Part 17

Let me also remind these gentlemen, that if we immediate Abolitionists conceive them, the gradual Abolitionists, to be, though unintentionally, the real practical friends and supporters of the Slave Trade, we at least are not the only persons who hold that opinion. The West Indians, who frankly declare they never can consent to the abolition, nay even the Slave Traders themselves, evidently shew that they conceive these gradual Abolitionists to be their real adherents. Against them ought to have been directed the serious opposition of our African and West Indian opponents, while we were mere objects of derision and contempt. We were a set of well-meaning visionaries, who were proposing what, even if carried into effect, would be found utterly impracticable. Whereas they were men of sound practical understanding, who had wisdom to devise effectual measures for executing all which their virtue might suggest. This is not urged with levity, it is seriously and earnestly pressed. Nor is it a statement without instruction. It has often been justly urged, that we may collect much as to the character of any man, or the tendency of any measure, by observing them not only in themselves, but, when that investigation is difficult and doubtful, by observing who are their enemies and who are their friends. Tried by this principle at least, we know what judgment would be passed on the gradual Abolitionists.

[Sidenote: Slave Trade injurious to our Marine.]

Another argument which, especially in the outset of the discussion, was strongly, and with great confidence, urged against us by our opponents, was, that the African Trade is a nursery for seamen; and that its abolition would therefore be highly injurious to our naval strength. This part of the subject was very early taken up by Mr. Clarkson, a gentleman whose services, throughout the whole conduct of this great cause, deserve the highest commendation. He asserted, as the result of a long and laborious inquiry, that of the sailors employed in the African Trade, between a fifth and a sixth actually died; and that the African ships seldom brought home more than half of their original crews. Nothing was more vehemently repelled, or more obstinately denied, than these positions, till, at length, having long borne with these clamorous contradictions, the muster rolls of the African ships were moved for and laid before Parliament; documents which had been kept in the possession of our opponents, and which cannot therefore be supposed to have been fabricated or coloured to serve our purpose.

From these papers Mr. Clarkson’s calculations were fully justified. It appeared, that of 12,263 persons, the number of the original crews, there had died 2,643, the average length of their voyages being twelve months; whilst, on the contrary, in the West Indian trade, in which the length of the voyage was seven months, of 7,640, the number of the original crews, there had died only 118. But the loss by deaths was not the whole loss to the country; for, besides the broken constitutions of the survivors, which rendered many of them, for the rest of their lives, incapable of the duties of their profession, so many left their ships in consequence of ill usage, that they seldom brought home more than half the persons they had taken out. This last circumstance was attempted to be accounted for, from the natural capriciousness of sailors; and it was said, that they ran away in as great number from the West India as from the Guinea ships. The direct contrary appeared from the muster rolls, and this too, though, from the different ways of paying them in the two trades, their forfeiting little or nothing by quitting the West Indiamen, but much by quitting the Guineamen, the reverse might have been naturally expected. Much more might be said on this subject. Especially, such scenes of cruelty towards those unhappy men might be opened to your view, as would excite at once the concern and indignation of every man, who feels for that class of his fellow-citizens to which this nation owes so much both of her security, her affluence, and her glory.

The evidence taken before the House of Commons contains but too many humiliating instances of this kind; and in consequence we find the most respectable naval commanders acknowledging that the Slave Trade is no nursery of seamen. This truth was even frankly confessed by a Noble Admiral on whose general testimony our opponents set the highest value. But I will quit the present topic, only remarking, that as at the outset of the discussion none of our assertions was more strongly controverted than that concerning the loss of seamen, which can now be no longer denied, we may hence claim some credit on those points which are still in dispute. The incident shows at least that it is not necessary that our opponents should be correct in order to be positive.

[Sidenote: Another objection to abolition:—if we should abolish, foreign nations would still carry on the trade.]

