HL Deb 24 May 1832 vol 13 cc6-19
The Lord Chancellor

presented a Petition, signed by 135,000 persons, resident in and about London, praying for the Abolition of Slavery at the earliest period compatible with judicial restraint. The petition was got up about a month ago, and, in addition to the prayer which he had read, deprecated any delay likely to ensue from the Committee appointed to inquire on the subject.

The Earl of Harewood

said, the Committee had been appointed for the purpose of obtaining information, and setting the mind of the public right on the subject. He could not listen to the imputations conveyed in the petition against the Committee without saying so much. He was against any hasty and indiscreet emancipation, because he knew it would be productive of great evils; but, at the same time, he was anxious to improve the condition of the slave, and extremely anxious to satisfy the public that the planters, if the public would have a little patience, were anxious to assist in the amelioration of the lot of their own slaves.

The Earl of Suffield

said, the petition was one of the longest ever presented, and would cover half a mile on their Lordships' table. He had twenty-one petitions on the same subject to present, some of them signed by 6,000 persons: the places from which they came were, for the most part, of much consideration and importance. It was not then his intention, upon the presentation of a petition, to enter into the question of slavery, or to make what was called an anti-slavery speech: his object was, very briefly and shortly, to state his own individual notion of slavery. In the first place, he considered it to be most impolitic, because it was unproductive to those engaged in it. If it did produce profit he should say, that it was unjustifiable, insomuch as that profit would be derived from a moral wrong; and, being a moral wrong, it was a crime; and, in the sight of Heaven, a sin—a foul stain and blot upon the national character; to put an end to which, as soon as possible, every individual of their Lordships' body, and every person throughout the kingdom, was called upon by his duty to God and his country to exert himself to the utmost. These were the reasons which had led him to protest against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West Indies—it was the entertainment of those sentiments which had induced him to raise his single voice against such a proceeding. In the year 1832—after all the numerous statements, and all the voluminous evidence which had been collected upon this important subject, and when half England was expecting slavery to be abolished, that House appointed a Committee to inquire into the state of slavery in the West Indies. Out of doors that Committee was almost universally considered as throwing, on the part of the West-Indian proprietors, a still further stain and reproach over the aggravated horrors of this question. That was the opinion of the greater part, if not of all the petitioners, who now addressed that House on the subject. As an authority for that statement, he would read an extract from one of these petitions;—'That your petitioners, for the several reasons herein set forth, most respectfully, but firmly and solemnly, protest against any further inquiry; and they deprecate any further delay, under pretext of inquiry, into the state of the slaves.' By the word "pretext" it was quite clear what was the opinion of these individuals upon the appointment of the Committee; they considered it a mere pretext for concealing truth. It was not his intention to offend their Lordships, but he was then not only speaking his own opinions, but he was stating facts. How was this Committee appointed, and by whom? By a noble Earl, undoubtedly a most amiable and honourable man, but one who happened to be a West-India proprietor. A great many on the list were similarly situated. He would likewise refer to the minutes of the Committee; they were not before the House, but he spoke in the presence of those who were members as well as himself, and he would ask what witnesses had been yet examined? And, with the exception of a few questions which he had put to the Duke of Manchester, who had been the principal examiners? In fact, the case stood thus before the public:—A West-Indian proprietor moved the appointment of a Committee; West-India proprietors formed a large portion of its members; they selected the witnesses, they were the principal examiners; and, finally, they were to pronounce judgment in their report upon the evidence adduced in their own cause. What would the opinion of the public be of a Committee so framed and so conducted? That their proceedings would not add anything to the public information—

