The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 15
CHAPTER XV.
Parliamentary History. — Slave Trade Rendered Illegal.
The gradual abolition having been thus agreed upon for 1796, by the house of commons, a committee carried the resolution to the house of lords. On the 8th of May, 1792, the lords met to consider it, when a motion was made by Lord Stormont, on the part of the planters, merchants, and other interested persons, to hear new evidence. On the 5th of June, when only seven witnesses had been examined, all further proceedings were postponed to the next session.
Nothing could be more distressing to the friends of the measure than this determination of the lords; first, because there was no knowing how many years they might prolong the hearing of evidence; and secondly, it involved the necessity of finding out and keeping up a respectable body of witnesses on the side of the opponents of the trade. Mr. Clarkson, therefore, set out again in the month of July on his old errand, and returned in February, 1793. The house of commons was then sitting. The only step to be taken was to bring forward its own vote of the former year, by which the slave-trade was to be abolished in 1796, in order that this vote might be reconsidered and renewed. This motion, made by Mr. Wilberforce, was furiously opposed, and lost by a majority of 61 to 53. By this determination the commons actually refused to sanction their own vote. In the house of lords, but seven witnesses were examined during this session.
Mr. Clarkson once more traversed the kingdom in search of witnesses. He returned in February, 1794, but in such a wretched state of health as to be unable to lend any farther assistance to the committee. The incessaut labor of body and mind for so many years, aggravated by anxiety and disappointments, had made a serious inroad upon his constitution. His nervous system had been shattered, — his hearing, voice, and memory were nearly gone. He was therefore obliged, very reluctantly, to be borne out of the field, where he had placed the great honor and glory of his life. Mr. Clarkson says: "These disorders had been brought on by degrees in consequence of the severe labors necessarily attached to the promotion of the cause. For seven years I had a correspondence to maintain with four hundred persons with my own and. I had some book or other annually to write in behalf of the cause. In this time I had traveled more than thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence, and a great part of these journeys in the night. All this time my mind had been on the stretch. It had been bent, too, to this one subject; for I had not even leisure to attend to my own concerns. The various instances of barbarity which had come successively to my knowledge, within this period, had vexed, harassed, and afflicted it. The wound which these had produced was rendered still deeper by those cruel disappointments before related, which arose from the reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony, after I had traveled hundreds of miles in quest of them. But the severest stroke was that inflicted by the persecution begun and pursued by persons interested in the continuance of the trade, of such witnesses as had been examined against them; and whom, on account of their dependent situations in life, it was most easy to oppress. As I had been the means of bringing these forward on these occasions, they naturally came to me, when thus persecuted, as the author of their miseries and their ruin. From their supplications and wants it would have been ungenerous and ungrateful to have fled. The late Mr. Whitbread, to whom one day in deep affliction on this account I related accidentally a circumstance of this kind, generously undertook, in order to make my mind easy upon the subject, to make good all injuries which should in future arise to individuals from such persecution; and he repaired these, at different times, at a considerable expense. I feel it a duty to divulge this circumstance, out of respect to the memory of one of the best of men, and of one whom, if the history of his life were written, it would appear to have been an extraordinary honor to the country to have produced."
In the session of 1195, Mr. Wilberforce moved for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade. The motion was lost by a small majority. In 1796, Mr. Wilberforce resolved to try the question in a new shape. He moved that the trade be abolished in a limited time, but without assigning to its duration any specific date. He wished the house to agree to this as a general principle. After much opposition, the principle was acknowledged; but when, in consequence of this acknowledgment of it, he brought in a bill and attempted to introduce into one of its clauses, the year IT 97, as the period when the trade should cease, he lost it by a majority of 74 to 70. He allowed the next session to pass without any parliamentary notice of the subject, but in 179S he renewed his motion for a limited time, which was lost.
In the year 1799, undismayed by these different disappointments, he again renewed his motion. Colonel M. Wood, Mr. Petrie, and others, among whom were Mr. Windham and Mr. Dundas, opposed it. Messrs. Pitt, Fox, W. Smith, Sir William Dolben, Sir P. Milbank, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Canning, supported it. Sir R. Milbank contended that modifications of a system fundamentally wrong ought not to be tolerated by the legislature of a free nation. Mr. Hobhouse said that nothing could be so nefarious as this traffic in blood. It was unjust in its principle. It was cruel in its practice. It admitted of no regulation whatever. The abolition of it was called for equally by morality and sound policy.
