is not only because the gradual Abolitionists have been, in fact, the
only real stay of that system of wickedness and cruelty which we wish to
abolish; though that assertion is unquestionably true; but it is trying
beyond expression that they should be the real maintainers of the Slave
Trade, who reprobate it in terms of detestation as strong as any which
we ourselves can utter. Nor do I mean (the declaration is made with
solemnity and truth) that these expressions are not sincere. If they
were not proved to be so by the general character of those who use them,
my personal knowledge of some of them, and the esteem and regard I
entertain for them, excludes the contrary supposition. Yet I cannot but
believe, that, could they have clearly foreseen what would be the
practical effect of their opposition, it would not have been continued
for an hour.
Let them now, however, remember the grounds and principles on which they
resisted our measure; that they themselves stated the question to be
only between two different modes of abolishing the Slave Trade. They
alleged, indeed, with others, the difficulty of preventing Slaves being
illicitly imported into the colonies; but this was obviously an evil
which never could prevail to any great extent, nor did they lay any
considerable stress on it. Abjuring the most remote idea of contending
for the interminable continuance of the Slave Trade, the utmost they
asked was, that a short respite should be granted. The year 1800 was
afterwards specifically named; the West Indians would be able, in the
interval, to fill up their vacancies, to complete their gangs; in short,
to improve their population, so as to be prepared to meet the new order
of things.
But the gradual Abolitionists chiefly urged, that we were too hasty and
violent, and that by our precipitancy we should defeat our own purpose.
For, without the concurrence of the colonial legislatures, it was
alleged, we could not carry our measure into effect; they advised that
time, therefore, should be allowed for softening the prejudices and
cooling the warmth of the colonists.
What has followed since that period? The Slave Trade, instead of eight,
has now lasted fourteen years. Far more time, therefore, has been
allowed the Planters for completing their gangs, than was originally
proposed by any one who did not avow himself a friend to the perpetuity
of the Slave Trade. A far greater number of Slaves, also, than was then
in any one’s contemplation, has since been imported. So far, therefore,
the Islands are better prepared for the measure.
But above all, it is now clear that we must abandon all hopes of
bringing the colonial legislatures to consent cheerfully to the
termination of the Slave Trade. Was it possible for the proposition to
come before them, not only in a more acceptable form, but with a more
gradual approach; and, if I may so say, at the end of a longer visto,
than when it was presented to their notice by some of the most
respectable of their own body, by men who had uniformly opposed the
abolition in the British Parliament, and when they had, therefore, every
reason to believe that the importation of Slaves would never be actually
stopped until the measures, which were to make that importation no
longer necessary, should have had, according to their own report, an
effect so complete and satisfactory as to render the abolition no longer
in the least objectionable; yet so strong are the prejudices of the
colonists, that, even in answer to this communication, they frankly
declared against abolition at any time and in any form. They intimate
plainly that they look forward to the complete settlement of all the
cultivable but now waste land throughout the whole of our West Indian
islands.
Supposing, therefore, that the gradual Abolitionists even still retain
their original opinion, that the concurrence of the Colonists is
necessary to our complete success, yet considering the immense
magnitude, as acknowledged by themselves, of the evil which all this
time has been going on with even increased ravages; would it not be fair
that they should now, at least, consent to try the effect of our less
satisfactory measure? Would not this be the mode of conduct pursued by
men in all the common affairs of life, when really interested for the
accomplishment of any object? Supposing them to labour under some
painful or dangerous disease, which was making havoc of their
constitution, and wearing them down with excruciating torture, and that
a particular plan of treatment should be proposed to them; supposing
that, (though the plan should be recommended by various medical men of
the most acknowledged superiority of skill, who, though often differing,
entirely agreed in this particular, and prescribed with the most
sanguine confidence) they should yet fear the plan would not answer,
perhaps that it was in some way or other impracticable; supposing them
also to prefer a second plan, recommended by some other practitioner;
yet if there appeared to be in the way of the adoption of this second
plan some practical obstacle which they could not remove, Would they
suffer the disease to go on with its ravages, rather than adopt the
first plan, from which they might not themselves expect much benefit,
but which might yet be preferable to doing nothing at all?
But supposing, to make the case more nearly parallel, that the disease
was to have continued for many years; that the proposers of the first
plan had declared from the very first, that the second plan could not be
carried into execution; that time and other circumstances had proved the
truth of their prediction as to the past, and that, to say the least,
the prospect was not brighter for the future; would not a man thus
circumstanced be disposed at least to suspend his opposition, and, if he
could not give the plan, which he still feared would be ineffectual, his
active support, yet would he not at least cease to obstruct the trial of
it, when at the utmost he could only object that he feared that the
impracticability would be found to attach to the first plan, which had
been proved by experience to belong to the second?