Lord Ellenborough

rose to order. It was always in the power of a Committee to select what portion of the evidence given before them they might please, for the purpose of laying it before the House; and if any Member should wish the whole of the evidence to be brought before the House, he could only do so on a specific motion. Such was the rule which had always regulated the practice of the House ever since he had been a Member of it, in cases of a noble Lord's coming forward, without having given notice of a motion beforehand, and questioning the conduct of one of their Lordships' Committees. With regard to the Committee itself, it did so happen that, except on the first occasion of their meeting, it had been impossible for him to attend; but knowing of whom that Committee was composed, he felt—and he was sure that the House and the country would feel with him—the most perfect confidence that their proceedings would be strictly just and impartial. There never could be a more gross act of injustice committed than the appointment of a Committee, from whose members were excluded men practically and intimately acquainted with the subject to be inquired into; and he would put it to the noble Lord whether, if that plan had been followed in this instance, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the West Indian Colonies would, in the present excitement, have been likely to lead to the results desired, both by the noble Earl who moved it, and the members of the Government who acquiesced in that motion.

Lord Suffield

would ever bow with the utmost pleasure to the wishes of the House; and if, in any of his statements or arguments, he had acted in the slightest degree disorderly, he would most readily drop that part of the subject. If, by saying so much on the subject of that Committee, he had acted at all contrary to the Orders of the House, he was sorry for it: for all of the noble Lords composing that Committee, who were West-India proprietors, he felt the very highest esteem; they had his entire respect; and he was quite sure that they were as incapable of doing an act of injustice, and, therefore, of acting dishonourably, as he hoped he was himself; and he must have been greatly misunderstood if thought to imply anything against them. It had been suggested to him to name others to be added to the Committee, and no doubt, if he were to do so, names would be added; but he did not think that this Committee could be very much improved by the addition of any persons in that House. In considering this subject, he must beg that he might not be interrupted; for, on one of such great importance, he was determined to be heard. When it was recollected how blind to the interests and deaf to the entreaties of their fellow-countrymen—their next-door neighbours—this assembly had been, the public could not think it very astonishing that, in such an assembly, it should be difficult to find persons of his opinions on slavery, on which question he did declare that House to be grossly ignorant. There were many Members of it who, from the knowledge which he had of their private character, he was convinced had been deceived by the agents, and, perhaps, by the sort of witnesses who had been examined before the Committee—they had been deluded—they did not know the real state of the case—the naked truth. He did not intend any further to explain to the House why he thought the public would not be released from their anxiety upon this point by the offer of the selection of a Committee from among the whole House. He could only illustrate the position of such a Committee by that of an eminent and learned gentleman, who, before he entered into a Court, to argue a particular case, was compelled to study navigation, that he might make himself acquainted with the detail of a ship's reckoning, to enable him to examine the witnesses and sift the truth. How many noble Lords were qualified, by an intimate acquaintance with the details of slavery, to sift the truth in a case of this description? With the exception of the Colonial Secretary, whose business it was to make himself (and he believed he was) thoroughly acquainted with it—not a single one. He should shrink from thus stating to the House his peculiar individual opinions, did he not feel himself backed by half England—aye, and more than half backed by nearly the whole of his countrymen out of doors. He would refer the House to the petition presented that evening by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which was got up in a month, to those which he did then present, and also to another fact. What was it that mainly contributed to place that noble individual in the elevated station of a Representative for the county of York? What was it that, in conjunction with his eminent talents as a legislator, mainly contributed to that elevation, but the eloquence and energy with which he advocated the cause of those unhappy slaves? He considered that he had discharged his duty in thus stating what he had done to the House. He would, therefore, move that these petitions do lie on the Table.

