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
He then explained the limits of that portion of Africa, which the bill
intended to set apart as sacred to peace and liberty. He showed that
this was but one-third of the coast; and, therefore, that two-thirds
were yet left for the diabolical speculations of the slave merchants. He
expressed his surprise that such witnesses, as those against the bill,
should have been introduced at all: he affirmed that their oaths were
falsified by their own log-books; and that, from their own accounts, the
very healthiest of their vessels were little better than pestilential
gaols. Mr. Robert Hume, one of these witnesses, had made a certain
voyage: he had made it in thirty-three days: he had shipped two hundred
and sixty-five slaves, and he had lost twenty-three of them. If he had
gone on losing his slaves, all of whom were under twenty-five years of
age, at this rate, it was obvious, that he would have lost two hundred
and fifty-three of them, if his passage had lasted for a year. Now, in
London only, seventeen would have died of that age, out of one thousand
within the latter period.
After having exposed the other voyages of Mr. Hume in a similar manner,
he entered into a commendation of the views of the Sierra Leone company,
and then defended the character of the Africans in their own country, as
exhibited in the Travels of Mr. Mungo Park. He made a judicious
discrimination with respect to slavery, as it existed among them: he
showed that this slavery was analogous to that of the heroic and
patriarchal ages, and contrasted it with the West Indian in an able
manner.
He adverted, lastly, to what had fallen from the learned counsel, who
had supported the petitions of the slave-merchants. One of them had put
this question to their Lordships, "If the Slave Trade were as wicked as
it had been represented, why was there no prohibition of it in the Holy
Scriptures?" He then entered into a full defence of the Scriptures on
this ground, which he concluded by declaring, that, as St. Paul had
coupled men-stealers with murderers, he had condemned the Slave Trade in
one of its most productive modes, and generally in all its modes. And
here it is worthy of remark, that the word used by the apostle on this
occasion, and which has been translated men-stealers, should have been
rendered slave traders. This was obvious from the scholiast of
Aristophanes, whom he quoted. It was clear, therefore, that the Slave
Trade, if murder was forbidden, had been literally forbidden also.
The learned counsel, too, had admonished their lordships, to beware how
they adopted the visionary projects of fanatics. He did not know in what
direction this shaft was shot; and he cared not. It did not concern him.
With the highest reverence for the religion of the land, with the
firmest conviction of its truth, and with the deepest sense of the
importance Of its doctrines, he was proudly conscious, that the general
shape and fashion of his life bore nothing of the stamp of fanaticism.
But he begged leave, in his turn, to address a word of serious
exhortation to their lordships. He exhorted them to beware how they were
persuaded to bury, under the opprobrious name of fanaticism, the regard
which they owed to the great duties of mercy and justice, for the
neglect of which (if they should neglect them) they would be answerable
at that tribunal, where no prevarication of witnesses could misinform
the judge; and where no subtlety of an advocate, miscalling the names of
things, putting evil for good and good for evil, could mislead his
judgment.
At length the debate ended: when the bill was lost by a majority of
sixty-eight to sixty-one, including personal votes and proxies.
I cannot conclude this chapter without offering a few remarks. And,
first, I may observe, as the substance of the debates has not been given
for the period which it contains, that Mr. Wilberforce, upon whom too
much praise cannot be bestowed for his perseverance from year to year,
amidst the disheartening circumstances which attended his efforts,
brought every new argument to which either the discovery of new light,
or the events of the times, produced. I may observe also, in justice to
the memories of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, that there was no debate within
this period, in which they did not take a part; and in which they did
not irradiate others from the profusion of their own light; and thirdly,
that in consequence of the efforts of the three, conjoined with those of
others, the great cause of the abolition was secretly gaining ground.
Many members who were not connected with the trade, but who had yet
hitherto supported it, were on the point of conversion. Though the
question had oscillated backwards and forwards, so that an ordinary
spectator could have discovered no gleam of hope at these times, nothing
is more certain, than that the powerful eloquence then displayed had
smoothed the resistance to it, had shortened its vibrations, and had
prepared it for a state of rest.
With respect to the West-Indians themselves, some of them began to see
through the mists of prejudice, which had covered them. In the year
1794, when the bill for the abolition of the foreign Slave Trade was
introduced, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Barham supported it. They called upon
the planters in the House to give way to humanity, where their own
interests could not be affected by their submission. This, indeed, may
be said to have been no mighty thing; but it was a frank confession of
the injustice of the Slave Trade, and the beginning of the change which
followed, both with respect to themselves and others.
With respect to the old friends of the cause, it is with regret I
mention, that it lost the support of Mr. Windham within this period; and
this regret is increased by the consideration, that he went off on the
avowed plea of expediency against moral rectitude; a doctrine, which, at
least upon this subject, he had reprobated for ten years. It was,
however, some consolation, as far as talents were concerned, (for there
can be none for the loss of virtuous feeling,) that Mr. Canning, a new
member, should have so ably supplied his place.