Are we not in public life continually compelled to act on the principle
of embracing the measure which we do not, in itself, judge to be near so
eligible as another, which, from it’s not appearing to others in the
same light as to us, is practically unattainable? And was there ever an
instance, if such an one can possibly exist, in which this mode of
proceeding was so imperiously enforced on us as in the present, when we
consider to what an extent the work of death is every year going on in
Africa: for here it may be truly said, _Deliberat Roma, perit Saguntum_.
Were I not convinced that the objection against which I have been here
contending was urged by men of fair and honourable minds, I should not
have entered so largely into this discussion. But with that persuasion,
I cannot but indulge the hope, that even though their original objection
may appear to them to retain all it’s force, they will at least not
obstruct the trial of a measure which pleads the authority of such
respectable names, and which affords the only practical hope, though
they may think it but a faint hope, of putting an end to a system, which
every year that it lasts is producing, as they affirm not less than we
do, an almost incalculable amount of misery.
Let me also remind these gentlemen, that if we immediate Abolitionists
conceive them, the gradual Abolitionists, to be, though unintentionally,
the real practical friends and supporters of the Slave Trade, we at
least are not the only persons who hold that opinion. The West Indians,
who frankly declare they never can consent to the abolition, nay even
the Slave Traders themselves, evidently shew that they conceive these
gradual Abolitionists to be their real adherents. Against them ought to
have been directed the serious opposition of our African and West Indian
opponents, while we were mere objects of derision and contempt. We were
a set of well-meaning visionaries, who were proposing what, even if
carried into effect, would be found utterly impracticable. Whereas they
were men of sound practical understanding, who had wisdom to devise
effectual measures for executing all which their virtue might suggest.
This is not urged with levity, it is seriously and earnestly pressed.
Nor is it a statement without instruction. It has often been justly
urged, that we may collect much as to the character of any man, or the
tendency of any measure, by observing them not only in themselves, but,
when that investigation is difficult and doubtful, by observing who are
their enemies and who are their friends. Tried by this principle at
least, we know what judgment would be passed on the gradual
Abolitionists.
[Sidenote: Slave Trade injurious to our Marine.]
Another argument which, especially in the outset of the discussion, was
strongly, and with great confidence, urged against us by our opponents,
was, that the African Trade is a nursery for seamen; and that its
abolition would therefore be highly injurious to our naval strength.
This part of the subject was very early taken up by Mr. Clarkson, a
gentleman whose services, throughout the whole conduct of this great
cause, deserve the highest commendation. He asserted, as the result of a
long and laborious inquiry, that of the sailors employed in the African
Trade, between a fifth and a sixth actually died; and that the African
ships seldom brought home more than half of their original crews.
Nothing was more vehemently repelled, or more obstinately denied, than
these positions, till, at length, having long borne with these clamorous
contradictions, the muster rolls of the African ships were moved for and
laid before Parliament; documents which had been kept in the possession
of our opponents, and which cannot therefore be supposed to have been
fabricated or coloured to serve our purpose.
From these papers Mr. Clarkson’s calculations were fully justified. It
appeared, that of 12,263 persons, the number of the original crews,
there had died 2,643, the average length of their voyages being twelve
months; whilst, on the contrary, in the West Indian trade, in which the
length of the voyage was seven months, of 7,640, the number of the
original crews, there had died only 118. But the loss by deaths was not
the whole loss to the country; for, besides the broken constitutions of
the survivors, which rendered many of them, for the rest of their lives,
incapable of the duties of their profession, so many left their ships in
consequence of ill usage, that they seldom brought home more than half
the persons they had taken out. This last circumstance was attempted to
be accounted for, from the natural capriciousness of sailors; and it was
said, that they ran away in as great number from the West India as from
the Guinea ships. The direct contrary appeared from the muster rolls,
and this too, though, from the different ways of paying them in the two
trades, their forfeiting little or nothing by quitting the West
Indiamen, but much by quitting the Guineamen, the reverse might have
been naturally expected. Much more might be said on this subject.
Especially, such scenes of cruelty towards those unhappy men might be
opened to your view, as would excite at once the concern and indignation
of every man, who feels for that class of his fellow-citizens to which
this nation owes so much both of her security, her affluence, and her
glory.
The evidence taken before the House of Commons contains but too many
humiliating instances of this kind; and in consequence we find the most
respectable naval commanders acknowledging that the Slave Trade is no
nursery of seamen. This truth was even frankly confessed by a Noble
Admiral on whose general testimony our opponents set the highest value.
But I will quit the present topic, only remarking, that as at the outset
of the discussion none of our assertions was more strongly controverted
than that concerning the loss of seamen, which can now be no longer
denied, we may hence claim some credit on those points which are still
in dispute. The incident shows at least that it is not necessary that
our opponents should be correct in order to be positive.
