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
I believe it will be said, notwithstanding what I have advanced, that if
Mr. Pitt had exerted himself as the Minister of this country in behalf
of the abolition, he could have carried it. This brings the matter to an
issue; for unquestionably the charge of insincerity, as it related to
this great question, arose from the mistaken notion, that, as his
measures in Parliament were supported by great majorities, he could do
as he pleased there. But they who hold this opinion, must be informed,
that there were great difficulties, against which he had to struggle on
this subject! The Lord Chancellor Thurlow ran counter to his wishes
almost at the very outset. Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Dundas, did the same.
Thus, to go no further, three of the most powerful members of the
cabinet were in direct opposition to him. The abolition then, amidst
this difference of opinion, could never become a cabinet measure; but if
so, then all his parliamentary efforts in this case wanted their usual
authority, and he could only exert his influence as a private man[A].
[Footnote A: This he did with great effect on one or two occasions. On
the motion of Mr. Cawthorne in 1791, the cause hung as it were by a
thread; and would have failed that day, to my knowledge, but for his
seasonable exertions.]
But a difficulty, still more insuperable, presented itself, in an
occurrence which took place in the year 1791, but which is much too
delicate to be mentioned. The explanation of it, however, would convince
the reader, that all the efforts of Mr. Pitt from that day were rendered
useless, I mean, as to bringing the question, as a Minister of State, to
a favourable issue.
But though Mr. Pitt did not carry this great question, he was yet one of
the greatest supporters of it; He fostered it in its infancy. If, in his
public situation, he had then set his face against it, where would have
been our hope? He upheld it also in its childhood; and though in this
state of its existence it did not gain from his protection all the
strength Which it was expected it would have acquired, he yet kept it
from falling, till his successors, in whose administration a greater
number Of favourable circumstances concurred to give it vigour, brought
it to triumphant maturity.
Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, having been called to the head of the
executive government on the death of Mr. Pitt, the cause was ushered
into Parliament under new auspices. In a former year His Majesty had
issued a proclamation by which British merchants were forbidden (with
certain defined exceptions) to import slaves into the colonies, which
had been conquered by the British arms in the course of the war. This
circumstance afforded an opportunity of trying the question in the House
of Commons with the greatest hope of success. Accordingly Sir A. Pigott,
the Attorney-General, as an officer of the crown, brought in a bill on
the thirty-first of March 1806, the first object of which was, to give
effect to the proclamation now mentioned. The second was, to prohibit
British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into the
colonies of any foreign power whether hostile or neutral. And the third
was, to prohibit British subjects and British capital from being
employed in carrying on the Slave Trade in foreign ships; and also to
prevent the outfit of foreign ships from British ports.
Sir A. Pigott, on the introduction of this bill, made an appropriate
speech. The bill was supported by Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook,
and Mr. Bagwell; but opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr.
Rose, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir Charles Price. On the third reading, a
division being called for, there appeared for it thirty-five, and
against it only thirteen.
On the 7th of May it was introduced into the Lords. The supporters of it
there were, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of
London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire and the Lords Holland,
Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough. The opposers were, the
Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of
Westmoreland, and the Lords Eldon and Sheffield. At length a division
took place, when there appeared to be in favour of it thirty-three, and
against it eighteen.
During the discussions, to which this bill gave birth, Lord Grenville
and Mr. Fox declared in substance, in their respective Houses of
Parliament, that they felt the question of the Slave Trade to be one,
which involved the dearest interests of humanity, and the most urgent
claims of policy, justice, and religion; and that, should they succeed
in affecting its abolition, they would regard that success as entailing
more true glory on their administration, and more honour and advantage
on their country, than any other measure, in which they could he
engaged. The bill having passed, (the first, which dismembered this
cruel trade,) it was thought proper to follow it up in a prudent manner;
and, as there was not then time in the advanced period of the session to
bring in another for the total extinction of it, to move a resolution,
by which both Houses should record those principles, on which the
propriety of the latter measure was founded. It was judged also
expedient that Mr. Fox, as the Prime Minister in the House of Commons,
should introduce it there.
On the 10th of June Mr. Fox rose. He began by saying that the motion,
with which he should conclude, would tend in its consequences to effect
the total abolition of the Slave Trade; and he confessed that, since he
had sat in that House (a period of between thirty and forty years), if
he had done nothing else, but had only been instrumental in carrying
through this measure, he should think his life well spent; and should
retire quite satisfied, that he had not lived in vain.
In adverting to the principle of the trade, he noticed some strong
expressions of Mr. Burke concerning it. "To deal in human flesh and
blood," said that great man, "or to deal, not in the labour of men, but
in men themselves, was to devour the root, instead of enjoying the fruit
of human diligence."