Of the gradual abolitionists, whom we have always considered as the most
dangerous enemies of the cause, Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Earl of
Liverpool), Mr. Addington (subsequently Lord Sidmouth), and Mr. Dundas
(afterwards Lord Melville), continued their opposition during all this
time. Of the first two I shall say nothing at present; but I cannot pass
over the conduct of the latter. He was the first person, as we have
seen, to propose the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade; and he fixed
a time for its cessation on the 1st of January, 1800. His sincerity on
this occasion was doubted by Mr. Fox at the very outset; for he
immediately rose and said, that "something so mischievous had come out,
something so like a foundation had been laid for preserving, not only
for years to come, but for anything he knew, for ever, this detestable
traffic, that he felt it his duty immediately to deprecate all such
delusions upon the country." Mr. Pitt, who spoke soon afterwards, in
reply to an argument advanced by Mr. Dundas, maintained, that "at
whatever period the House should say that the Slave Trade should
actually cease, this defence would equally be set up; for it would be
just as good an argument in seventy years hence, as it was against the
abolition then." And these remarks Mr. Dundas verified in a singular
manner within this period: for in the year 1796, when his own bill, as
amended in the Commons, was to take place, he was one of the most
strenuous opposers of it; and in the year 1799, when in point of
consistency it devolved upon him to propose it to the House, in order
that the trade might cease on the 1st of January, 1800, (which was the
time of his own original choice, or a time unfettered by parliamentary
amendment,) he was the chief instrument of throwing out Mr.
Wilberforce's bill, which promised even a longer period to its
continuance: so that it is obvious, that there was no time, within his
own limits, when the abolition would have suited him, notwithstanding
his profession, "that he had always been a warm advocate for the
measure."
CHAPTER XXXI.
[Sidenote: Continuation from July 1799 to July 1805.--Various motions
within this period.]
The question had now been brought forward in almost every possible way,
and yet had been eventually lost. The total and immediate abolition had
been attempted; and then the gradual. The gradual again had been tried
for the year 1798, then for 1795, and then for 1796, at which period it
was decreed, but never allowed to be executed. An Abolition of a part of
the trade, as it related to the supply of foreigners with slaves, was
the next measure proposed; and when this failed, the abolition of
another part of it, as it related to the making of a certain portion of
the coast of Africa sacred to liberty, was attempted; but this failed
also. Mr. Wilberforce therefore thought it prudent, not to press the
abolition as a mere annual measure, but to allow members time to digest
the eloquence, which had been bestowed upon it for the last five years,
and to wait till some new circumstances should favour its introduction.
Accordingly he allowed the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803, to pass
over without any further parliamentary notice than the moving for
certain papers; during which he took an opportunity of assuring the
House, that he had not grown cool in the cause, but that he would
agitate it in a future session.
In the year 1804, which was fixed upon for renewed exertion, the
committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade elected James Stephen,
Zachary Macaulay, Henry Brougham, Esqrs., and William Phillips, into
their own body. Four other members, also, Robert Grant, and John
Thornton, Esqrs., and William Manser and William Allen, were afterwards
added to the list. 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 the motion. A debate
ensued. Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Devaynes, Mr. Addington, and Mr. Manning
spoke against it, however, notwithstanding his connection with the West
Indies, said he would support it, if an indemnification were offered to
the planters, in case any actual loss should accompany the measure.
Sir William Geary questioned the propriety of immediate abolition.
Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Barbara spoke in favour of
the motion.
Mr. William Smith rose, when the latter had seated himself, and
complimented him on this change of sentiment, so honourable to him,
inasmuch as he had espoused the cause of humanity against his supposed
interest as a planter. Mr. Leigh said that he would not tolerate such a
traffic for a moment. All the feelings of nature revolted at it. Lord de
Blaquiere observed, "it was the first time the question had been
proposed to Irishmen as legislators. He believed it would be supported
by most of them. As to the people of Ireland, he could pledge himself
that they were hostile to this barbarous traffic." 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, when the second reading of the bill was moved, it
was opposed by Sir W. Yonge, Dr. Laurence, Mr. C. Brook, Mr. Dent, and
others. Among these Lord Castlereagh professed himself a friend to the
abolition of the trade, but he differed as to the mode. Sir J.
Wrottesley approved of the principle of the bill, but would oppose it in
some of its details. Mr. Windham allowed the justice, but differed as to
the expediency, of the measure. Mr. Deverell professed himself to have
been a friend to it; but he had then changed his mind. Sir Laurence
Parsons wished to see a plan for the gradual extinction of the trade.
Lord Temple affirmed that the bill would seal the death-warrant of every
White inhabitant of the islands. The second reading was supported by Sir
Ralph Milbank, Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis,
Barham, and Grenfell, and Sir John Newport. Mr. Grenfell observed, that
he could not give a silent vote, when the character of the country was
concerned. When the question of the abolition first came before the
public, he was a warm friend to it; and from that day to this he had
cherished the same feelings. He assured Mr. Wilberforce of his constant
support. Sir John Newport stated that the Irish nation took a virtuous
interest in this noble cause. He ridiculed the idea that the trade and
manufactures of the country would suffer by the measure in
contemplation; but, even if they should suffer, he would oppose it.