The Earl of Harewood

begged the attention of the House for a few moments, because, notwithstanding the candour of the noble Lord's statements, some parts of his speech seemed to contain invidious allusions with respect to the Committee which had been appointed by their Lordships on the West Indies. Upon the constitution of that Committee he would say a few words. The Committee itself arose out of the circumstance of the rejection, by the various colonial legislative assemblies, of certain Orders in Council; and it was with the view of inquiring into the wisdom of those Orders that the Committee was formed. The portion of the noble Lord's speech to which he would more particularly refer, was that in which he alluded to the noble Earl, by whom he said the Committee was constituted. In the wisdom, or otherwise, of the framing of that Committee, the noble Viscount opposite, the Colonial Secretary, was as much implicated as himself. A list had been made out and delivered to him, to which he had made several additions. There was no one who was a party to its formation, who would not go along with the noble Lord in advocating the abolition of slavery; but all that he contended was, that if that were done in the present state of things, it would have the effect of depriving every proprietor in those colonies of his rightful property, and this kingdom of the benefit of those islands: to prevent which was the sole object of the Committee. There was another point he wished to explain. It was rather improper in the noble Lord to allude to what passed in a Committee upstairs, the proceedings of which were not before the House. The noble Lord had said, that that Committee had examined none but individuals who happened to be West-India proprietors. Was it fair and proper to make such a remark when the Committee had only met three times? The noble Lord had also said, that the West-India planters had brought persons interested in those islands to give evidence. The West-India proprietors were desirous of proving, that the state of the slaves in those colonies was not such as it had been represented to be by some persons—that very considerable improvements had taken place of late years in their condition—and that those improvements were still progressing. Who were the persons to prove this, but those connected with West-Indian affairs? That was the true state of the inquiry, which had been conducted with the strictest impartiality. The noble Lord knew full well that he (the Earl of Harewood), for one, had privately invited him to form part of this Committee. He now again, and in public, invited him to do so. He called upon him to give evidence before that Committee as to many circumstances which he had stated to exist, most improperly, in those islands. He could do no more. When the feelings of those who were most deeply interested in this question were considered, whose property—he spoke not of himself, for he looked upon his as lost, and had done so for some years, but of persons who had no other means of subsistence—was involved in it, such persons might be excused, if they called upon the House and the country, and these petitioners themselves, not to force upon them so dangerous a measure as the immediate and indiscriminate abolition of slavery—a measure which would cause destruction to the property of individuals, and the loss of the colonies to this country. He went along with the noble Lord as an emancipator. He wished such a step to be taken; but not so as to bring with it the destruction of property. Let it not, for that reason, be supposed that he would stand up as the advocate of slavery. He disclaimed it—he abhorred it; and if it were in his power to do it, without injury to the islands, he would give freedom to every slave in the West Indies; but he could not consent to do so at the risk of the peace and existence of the slaves themselves—more he could not say. That Committee contained names, in abundance, of persons unconnected with the West Indies; if they did not choose to attend, he could not help it. It was very natural that those who had a more immediate interest in the colonies, should attend more regularly than those who had not; but let it not, for that reason, be said that there had been any partiality evinced in the selection of the Committee.

Viscount Goderich

said, his noble friend who had just sat down, had appealed to him whether he was not cognizant of the names which were intended to compose the Committee. He must confirm his statement: a list had been shown him of those proposed to constitute it; there were some alterations and additions, which he had taken the liberty of suggesting, in which the noble Earl had acquiesced. He must observe, that the noble Baron who had introduced this discussion had no right to ascribe to any one improper motives in the formation of that Committee, or to attribute to any individual member of it anything but a desire to investigate the subject for which it was appointed, in the most satisfactory manner. That Committe had sat three days. He was sorry that it had not been in his power to attend it once. Undoubtedly, considering that it was moved for by those who considered that their characters and their conduct had been impugned, no matter in what quarter, it would seem perfectly natural, and in the way of business, that in the evidence which they might first select, it should be their object to relieve themselves from the imputation which they felt had been cast upon them. To him the supposition that, from the possession of property, or some other accidental circumstance, these individuals had an interest in the question, did not at all appear an implication. He wished to suggest to those noble Lords who might be members of that Committee (as well as himself), that if their proceedings were to be made the subject of discussion from time to time, before the whole House, it was utterly hopeless to expect that any good could arise from their investigation. He had greatly doubted the policy of appointing the Committee. Many strong reasons had appeared to him to render such a step unadvisable, but he had acquiesced in its appointment; and the Committee being once appointed, it would be impossible for its members to come to any useful decision if the House should be in the habit of demanding their opinions, and, above all, of inquiring into any of the interior details of their proceedings. He hoped that his noble friend on his right (Lord Suffield), would not suppose, from what he had said, that he (Viscount Goderich) felt any want of interest in the subject; on the contrary, it was one which excited his deepest attention. It was a subject of immense difficulty, not only on account of the nature of the question itself, but from the feelings of hostility which were enlisted on both sides, and which he hoped the Committee would endeavour to repress.

