The Earl of Westmoreland>after referring to the petitions which he had presented against the resolutions intended to be proposed respecting the abolition of the Slave Trade, declared it to be his opinion that the parties whom these resolutions might affect, should be heard by their counsel at the bar previous to the resolutions being proposed.
§ Lord Grenvilledid not conceive this to be the moment for entering into the examination of evidence. When the petitions were first presented, it was competent then for the noble earl to move that counsel be heard; but as that opportunity had not then been taken to make the motion, he could not allow that such question be now started, and mixed with the question fixed for this day's discussion. He should therefore move the order of the day, for taking into consideration the resolutions upon this subject communicated by the commons, and leave it open for any noble lord to make what objections to it he should deem proper.
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, the resolutions affected such weighty and various interests, that he thought it but justice the parties should be heard by their counsel. He should not, however, press any motion upon the subject.
§ Lord Grenvillethen moved, that the order of the day be read; which was accordingly done: it was for summoning their lordships, for the consideration of the vote communicated by the commons, at a conference, resolving in effect, that the Slave Trade, being contrary to the principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy, they would, early in the next session of parliament, proceed to the consideration of the abolition of the same, in such way, and at what period, as they shall think most expedient, &c. The Resolution being read by the clerk, the noble lord rose, and observed, that the Resolution their lordships had just heard read, was the determinate result of nearly 20 years discussion and inquiry upon the subject. He rejoiced that the topic had been sifted to the bottom. No pretence, or shadow of argument, could now be urged, that had not again and again been publicly discussed, and every particle of objection repeatedly refuted. The time was come, when no need existed of farther inquiry; and that period, when the voice of justice, and the voice of humanity, equally called upon that house to concur in the Resolution voted by the other house of parliament. The Resolution imported, that the African Slave trade was contrary to the principles of humanity, of justice, and of sound policy, As to the first point, could any man in that house, or in the country, he would ask, raise his voice, and, in his mind and conscience, say, that the slave trade was not contrary to humanity? What was the object of the slave trade? To tear men from the bosom of their families, their country, their friends, wives, brothers, children, from 803 all that was dear to them in society, and in their country. Could any man assert such a practice was not contrary to humanity? Personal freedom was a blessing granted by God, and could not with justice be violated by man. Were their lordships to consider, only for a moment, the manner in which the unhappy objects of the traffic were procured, and which, among other records, appeared, in the evidence, which a right reverend prelate, much to his honour, had so great a share in eliciting, that alone would convince their lordships how the traffic outraged every principle of humanity. A celebrated writer on the subject, who was an advocate for the trade, admits, that the far larger portion of the slaves taken from the coasts of Africa, was procured by the crimes of those who brought them; this acknowledgement, nothing but the innate force of truth and justice could bring such a writer to make. All the natives who now acknowledged the divine precepts of Christianity, or even those who were civilized at all, had relinquished the traffic, as hostile to the first principles of humanity. The traffic, in the first instance, was now confined to the natives of Africa, whose incentive was the consequence of the avarice of those in this country, who still persisted in it. His lordship then glanced at the consideration of the middle passage, the miseries and horrors of which were acknowledged by all, save those whose hearts were steeled against every emotion of humanity. With respect to this, long experience had proved, that no really effectual remedy could apply, but total abolition. No circumstance or situation, on the face of the habitable globe, could exhibit so great a portion of human misery, condensed into such a narrow compass, as did this middle passage. This he had often occasion to expatiate upon; but he trusted their lordships' vote of that night would render the present the last occasion he should have. They would next have to consider the object of this middle passage; which was to tie and shackle the unhappy wretches who survived it, to hopeless bondage and never ending labour, in the burning climate of the West Indies! rising up and laying down, day after day, under the lash of an imperious and unfeeling task master! to those "Hope never comes which comes to all!" The exercise of uncontrouled, arbitrary power, was the never-failing corrupter of the human heart. Notwithstanding all that had been advanced on that part of the subject, the West India planters had not 804 done all in their power to alleviate the sufferings of the slaves; and even if they had, the end could not effectually be obtained. Having concluded this division of his subject, the noble lord proceeded to the consideration of the case, with respect to the principles of justice. With respect to this, he contended that it militated against every principle of distributive justice. It could be no recommendation of that or of any other consideration of outrage, or robbery, to say, that it was lucrative; and, on that ground, a great part of the argument, in favour of the traffic, was rested. What right can any planter in the West Indies, or any merchant in England have to the labour of the inhabitants of Africa? In what code of the law of nations, or in what system of religion, could such a right be founded? The third question, which the Resolution he should move their lordships to concur in, involved, was, whether the trade was consistent with sound policy? On this head, he set out with contending for the broad principle, that it never can be wise or politic in nations to persevere in a course of inhumanity and injustice. Another consideration essentially connected, was the practical principle, that