[Sidenote: Another objection to abolition:—if we should abolish, foreign
nations would still carry on the trade.]
Again, great stress was laid on the consideration, that were Great
Britain to desist from the Slave Trade, other nations would still
continue it, and that the trade would not therefore cease to exist. The
only difference would be, that the trade which formerly we had ourselves
carried on, would henceforth be carried on by others; and how would
Africa, how would the cause of humanity, be hereby a gainer? To this
argument, many answers were returned. But before I proceed to state
them, can I forbear remarking, that there would have been no place for
such an argument as this, but for that fashionable though pernicious
doctrine of the present day, that we are to regulate our practice by
considerations of expediency, that vague, fluctuating, and often vicious
instructress, instead of the sound, plain, and immutable dictates of
justice. It is self-evident, that by stopping the importation into our
own colonies, we destroy a large proportion at least of the evil.
During the continuance of the war, all the Dutch, and some of the French
colonies, being in our hands, the supply to such of the French as are
still unconquered being stopped, that of the Spanish being much
interrupted, and the Portuguese settlements also deriving their supply
from the more southern part of the Slave coast, the whole of that vast
region which constitutes what may be called the solid substance of the
African continent, would be almost entirely exempt from the ravages of
the Slave Trade. Nor is this temporary abolition desirable, merely in
the view of its affording to that wretched country a short breathing
time from her miseries. If the war should be of any duration, we may
hope, that the Africans may form new habits, and, having adopted less
guilty expedients for obtaining the commodities with which they are
supplied by the Europeans, may, in some parts at least of the coast, not
resume the traffic in human beings, when the war shall be at an end.
All that could be said concerning the future conduct in this relation,
of France, Spain, and Portugal, must be mere speculation. But, let us
ask, in regard to those several nations, Where is the capital to be
found? Surely whatever might have been alleged formerly concerning the
possibility of British capital being transported into foreign countries
for this use, it will scarcely now be urged; it will surely at least not
be credited, that in the present state of the continent, any British
subjects will be mad enough, let their strange and unnatural craving
after this trade in flesh and blood be ever so importunate, to trust
their capital in the way which this argument supposes, out of the only
country in which either person or property can now be deemed secure.
We ought also to observe, that in both the Spanish and Portuguese
colonies, the Slaves are far better treated, and the breeding system
much more encouraged, than in those of the other European nations. There
is in them also far less of the spirit of commercial speculation and
enterprize than in our own. Denmark has long since shewn her willingness
to abandon the Slave Trade, and private information confirms the
supposition which the circumstances of the case suggest, that her not
having yet carried into full effect her declared resolution, that the
human traffic should cease with the year 1800, may fairly be ascribed to
our conduct and example.
The United States of America were absolutely precluded, by a fundamental
article of the confederation, from abolishing the Slave Trade before
1808, by any general law operating over the whole of the union. But it
was one of the first acts of all, except I believe one, of the
individual states of which the union consists, to abolish this traffic;
and when a law was lately passed in South Carolina, allowing the
importation of Slaves, Congress shewed its sense of the transaction by
imposing on the importation of Slaves into South Carolina itself, the
highest duty which the constitution permits. The importation of Slaves
also into Louisiana was entirely prohibited. All these are strong
indications of a disposition in the Government of the United States to
abolish the Slave Trade; and they confirm the assurance which has been
received from the best informed gentlemen of that country, that in 1808,
when Congress will have a clear right to put an end to that traffic, it
will not be allowed the respite of an hour.[48]
So far for the Slaves which are exported westward from the coast of
Africa. As to the supply which is sent to the countries east of Africa,
it has long been comparatively trifling in amount; and by far the larger
part of those immense regions which furnish the European exports, are
too distant to allow of Slaves being carried out of them eastward to a
profit.
But may we not be allowed to assume a higher tone, and to ask, if this
practice, though by a strange perversion of words it is called the Slave
Trade, ought indisputably to be considered as a most enormous crime,
rather than a commerce, is it not clearly our own duty to abstain from
it, and to prohibit and to punish the perpetration of it by our own
subjects, however it may still prevail in other countries?
It might serve to discover the monstrous tendencies of this argument, to
those whose moral principle is so dull and dark as not instinctively to
reject it, to consider to what lengths it might fairly carry them: for
why might it not equally be alleged as a sufficient plea for performing
every other act of profitable wickedness, which we might conceive,
though perhaps unjustly, would be performed by others if not by
ourselves. Let any one consider what would be the consequences of
admitting such a principle into the intercourse of nations.
Is this, then, a principle to which we will give our solemn sanction,
unless we mean fairly to avow that we have one set of religious and
moral principles for Africa, and another for the rest of the world?
