The house resolved itself into a committee on the bill for abolishing the Slave Trade. The preamble having been postponed,
§ Lord Grenvillesaid, with respect to filling up the blanks in the bill, that the time which he intended to propose as the period for the abolition of this trade, might, perhaps, appear somewhat at variance with that eager desire which the house had expressed for the abolition, but the gratification arising from the near pros- 678 pect of at length carrying into effect this great measure, would, perhaps, induce them to give way, in a small degree, to circumstances, and not to insist upon an abolition to take place immediately. He proposed that the time to be fixed for the abolition of the trade to the West Indies should be the 1st of January, 1808, but that the period after which no ships engaged in the trade should clear out from the ports of this country, should be the 1st of May in the present year. His object in proposing these periods was, that the vessels at present engaged in the trade might have a fair opportunity of clearing out from the ports of this country, previous to the 1st of May next, and afterwards of taking in their lading in the ports of Africa, and of carrying their cargoes to the West Indies, previous to the 1st of January, 1808. As it might happen, however, that from unavoidable circumstances some vessels might not be able to complete their cargoes on the coast of Africa, so as to carry them to the West Indies previous to that period, he intended to submit to the committee a proviso for the purpose of allowing vessels under such circumstances to trade to the West Indies with their cargoes.
§ Lord Hardwickewished to know in what light the Black Corps in his majesty's service were to be considered, whether as freemen or slaves.
§ Lord Grenvillereplied, that he should have always considered them as freemen; but that at all events particular provision would be made for that case in the Mutiny bill for the year.
§ Lord Redesdalehinted, that the bill, as it was now worded, might extend to our settlements in Asia Minor, and in the East Indies.
§ Lord Grenvilleobserved, that no slaves had been imported to either for some time. He was aware, however, that both in the East Indies and in Asia Minor, there were many Christians who kept a number of slaves, but he did not conceive that this bill could be construed to extend so as to injure them in their property. He would, however, again consider the subject, and, if necessary, a clause to prevent the effect of any such construction might be proposed.—The blanks having been filled up, the noble lord proposed a proviso, allowing such vessels as should have cleared out from the ports of this country for Africa, previous to the 1st of May next, and should not have been able to complete their lading 679 in Africa, so as to carry their cargoes to the West Indies, previous to the lst of January, 1808, to trade nevertheless to the West Indies with such cargoes. He also stated, that as some persons might take advantage of the interval allowed, to make two voyages with the same vessel, he intended, therefore, to propose a clause to prevent that advantage from being taken. —The provisions of the bill having been gone through, the preamble was again taken into consideration.
§ Lord Hawkesburydeclared his disinclination to enter into any discussion of the merits of the measure, after the opinion which a great majority of their lordships had, on a former occasion, pronounced. But, with the conviction he entertained of the impropriety of introducing abstract principles into the preamble of the bill, he conceived it his duty to submit to the Committee an amendment, which should exclude the terms "justice and humanity," and confine the necessity of abolishing the slave trade, solely to the inexpediency of its continuance. He could not see what objections the warmest advocates for the abolition could have to the amendment. The preamble, as it then stood, unnecessarily mooted a point, on which a great difference of opinion existed, and which, if suffered to be made a part of the law of the land, and of the colonies, might be productive of mischievous and fatal consequences; of those consequences which the noble baron, who introduced the bill, so strongly deprecated; he meant any ill-grounded conclusions which the Negroes in the West Indies might infer, relative to their emancipation, as connected with the measure of abolition. Indeed, it was a conclusion natural for men in their circumstances to make, when they found the law of the land declaring that system unjust and inhuman, by the operation of which they were detained in a state of slavery. Some allowance should also be made for the feelings and characters of those who had embarked their property in the African trade; and as the end was obtained, it was exceeding even the practice of hostile parties, to continue and promulgate an imputation, which nothing but the inability of succeeding in the object could justify. It might be objected, that the resolutions of the two houses of parliament had already expressed the same opinion; but he begged leave to state a marked difference in the two cases. The resolutions of the two 680 houses were not obligatory, they were limitted to the members; but the act became obligatory upon the whole empire, upon those very colonial assemblies, whose opinions and feelings were known to be widely different. He therefore trusted, as the noble lords had carried the measure, for the accomplishment of which they appeared so anxious, that they would join in an amendment, in no manner hostile to the principle, but which, in its operation, might have the effect of promoting its success, by the reconciliation of the different interested parties. The noble lord then moved, "That the words inconsistent with the principles of justice and humanity,' be left out of the preamble of the bill."
The Earl of Carnarvonassured their lordships, that, with the feelings which actuated him, and the views he entertained of that unjust and execrable traffic, he could by no means acquiesce in the amendment of the noble lord. To palliate guilt and compromise injustice he never would consent, nor should he think of shrinking from the exposure of a system, as illegal as it was iniquitous. The laws of the country equally extended to every part of the British empire, as well on the high seas as to the colonies; and if the necessity of cultivating the waste lands of the West India islands was a sufficient plea for the violation of justice, upon equal principles of propriety, the peasantry of this kingdom might be dragged from their homes, to till and labour in the inclosure of waste lands. (A cry of "Order.") Noble lords might accuse him of not being in order, but he felt he was acting perfectly orderly, and, therefore, should continue to exercise his own judgment, in exposing a system of oppression and rapine, which, if suffered to continue, would be ultimately extended even to this country.