Mr. Canning exposed the folly of Mr. Dundas, who had said that as parliament had in the year 1787 left the abolition to the colonial assemblies, it ought not to be taken out of their hands. This great event, he observed, could only be accomplished in two ways; either by the assemblies, or by the parliament of England. Now the members of the assembly of Jamaica had professed that they would never abolish the trade. Was it not therefore idle to rely upon them for the accomplishment of it? He then took a very comprehensive view of the arguments which had been offered in the course of the debate, and was severe upon the planters in the house, who, he said, had brought into familiar use certain expressions with no other view than to throw a veil over their odious system. Among these was their right to import laborers. But never was the word "laborers" so prostituted as when it was used for slaves. Never was the word "right" so prostituted, not even when The Rights of Man were talked of, as when the right to trade in man's blood was asserted by the members of an enlightened assembly. Never was the right of importing these laborers worse defended than when the antiquity of the slave-trade, and its foundation on ancient acts of parliament, were brought forward in its support. We had been cautioned not to lay our unhallowed hands on the ancient institution of the slave-trade; nor to subvert a fabric raised by the wisdom of our ancestors, and consecrated by a lapse of ages. But on what principles did we usually respect the institutions of antiquity? We respected them when we saw some shadow of departed worth and usefulness, or some memorial of what had been creditable to mankind. But was this the case with the slavetrade? Had it begun in principles of justice or national honor, which the changes of the world alone had impaired? Had it to plead former services and glories in behalf of its present disgrace? In looking at it we saw nothing but crimes and sufferings from the beginning; nothing but what wounded and convulsed our feelings; nothing but what excited indignation and horror. It had not even to plead what could often be said in favor of the most unjustifiable wars. Though conquest had sometimes originated in ambition, and in the worst of motives, yet the conquerors and the conquered were sometimes blended afterwards into one people; so that a system of common interest arose out of former differences. But where was the analogy of the cases? Was it only at the outset that we could trace violence and injustice on the part of the slave-trade? "Were the oppressors and the oppressed so reconciled that enmities ultimately ceased? No. Was it reasonable, then, to urge a prescriptive right, not to the fruits of an ancient and forgotten evil, but to a series of new violences; to a chain of fresh enormities; to cruelties continually repeated; and of which every instance inflicted a fresh calamity, and constituted a separate and substantial crime?
The debate being over, the house divided; when it appeared that there were for Mr. Wilberforce's motion seventy-four, but against it eighty-two.
The question had cow been tried and lost in almost every possible shape, but Mr. Wilberforce and the committee resolved to hold themselves in readiness to seize the first favorable opportunity which should present itself of furthering the cause. Four ears passed over without action, but the year 1804 was fixed upon for renewed exertion. Among the reasons for fixing upon this year, one may be assigned, namely, that the Irish members, in consequence of the union which had taken place between the two countries, had then all taken their seats in the house of commons; and that most of them were friendly to the cause.
This being the situation of things, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 30th of March, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the slave-trade within a limited time. Mr. Fuller opposed it. A debate ensued.
An amendment having been proposed by Mr. Manning, a division took place upon it, when leave was given to bring in the bill, by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to forty-nine.
On the 7th of June, the second reading of the bill was moved. Upon a division, there appeared for the second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.
On the 21th of June, the bill, though opposed in its last stage, was carried by a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was then taken up to the lords; but on a motion of Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of that house, the discussion of it was postponed to the next year.
The session being ended, the committee for the abolition of the slave-trade increased its number by the election of the Right Honorable Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeck, as members.
In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year. Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Gascoyne opposed it. Leave was given to introduce his bill.
On the second reading of it a serious opposition took place; and an amendment was moved for postponing it till that day six months. The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone. The latter could not help lifting his voice against this monstrous traffic in the sinews and blood. of man, the toleration of which had so long been the disgrace of the British legislature. He did not charge the enormous guilt resulting from it upon the nation at large; for the nation had washed its hands of it by the numerous petitions it had sent against it; and it had since been a matter of astonishment to all Christendom how the constitutional guardians of British freedom should have sanctioned elsewhere the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world.
