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
Another way of keeping up the Slave Trade was by the practice of
man-stealing. The evidence was particularly clear upon this head. This
practice included violence, and often bloodshed. The inhumanity of it
therefore could not be doubted.
The unhappy victims, being thus procured, were conveyed, he said, across
the Atlantic in a manner which justified the charge of inhumanity again.
Indeed the suffering here was so great, that neither the mind could
conceive, nor the tongue describe, it. He had said on a former occasion,
that in their transportation there was a greater portion of misery
condensed within a smaller space, than had ever existed in the known
world. He would repeat his words; for he did not know, how he could
express himself better on the subject. And, after all these horrors,
what was their destiny? It was such, as justified the charge in the
resolution again: for, after having survived the sickness arising from
the passage, they were doomed to interminable slavery.
We had been, he said, so much accustomed to words, descriptive of the
cruelty of this traffic, that we had almost forgotten their meaning. He
wished that some person, educated as an Englishman, with suitable powers
of eloquence, but now for the first time informed of all the horrors of
it, were to address their lordships upon it, and he was sure, that they
would instantly determine that it should cease. But the continuance of
it had rendered cruelty familiar to us; and the recital of its horrors,
had been so frequent, that we could now hear them stated without being
affected as we ought to be. He intreated their lordships, however, to
endeavour to conceive the hard case of the unhappy victims of it; and as
he had led them to the last stage of their miserable existence, which
was in the colonies, to contemplate it there. They were there under the
arbitrary will of a cruel task-master from morning till night. When they
went to rest, would not their dreams be frightful? When they awoke,
would they not awake--
--only to discover sights of woe,
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges?--
They knew no change, except in the humour of their masters, to whom
their whole destiny was entrusted. We might, perhaps, flatter ourselves
with saying, that they were subject to the will of Englishmen. But
Englishmen were not better than others, when in possession of arbitrary
power. The very fairest exercise of it was a never-failing corrupter of
the heart. But suppose it were allowed that self-interest might operate
some little against cruelty; yet where was the interest of the overseer
or the driver? But he knew it would be said, that the evils complained
of in the colonies had been mitigated. There might be instances of this;
but they could never be cured, while slavery existed. Slavery took away
more than half of the human character. Hence the practice, where it
existed, of rejecting the testimony of the slave: but, if this testimony
was rejected, where could be his redress against his oppressor?
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 labour 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 labour during the
whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labour. Hence the
Slave Trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very
principle, 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 dishonour 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 labour. 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 Slave Trade. He
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 labour 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 labour 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?
But it had often been said, that without fresh importations the
population of the slaves could not be supported in the islands. This,
however, was a mistake. It had arisen from reckoning the deaths of the
imported Africans, of whom so many were lost in the seasoning, among the
deaths of the Creole slaves. He did not mean to say that, under the
existing degree of misery, the population would greatly increase; but,
he would maintain, that if the deaths and the births were calculated
upon those, who were either born, or who had been a long time in the
islands, so as to be considered as natives, it would be found that the
population had not only been kept up, but that it had been increased.
If it was true, that the labour of a free-man was cheaper than that of a
slave; and, also, that the labour of a long-imported slave was cheaper
than that of a fresh-imported one; and, again, that the chances of
mortality were much more numerous among the newly-imported slaves in the
West Indies, than among those of old standing there, (propositions,
which he took to be established,) we should see new arguments for the
impolicy of the trade.
It might be stated also, that the importation of vast bodies of men, who
had been robbed of their rights, and grievously irritated on that
account, into our colonies, (where their miserable condition opened new
sources of anger and revenge,) was the importation only of the seeds of
insurrection into them. And here he could not but view with astonishment
the reasoning of the West Indian planters, who held up the example of
St. Domingo as a warning against the abolition of the Slave Trade;
because the continuance of it was one of the great causes of the
insurrections and subsequent miseries in that devoted island. Let us but
encourage importations in the same rapid progression of increase every
year, which took place in St. Domingo, and we should witness the same
effect in our own 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 for ever.
