The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition - Thomas Clarkson
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54
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
this 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 8th 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 5th of June, when only seven
persons had been examined, a motion was made and carried, that the
further examinations should be postponed to the next session.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
[Sidenote: Continuation from July 1792 to July 1793.--Author travels
round the kingdom again.--Motion to renew the resolution of the last
year in the Commons; motion lost.--New motion in the Commons to abolish
the foreign Slave Trade; motion lost.--Proceedings of the Lords.]
The resolution adopted by the Commons, that the trade should cease in
1796, was a matter of great joy to many; and several, in consequence of
it, returned to the use of sugar. The committee, however, for the
abolition did not view it in the same favourable light. They considered
it as a political manoeuvre to frustrate the accomplishment of the
object. But the circumstance, which gave them the most concern, was the
resolution of the Lords to hear evidence. It was impossible now to say,
when the trade would cease, the witnesses in behalf of the merchants and
planters, had obtained possession of the ground; and they might, keep
it, if they chose, even till the year 1800, to throw light upon a
measure which was to be adopted in 1796. The committee found too, that
they had again the laborious task before them of finding out new persons
to give testimony in behalf of their cause; for some of their former
witnesses were dead, and others were out of the kingdom; and unless they
replaced these, there would be no probability of making out that strong
case in the Lords, which they had established in the Commons. It
devolved therefore upon me once more to travel for this purpose: but as
I was then in too weak a state to bear as much fatigue as formerly, Dr.
Dickson relieved me, by taking one part of the tour, namely, that to
Scotland, upon himself.
These journeys we performed with considerable success; during which, the
committee elected Mr. Joseph Townsend of Baltimore, in Maryland, an
honorary and corresponding member.
Parliament having met, Mr. Wilberforce, in February 1793, moved, that
the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on Thursday
next, to consider of the circumstances of the Slave Trade. This motion
was opposed by Sir William Yonge, who moved, that this day six months
should be substituted for Thursday next. A debate ensued: of this,
however, as well as of several which followed. I shall give no account;
as it would be tedious to the reader to hear a repetition of the same
arguments. Suffice it to say, that the motion was lost by a majority of
sixty-one to fifty-three.
This sudden refusal of the House of Commons to renew their own vote of
the former year, gave great uneasiness to the friends of the cause. Mr.
Wilberforce, however, resolved that the session should not pass without
an attempt to promote it in another form; and accordingly, on the 14th
of May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish that part of
the Slave Trade, by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with
slaves. This motion was opposed like the former; but was carried by a
majority of seven. The bill was then brought in; and it passed its first
and second reading with little opposition; but on the 5th of June,
notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Fox, and the very
able speeches of Mr. Francis, Mr. Courtenay, and others, it was lost by
a majority of thirty-one to twenty-nine.
In the interval between these motions, the question experienced in the
Lords considerable opposition. The Duke of Clarence moved that the House
should not proceed in the consideration of the Slave Trade till after
the Easter recess. The Earl of Abingdon was still more hostile
afterwards. He deprecated the new philosophy. It was as full of mischief
as the Box of Pandora. The doctrine of the abolition of the Slave Trade
was a species of it; and he concluded by moving, that all further
consideration of the subject be postponed. To the epithets, then
bestowed upon the abolitionists by this nobleman, the Duke of Clarence
added those of fanatics and hypocrites, among whom he included Mr.
Wilberforce by name. All the other Lords, however, who were present,
manifested such a dislike to the sentiments of the Earl of Abingdon,
that he withdrew his motion.
After this, the hearing of evidence on the resolution of the House of
Commons was resumed; and seven persons were examined before the close of
the session.
CHAPTER XXIX.
[Sidenote:--Continuation from July 1793 to July 1794.--Author travels
round the kingdom again.--Motion to abolish the foreign Slave Trade
renewed in the Commons; and carried; but lost in the Lords; further
proceedings there.--Author, on account of his declining health, obliged
to retire from the cause.]
The committee for the abolition could not view the proceedings of both
Houses of Parliament on this subject during the year 1793, without being
alarmed for the fate of their question. The only two sources of hope,
which they could discover, were in the disposition then manifested by
the Peers, as to the conduct of the Earl of Abingdon, and in their
determination to proceed in the hearing of evidence. The latter
circumstance indeed was the more favourable, as the resolution, upon
which the witnesses were to be examined, had not been renewed by the
Commons. These considerations, however, afforded no solid ground for the
mind to rest upon. They only broke in upon it, like faint gleams of
sunshine, for a moment, and then were gone. In this situation, the
committee could only console themselves by the reflection, that they had
done their duty. In looking, however, to their future services, one
thing, and only one, seemed practicable; and this was necessary; namely,
to complete the new body of evidence, which they had endeavoured to form
in the preceding year. The determination to do this rendered another
journey on my part indispensable; and I undertook it, broken down, as my
constitution then was, beginning it in September 1793, and completing it
in February 1794.