He said that a curse attended this trade even in the mode of defending it. By a certain fatality, none but the vilest arguments were brought forward, which corrupted the very persons who used them. Every one of these were built on the narrow ground of interest; of pecuniary profit; of sordid gain; in opposition to every higher consideration; to every motive that had reference to humanity, justice, and religion; or to that great principle which comprehended them all. Place only before the most determined advocate of this odious traffic the exact image of himself in the garb and harness of a slave, dragged and whipped about like a beast; place this image also before him, and paint it as that of one without a ray of hope to cheer him; and you would extort from him the reluctant confession that he would not endure for an hour the misery to which he condemned his fellow-man for life. How dared he, then, to use this selfish plea of interest against the voice of the generous sympathies of his nature? But even upon this narrow ground the advocates for the traffic had been defeated. If the unhallowed argument of expediency was worth any thing when opposed to moral rectitude, or if it were to supercede the precepts of Christianity, where was a man to stop, or what line was he to draw? For any thing he knew, it might be physically true that human blood was the best manure for the land; but who ought to shed it on that account? True expediency, however, was, where it ever would be found, on the side of that system which was most merciful and just. He asked how it happened that sugar could be imported cheaper from the East Indies than from the West, notwithstanding the vast difference of the length of the voyages, but on account of the impolicy of slavery, or that it was made in the former case by the industry of free men, and in the latter by the languid drudgery of slaves.
As he had had occasion to advert to the eastern part of the world, he would make an observation upon an argument which had been collected from that quarter. The condition of the negroes in the West Indies had been lately compared with that of the Hindoos. But he would observe that the Hindoo, miserable as his hovel was, had sources of pride and happiness to which not only the West Indian slave, but even his master was a stranger. He was, to be sure, a peasant, and his industry was subservient to the gratifications of an European lord. But he was, in his own belief, vastly superior to him. He viewed him as one of the lowest cast. He would not, on any consideration, eat from the same plate. He would not suffer his son to marry the daughter of his master, even if she could bring him all the West Indies as her portion. He would observe, too, that the Hindoo peasant drank his water from his native well; that if his meal were scanty, he received it from the hand of her who was most dear to him; that when he labored, he labored for her and his offspring. His daily task being finished, he reposed with his family. No retrospect of the happiness of former days, compared with existing misery, disturbed his slumber; nor horrid dreams occasioned him to wake in agony at the dawn of day. No barbarous sounds of cracking whips reminded him that, with the form and image of a man, his destiny was that of the beast of tinfield. Let the advocates for the bloody traffic state what they had to set off on their side of the question against the comforts and independence of the man with whom they compared the slave.
The amendment was supported by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteny. Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On dividing the house upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but against it only seventy.
This defeat occasioned the severest disappointment. The committee instantly met, when sorrow was seen in the countenances of all present, but they determined to renew the contest with redoubled vigor at the next session. Just at this moment Mr. Clarkson joined them. Eight years of retirement had nearly restored him, and the first moment he found himself able to embark 16 in the cause, lie returned to his post. As it was probable the bill would be passed the next year, by the commons, and if so, that it would go to the lords, and that they might require further evidence, it was judged proper that evidence should be prepared. The band of witnesses which had been last collected were broken by death and dispersion, and a new one was to be formed. This Herculean task Mr. Clarkson undertook. lie left London immediately, and returned in January, 1806, after having traveled in pursuit of his object 5000 miles. In this month died Mr. Pitt, who had been one of the great supporters of the cause.
Mr. Clarkson says: "The way in which Mr. Pitt became acquainted with this question, has already been explained. A few doubts having been removed, when it was first started, he professed himself a friend to the abolition. The first proof which he gave of his friendship to it is known to but few; but it is nevertheless true, that so early as in 1188, he occasioned a communication to be made to the French government, in which he recommended a union of the two countries for the promotion of the great measure. This proposition seemed to be then new and strange to the court of France, and the answer was not favorable.