Apply the principle to private life, and consider what would be its
consequences. But there happily the law of the land would soon interfere
to check its application. And here, indeed, from first to last, is our
misfortune in this whole business of the Slave Trade; that the
practices, for the abolition of which we are contending, are such, as by
the laws of every civilized community are punishable with death; but,
unhappily, there is no tribunal (no earthly tribunal) to which the
criminals are amenable. And is this a time above all others, and are the
present circumstances of nations precisely those in which such a
principle of conduct becomes the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain?
Or, if the reproach which has been cast against us be really true, and
we are only to be moved by an appeal to our self-interest, is this a
time when it is politic or even safe to avow such a principle, and to
inculcate such a lesson?
But how, it was indignantly asked, could this enormous evil be ever
eradicated, if every nation were thus prudentially to wait till the
concurrence of all other nations should be obtained? Let it also be
remembered that, on the one hand, no nation has plunged so deeply into
this guilt as Great Britain; on the other, that none could be so likely
to be looked up to as an example, if she should be the first decidedly
to renounce it.
But does not this very argument, grounded on the probable conduct of
other nations, apply a thousand times more strongly in a contrary
direction? How much more reasonably might other nations point to us, and
say, Why should we abolish the Slave Trade, when Great Britain has not
abolished? Great Britain, free, just, and honourable as she is, deeply
also involved as she is in this commerce above all other nations, not
only has not abolished, but has refused to abolish! (This was the
language of a great man, many years ago). Alas! it may now be added, and
after even at length resolving to abolish, has receded from her
resolution!
A long and scrutinizing inquiry has taken place, the subject has been
thoroughly canvassed. Her Senate has deliberated again and again; and
what is the result? She has gravely and solemnly determined to sanction
the Slave Trade. Her Legislature therefore is doubtless convinced that
it has been falsely charged with injustice, cruelty, and impolicy. What
need then have we to look any further? Why should we examine or
deliberate? What more satisfactory proofs could our own investigation
bring forth, of the justice and policy of the Slave Trade?
Thus, then, it would appear, on a more impartial view, that, instead of
being justified in our continuing to prosecute the Slave Trade, by the
probability that other nations would still carry it on, we with but too
much colour of reason may be charged with being, if not the authors, yet
at least the confirmers of their disposition to persevere in it; and to
our account may at last appear to be in a great measure imputable the
entire mass of the guilt of this enormous wickedness. We cannot, it is
to be feared, now undo all the evil which our misconduct has occasioned;
but, as we have long been foremost in the crime, let us, however
tardily, endeavour to be at length exemplary in our repentance.
[Sidenote: Slave Trade supported on grounds of justice.]
Of all the sources whence arguments could be drawn in support of the
Slave Trade, that of justice would perhaps least have been anticipated
by those who have seen how from first to last it sets at nought the
rights and happiness of our fellow creatures. The argument was put,
however, with some plausibility, so as on a very superficial view to
appear to have a faint colour of equity. It was argued, that we had
encouraged the West Indians to engage in colonial speculations; that
these speculations could not be carried on without supplies from time to
time of African labourers; that therefore, to prohibit the importation
of Negroes, was to ensure the failure of those very speculations into
which we had encouraged the West Indians to embark.
It was a sufficient reply, that if the West Indians would but reform the
glaring abuses of their system of management, abuses to which not only
every humane but every just mind must be anxious to put an end;
importations of Slaves from Africa would be rendered perfectly
unnecessary, by the natural increase of their domestic stock; while from
the stopping of these importations, various and highly important
advantages would follow, to the West Indians themselves as well as to
the empire at large. But supposing the case to have been otherwise, and
that the West Indians might be likely to suffer in their property from
our abolition of the Slave Trade; the inference suggested by justice, I
say not by self-interest, but by justice, would be, that the West
Indians should be compensated out of the treasury of the mother country,
or rather, that the loss should fall in equal shares on all the several
parties. But for justice to be supposed to inculcate, that because (from
our being ignorant, it is to be hoped, of the real nature and effects of
the Slave Trade) we had been accustomed to ravage the unprotected shores
of Africa, and bring away by force a number of innocent men, women, and
children, to carry them in the hold of a Slave ship in fetters, across
the Atlantic, and consign the survivors and their descendants for ever
to a state of hopeless and most degraded bondage;—to argue, that,
because for two centuries we had pursued this course of wickedness and
cruelty, or because, which is not fact, we had even engaged to continue
it—that we are bound by the obligation of duty to admit the equity of
such a prescription, or to fulfil such an engagement, is certainly a
most extraordinary lesson for justice to be supposed to inculcate.
Supposing us to be the debtors of the West Indians, what right have we,
as was so well urged by my excellent friend, Mr. Gisborne, to pay
British debts with the flesh and blood of Africans? The absurdity of
this argument, not to mention its profane usurpation of the sacred name
of justice, is too manifest to require any further comment.