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 subsisted, 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.
A state of slavery, he said, had existed in Africa from the earliest
time; and, unless other nations would concur with England in the measure
of the abolition, we could not change it for the better.
Slavery had existed also throughout all Europe. It had now happily, in a
great measure, been done away. But how? Not by acts of parliament, for
these might have retarded the event, but by the progress of
civilization, which removed the evil in a gradual and rational manner.
He then went over the same ground of argument, as when a member of the
Commons in 1792. He said that the inhumanity of the abolition was
visible in this, that not one slave less would be taken from Africa; and
that such as were taken from it, would suffer more than they did now, in
the hands of foreigners. He maintained also, as before, that the example
of St. Domingo afforded one of the strongest arguments against the
abolition of the trade. And he concluded by objecting to the resolution,
inasmuch as it could do no good, for the substance of it would be to be
discussed again in a future session.
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. He 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 ways, he said, in which the Africans were reduced to slavery in
their own country, were by wars,--many of which were excited for the
purpose,--by the breaking up of villages, by kidnapping and by
conviction for a violation of their own laws. Of the latter class many
were accused falsely, and of crimes which did not exist. He then read a
number of extracts from the evidence examined before the privy council,
and from the histories of those, who, having lived in Africa, had thrown
light upon this subject before the question was agitated. All these, he
said, (and similar instances could be multiplied,) proved the truth of
the resolution, that the African Slave Trade was contrary to the
principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy.
It was moreover, he said, contrary to the principles of the religion we
professed. It was not superfluous to say this, when it had been so
frequently asserted that it was sanctioned both by the Jewish and the
Christian dispensations. With respect to the Jews he would observe, that
there was no such thing as perpetual slavery among them. Their slaves
were of two kinds, those of their own nation, and those from the country
round about them. The former were to be set free on the seventh year;
and the rest, of whatever nation, on the fiftieth, or on the year of
Jubilee. With respect to the Christian dispensation, it was a libel to
say that it countenanced such a traffic. It opposed it both in its
spirit and in its principle; nay, it opposed it positively, for it
classed men-stealers, or slave traders, among the murderers of fathers
and mothers, and the most profane criminals upon earth.
The antiquity of slavery in Africa, which the noble lord had glanced at,
afforded, he said, no argument for its continuance. Such a mode of
defence would prevent for ever the removal of any evil; it would justify
the practice of the Chinese, who exposed their infants in the streets to
perish; it would also justify piracy, for that practice existed long
before we knew anything of the African Slave Trade.
He then combatted the argument, that we did a kindness to the Africans
by taking them from their homes; and concluded, by stating to their
lordships, that, if they refused to sanction the resolution, they would
establish these principles, "that though individuals might not rob and
murder, yet that nations might--that though individuals incurred the
penalties of death by such practices, yet that bodies of men might
commit them with impunity for the purposes of lucre;--and that for such
purposes they were not only to be permitted, but encouraged."
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 jumped 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 in 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 subsisted 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 that 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 not be inconsistent with
justice; this was the case when we executed a criminal, or engaged in
war.
It was, however, not contrary to justice, for justice, in this case,
must be measured by the law of nations. But the purchase of slaves was
not contrary to this law. The Slave Trade was a trade with the consent
of the inhabitants of two nations, and procured by no terror, nor by any
act of violence whatever. Slavery had existed from the first ages of the
world, not only in Africa, but throughout the habitable globe, among the
Persians, Greeks, and Romans; and he would compare, with great advantage
to his argument, the wretched condition of the slaves in these ancient
states with that of those in our colonies. Slavery too had been allowed
in a nation which was under the especial direction of Providence; the
Jews were allowed to hold the heathen in bondage. He admitted that what
the learned prelate had said relative to the emancipation of the latter
in the year of jubilee was correct; but he denied that his quotation
relative to the stealers of men referred to the Christian religion. It
was a mere allusion to that which was done contrary to the law of
nations, which was the only measure of justice between states.