"From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own powers. As far, however, as he had scope, he exerted them. If we look at him in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all that he took an active, strenuous and consistent part, and this, year after year, by which he realized his professions. In my own private communications with him, which were frequent, he never failed to give proof of a similar disposition. I had always free access to him. I had no previous note or letter to write for admission. Whatever papers I wanted he ordered. He exhibited also in his conversation with me on these occasions marks of more than ordinary interest in the welfare of the cause. Among the subjects which were started, there was one which was always near his heart. This was the civilization of Africa. He looked upon this great work as a debt due to that continent for the many injuries we had inflicted upon it: and had the abolition succeeded sooner, as in the infancy of his exertions he had hoped, I know he had a plan, suited no doubt to the capaciousness of his own mind, for such establishments in Africa as he conceived would promote in due time this important end."
On the 31st March, 1806, the question was ushered again into parliament, but under new auspices, namely, under the administration of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox. It was thought proper that Mr. Wilberforce should be, as it were, in the back ground on this occasion, and that the attorney general, as a conspicuous officer of the government, should introduce it. The latter accordingly brought in a bill, one of the objects of which was to prevent British merchants and British capital from being employed in the foreign slave-trade. This bill passed both houses of parliament, and was therefore the first that dismembered the traffic. In the debate it was declared, in substance, both by Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, in their respective houses, that they would do everyhing to effect the abolition, and should they succeed in such a noble work, they would regard their success as entailing more true glory on their administration, and more honor and advantage on the country than any other measure in which they could be engaged.
On the 10th of June, Mr. Fox, in a speech most luminous and pathetic, followed up the victory which had been just gained, by moving a resolution "that this house, considering the African slave-trade to be contrary to the principles of humanity, justice and policy, will, with all practical expedition, take effectual measures for the abolition of it in such manner and at such a period as may be deemed most advisable." This motion produced a strong opposition, and an interesting debate. It was supported by Milbank, Francis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Wilberforce, Petty, Newport, Canning and Smith. It was carried by a majority of 114 to 15. Mr. Wilberforce directly moved an address to the king "praying him to direct a negotiation to be entered into by which foreign powers should be invited to coöperate with his majesty in measures to be adopted for the abolition of the African slave-trade." This was carried, but without a division. On the 24th June, the lords met to consider both the resolution and address. In order to create delay, a proposition was directly made that counsel and evidence should be heard. This was overruled. Lord Grenville then rose up and introduced the subject. His speech was among the masterpieces of eloquence.
Lord Grenville read the resolution of the commons. This resolution, he said, stated first, that the slave-trade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity, was obvious; for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the slave-trade convey ideas the very reverse of this definition? It deprived men of all those comforts in which it pleased the Creator to make the happiness of his creatures to consist, of the blessings of society, of the charities of the dear relationships of husband, wife, father, son, and kindred; of the due discharge of the relative duties of these, and of that freedom which in its pure and natural sense was one of the greatest gifts of Cod to man.
Having shown the inhumanity, he would proceed to the second point in the resolution, or the injustice of the trade. We had two ideas of justice, first, as it belonged to society by virtue of a social compact; and, secondly, as it belonged to men, not as citizens of a community, but as beings of one common nature. In a state of nature, man had a right to the fruit of his own labor absolutely to himself; and one of the main purposes for which he entered into society was, that he might be better protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases, therefore, it was manifestly unjust that a man should be made to labor during the whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labor. Hence, the slave-trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very principal upon which all law for the protection of property was founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade to an individual, it was derived from dishonor and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy victim of it, that which the latter did not wish to give him; and he gave to the same victim, that which he in vain attempted to show was an equivalent to the thing he took, it being a thing for which there was no equivalent; and which, if he had not obtained by force, he would not have possessed at all. Nor could there be any answer to this reasoning, unless it could be proved that it had pleased God to give to the inhabitants of Britain a property in the liberty and life of the natives of Africa. But he would go further on this subject. The injustice complained of was not confined to the bare circumstance of robbing them of the right to their own labor. It was conspicuous throughout the system. They who bought them, became guilty of all the crimes which had been committed in procuring them; and, when they possessed them, of all the crimes which belonged to their inhuman treatment. The injustice, in the latter case, amounted frequently to murder. For what was it but murder to pursue a practice which produced untimely death to thousands of innocent and helpless beings? It was a duty which their lordships owed to their Creator, if they hoped for mercy, to do away this monstrous oppression.