Again, great stress was laid on the consideration, that were Great Britain to desist from the Slave Trade, other nations would still continue it, and that the trade would not therefore cease to exist. The only difference would be, that the trade which formerly we had ourselves carried on, would henceforth be carried on by others; and how would Africa, how would the cause of humanity, be hereby a gainer? To this argument, many answers were returned. But before I proceed to state them, can I forbear remarking, that there would have been no place for such an argument as this, but for that fashionable though pernicious doctrine of the present day, that we are to regulate our practice by considerations of expediency, that vague, fluctuating, and often vicious instructress, instead of the sound, plain, and immutable dictates of justice. It is self-evident, that by stopping the importation into our own colonies, we destroy a large proportion at least of the evil.

During the continuance of the war, all the Dutch, and some of the French colonies, being in our hands, the supply to such of the French as are still unconquered being stopped, that of the Spanish being much interrupted, and the Portuguese settlements also deriving their supply from the more southern part of the Slave coast, the whole of that vast region which constitutes what may be called the solid substance of the African continent, would be almost entirely exempt from the ravages of the Slave Trade. Nor is this temporary abolition desirable, merely in the view of its affording to that wretched country a short breathing time from her miseries. If the war should be of any duration, we may hope, that the Africans may form new habits, and, having adopted less guilty expedients for obtaining the commodities with which they are supplied by the Europeans, may, in some parts at least of the coast, not resume the traffic in human beings, when the war shall be at an end.

All that could be said concerning the future conduct in this relation, of France, Spain, and Portugal, must be mere speculation. But, let us ask, in regard to those several nations, Where is the capital to be found? Surely whatever might have been alleged formerly concerning the possibility of British capital being transported into foreign countries for this use, it will scarcely now be urged; it will surely at least not be credited, that in the present state of the continent, any British subjects will be mad enough, let their strange and unnatural craving after this trade in flesh and blood be ever so importunate, to trust their capital in the way which this argument supposes, out of the only country in which either person or property can now be deemed secure.

We ought also to observe, that in both the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the Slaves are far better treated, and the breeding system much more encouraged, than in those of the other European nations. There is in them also far less of the spirit of commercial speculation and enterprize than in our own. Denmark has long since shewn her willingness to abandon the Slave Trade, and private information confirms the supposition which the circumstances of the case suggest, that her not having yet carried into full effect her declared resolution, that the human traffic should cease with the year 1800, may fairly be ascribed to our conduct and example.

The United States of America were absolutely precluded, by a fundamental article of the confederation, from abolishing the Slave Trade before 1808, by any general law operating over the whole of the union. But it was one of the first acts of all, except I believe one, of the individual states of which the union consists, to abolish this traffic; and when a law was lately passed in South Carolina, allowing the importation of Slaves, Congress shewed its sense of the transaction by imposing on the importation of Slaves into South Carolina itself, the highest duty which the constitution permits. The importation of Slaves also into Louisiana was entirely prohibited. All these are strong indications of a disposition in the Government of the United States to abolish the Slave Trade; and they confirm the assurance which has been received from the best informed gentlemen of that country, that in 1808, when Congress will have a clear right to put an end to that traffic, it will not be allowed the respite of an hour.[48]

So far for the Slaves which are exported westward from the coast of Africa. As to the supply which is sent to the countries east of Africa, it has long been comparatively trifling in amount; and by far the larger part of those immense regions which furnish the European exports, are too distant to allow of Slaves being carried out of them eastward to a profit.

But may we not be allowed to assume a higher tone, and to ask, if this practice, though by a strange perversion of words it is called the Slave Trade, ought indisputably to be considered as a most enormous crime, rather than a commerce, is it not clearly our own duty to abstain from it, and to prohibit and to punish the perpetration of it by our own subjects, however it may still prevail in other countries?

It might serve to discover the monstrous tendencies of this argument, to those whose moral principle is so dull and dark as not instinctively to reject it, to consider to what lengths it might fairly carry them: for why might it not equally be alleged as a sufficient plea for performing every other act of profitable wickedness, which we might conceive, though perhaps unjustly, would be performed by others if not by ourselves. Let any one consider what would be the consequences of admitting such a principle into the intercourse of nations.

Is this, then, a principle to which we will give our solemn sanction, unless we mean fairly to avow that we have one set of religious and moral principles for Africa, and another for the rest of the world?

