It would be endless, he said, to go into all the cases which would manifest the impolicy of this odious traffic. Inhuman as it was, unjust as it was, he believed it to be equally impolitic; and if their lordships should be of this opinion also, he hoped they would agree to that part of the resolution in which these truths were expressed. With respect to the other part of it, or that they would proceed to abolish the trade, he observed, that neither the time nor the manner of doing it were specified. Hence, if any of them should differ as to these particulars, they might yet vote for the resolution, as they were not pledged to anything definite in these respects, provided they thought that the trade should be abolished at some time or other; and he did not believe that there was any one of them who would sanction its continuance forever.
Lord Hawkesbury said that he did not mean to discuss the question on the ground of justice and humanity, as contradistinguished from sound policy. If it could fairly be made out that the African slave-trade was contrary to justice and humanity, it ought to be abolished. It did not, however, follow because a great evil existed, that therefore it should be removed; for it might be comparatively a less evil than that which would accompany the attempt to remove it. The noble lord who had just spoken, had exemplified this; for, though slavery was a great evil in itself, he was of opinion that it could not be done away but in a course of time.
The Bishop of London (Dr. Porteus) began by noticing the concession of the last speaker, namely, that if the trade was contrary to humanity and justice, it ought to be abolished. lie expected, he said, that the noble lord would have proved that it was not contrary to these great principles, before he had supported its continuance; but not a word had he said to show that the basis of the resolution in these respects was false. It followed, then, he thought, that as the noble lord had not disproved the premises, he was bound to abide by the conclusion.
The lord chancellor (Erskine) confessed that he was not satisfied with his own conduct on this subject. He acknowledged, with deep contrition, that during the time he was a member of the other house, he had not once attended when this great question was discussed.
In the West Indies he could say personally, that the slaves were well treated, where he had an opportunity of seeing them. But no judgment was to be formed there with respect to the evils complained of. They must be appreciated as they existed in the trade. Of these he had also been an eye-witness. It was on this account that he felt contrition for not having attended the house on this subject; for there were some cruelties in this traffic which the human imagination could not aggravate. He had witnessed such scenes over the whole coast of Africa; and he could say, that if their lordships could only have a sudden glimpse of them, they would be struck with horror, and would be astonished that they could ever have been permitted to exist. What, then, would they say to their continuance year after year, and from age to age?
From information which he could not dispute, he was warranted in saying that on this continent husbands were fraudulently and forcibly severed from
