§ Lord Cloncurryon presenting petitions from Clara and Tullamore for the Abolition of Slavery said, he did not admit the right of any person, whatever, to hold any human being in Slavery; but it was desirable that the House should be satisfied, before making any alteration in the present law, whether they were likely to improve the condition of those whom it was the particular object of such measure to benefit. At present, their Lordships were in possession of very little information on the subject. It appeared to him that the means taken to prevent the traffic in slaves had hitherto been defective and, in some instances, productive of acts; of horrible barbarity. It sometimes happened that a ship, with slaves on board, was chased—and the whole of them during the chase were thrown into the sea, and no slaves being actually found on board, no capture could be made; but the vessel and her crew were allowed to proceed to commit new enormities 103 with the prospect of the recurrence of a like horrible and appalling catastrophe. The Abolition Acts, therefore, and the system founded upon them, led to the commission of greater atrocities than those which they were intended to extinguish. There was another point, on which it was necessary their Lordships should be informed, and with respect to which, he was for one, ignorant—namely, the condition of the slaves in our colonies, as compared with their condition before they became slaves;—whether captured in war, or kidnapped on the coasts or up the rivers of Africa. He should like to know whether they were not now in less danger of life and limb, and in a better condition with respect to subsistence, than they were in their native homes? Every consideration ought to be given to the interests of the West-India proprietors, because, with every wish to give emancipation to the negro, it was impossible to overlook the fact that it was most difficult to effect that object without entailing an overwhelming loss upon those who had hitherto held this species of property, under the sanction, the encouragement, and the authority of the Legislature. At the same time, some plan might be adopted for the gradual restoration of the slaves to freedom, similar to that which had been carried into effect in some of the States of America.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonpresented a petition from the merchants, planters, shipowners, and other inhabitants of his Majesty's colony of Dominica. It had been put into his hands, the noble Duke said, in December; but, as an inquiry into the subject was then going on, he had declined to present it. It had now, however, been returned to him for presentation. The petitioners apprehended the greatest evils from the adoption of the measures with respect to the West Indies, proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. They were the descendants of persons who, having been conquered by his Majesty's arms, were, by what was called the Treaty of Paris, confirmed the subjects of this country Many of their ancestors had purchased the estates which they now held of the Crown—a property which had been possessed for fifty or sixty years; and what they desired was, either that they should be protected in the enjoyment of that property, or that they should be allowed to cede it to his Majesty for a valuable consideration. In his opinion this latter request was well 104 worthy the attention of their Lordships, and his Majesty's Government. The petitioners, one and all, offered their estates for a certain sum of money, stated by them. Now, if those estates were purchased by the Crown, his Majesty's Ministers would be enabled to try any experiments with them they thought proper; and if those experiments were found to answer in a colony where the property belonged to his Majesty, they might then, perhaps, be advantageously introduced into the colonies where the property belonged to private individuals.
Lord Suffieldwas not surprised that persons who had purchased stolen property, like a man who had purchased a stolen horse, should be glad to get their money back.
§ Viscount Beresfordwished to know how the noble Lord could call it stolen property. Who had stolen it?
Lord Suffieldreplied, that the question was not who had stolen it, but in whose possession the stolen property was.
§ Viscount Beresfordwas at a loss to know how the noble Lord could prove that the property had been stolen.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that many Acts of Parliament had acknowledged the property in question. What he was prepared to contend was, that the planters had as much right to the property adverted to, as their Lordships had to their estates. If the Lord Chancellor were applied to on a question of West-India property to-morrow, he must decide it as such. By the law of the land, no Englishman could be deprived of his property unless by an Act of Parliament granting him compensation.