With respect to the impolicy of the trade (the third point in the resolution) he would say at once, that whatever was inhuman and unjust must be impolitic. He had, however, no objection to argue the point upon its own particular merits; and, first, he would observe that a great man, Mr. Pitt, now no more, had exerted his vast powers on many subjects to the admiration of his hearers; but on none more successfully than on the subject of the abolition of the slavetrade, lie proved, after making an allowance for the price paid for the slaves in the West Indies, for the loss of them in the seasoning, and for the expense of maintaining them afterwards, and comparing these particulars with the amount in value of their labor there, that the evils endured by the victims of the traffic were no gain to the master in whose service they took place. Indeed, Mr. Long had laid it down in his history of Jamaica, that the best way to secure the planters from ruin would be to do that which the resolution recommended. It was notorious that when any planter was in distress and sought to relieve himself by increasing the labor on his estate by means of the purchase of new slaves, the measure invariably tended to his destruction. What, then, was the importation of fresh Africans but a system tending to the general ruin of the islands?
To expose the impolicy of the trade further, he would observe that it was an allowed axiom, that as the condition of man was improved, he became more useful. The history of our own country, in very early times, exhibited instances of internal slavery, and this to a considerable extent. But we should find that precisely in proportion as that slavery was ameliorated, the power and prosperity of the country flourished. This was exactly applicable to the case in question. There could be no general amelioration of slavery in the West Indies while the slave-trade lasted; but, if we were to abolish it, we should make it the interest of every owner of slaves to do that which would improve their condition; and which, indeed, would lead, ultimately, to the annihilation of slavery itself. This great event, however, could not be accomplished at. once. It could only be effected in a course of time. It would be endless, he said, to go into all the cases which would manifest the impolicy of this odious traffic. Inhuman as it was, unjust as it was, he believed it to be equally impolitic; and if their lordships should be of this opinion also, he hoped they would agree to that part of the resolution in which these truths were expressed. With respect to the other part of it, or that they would proceed to abolish the trade, he observed, that neither the time nor the manner of doing it were specified. Hence, if any of them should differ as to these particulars, they might yet vote for the resolution, as they were not pledged to anything definite in these respects, provided they thought that the trade should be abolished at some time or other; and he did not believe that there was any one of them who would sanction its continuance 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 their wives, and parents from their children; and that all the ties of blood and affection were torn up by the roots. He had himself seen the unhappy natives put together in heaps in the hold of a ship, where, with every possible attention to them, their situation must have been intolerable. He had also heard proved, in courts of justice, facts still more dreadful than those which he had seen. One of these he would just mention. The slaves on board a certain ship rose in a mass to liberate themselves; and having advanced far in the pursuit of their object, it became necessary to repel them by force. Some of them yielded; some of them were killed in the scuffle; but many of them actually unnped into the sea and were drowned; thus preferring death to the misery of their situation; while others hung to the ship, repenting of their rashness, and bewailing with frightful noises their horrid fate. Thus the whole vessel exhibited but one hideous scene of wretchedness. They who were subdued and secured iu chains were seized with the flux, which carried many of them off. These things were proved in a trial before a British jury, which had to consider whether this was a loss which fell within the policy of insurance, the slaves being regarded as if they had been only a cargo of dead matter. He could mention other instances, but they were much too shocking to be described. Surely their lordships could never consider such a traffic to be consistent with humanity or justice. It was impossible.
That the trade had long existed there was no doubt; but this was no argument for its continuance. Many evils of much longer standing had been done away; and it was always our duty to attempt to remove them. Should we not exult in the consideration that we, the inhabitants of a small island, at the extremity of the globe, almost at its north pole, were become the morningstar to enlighten the nations of the earth, and to conduct them out of the shades of darkness into the realms of light; thus exhibiting to an astonished and an admiring world the blessings of a free constitution? Let us, then, not allow such a glorious opportunity to escape us.
It had been urged that we should suffer by the abolition of the slave-trade. He believed we should not suffer. He believed that our duty and our interest were inseparable: and he had no difficulty in saying, in the face of the world, that his own opinion was that the interests of a nation would be best preserved by its adherence to the principles of humanity, justice, and religion.
The Earl of Westmoreland said that the African slave-trade might be contrary to humanity and justice, and yet it might be politic; at least, it might be inconsistent with humanity, and yet be not inconsistent with justice: this was the case when we executed a criminal or engaged in war.
