Chapter 2

It appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessary in our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slaves there, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it. To whom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion? We answer, To the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to that Parliament, _which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs of Africa_. The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send their respective codes to this Parliament for revision. Here they will be well and impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, others amended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to the Colonies, means having been previously devised for their execution there.

But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of the West India planters. These would consider any such interference by the British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would cry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when the abolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pitt say to them in the House of Commons? "I will now," said he, "consider the proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the West Indians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion of their legal inheritance. This proposition implied, that Parliament had no right to stop the importations: but had this detestable traffic received such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of the Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? But if the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for its perpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the branches of our national commerce. But _any contract_ for the promotion of this trade must, in his opinion, _have been void from the beginning_; for if it was _an outrage upon justice_, and only another name for _fraud, robbery, and murder_, what _pledge_ could devolve upon the Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?"

They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before mentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction of it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must not forget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. "He had known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of obstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliament no choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for such an exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was, that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial assemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to declare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood. It told the colonial assemblies, You are safe for the present from the interference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on the promise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what is required of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The Assemblies might be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliament might rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in their hands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed." In a subsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Holland remarked, that "in his opinion there had been more prejudice against this Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might be the objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for them to consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that, if the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_." But on this subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall say more in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, and to insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying the evil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revision of the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarm some of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself from the charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr. Long, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whose authority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing on the affairs of Jamaica, he says: "The system[2] of Colonial government, and the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which never were, but _which ought to be_, strictly canvassed, examined, and amended by the British Parliament."

The second and last step to be taken by the Abolitionists should be, to collect all possible light on the subject of _emancipation_ with a view of carrying that measure into effect in its due time. They ought never to forget, that _emancipation_ was included in _their original idea of the abolition of the slave trade_. Slavery was then as much an evil in their eyes as the trade itself; and so long as the former continues in its present state, the extinction of it ought to be equally an object of their care. All the slaves in our colonies, whether men, women, or children, whether _Africans or Creoles_, have been unjustly deprived of their rights. There is not a master, who has the least claim to their services in point of equity. There is, therefore, a great debt due to them, and for this no payment, no amends, no equivalent can be found, but a _restoration to their liberty_.

That all have been unjustly deprived of their rights, may be easily shown by examining the different grounds on which they are alleged to be held in bondage. With respect to those in our colonies, who are _Africans_, I never heard of any title to them but by the _right of purchase_. But it will be asked, where did the purchasers get them? It will be answered, that they got them from the sellers; and where did the sellers, that is, the original sellers, get them? They got them by _fraud or violence_. So says the evidence before the House of Commons; and so, in fact, said both Houses of Parliament, when they abolished the trade: and this is the plea set up for retaining them in a cruel bondage!!!

With respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or those born in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these are claimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, and this circumstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right to their persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which taught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partus sequitur ventrem," says this law, or the "condition or lot of the mother determines the condition or lot of the offspring." It is the same law, which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession. Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the man who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which were the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law, and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the services of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law they denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and intellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves, and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as upon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however, their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House of Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the falsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections and the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as those of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as it takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable to those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?

This is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have founded their right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. They consider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves in question have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspring of men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, their right must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principle or right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ to the infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by _nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, but to the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on the score of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generally admitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived of their liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as they include _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _make examples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But what injury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the master of its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishment inflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishment should be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, against which, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is it reasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to any one, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _the arbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the condition of a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will of his own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in the condition of a slave?

And as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot be defended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so this right absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by the touchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into the world, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according to Christian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This is the Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under this law, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indian slavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_ or _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism without control; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. The subjects of it _must do_, and this _instantaneously_, whatever their master _orders them to do_, whether it _be right or wrong_. His will, and his will alone, is their law. If the wife of a slave were ordered by a master to submit herself to his lusts, and therefore to commit adultery, or if her husband were ordered to steal any thing for him, and therefore to commit theft, I have no conception that either the one or the other would _dare_ to disobey his commands. "The whip, the shackles, the dungeon," says Mr. Steele before mentioned, "are at all times in his power, whether it be to gratify his _lust_, or display his authority[3]." Now if the master has the power, _a just, and moral power_, to make his slaves do what he orders them to do, even if it be wrong, then I must contend that the Scriptures, whose authority we venerate, are false. I must contend that his slaves never could have been born free agents and accountable creatures; or that, as soon as they became slaves, they were absolved from the condition of free-agency and that they lost their responsibility as men. But if, on the other hand, it be the revealed will of God, that all men, without exception, must be left free to act, but accountable to God for their actions;--I contend that no man can be born, nay, further, that no man can be made, held, or possessed, as a proper slave. I contend that there can be, according to the Gospel-dispensation, _no such state as West Indian slavery_. But let us now suppose for a moment, that there might be found an instance or two of slaves enlightened by some pious Missionary, who would refuse to execute their master's orders on the principle that they were wrong; even this would not alter our views of the case. For would not this refusal be so unexampled, so unlooked-for, so immediately destructive to all authority and discipline, and so provocative of anger, that it would be followed by _immediate and signal punishment_? Here then we should have a West Indian master reversing all the laws and rules of civilized nations, and turning upside down all the morality of the Gospel by the novel practice of _punishing men for their virtues_. This new case affords another argument, why a man cannot be born a proper slave. In fact, the whole system of our planters appears to me to be so directly in opposition to the whole system of our religion, that I have no conception, how a man can have been born a slave, such as the West Indian is; nor indeed have I any conception, how he can be, rightly, or justly, or properly, a West Indian slave at all. There appears to me something even impious in the thought; and I am convinced, that many years will not pass, before the West Indian slavery will fall, and that future ages will contemplate with astonishment how the preceding could have tolerated it.

It has now appeared, if I have reasoned conclusively, that the West Indians have no title to their slaves on the ground of purchase, nor on the plea of the law of birth, nor on that of any natural right, nor on that of reason or justice, and that Christianity absolutely annihilates it. It remains only to show, that they have no title to them on the ground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Acts of Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_.

With respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the case is very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave trade nor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been for the _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were first concerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe, first, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the ships which took them from their native land; and secondly, that they were conveyed to the Colonies principally for _their own benefit_, or out of _Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be converted to Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first assertion, the way in which Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slave trade began in England. This great princess seems on the very commencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seems to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and indeed, to have revolted at the very thoughts of it. She seems to have been aware of the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were sanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure the persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have viewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place to her knowledge, we may conjecture from this fact--that when Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither he had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill's Naval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be carried off _without their free consent_, declaring, "that it would be detestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers." Capt. Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth in this respect. But he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africa again, _he seized_ many of the inhabitants _and carried them off_ as slaves, "Here (says Hill) began the horrid practice of forcing the Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity, which, so sure as there is vengeance in Heaven for the worst of crimes, will sometime be the destruction of all who encourage it." Take as an instance of the second what Labat, a Roman missionary, records in his account of the Isles of America. He says, that Louis the Thirteenth was very uneasy, when he was about to issue the edict, by which all Africans coming into his colonies were to be made slaves; and that this uneasiness continued, till he was assured that the introduction of them in this capacity into his foreign dominions was the readiest way of _converting them_ to the principles _of the Christian religion_. It was upon these ideas then, namely, that the Africans left their own country voluntarily, and that they were to receive the blessings of Christianity, and upon these alone, that the first transportations were allowed, and that the first _English_ grants and Acts of Parliament, and that the first _foreign_ edicts, sanctioned them. We have therefore the fact well authenticated, as it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that the owners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better title to them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forced away from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had its allowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_.