Apply the principle to private life, and consider what would be its consequences. But there happily the law of the land would soon interfere to check its application. And here, indeed, from first to last, is our misfortune in this whole business of the Slave Trade; that the practices, for the abolition of which we are contending, are such, as by the laws of every civilized community are punishable with death; but, unhappily, there is no tribunal (no earthly tribunal) to which the criminals are amenable. And is this a time above all others, and are the present circumstances of nations precisely those in which such a principle of conduct becomes the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain? Or, if the reproach which has been cast against us be really true, and we are only to be moved by an appeal to our self-interest, is this a time when it is politic or even safe to avow such a principle, and to inculcate such a lesson?

But how, it was indignantly asked, could this enormous evil be ever eradicated, if every nation were thus prudentially to wait till the concurrence of all other nations should be obtained? Let it also be remembered that, on the one hand, no nation has plunged so deeply into this guilt as Great Britain; on the other, that none could be so likely to be looked up to as an example, if she should be the first decidedly to renounce it.

But does not this very argument, grounded on the probable conduct of other nations, apply a thousand times more strongly in a contrary direction? How much more reasonably might other nations point to us, and say, Why should we abolish the Slave Trade, when Great Britain has not abolished? Great Britain, free, just, and honourable as she is, deeply also involved as she is in this commerce above all other nations, not only has not abolished, but has refused to abolish! (This was the language of a great man, many years ago). Alas! it may now be added, and after even at length resolving to abolish, has receded from her resolution!

A long and scrutinizing inquiry has taken place, the subject has been thoroughly canvassed. Her Senate has deliberated again and again; and what is the result? She has gravely and solemnly determined to sanction the Slave Trade. Her Legislature therefore is doubtless convinced that it has been falsely charged with injustice, cruelty, and impolicy. What need then have we to look any further? Why should we examine or deliberate? What more satisfactory proofs could our own investigation bring forth, of the justice and policy of the Slave Trade?

Thus, then, it would appear, on a more impartial view, that, instead of being justified in our continuing to prosecute the Slave Trade, by the probability that other nations would still carry it on, we with but too much colour of reason may be charged with being, if not the authors, yet at least the confirmers of their disposition to persevere in it; and to our account may at last appear to be in a great measure imputable the entire mass of the guilt of this enormous wickedness. We cannot, it is to be feared, now undo all the evil which our misconduct has occasioned; but, as we have long been foremost in the crime, let us, however tardily, endeavour to be at length exemplary in our repentance.

[Sidenote: Slave Trade supported on grounds of justice.]

Of all the sources whence arguments could be drawn in support of the Slave Trade, that of justice would perhaps least have been anticipated by those who have seen how from first to last it sets at nought the rights and happiness of our fellow creatures. The argument was put, however, with some plausibility, so as on a very superficial view to appear to have a faint colour of equity. It was argued, that we had encouraged the West Indians to engage in colonial speculations; that these speculations could not be carried on without supplies from time to time of African labourers; that therefore, to prohibit the importation of Negroes, was to ensure the failure of those very speculations into which we had encouraged the West Indians to embark.

It was a sufficient reply, that if the West Indians would but reform the glaring abuses of their system of management, abuses to which not only every humane but every just mind must be anxious to put an end; importations of Slaves from Africa would be rendered perfectly unnecessary, by the natural increase of their domestic stock; while from the stopping of these importations, various and highly important advantages would follow, to the West Indians themselves as well as to the empire at large. But supposing the case to have been otherwise, and that the West Indians might be likely to suffer in their property from our abolition of the Slave Trade; the inference suggested by justice, I say not by self-interest, but by justice, would be, that the West Indians should be compensated out of the treasury of the mother country, or rather, that the loss should fall in equal shares on all the several parties. But for justice to be supposed to inculcate, that because (from our being ignorant, it is to be hoped, of the real nature and effects of the Slave Trade) we had been accustomed to ravage the unprotected shores of Africa, and bring away by force a number of innocent men, women, and children, to carry them in the hold of a Slave ship in fetters, across the Atlantic, and consign the survivors and their descendants for ever to a state of hopeless and most degraded bondage;—to argue, that, because for two centuries we had pursued this course of wickedness and cruelty, or because, which is not fact, we had even engaged to continue it—that we are bound by the obligation of duty to admit the equity of such a prescription, or to fulfil such an engagement, is certainly a most extraordinary lesson for justice to be supposed to inculcate.