Mr. Fox then took a view of the opinions of different members of the
House on this great question; and showed that, though many had opposed
the abolition, all but two or three, among whom were the members for
Liverpool, had confessed, that the trade ought to be done away. He then
went over the different resolutions of the House on the subject, and
concluded from thence, that they were bound to support his motion.
He combated the argument, that the abolition would ruin the West Indian
islands. In doing this he paid a handsome compliment to the memory of
Mr. Pitt, whose speech upon this particular point was, he said, the most
powerful and convincing of any he had ever heard. Indeed they, who had
not; heard it, could have no notion of it. It was a speech, of which he
would say with the Roman author, reciting the words of the Athenian
orator, "Quid esset, si ipsum audivissetis!" It was a speech no less
remarkable for splendid eloquence, than for solid sense and convincing
reason; supported by calculations founded on facts, and conclusions
drawn from premises, as correctly as if they had been mathematical
propositions; all tending to prove that, instead of the West Indian
plantations suffering an injury, they would derive a material benefit by
the abolition of the Slave Trade. He then called upon the friends of
this great man to show their respect for his memory by their votes; and
he concluded with moving, "that this House, considering the African
Slave Trade to be contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and
policy, will, with all practicable expedition, take effectual measures
for the abolition of the said trade, in such a manner, and at such a
period, as may be deemed advisable."
Sir Ralph Milbank rose, and seconded the motion.
General Tarleton rose next. He deprecated the abolition, on account of
the effect which it would have on the trade and revenue of the country.
Mr. Francis said the merchants of Liverpool were at liberty to ask for
compensation; but he, for one, would never grant it for the loss of a
trade, which had been declared to be contrary to humanity and justice.
As an uniform friend to this great cause, he wished Mr. Fox had not
introduced a resolution, but a real bill for the abolition of the Slave
Trade. He believed that both Houses were then disposed to do it away. He
wished the golden opportunity might not be lost.
Lord Castlereagh thought it a proposition, on which no one could
entertain a doubt, that the Slave Trade was a great evil in itself; and
that it was the duty and policy of Parliament to extirpate it; but he
did not think the means offered were adequate to the end proposed. The
abolition, as a political question, was a difficult one. The year 1796
had been once fixed upon by the House, as the period when the trade was
to cease; but, when the time arrived, the resolution was not executed.
This was a proof, either that the House did not wish for the event, or
that they judged it impracticable. It would be impossible, he said, to
get other nations to concur in the measure; and even if they were to
concur, it could not be effected. We might restrain the subjects of the
parent-state from following the trade; but we could not those in our
colonies. A hundred frauds would be committed by these, which we could
not detect. He did not mean by this, that the evil was to go on for
ever. Had a wise plan been proposed at first, it might have been
half-cured by this time. The present resolution would do no good. It was
vague, indefinite, and unintelligible. Such resolutions were only the
slave-merchants' harvests. They would go for more slaves than usual in
the interim. He should have advised a system of duties on fresh
importations of slaves, progressively increasing to a certain extent;
and that the amount of these duties should be given to the planters, as
a bounty to encourage the Negro population upon their estates. Nothing
could be done, unless we went hand in hand with the latter. But he
should deliver himself more fully on this subject, when any thing
specific should be brought forward in the shape of a bill.
Sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor-General, differed from Lord Castlereagh;
for he thought the resolution of Mr. Fox was very simple and
intelligible. If there was a proposition vague and indefinite, it was
that advanced by the noble lord, of a system of duties on fresh
importations, rising progressively, and this under the patronage and
co-operation of the planters. Who could measure the space between the
present time and the abolition of the trade, if that measure were to
depend upon the approbation of the colonies.
The cruelty and injustice of the Slave Trade had been established by
evidence beyond a doubt. It had been shown to be carried on by rapine,
robbery, and murder; by fomenting and encouraging wars; by false
accusations; and imaginary crimes. The unhappy victims were torn away
not only in the time of war, but of profound peace. They were then
carried across the Atlantic, in a manner too horrible to describe; and
afterwards subjected to eternal slavery. In support of the continuance
of such a traffic, he knew of nothing but assertions already disproved,
and arguments already refuted. Since the year 1796, when it was to cease
by a resolution of Parliament, no less than three hundred and sixty
thousand Africans had been torn away from their native land. What an
accumulation was this to our former guilt!
General Gascoyne made two extraordinary assertions: First, that the
trade was defensible on Scriptural ground.--"Both thy bondmen and thy
bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen, that are
round about thee; of them shall you have bondmen and bondmaids. And thou
shalt take them as an heritance for thy children after thee to inherit
them for a possession; they shall be thy bondmen for ever." Secondly,
that the trade had been so advantageous to this country, that it would
have been advisable even to institute a new one, if the old had not
existed.