Mr. Wilberforce, in this interval, had digested his plan of operations;
and accordingly, early in the session of 1794, he asked leave to renew
his former bill, to abolish that part of the trade, by means of which
British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. This request was
opposed by Sir William Yonge; but it was granted; on a division of the
House, by a majority of sixty-three to forty votes.
When the bill was brought in, it was opposed by the same member; upon
which the House divided; and there appeared for Sir William Yonge's
amendment thirty-eight votes, but against it fifty-six.
On a motion for the recommitment of the bill, Lord Sheffield divided the
House, against whose motion there was a majority of forty-two. And, on
the third reading of it, it was opposed again; but it was at length
carried.
The speakers against the bill were: Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield,
Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham and Messrs; Payne, Este, Lechaiere,
Cawthorae, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favour of it were:
Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan,
Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.
While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing through its stages in the
Commons, Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the
examinations, while the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the
House of Lords, moved, that they should be taken in future before a
committee above-stairs. Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, and the Lords
Guildford, Stanhope, and Grenville, supported this motion. But the Lord
Chancellor Thurlow, aided by the Duke of Clarence, and by the Lords
Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and others, negatived it by a majority of
twenty-eight.
At length the bill itself was ushered into the House of Lords. On
reading it a second time, it was opposed by the Duke of Clarence, Lord
Abingdon, and others. Lord Grenville and the Bishop of Rochester
declined supporting it. They alleged as a reason, that they conceived
the introduction of it to have been improper, pending the inquiry on the
general subject of the Slave Trade. This declaration brought up the
Lords Stanhope and Lauderdale, who charged them with inconsistency as
professed friends of the cause. At length the bill was lost. During
these discussions the examination of the witnesses was resumed by the
Lords; but only two of them were heard in this session[A].
[Footnote A: After this the examinations wholly dropped in the House of
Lords.]
After this decision the question was in a desperate state; for if the
Commons would not renew their own resolution, and the Lords would not
abolish the foreign part of the Slave-trade, what hope was there of
success? It was obvious too, that in the former House, Mr. Pitt and Mr.
Dundas voted against each other. In the latter, the Lord Chancellor
Thurlow opposed every motion in favour of the cause. The committee
therefore were reduced to this;--either they must exert themselves
without hope, or they must wait till some change should take place in
their favour. As far as I myself was concerned, all exertion was then
over. The nervous system was almost shattered to pieces. Both my memory
and my hearing failed me. Sudden dizzinesses seized my head. A confused
singing in the ears followed me, wherever I went. On going to bed the
very, stairs seemed to dance up and down under me, so that, misplacing
my foot, I sometimes fell. Talking too, if it continued but half an
hour, exhausted me, so that profuse perspirations followed; and the same
effect was produced even by an active exertion of the mind for the like
time. These disorders had been brought on by degrees in consequence of
the severe labours necessarily attached to the promotion of the cause.
For seven years I had a correspondence to maintain with four hundred
persons with my own hand. I had some book or other annually to write in
behalf of the cause. In this time I had travelled 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
travelled 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
situation 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[A]. These different circumstances, by acting
together, had at length brought me into the situation just mentioned;
and I was therefore obliged, though very reluctantly, to be borne out of
the field, where I had placed the great honour and glory of my life.
[Footnote A: 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 honour to the country to have produced.]
CHAPTER XXX.
[Sidenote: Continuation from July 1794 to July 1799.--Various motions
within this period.]
I purpose, though it may seem abrupt after the division which has
hitherto been made of the contents of this volume, to throw the events
of the next five years into one chapter.
Mr. Wilberforce and the members of the committee, whose constitutions
had not suffered like my own, were still left; and they determined to
persevere in the promotion of their great object as long as their health
and their faculties permitted them. The former, accordingly, in the
month of February, 1795, moved in the House of Commons for leave to
bring in a bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade. This motion was
then necessary, if, according to the resolution of that House, the Slave
Trade was to cease in 1796. It was opposed, however, by Sir William
Yonge, and unfortunately lost by a majority of seventy-eight to
fifty-seven.
In the year 1796, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his efforts in the Commons. He
asked leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade, but
in a limited time. The motion was opposed as before; but on a division,
there were for it ninety-three, and against it only sixty-seven.
The bill having been brought in, was opposed in its second reading; but
it was carried through it by a majority of sixty-four to thirty-one.
In a future stage it was opposed again; but it triumphed by a majority
of seventy-six to thirty-one. Mr. Elliott was then put into the chair.
Several clauses were adopted; and the first of March, 1797, was fixed
for the abolition of the Trade: but in the next stage of it, after a
long speech from Mr. Dundas, it was lost by a majority of seventy-four
against seventy.