Supposing us to be the debtors of the West Indians, what right have we, as was so well urged by my excellent friend, Mr. Gisborne, to pay British debts with the flesh and blood of Africans? The absurdity of this argument, not to mention its profane usurpation of the sacred name of justice, is too manifest to require any further comment.

But it may be proper in this place to say a few words concerning compensation. It was stated by the great minister to whom I have so often had occasion to allude, than whom no one was more intimately conversant with the commercial system of this country, that it had been our general practice to make from time to time such regulations in the different branches of our commerce, as considerations of policy or finance might require; and excepting cases in which the circumstances had been peculiar, it had not been usual to grant compensation to those who might suffer from the change. The abolition of the Slave Trade ought therefore to be regarded as one of the contingencies which are foreseen and understood in general, though not in the particular form and instance in which they may happen; one of those accidents to which persons who engage in commercial or any other speculations render themselves liable, relying only on the wisdom and justice of the legislature, that, in administering its important trust of watching over the general welfare of the community, it will, as far as possible, consult also the advantage of every particular class, and not lightly sacrifice any individual interests.

The truth of this doctrine was completely established by the great man above referred to, who contended, founding his arguments on general reasoning, and confirming them by a reference to particular statutes, that Parliament had at no time given any pledge that the Slave Trade should be continued, or that the losses incurred in consequence of its suppression, had any losses been likely to take place, should be made good by the public.

Still as it might seem hard, if not absolutely unjust, that one set of men should be the sufferers, when the crime, though committed chiefly for their benefit, was one in which others had participated with them, it was declared by the chancellor of the exchequer, that one class of persons, those alone who might otherwise with reason complain of hard measure, if not of unjust treatment, should receive compensation on any fair case of injury being made out to the satisfaction of impartial commissioners. This was the class of persons who had bought lots of uncultivated land of Government, in the ceded or any other islands. It might be presumed, that they had engaged in the speculation, with expectations of being able to bring them into cultivation by imported Africans; and therefore if they had performed their share of the conditions of the purchase, they were entitled to require the state to perform its share also, or to pay them an equivalent.

But when the colonial system, as now administered, except perhaps in some particular cases, has not only been injurious to the Slaves, but on the long run to the master also; when it is at length declared by a very intelligent West Indian, that the colonists, by adopting those reforms for which justice and humanity should alone furnish sufficient motives, will ultimately derive the most substantial benefits, though possibly they may suffer some temporary inconveniency; when, at the same time, the prejudices against these reforms are so powerful, that a direct, palpable, and valuable interest alone, will probably be adequate to overcome their effect; in such circumstances as these, it is undeniably obvious, that to hold forth an offer of compensation to all, who, after the abolition, should allege that they had suffered from that measure, or who should even furnish plausible proof that it had been injurious to their interests, would not only be to subject ourselves to immeasurable and most inequitable claims, but would be to interpose an insurmountable obstacle in the way of all reforms of the West Indian system, or, to speak more correctly, it would be to give a premium on the continuance and even extension of the old abuses. [Sidenote: and on grounds of religion.] It is, however, most of all astonishing, that our opponents attempt to vindicate the Slave Trade on grounds of religion also. The only argument which they urge with the slightest colour of reason is, that slavery was allowed under the Jewish dispensation. The Jews were exalted by the express designation of heaven to a state of eminence above the strangers who sojourned among them, and the heathen who dwelt around them, from either of whom, as a mark of their own dominion, God, who has a right to assign to all his creatures their several places in the scale of being, allowed them to take bondmen and bondwomen, treating them, however, with kindness, remembering their own feelings when they were slaves in Egypt, and admitting them to the chief national privileges, to the circumcision, to the passover, and other solemn feasts, and thus instructing them in the true religion. Besides this, the slaves were to be set free at the year of Jubilee, or every fiftieth year, a command which was alone sufficient to prevent their accumulating in any great number.