Mr. Wilberforce replied to General Gascoyne. He then took a view of the
speech of Lord Castlereagh, which he answered point by point. In the
course of his observations he showed that the system of duties
progressively increasing, as proposed by the noble lord, would be one of
the most effectual modes of perpetuating the Slave Trade. He exposed,
also, the false foundation of the hope of any reliance on the
co-operation of the colonists. The House, he said, had, on the motion of
Mr. Ellis, in the year 1797, prayed his Majesty to consult with the
colonial legislatures to take such measures, as might conduce to the
gradual abolition of the African Slave Trade. This address was
transmitted to them by Lord Melville. It was received in some of the
islands with a declaration, "that they possibly might, in some
instances, endeavour to improve the condition of their slaves; but they
should do this, not with any view to the abolition of the Slave Trade;
for they considered that trade as their birth-right, which could not be
taken from them; and that we should deceive ourselves by supposing, that
they would agree to such a measure."
He desired to add to this the declaration of General Prevost in his
public letter from Dominica. Did he not say, when asked what steps had
been taken there in consequence of the resolution of the House in 1797,
"that the act of the legislature, entitled an act for the encouragement,
protection, and better government of slaves, appeared to him to have
been considered, from the day it was passed until this hour, as a
political measure to avert the interference of the mother country in the
management of the slaves."
Sir William Yonge censured the harsh language of Sir Samuel Romilly, who
had applied the terms rapine, robbery, and murder to those, who were
connected with the Slave Trade. He considered the resolution of Mr. Fox
as a prelude to a bill for the abolition of that traffic, and this bill
as a prelude to emancipation, which would not only be dangerous in
itself, but would change the state of property in the islands.
Lord Henry Petty, after having commented on the speeches of Sir Samuel
Romilly and Lord Castlereagh, proceeded to state his own opinion on the
trade; which was, that it was contrary to justice, humanity, and sound
policy, all of which he considered to be inseparable. On its
commencement in Africa the wickedness began. It produced there fraud and
violence, robbery and murder. It gave birth to false accusations, and a
mockery of justice. It was the parent of every crime, which could at
once degrade and afflict the human race. After spreading vice and misery
all over this continent, it doomed its unhappy victims to hardships and
cruelties which were worse than death. The first of these was
conspicuous in their transportation. It was found there, that cruelty
begat cruelty; that the system, wicked in its beginning, was equally so
in its progress; and that it perpetuated its miseries wherever it was
carried on. Nor was it baneful only to the objects, but to the promoters
of it. The loss of British seamen in this traffic was enormous.
One-fifth of all, who were employed in it, perished; that is, they
became the victims of a system, which was founded on fraud, robbery, and
murder; and which procured to the British nation nothing but the
execration of mankind. Nor had we yet done with the evils which attended
it; for it brought in its train the worst of all moral effects, not only
as it respected the poor slaves, when transported to the colonies, but
as it respected those who had concerns with them there. The arbitrary
power, which it conferred, afforded men of bad dispositions full scope
for the exercise of their passions; and it rendered men,
constitutionally of good dispositions, callous to the misery of others.
Thus it depraved the nature of all who were connected with it. These
considerations had made him a friend to the abolition, from the time he
was capable of reasoning upon it. They were considerations, also, which
determined the House, in the year 1782, to adopt a measure of the same
kind as the present. Had anything happened to change the opinion of
members, since? On the contrary, they had now the clearest evidence,
that all the arguments then used against the abolition were fallacious;
being founded, not upon truth, but on assertions devoid of all truth,
and derived from ignorance or prejudice.
Having made these remarks, he proved, by a number of facts, the folly of
the argument, that the Africans laboured under such a total degradation
of mental and moral faculties, that they were made for slavery.
He then entered into the great subject of population. He showed that in
all countries, where there were no unnatural hardships, mankind would
support themselves. He applied this reasoning to the Negro population in
the West Indies; which he maintained could not only be kept up, but
increased, without any further importations from Africa.
He then noticed the observations of Sir William Yonge, on the words of
Sir Samuel Romilly; and desired him to reserve his indignation for
those, who were guilty of acts of rapine, robbery, and murder, instead
of venting it on those, who only did their duty in describing them.
Never were accounts more shocking than those lately sent to government
from the West Indies. Lord Seaforth, and the Attorney-General, could not
refrain, in explaining them, from the use of the words murder and
torture. And did it become members of that House (in order to
accommodate the nerves of the friends of the Slave Trade) to soften down
their expressions, when they were speaking on that subject; and to
desist from calling that murder and torture, for which a Governor, and
the Attorney-General, of one of the islands could find no better name?
After making observations relative to the co-operation of foreign powers
in this great work, he hoped that the House would not suffer itself to
be drawn, either by opposition or by ridicule, to the right or to the
left; but that it would advance straight forward to the accomplishment
of the most magnanimous act of justice, that was ever achieved by any
legislature in the world.