—"Malum quo non aliud velocius ullum; Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo; parva menu primo: mox sese attolit in auras, Ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the expression in the preamble having been admitted by the noble lord (Hawkesbury) to be true, it followed that it ought to be retained. What was the objection of the noble lord last night? It was, that this trade ought not to be abolished, except in conjunction with foreign powers, and now the noble lord, by his motion, would take away the only ground upon which we could ask other powers to co-operate in the abolition 681 of the trade. If we declared that we abolished the trade on the ground of expepediency alone, then it might be fairly supposed that we did so for reasons applicable to ourselves alone, or to our own colonies; but by stating broadly and distinctly that the trade was contrary to justice and humanity, we took a ground upon which we might fairly call upon other powers to co-operate with us in abolishing the trade. He could not discover any reason for apprehending danger from thus expressing, in a legislative act, their opinion of the trade, whilst the retaining the words objected to, was the best mode they could at present adopt of leading to a general abolition.
Earl Mortonthought the adoption of abstract principles in a legislative act, was inconsistent with the wise and wary language which their ancestors had used on such occasions, and seemed rather like an adoption of that mode of expression which had been so repeatedly used in modern France.
§ Earl Stanhopeapproved highly of the expressions in the preamble which had been objected to. He thought, however, that this bill would not do much towards the abolition of the slave trade without the adoption of adequate regulations in the colonies. It might, perhaps, be proper to enact, that every slave imported into the islands contrary to law, after the time limited for the abolition of the trade, should ipso facto be free, If the local legislatures would not adopt regulations sufficient to carry the abolition into complete effect, we had the means of compelling them, by imposing additional duties, and in other ways. If we could not speak to their hearts we might to their pockets, and by the latter mode produce a greater effect than could possibly be produced by Demosthenian or Ciceronian eloquence.
§ Lord Redesdaleexpressed apprehensions that dangers would arise from retaining these expressions in the preamble, and called the attention of the house to the dangerous consequences which resulted in France from the adoption of abstract principles in legislation, which, however true in themselves, were applied in a manner that produced confusion and anarchy in that country.
The Earl of Lauderdalemaintained that the words which it was proposed to leave out, were the most essential words in the bill. How was the great object of general abolition to be attained, if it appeared upon 682 the face of our own proceedings that we were only actuated by considerations of expediency, and that in calling upon other powers to abolish the trade, we made no sacrifice ourselves? This he could illustrate by communications, which he had whilst at Paris, with one of the French ministers on this subject. On his urging to the ministers the abolition of this trade, he was answered, that it could not be expected that the French government, irritated as it had been by the conduct of the negroes in St. Domingo, would readily agree to the abolition of the trade. He replied, that the abolition would have been the only effectual means of preventing the horrors which had occurred in that island. Then the truth came out: he was told by this minister, that England, with her colonies well stocked with negroes, and affording a large produce, might abolish the trade without inconvenience; but that France, with colonies ill stocked and deficient in produce, could not abolish it without conceding to us the greatest advantages and sustaining a proportionate loss. Thus, then, if we were to declare the ground of our abolishing the trade to be expediency alone, we should be declaring that we were actuated by the very policy imputed to us by the French minister; and how, in thus being supposed to make no sacrifice ourselves, could we call with any effect upon foreign powers to co-operate in the abolition?
The Duke of Montrosedeclared himself to be a friend to the abolition, but thought at the same time, that it would be better to leave out the words objected to.
Lord Hollandsaid he could not clearly understand the distinctions which had been attempted to be drawn between justice and expediency. He was of opinion, that if the subject was fully considered, those distinctions would be found to center in the same point. It was not a distinction between justice and expediency with respect to abolition and emancipation; on the contrary, whilst on the one hand it was essentially just that the trade should be abolished, it would on the other be injustice to the slaves in the islands to give them emancipation, because it could only tend to their own injury. He was surprised to hear the noble and learned lord (Redesdale) condemning the introduction of abstract principles into legislation. What did our Bill of Rights contain but abstract principles? He was decidedly of opinion that the words ought 683 to be retained. No danger whatever had resulted from similar conduct in several of the provinces in America, where the trade had been abolished, and slavery still continued.
§ The Duke of Clarenceurged the danger which might result from retaining these expressions. When the negroes in the islands found that no fresh importations took place, they would naturally inquire the cause, and when they found that the trade was abolished, and declared to be contrary to justice, humanity, and sound policy, would it not have a material effect in their minds with respect to their own situation, and the means by which they were brought there?—The committee then divided on the question, that the words objected to stand part of the preamble. Contents, 33; non-contents, 10; majority 23. The house resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.