"Fiat justitia, ruat coelura," Upon a division, there appeared for the
second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.
On the 12th of June, when a motion was made to go into a committee upon
the bill, it was opposed by Messrs. Fuller, C. Brook, C. Ellis, Dent,
Deverell, and Manning: and it was supported by Sir Robert Buxton, Mr.
Barham, and the Hon. J.S. Cocks. The latter condemned the imprudence of
the planters. Instead of profiting by the discussions, which had taken
place, and making wise provisions against the great event of the
abolition, which would sooner or later take place, they had only thought
of new stratagems to defeat it. He declared his abhorrence of the trade,
which he considered to be a national disgrace. The House divided: when
there were seventy-nine for the motion, and against it, twenty.
On the 27th of June the bill was opposed in its last stage by Sir W.
Young, Messrs. Dickenson, Mr. Rose, Addington, and Dent.; and supported
by: Messrs. Pitt, W. Smith, Francis, and Barham; when it 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 Honourable
Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeek, as members.
In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year.
Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Puller, and Mr. Gascoyne
opposed it. Leave, however, was given him 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 was built on the narrow ground of interest--of pecuniary
profit--of sordid gain--in opposition to every high 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 anything when opposed to moral rectitude, or if
it were to supercede precepts of Christianity, where was a man to stop,
on what was he to draw? For anything 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 laboured, he laboured 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 the field. 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 Pulteney,
Colonel Tarleton, Messrs. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On
dividing the House upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but
against it only seventy.
This loss of the question, after it had been carried in the last year by
so great a majority, being quite unexpected, was a matter of severe
disappointment; and might have discouraged the friends of the cause in
this infancy of their renewed efforts, if they had not discovered the
reason of its failure. After due consideration it appeared, that no
fewer than nine members, who had never been absent once in sixteen years
when it was agitated, gave way to engagements on the day of the motion,
from a belief that it was safe. It appeared also, that out of the great
number of Irish members, who supported it in the former year, only nine
were in the House, when it was lost. It appeared also that, previously
to this event, a canvass, more importunate than had heard of on any
former occasion, had been made among the latter by those interested in
the continuance of the trade. Many of these, unacquainted with the
detail of the subject, like the English members, admitted the dismal
representations, which were then made to them. The desire, of doing good
on the one hand, and the fear of doing injury on the other, perplexed
them; and in this dubious state they absented themselves at the time
mentioned.
The causes of the failure having been found accidental, and capable of a
remedy, it was resolved that an attempt should be made immediately in
the House in a new form. Lord Henry Petty signified his intention of
bringing in a bill for the abolition of the foreign part of the Slave
Trade; but the impeachment of Lord Melville, and other weighty matters
coming on, the notice was not acted upon in that session.
CHAPTER XXXII.
[Sidenote:--Continuation from July 1805 to July 1806--Author returns to
his duty in the committee--Travels again round the kingdom--Death of Mr.
Pitt--His character, as it related to the question--Motion for the
abolition of the foreign Slave-Trade--Resolution to take measures for
the total abolition of it--Address to the King to negotiate with foreign
powers for their concurrence in it--Motion to prevent any new vessel
going into the trade--these carried through both Houses of Parliament.]
It was now almost certain, to the inexpressible joy of the committee,
that the cause, with proper vigilance, could be carried in the next
session in the House of Commons. It became them therefore to prepare to
support it. In adverting to measures for this purpose, it occurred to
them, that the House of Lords, if the question should be then carried to
them from the Commons, might insist upon hearing evidence on the general
subject. But, alas, even the body of witnesses, which had been last
collected, was broken by death or dispersion! It was therefore to be
formed again. In this situation it devolved upon me, as I had now
returned to the committee after an absence of nine years, to take
another journey for this purpose.
This journey I performed with extraordinary success. In the course of it
I had also much satisfaction on another account. I found the old friends
of the cause still faithful to it. It was remarkable, however, that the
youth of the rising generation knew but little about the question. For
the last eight or nine years the committee had not circulated any books;
and the debates in the Commons during that time had not furnished them
with the means of an adequate knowledge concerning it. When, however, I
conversed with these, as I travelled along, I discovered a profound
attention to what I said; an earnest desire to know more of the subject;
and a generous warmth in favour of the injured Africans, which I foresaw
could soon be turned into enthusiasm. Hence I perceived that the cause
furnished us with endless sources of rallying: and that the ardour which
we had seen with so much admiration in former years, could be easily
renewed.
I had scarcely finished my journey, when Mr. Pitt died. This event took
place in January 1806, I shall stop therefore to make a few observations
upon his character, as it related to this cause. This I feel myself
bound in justice to do, because his sincerity towards it has been
generally questioned.
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 but to few; but it
is, nevertheless, true, that so early as in 1788, he occasioned a
communication to be made to the French government, in which he
recommended an 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 favourable.
From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own
power. 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
proofs 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 a more than ordinary interest in the welfare of
the cause. Among the subjects, which were then 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.