Mr. Francis, who had made a brilliant speech in the last debate,
considering that nothing effectual had been yet done on this great
question, and wishing that a practical beginning might be made, brought
forward soon afterwards, a motion relative to the improvement of the
condition of the slaves in the West Indies. This, after a short debate,
was negatived without a division. Mr. William Smith also moved an
address to His Majesty, that he would be pleased to give directions to
lay before the House copies of the several acts relative to regulations
in behalf of the slaves, passed by the different colonial assemblies
since the year 1788. This motion was adopted by the House. Thus passed
away the session of 1796.
In the year 1797, while Mr. Wilberforce was deliberating upon the best
measure for the advancement of the cause, Mr. C. Ellis came forward with
a new motion. He began by declaring, that he agreed with the
abolitionists as to their object; but he differed with them as to the
mode of attaining It. The Slave Trade he condemned as a cruel and
pernicious system; but, as it had become an inveterate evil, he feared
it could not be done away all at once, without injury to the interests
of numerous individuals, and even to the Negroes themselves. He
concluded by moving an address to His Majesty, humbly requesting, that
he would give directions to the governors of the West Indian islands, to
recommend it to the colonial assemblies to adopt such measures as might
appear to them best calculated to ameliorate the condition of the
Negroes, and thereby to remove gradually the Slave Trade; and likewise
to assure His Majesty of the readiness of this House to concur in any
measure to accelerate this desirable object; This motion was seconded by
Mr. Barham, It was opposed, however, by Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Pitt, and
others; but was at length carried by a majority of ninety-nine to
sixty-three.
In the year 1798, Mr. Wilberforce asked leave to renew his former bill,
to abolish the Slave Trade within a limited time. He was supported by
Mr. Canning, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Bouverie, and others.
Messrs. Sewell, Bryan Edwards, Henniker, and C. Ellis, took the opposite
side of the question. Mr. Ellis, however, observed, that he had no
objection to restricting the Slave Trade to plantations already begun in
the colonies; and Mr. Barham professed; himself a friend to the
abolition, if it; could be accomplished in a reasonable way. On a
division, there appeared to be for Mr. Wilberforce's motion
eighty-three, but against it eighty-seven.
In the year 1799 Mr. Wilberforce, undismayed by these different
disappointments, renewed his motion. Colonel M. Wood, Mr. Petrie, and
others, among whom were Mr. Windham and Mr. Dundas, opposed it. Mr.
Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. W. Smith, Sir William Dolben, Sir R. 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 principles 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 bad 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 these 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 labourers." But never was the word
"labourers" 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 labourers worse defended than when the antiquity, of the Slave
Trade, and its foundation on the 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 Slave Trade? Had
it begun in principles of justice or national honour, 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 favour
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 eases? 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 motion for the general abolition of the Slave Trade having been thus
lost again in the Commons, a new motion was made there soon after, by
Mr. Henry Thornton, on the same subject. The prosecution of this
traffic, on certain parts of the coast of Africa, had become so
injurious to the new settlement at Sierra Leone, that not only its
commercial prospects were but its safety endangered. Mr. Thornton,
therefore brought in a bill to confine the Slave Trade within certain
limits. But even this bill, though it had for its object only to free a
portion of the coast from the ravages of this traffic, was opposed by
Mr. Gascoyne, Dent, and others. Petitions also were presented against
it. At length, after two divisions, on the first of which there were
thirty-two votes to twenty-seven, and on the second thirty-eight to
twenty-two, it passed through all its stages.
When it was introduced into the Lords the petitions were renewed against
it. Delay also was interposed to its progress by the examination of
witnesses. It was not till the fifth of July that the matter was brought
to issue. The opponents of the bill, at that time, were the Duke of
Clarence, Lord Westmoreland, Lord Thurlow, and the Lords Douglas and
Hay, the two latter being Earls of Morton and Kinnoul, in Scotland. The
supporters of it were Lord Grenville, who introduced it, Lord
Loughborough, Lord Holland, and Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester: the
latter was peculiarly eloquent. He began his speech, by arraigning the
injustice and impolicy of the trade:--"injustice," he said, "which no
considerations of policy could extenuate; impolicy, equal in degree to
its injustice."
He well knew that the advocates for the Slave Trade had endeavoured to
represent the project for abolition, as a branch of jacobinism; but they
who supported it proceeded upon no visionary motives of equality, or of
the imprescriptible rights of man. They strenuously upheld the
gradations of civil society: but they did, indeed, affirm that these
gradations were, both ways, both as they ascended and as they descended,
limited. There was an existence of power, to which no good king would
aspire; and there was an extreme condition of subjection, to which man
could not be degraded without injustice; and this they would maintain,
was the condition of the African, who was torn away into slavery.