cabinet question.[780] But how could he do so when the majority
of Ministers opposed it? For a short time only the Duke of Richmond
and he favoured abolition. The substitution of Grenville for Sydney
strengthened his hands; but even then he was in a minority in the
Cabinet on this question. Further, the House of Lords consistently,
and by increasing majorities, scouted the measure; and the House of
Commons, even under the spell of Pitt’s eloquence, refused to decree
immediate abolition, and that, too, before the shadow of the great
war shrouded the whole subject in disastrous eclipse. After the last
year of peace of Pitt’s ministerial career, other considerations came
uppermost. The need of keeping up the mercantile marine, both as a
source of wealth and as a nursery for the royal navy, cooled the zeal
of many friends of the movement. Windham opposed it in a manner that
earned him the title of Machiavelli. Others also fell away; and even
the eloquence of young Canning on its behalf did not make up for
defections. The better class of West India planters and merchants
tacitly agreed to the limitation of the Slave Trade; and with this
prospect in view many friends of the cause relaxed their efforts.
Further, when the King, a decided majority both in the Cabinet and
in the House of Lords, and a wavering majority in the Commons, were
unchangeably opposed to immediate abolition, what could a Minister
do? The ordinary course of conduct, resignation, would have availed
nothing. As nearly all the Ministerial bench disliked the proposal, no
coherent Cabinet could have been formed. True, a Ministry composed of
Pitt, Grenville, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, and Wilberforce might perhaps
have forced the measure through the Commons (to see it fail in the
Lords); but so monstrous a coalition could scarcely have seen the
light; certainly it could not have lived amid the storms of the war.
Besides, the first duty of a Minister after 1792 was to secure for
his country the boon of a solid peace. As we shall see, that was ever
Pitt’s aim; and grief at seeing it constantly elude his grasp finally
cost him his life. Further, the assumption that he could have coerced
the members of his Cabinet because they differed from him on this
question is untenable. He was able to secure the retirement of Sydney
because he was not highly efficient, and of Thurlow on the ground
of contumacy. But to compel useful and almost necessary Ministers
like Dundas or Camden to retire, when the majority in both Houses
agreed with them, would have set at defiance all the traditions of
parliamentary life.
The criticisms noticed above are based on the assumption that Pitt
was all-powerful and could bend the Cabinet and Parliament to his
will. This is an exaggeration. Where, as in the case of pocket
boroughs and the Slave Trade, members felt their interests at stake,
they somnolently resisted the charms of his oratory and trooped
into the opposite lobby. The British people is slow to realize its
responsibilities, but in the end it responds to them; and in these
years of defeat at Westminster the efforts of Clarkson, Granville
Sharp, and others spread abroad convictions which were to assure an
ultimate triumph.
The failure of Pitt to carry the abolition of the Slave Trade or
materially to improve the condition of the negroes was to have a
sinister influence on our position in the West Indies. While the slave
owners and shippers and their friends at Westminster refused to budge
an inch, the French Jacobins eagerly rushed forward and proclaimed the
equality of all mankind. Therefore early in the course of the Great War
the slaves rallied to the tricolour; and Toussaint l’Ouverture, the
ablest of negro leaders, enthusiastically marshalled their levies in
Hayti for the overthrow of British rule. In a later chapter we shall
trace the disastrous sequel. Colonel (afterwards Sir John) Moore noted
in his Diary that the negroes were for the most part fanatical for
liberty; and, after committing deeds of desperation in its name, died
defiantly with the cry _Vive la République_ on their lips.[781] Here
we touch on one of the chief causes for the frightful waste of British
troops in the West Indies. With discontent rife in our own colonies,
the struggle against the blacks, especially in Hayti, placed on our
men a strain unendurable in that pestilential climate. The Hon. J. W.
Fortescue, the historian of the British Army, estimates its total
losses in the West Indies during the war of 1793–1802 as not far short
of 100,000 men. Whatever the total may be, it is certain that at least
half of that woeful sacrifice resulted from the crass stupidity and
brutal selfishness displayed by mercantile and colonial circles on this
question.
* * * * *
In the last four chapters we have taken a survey of questions of
great interest in British and colonial history, and have therefore
interrupted the story of Pitt’s dealings with continental affairs.
It is time now to recur to events of world-wide import, namely, the
ambitious schemes of the Sovereigns of the East and the great popular
upheaval in France.