the labour of slaves was not equally valuable with the labour of freemen. On this head, his lordship referred to the authority of a great man (Mr. Pitt) now no more, whose loss this country had every reason to deplore, who had given a great share of his attention to this very interesting and important subject, and whose heart and mind were set upon the great measure of abolition, as all who knew him in private could attest. On no occasion whatever were the great and splendid talents, or the irresistible eloquence of that great man, exerted in a more conspicuous degree, than on this great and interesting subject; and, in the course of his discussions of it, his calculations, with respect to the comparative value of the labour of freemen and slaves, were luminous and convincing. One of the incontrovertible results of these, was, that the expences of procuring the unhappy objects in question, the expences of transporting them, and their maintenance afterwards, comparing all these with the value of the labour actually performed, evinced that this labour was not so profitable, by much, as that of freemen brought to the work in the first instance. In addition to this great and incontrovertible authority, was that of a celebrated writer on the subject, who argued, that the only thing which could preserve the planters 805 from the ruin impending over them, was the abolition of the slave trade. The fresh importations were, upon the whole, regarded as disadvantageous, and chiefly on account of the mortalities. His lordship then adverted to the important consideration of what had happened in St. Domingo, and which, if no other fact or argument could be adduced of the impolicy of continuing the traffic, the consideration of the direful calamities to which he alluded, would suffice. In urging their lordships to concur in the resolution of the Commons, he pointed their attention to the nature and effect of that resolution. To the result of it, they could not, deeming the traffic to be against humanity, justice, and policy, consistently refuse their assent, viz. that they would proceed to the consideration of steps tending to abolish such a traffic, in a way, and at such a period, as should be deemed most expedient; and to this principle he could challenge the acquiescence of every noble lord who was not prepared to say the slave trade ought never to be abolished. Neither did it implicate them to the vote of attempting the immediate abolition, or to any particular mode of accomplishing it, but merely to the principle of total abolition. This consideration, however, should not deter him, strongly as he felt upon the point, from supporting and urging their lordships' compliance with the vote ,of the commons; as, though he could not attain all the good he wished, he should endeavour to perform all that circumstances offered as practicable. Upon this principle, and on the grounds he had stated, he should move "that their lordships do concur in the Resolution communicated by the commons.
§ Lord Hawkesburyconcurred with the noble lord in opinion, that if a trade was carried on, which was contrary to humanity and justice, there could be no question as to its being contrary to sound policy. This however, was not the way in which he viewed this question. It was not upon abstract principles, that the question as to the abolition of the slave trade, ought to be considered, but as to its practical effect, and in this view of the subject, the noble lord had advanced principles in the course of his speech, which he did not venture to sanction in the motion with which he concluded. The same principles upon which the noble lord condemned the slave trade, applied with equal force to the state of slavery itself, but the noble lord would not venture to bring forward any measure founded upon these principles, as applying to the actual 806 state of slavery in the West Indies. This, therefore, shewed the fallacy of bringing forward abstract principles, without at the same time looking to the practical effect. He did not believe that our ceasing to trade to Africa for Negroes, would be of the slightest benefit to the people of that continent, nor did he believe that one slave less would be imported on account of our giving up the trade: the only effect would be, that British capital would be transferred to foreign Islands, that the trade would be transferred to other hands, where the same regulations for ameliorating the condition of time negroes in their passage did not exist, and that thus no benefit would practically result from time measure Slavery was undoubtedly an evil, and the slave trade was an evil; so, many other evils existed, particularly comparative evils in the state of human society; but it did not follow that every evil was to be abolished, without reference to the practical effect of such abolition; as, in such case, a greater evil might be produced by the sudden change than previously existed. The instance of St. Domingo, adduced by the noble lord, made more against, than for his argument, as the horrid revolution in that island was caused by abstract principles, embodied in the form of legislation in the mother country, without reference to the practical effect, or to the policy of carrying such principles into execution. With respect to the resolution itself, he did not see that it led to any practical conclusion, nor did he think it a right mode of proceeding, to adopt a general resolution, containing an abstract principle respecting the abolition of the slave trade, without having previously considered the practical means by which that trade was to be abolished, or the practical effect which would be thereby produced.
The Bishop of Londonbestowed much praise upon the eloquent speech of the noble lord who had brought this subject forward, agreed entirely in the propriety of the measure now proposed, and expatiated on the injustice, inhumanity, and impolicy of the slave trade. He quoted a variety of authorities from the best books on the subject, and which had been published before it came under parliamentary discussion, front all which he maintained, that the trade ought to be abolished; he maintained also, that the slave trade was not countenanced by any thing in Holy writ, either in the Old or the New Testament. He was a decided friend to the present resolution, as a step 807 towards the much to be wished for abolition of the African slave trade, which had been artfully, by its advocates, blended with the emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies, with which it had no real connection.