Lord Holland, in reply, said that the noble earl had made a difference beween humanity, justice, and sound policy. God forbid that we should ever admit such distinctions in this country! But he had gone further, and said that a thing might be inhuman and yet not unjust; and he put the case of the execution of a criminal in support of it. Did he not by this position confound all notions of right and wrong in human institutions? When a criminal was justly executed, was not the execution justice to him who Buffered and humanity to the body of the people at large?
He wished most heartily for the total abolition of the trade. lie was convinced that it was both inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. This had always been his opinion as an individual since he was capable of forming one. It was his opinion then as a legislator. It was his opinion as a colonial proprietor; and it was his opinion as an Englishman, wishing for the prosperity of the British empire.
The Earl of Suffolk contended that the population of the slaves in the islands could be kept up by good treatment, so as to be sufficient for their cultivation. He entered into a detail of calculations from the year 1772 downwards in support of this statement. He believed all the miseries of St. Domingo arose from the vast importation of Africans. He had such a deep sense of the inhumanity and injustice of the slave-trade, that if he ever wished any action of his life to be recorded, it would be that of the vote he should then give in support of the resolution.
Lord Sidmouth said that he agreed to the substance of the resolution, but yet he could not support it. Could he be convinced that the trade would be injurious to the cause of humanity and justice, the question with him would be decided; for policy could not be opposed to humanity and justice. He had been of the opinion for the last twenty years that the interests of the country and those of numerous individuals were so deeply blended with this traffic that we should he very cautious how we proceeded. With respect to the cultivation of new lands, he would not allow a single negro to be imported for such a purpose; but he must have a regard for the old plantations. When he found a sufficient increase in the black population to continue the cultivation already established there, then, but net till then, he would agree to an abolition of the trade.
Earl Stanhope said he would not detain their lordships long. He could not, however, help expressing his astonishment at what had fallen from the last speaker; for he had evidently confessed that the slave-trade was inhuman and unjust, and then he had insinuated that it was neither inhuman nor unjust to continue it. A more paradoxical or whimsical opinion, he believed, was never entertained, or more whimsically expressed in that house. The noble viscount had talked of the interests of the planters; but this was but a part of the subject, for surely the people of Africa were not to be forgotten. He did not understand the practice of complimenting the planters with the lives of men, women, and helpless children by thousands for the sake of their pecuniary advantage; and they who adopted it, whatever they might think of the consistency of their own conduct, offered an insult to the sacred names of humanity and justice.
Earl Grosvenor could not but express the joy he felt at the hope, after all his disappointments, that this wicked trade would be done away. He hoped that his majesty's ministers were in earnest, and that they would, early in the next session, take this great question up with a determination to go through with it; so that another year should not pass before we extended the justice and humanity of the country to the helpless and unhappy inhabitants of Africa.
Earl Fitzwilliam said he was fearful lest the calamities of St. Domingo should be brought home to our own islands. We ought not, he thought, too hastily to adopt the resolution on that account. He should therefore support the previous question.
Lord Ellenborough said he was sorry to differ from his noble friend, (lord Sidmouth,) and yet he could not help saying that if after twenty years, during which this question had been discussed by both houses of parliament, their lordships' judgments were not ripe for its determination, he could not look with any confidence to a time when they would be ready to decide it.
The question then before them was short and plain. It was, whether the African slave-trade was inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. If the premises were true, we could not too speedily bring it to a conclusion.
Earl Spencer agreed with the noble viscount (Sidmouth) that the amelioration of the condition of the slaves was an object which might be effected in the West Indies; but he was certain that the most effectual way of improving it would be by the total and immediate abolition of the slave-trade; and for that reason he would support the resolution. Had the resolution held out emancipation to them, it would not have had his assent; for it would have ill become the character of this country, if it had been once promised, to have withheld it from them. It was to such deception that the horrors of St. Domingo were to be attributed. He would not enter into the discussion of the general subject at present. He was convinced that the trade was what the resolution stated it to be, inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. He wished, therefore, most earnestly indeed, for its abolition. As to the mode of effecting it, it should be such as would be attended with the least inconvenience to all parties. At the same time he would not allow small inconveniences to stand in the way of the great claims of humanity, justice, and religion.