With respect to the inhumanity of the trade, he would observe, that if
their lordships, sitting there as legislators, were to set their faces
against everything which appeared to be inhuman, much of the security on
which their lives and property depended might be shaken, if not totally
destroyed. The question was, not whether there was not some evil
attending the Slave Trade, but whether by the measure now before them
they should increase or diminish the quantity of human misery in the
world. He believed, for one, considering the internal state of Africa,
and the impossibility of procuring the concurrence of foreign nations in
the measure, that they would not be able to do any good by the adoption
of it.
As to the impolicy of the trade, the policy of it, on the other hand,
was so great, that he trembled at the consequences of its abolition. The
property connected with this question amounted to a hundred millions.
The annual produce of the islands was eighteen millions, and it yielded
a revenue of four millions annually. How was this immense property and
income to be preserved? Some had said it would be preserved, because the
black population in the islands could be kept up without further
supplies; but the planters denied this assertion, and they were the best
judges of the subject.
He condemned the resolution as a libel upon the wisdom of the law of the
land; and upon the conduct of their ancestors. He condemned it also,
because, if followed up, it would lead to the abolition of the trade,
and the abolition of the trade to the emancipation of the slaves in our
colonies.
The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley) said, that, allowing the slaves in
the West Indies even to be pampered with delicacies, or to be put to
rest on a bed of roses, they could not be happy, for--a slave would be
still a slave. The question, however, was not concerning the alteration
of their condition, but whether we should abolish the practice, by which
they were put in that condition? Whether it was humane, just, and
politic in us so to place them? This question was easily answered; for
he found it difficult to form any one notion of humanity, which did not
include a desire of promoting the happiness of others; and he knew of no
other justice than that, which was founded on the principle of doing to
others, as we should wish they should do to us. And these principles of
humanity and justice were so clear, that he found it difficult to make
them clearer. Perhaps no difficulty was greater than that of arguing a
self-evident proposition, and such he took to be the character of the
proposition, that the Slave Trade was inhuman and unjust.
It had been said, that slavery had existed from the beginning of the
world. He would allow it. But had such a trade as the Slave Trade ever
existed before? Would the noble Earl, who had talked of the slavery of
ancient Rome and Greece, assert, that in the course of his whole
reading, however profound it might have been, he had found anything
resembling such a traffic? Where did it appear in history, that ships
were regularly fitted out to fetch away tens of thousands of persons
annually, against their will, from their native land; that these were
subject to personal indignities and arbitrary punishments during their
transportation; and that a certain proportion of them, owing to
suffocation and other cruel causes, uniformly perished? He averred, that
nothing like the African Slave Trade was ever practised in any nation
upon earth.
If the trade then was repugnant, as he maintained it was, to justice and
humanity, he did not see how, without aiding and abetting injustice and
inhumanity, any man could sanction it: and he thought that the noble
baron (Hawkesbury) was peculiarly bound to support the resolution; for
he had admitted that if it could be shown, that the trade was contrary
to these principles, the question would be at an end. Now this
contrariety had been made apparent, and his lordship had not even
attempted to refute it.
He would say but little on the subject of revealed religion, as it
related to this question, because the reverend prelate, near him, had
spoken so fully upon it. He might observe, however, that at the end of
the sixth year, when the Hebrew slave was emancipated, he was to be
furnished liberally from the flock, the floor, and the wine-press of his
master.
Lord Holland lamented the unfaithfulness of the noble baron (Hawkesbury)
to his own principles, and the inflexible opposition of the noble earl
(Westmoreland), from both which circumstances he despaired for ever of
any assistance from them to this glorious cause. The latter wished to
hear evidence on the subject, for the purpose, doubtless, of delay. He
was sure, that the noble earl did not care what the evidence would say
on either side; for his mind was made up, that the trade ought not to be
abolished.