The order of the day for the third reading of the bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, being read,
§ Lord Redesdalerose, and observed, that however the preamble of this bill might set out, that the African Slave Trade was unjust, inhuman, and impolitic, and, however it might be considered unjust, inhuman, and impolitic, to emancipate the Slaves in the West Indies, yet he considered the present measure would be the means of producing, in the West India Islands, all the horrors of a revolution that could possibly be conceived. The Abolition of the African Trade, he considered, should go hand in hand with that in the West India Islands; and however desirable an object the total abolition of the trade might be, he yet considered this instantaneous abolition, not only dangerous in itself, but likely to be productive of no particular good. As the bill stood at present, he could not give his assent to it, however he might be inclined to support it upon general principles; had it been a different description of bill, and went gradually to a general abolition of this trade, it should then have met with his hearty concurrence. He felt, that any attempt to withstand the present enthusiasm upon this subject would be in vain; but he could not help remarking, that when a legislature acted enthusiastically, they did not always act wisely, and he did not think that in the faithful and conscientious discharge of their duty, the opposers of this measure had much to answer for.
§ The Earl of Buckinghamshiredenied that the support which had been given to this measure, was to be attributed to mere feelings of enthusiasm. Mere enthusiasm was not calculated to last for 20 years, during which period this measure had been under discussion. It was, on the contrary, in his opinion, founded clearly on the grounds of justice and humanity, as well as upon a mature consideration of the present state of the West Indies. When a member of the house of commons in the year 1792, he voted for a gradual abolition, conceiving that the persons concerned in the trade ought to have sufficient notice. Now, however, he had no doubt that the trade ought to be immediately abolished, not only because it was contrary to justice and humanity, but also because the abolition 702 was the only means of preventing those evils which must otherwise necessarily result from the multiplication, of slaves in the West Indies.
The Duke of Norfolkapproved of the bill, and expressed a confidence that the planters would by a moderate treatment of their slaves, contribute to bring about that state of the colonies which was so much to be desired.
The Earl of Westmorelandwas at a loss to understand upon what principle of logic it was to be proved, that if the slave trade was contrary to justice and humanity, it was not also contrary to justice arid humanity to keep the negroes who had been procured by means of the trade, in a state of perpetual slavery. He was not so mad as to think that liberty ought to be given to the slaves in the West Indies: but he contented, that upon the principles upon which the abolition was now founded, emancipation ought also to follow. If it was however determined finally to abolish the trade, it might at least be conceded to the feelings of the planters, and of those concerned in the trade, to erase the words, declaring it to be contrary to justice and humanity. It was thought, however, by some of the supporters of the bill, that by retaining these words, foreign powers might be humbugged, if he might use the expression, into a concurrence in the abolition. This, however, he did not think at all practicable, and it was surely a consideration of expediency, whether at a time when the continent of Europe was nearly shut against us, we should put an end to our trade with the continent of Africa, and by so doing, greatly injure and distress many persons, and deprive many more of the means of subsistence.
§ Lord Grenvillewas glad to find that the opponents of this measure were nearly reduced to one argument, and that was, that the bill did not extend to the emancipation of the slaves already on the islands. The attempted application, however, of the same justice and humanity to both cases, resolved itself into this. In abolishing the trade we did justice to the inhabitants of Africa, who were the parties aggrieved, but in giving liberty to the slaves on the islands, we should do the greatest injustice to them in giving them that which they would not know how to use, and which would only be productive to them of injury. That liberty, the blessings of which we were ena- 703 bled properly to estimate and appreciate, Would be to them, in their state of ignorance and barbarism, a poison of the most baleful nature—The bill was then read a third time, passed, and ordered to be sent to the House of Commons.