The resolution and address were both carried by a majority of 41 to 20. After this a belief was generally prevalent that the slave-trade would fall at the next session; but for fear that it should be carried on in the interior, being as it were the last harvest of the merchants, to a tenfold extent, and with tenfold murder and desolation, a law was passed that no new vessel should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa for slaves. In the month of October after these victories, died Charles James Fox, one of the noblest champions of this noble cause. He had lived to put it in a train for final triumph — this triumph he enjoyed in anticipation — the prospect of it soothed his pains and cheered his spirit in the hours of his last sickness. The hope of it quivered on his lips in the hour of dissolution.
The contest was renewed in January, 1807. Lord Grenville brought the question first before the house of lords in the shape of a bill, which he called "An act for the abolition of the the slave-trade." On the 4th four counsel were heard against it. On the 5th the debate commenced. The bill was carried at 4 o'clock in the morning by a vote of 100 to 36. On the 10th of February it went to the commons. On the 20th counsel were heard against it. On the 23d a debate ensued; and it was finally carried by the vast majority of 283 to 1G. On the 6th of March the blanks were filled up. It provided that no vessel should clear out for slaves from any port in the British dominions after May 1, 1807, and that no slave should be lauded in the British colonies after March 1, 1808. The bill was sent back to the lords, with the blanks filled up; and in consequence of various amendments, it passed and repassed from one house to the other. On the 24th it passed both houses, and on the 25th it received the royal assent.
Thus passed, after twenty years' hard struggle, during which the field had been disputed inch by inch, this "magna charta for Africa in Britain." The news of the event was received with demonstrations of joy throughout the kingdom, and this joy was heightened by authentic news from the United States that a similar law had been passed by congress.
At first the only punishment for continuing the traffic, now declared illegal, was a penalty in money; but this was found so utterly insufficient, that in 1811 an act was carried by Lord Brougham, making slave-dealing felony, punishable by transportation for fourteen years, or imprisonment with hard labor. Even this was found inadequate, and in 1824 the slave-trade was declared to be piracy, and the punishment death. In 1837, when the number of capital offenses was diminished, the punishment was changed to transportation for life.
On the 28th of August, 1833, England abolished slavery throughout the British colonies, (3 and 4 William IV.) and £20,000,000 were granted by parliament as indemnification to the slave proprietors and other pecuniary sufferers by the act. By this act 770,280 slaves became free.
Although the United States have never relieved themselves from the burden of slavery, they were the first to prohibit the prosecution of the slave-trade. In the year 1794, it was enacted that no person in the United States should fit out any vessel there for the purpose of carrying on any traffic in slaves to any foreign country, or for procuring from any foreign country the inhabitants thereof, to be disposed of as slaves. In 1800 it was enacted that it should be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to have any property in any vessel employed in transporting slaves from one foreign country to another, or to serve on board any vessel so employed. Any of the commissioned vessels of the United States were authorized to seize and take any vessel employed in the slave-trade, to be proceeded against in any of the circuit or district courts, and to be condemned for the use of the officers and crew of the vessel making the capture. In 1807, it was enacted, that after the first of January, 1808, it should not be lawful to bring into the United States, or the territories thereof, from any foreign place, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to hold or sell him as a slave; and heavy penalties are imposed on the violators of these acts, and others of similar import. In 1820, it was enacted, that if any citizen of the United States, belonging to the company of any foreign vessel engaged in the slave-trade, or any person whatever belonging to the company of any vessel, owned in whole or in part by, or navigated for any citizen of the United States, should land on any foreign shore, to seize any negro, or mulatto, not held to service by the laws of either of the states or territories of the United States, with intent to make him a slave, or should decoy forcibly carry off such negro, or mulatto, or receive him on board any such vessel, with the intent aforesaid, he should be adjudged a pirate, and, on conviction, should suffer death. The same penalty was extended to those of the ship's company who should aid in confining such negro, or mulatto, on board of such vessel, or transfer him, on the sea or tide-water, to any other ship or vessel, or land him, with intent to sell, or having previously sold him.