Mr. Rose declared, that on the very first promulgation of this question,
he had proposed to the friends of it the very plan of his noble friend
Lord Castlereagh; namely, a system of progressive duties, and of
bounties for the promotion of the Negro population. This he said to show
that he was friendly to the principle of the measure. He would now
observe, that he did not wholly like the present resolution. It was too
indefinite. He wished, also, that something had been said on the subject
of compensation. He was fearful, also, lest the abolition should lead to
the dangerous change of emancipation. The Negroes, he said, could not be
in a better state, or more faithful to their masters, than they were. In
three attacks made by the enemy on Dominica, where he had a large
property, arms had been put into their hands; and every one of them had
exerted himself faithfully. With respect to the cruel acts in Barbados,
an account of which had been sent to government by Lord Seaforth and the
Attorney-General of Barbados, he had read them; and never had he read
anything on this subject with more horror. He would agree to the
strongest measures for the prevention of such acts in future. He would
even give up the colony, which should refuse to make the wilful murder
of a slave felony. But as to the other, or common, evils complained of,
he thought the remedy should be gradual; and such also as the planters
would concur in. He, would nevertheless not oppose the present
resolution.
Mr. Barham considered compensation but reasonable, where losses were to
accrue from the measure, when it should be put in execution; but he
believed that the amount of it would be much less than was apprehended.
He considered emancipation, though so many fears had been expressed
about it, as forming no objection to the abolition, though he had
estates in the West Indies himself. Such a measure, if it could be
accomplished successfully, would be an honour to the country, and a
blessing to the planters; but preparation must be made for it by
rendering the slaves fit for freedom, and by creating in them an
inclination to free labour. Such a change could only be the work of
time.
Sir John Newport said that the expressions of Sir S. Romilly, which had
given such offence, had been used by others; and would be used with
propriety, while the trade lasted. Some slave-dealers of Liverpool had
lately attempted to prejudice certain merchants of Ireland in their
favour. But none of their representations answered; and it was
remarkable, that the reply made to them was in these words. "We will
have no share in a traffic, consisting in rapine, blood, and murder." He
then took a survey of a system of duties progressively increasing, and
showed that it would be utterly inefficient; and that there was no real
remedy for the different evils complained of, but in the immediate
prohibition of the trade.
Mr. Canning renewed his professions of friendship to the cause. He did
not like the present resolution; yet he would vote for it. He should
have been better pleased with a bill, which would strike at once at the
root of this detestable commerce.
Mr. Manning wished the question to be deferred to the next session. He
hoped compensation would then be brought forward as connected with it.
Nothing, however, effectual could be done without the concurrence of the
planters.
Mr. William Smith noticed, in a striking manner, the different
inconsistencies in the arguments of those, who contended for the
continuance of the trade.
Mr. Windham deprecated not only the Slave Trade, but slavery also. They
were essentially connected with each other. They were both evils, and
ought both of them to be done away. Indeed, if emancipation would follow
the abolition, he should like the latter measure the better. Rapine,
robbery, and murder, were the true characteristics of this traffic. The
same epithets had not indeed been applied to slavery, because this was a
condition, in which some part of the human race had been at every period
of the history of the world. It was, however, a state, which ought not
to be allowed to exist. But, notwithstanding all these confessions, he
should weigh well the consequences of the abolition before he gave it
his support. It would be, on a balance between the evils themselves and
the consequences of removing them, that he should decide for himself on
this question.
Mr. Fox took a view of all the arguments, which had been advanced by the
opponents of the abolition; and having given an appropriate answer to
each, the House divided, when there appeared for the resolution one
hundred and fourteen, and against it but fifteen.
Immediately after this division, Mr. Wilberforce moved an address to His
Majesty, "praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct a
negotiation to be entered into, by which foreign powers should be
invited to co-operate with His Majesty in measures to be adopted for the
abolition of the African Slave Trade."
This address was carried without a division. It was also moved and
carried, that "these resolutions be communicated to the Lords; and that
their concurrence should be desired therein."
On the 24th of June, the Lords met to consider of the resolution and
address. The Earl of Westmoreland proposed that both counsel and
evidence should be heard against them; but his proposition was
overruled.
Lord Grenville then 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 God to man.
It was impossible to read the evidence, as it related to this trade,
without acknowledging the inhumanity of it, and our own disgrace. By
what means was it kept up in Africa? By wars instigated, not by the
passions of the natives, but by our avarice. He knew it would be said in
reply to this, that the slaves, who were purchased by us, would be put
to death, if we were not to buy them. But what should we say, if it
should turn out, that we were the causes of those very cruelties, which
we affected to prevent? But, if it were not so, ought the first nation
in the world to condescend to be the executioner of savages?