The Lord Chancellordeclared that he never hitherto had taken any share in the discussion of this subject, while a member of the other house, when his opinion was rather adverse to the measure; but having read the evidence, he had good reason to alter that opinion. He had been in the West Indies some years ago, and had seen all the great plantations in Jamaica, and he declared the condition of the slaves was almost uniformly ameliorated, and they were generally treated with kindness, such as he had known a great family in this country use to their ancient domestics. He also had been an eye witness to the trade carried on on the coast of Africa, and although he could not say in what manner they might have been collected in the interior, yet their treatment on the coast, and during the middle passage, was inhuman to a degree, most shocking! Parents were torn from their children, infants snatched from the breast of their mothers, while the unhappy parents were pinioned down in chains to the bottom of the hold of a Guinea ship, frequently surrounded by famine and death. He then adverted to the case of a policy of insurance tried in the court of king's bench, where the slaves, in hopes of liberty, having attacked the crew, were fired upon, and while some were mortally wounded, others were thrown overboard, a prey to the sharks; while those who remained, were mingled with the dead and dying; and in this case, continued the learned lord, a British jury was called on to say how many were lost by death, how many by the perils of the sea, and thus to indemnify the robber against the loss of his plunder; he therefore asked, was this practice consistent with humanity and ,justice? And as we knew the evil to exist, it was our duty to God, and to our country, which was the morning star that enlightened Europe, and whose boast and glory was to grant liberty and life, and administer humanity and justice to all nations, to remedy that evil; and he had so high an opinion of the planters in those islands, that he was convinced they would go hand in hand with the parliament upon this measure.
The Earl of Westmorelandcongratulated the noble and learned lord upon the new 808 light which had flashed upon him; but having himself presented the petition against this measure, he would offer a few observations. The question was not between the merchants of Liverpool and the abolitionists, but a great general question, involving the interests of the public at large. This measure called upon the house to pledge itself to libel their ancestors, and calumniate individuals. At this period of the year, he considered it impolitic and improper for government to entertain abstract resolutions upon this subject, which might, although consistent with justice and humanity, be contrary to policy, and vice versa, and should not be brought forward without further evidence, examination, and proof. He quoted Holy Writ, to shew that slavery existed from the beginning of the world to the present day, and was not contrary to the law of nations; and, putting out of the question all that had been sung in ballads, or written in novels, there still was nothing inimical to this practice. He thought the present, being so near the close of the sessions, was not a fit time to try the question, and therefore gave it his decided opposition.
The Bishop of St. Asaphreplied, that however the Mosaic and other laws might have allowed slavery, under certain restrictions, yet there was no authority whatever authorising the slave trade. The state of slavery was an evil degrading to mankind, and though fed with the choicest viands, and always reclining on a bed of roses, the idea to him was abominable; it was inconsistent with justice and humanity, and contrary to the principles of that religion which taught us to promote and diffuse happiness among our fellow creatures. He, therefore, warmly supported the present motion, hoping it would be the forerunner of the general abolition of that practice.
Lord Hollandconsidered the arguments, on the other side, wholly misapplied to the question before the house, which was a measure, since he was able to think upon the subject, he always looked upon as inhuman, disgraceful, and degrading to this country; and for these reasons heartily concurred in the motion of his noble friend.
Lord Sidmouthdeclared his sentiments in favour of the general principle of the measure, but opposed the present question on the ground, that he could not reconcile it to himself to have it put upon the journals of that house, that any long established 809 custom of this country was inhuman and unjust, until some certain mode was adopted for the abolition of such a custom.
§ Earl Stanhopeexpressed much surprise at hearing what fell from the noble lord who last spoke; his arguments were paradoxical, nor had he ever heard so whimsical a reason given in so whimsical a way. The question, whether this was just or unjust, could not be doubted, when it was recollected that whole villages were stripped of their women and children, to supply the rapacity of those brutes in the West Indies.
Earl Grosvenorprofessed himself a warm friend to the abolition of the slave trade. He lamented that the public feeling had been kept so long from being gratified on this subject, and trusted the present administration would meet with no obstacles in the way of carrying their measure for the abolition early in the next session of parliament.
Earl Fitzwilliamfelt rather alarmed at the consequences the resolutions might produce, but could not help feeling disposed to support them.
§ Lord Grenvilledid not feel it necessary to trouble the house with any reply; but took occasion to observe, that he should this night make another motion for an address to his majesty, praying he would be graciously pleased to consult with other powers towards the accomplishment of the same end, which would afford another opportunity to those who were anxious again to divide upon this favourite question.—The house then divided on the question of concurring in the resolutions, when there appeared, Contents 41; Non-contents 20.— Majory 21. On returning below the bar, we found that Lord Grenville's motion for an address was carried without a division.