In Denmark, king Christian VII., in 1794, declared the slave-trade unlawful after January 1, 1804; and Frederic VI. promised, at the peace of Tilsit, to prohibit his subjects from taking pare in the foreign slave-trade. In France, Napoleon, when first consul, promised the continuance of their liberty to the inhabitants of St. Domingo, whilst he praised the inhabitants of Isle de France for not having freed their slaves, and promised that France would never again decree the slavery of the whites by the liberation of the negroes. After the successes of the French on St. Domingo, the slave-trade was once more established. In 1814, Lord Castlereagh obtained from Louis XVIII. a promise that France would abolish the slave-trade; but, by the influence of the chamber of commerce at Nantes, this traffic was permitted for five years more. Public opinion obliged Lord Castlereagh to press upon the congress of Vienna the adoption of general measures for the abolition of the slave-trade; but all that he could effect was that Spain and Portugal promised to give up the slavetrade north of the line. — See the treaty between England and Portugal, Vienna, January 22, 1815. But a paper was drawn up and signed by Castlereagh, Stewart, Wellington, Nesselrode, Lowenhielm, Gomez Labrador, Palmella, Saldanha, Lobo, Humboldt, Metternich and Talleyrand, (Vienna, February 8, 1815,) stating that the great powers would make arrangements to fix a term for the general abolition of the slave-trade, since public opinion condemned it as a stain on European civilization. February 6, 1815, Portugal provided for the total abolition of the slave-trade on January 21, 1823, and England promised to pay £300,000 as an indemnification to Portuguese subjects. Louis XVIII., by the treaty of Paris, November 20, 1815, consented to its immediate abolition, for which Napoleon had declared himself prepared, in April, 1815. Spain promised, by the treaty of September 30, 1817, to abolish the slave-trade entirely, October 31, 1820, in all the Spanish territories, even south of the line; and England, February 9, 1818, paid £400,000 as an indemnification to Spanish subjects. The king of the Netherlands prohibited his subjects from taking part in the slave-trade after the provisions of the treaty of August 13, 1814, had been rendered more precise and extensive by the treaty concluded with England, at the Hague, May 4, 1818. Sweden had already done the same, according to the treaty of March 3, 1813. The United States engaged, in the treaty of Ghent, December 24, 1814, to do all in their power for the entire suppression of the slave-trade. November 23, 1826, treaty was concluded by England with Brazil, for the abolition of the slave-trade, and it was accordingly prohibited after March, 1830.
The emperor of Austria issued a decree utterly abolishing slavery throughout the Austrian dominions. "Every man," said his imperial majesty, "by the right of nature, sanctioned by reason, must be considered a free person." Every slave becomes free the moment he touches the Austrian soil, or even an Austrian ship.
The rising republics of South America took a stand against slavery and the slave-trade. One of the first acts of the constitutional assembly of Guatemala was the abolition of slavery. The 13th article of their constitution declared every man in the republic free; that no one who took refuge under its laws should be a slave; and that no one should be accounted a citizen who was engaged in the slave-trade.
In 1829, Guerrero, the President of Mexico, issued the following decree:
"Desiring to signalize the year 1829, the anniversary of our independence, by an act of national justice and beneficence that may turn to the benefit and support of such a valuable good; that may consolidate more and more public tranquility; that may cooperate to the aggrandizement of the republic, and return to an unfortunate portion of its inhabitants those rights which they hold from nature, and that the people protect by wise and equitable laws, in conformity with the 30th article of the constitutive act,
"Making use of the extraordinary faculties which have been granted to the executive, I thus decree:
"1st. Slavery is forever abolished in the republic.
"2d. Consequently all those individuals who until this day looked upon themselves as slaves, are free.
"3d. When the financial situation of the republic admits, the proprietors of slaves shall be indemnified, and the indemnification regulated by a law.
"And in order that the present decree may have its full and entire execution, I order it to be printed, published and circulated to all those whose obligation it is to have it fulfilled.
"Given in the federal palace of Mexico, on the 15th of September, 1829."
In Colombia, slave children born after the revolution were to be free at eighteen. In South America, except Brazil, slavery is either abolished or drawing to a close.
The action of the United States government in abolishing the slave-trade, and its efforts to suppress the illegal traffic, are referred to in subsequent chapters. The treaties and conventions of England with foreign nations for the suppression of the slave-trade will also be found in another part of the volume. The practical results of all these labors are exhibited in the chapters relating to the slave-trade after its nominal abolition.