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