The Duke of Richmond

rose to observe, as Chairman of the Committee of that House on the West Indies, that he never was present in a Committee which was more fairly and impartially conducted.

The Earl of Selkirk

thought, that if any proof were wanting of the expediency of the appointment of this Committee, it was to be found in this petition. That upwards of 130,000 of his Majesty's subjects should put their names to a petition, on a subject of which most of them could have but very little knowledge or experience, was a circumstance than which nothing could more strongly point out the necessity for an inquiry. These men accused their countrymen of crimes which any human being would be ashamed to commit; and was the House, on their bare assertion, to punish those whom they charged with them? Were they to commit so great an injustice merely because these petitioners chose to say that these crimes had been committed, and were being continued? Under such circumstances, the only course that could be pursued was that which the House had adopted. It would afford an opportunity of closely examining persons who were sworn to give their evidence on oath, and who would thus truly declare what the real state of the slave was, and what progress had been made and was making in the amelioration of his condition. He would vindicate the conduct of the Committee from the imputations which had been cast upon it by the noble Baron opposite, and he could assure the House, that he should do his utmost to elucidate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, from the evidence that might be adduced.

Lord Holland

said, if their Lordships thought it necessary to call upon individuals to explain their conduct, as members of a Committee, he should be placed in rather an uncomfortable situation; for he had had the honour of being appointed a member of the Committee on the West Indies, and he should be obliged to commence by acknowledging that he had not attended it once. His noble friend must allow him to say, that the manner in which he had introduced this subject on the present occasion, if not disorderly, was very irregular and inconvenient. The noble Lord, on the presentation of a petition, had taken the opportunity of questioning the motives and conduct of that Committee, together with the propriety of its appointment. With his individual opinions on that step, it would be neither decorous nor proper to trouble their Lordships. The House had decided—the Committee had been appointed—and it certainly was extremely irregular to criticise and censure that act of their Lordships. At the same time, it would be rather curious to look at the reasons which had been urged by the noble Baron against that appointment. One of them was, that their Lordships were utterly ignorant of the subject, to inquire into which was the express object of appointing this Committee. He (Lord Holland) should have thought, that that would have been the best way of making them acquainted with it. Another reason of the noble Lord's—certainly the oddest he had ever heard—was, that this inquiry was asked for, with the view of throwing a veil over the subject. It appeared to him, that the only fair way of discussing a subject was, by inquiring into it. He could not agree with the noble Earl on the opposite side of the House, who seemed to imagine that the Committee was appointed solely for the purpose of vindicating one particular set of men. His impression was, that it was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the subject, and for looking at both sides of the question; but, at all events, it surely could not be maintained that it was improper to take that step, because noble Lords were entirely ignorant of the subject. Why, without this Committee, they must have proceeded to legislate without information, and attempted to discuss an important subject upon which they were not qualified to form a judgment.

Lord Ellenborough

entirely agreed in what had fallen from the noble Baron opposite, with respect to this petition, and however he might respect the feelings of the petitioners, he entertained very considerable doubts as to their prudence. He did not think that this or any Government required the spur of petitions to do that which was dictated by common humanity; and he was satisfied, that if the petitions of any body of men should cause his Majesty's Government to act hastily and violently, the petitioners would have done that which must prevent the accomplishment of what they all had in view. On this subject he deprecated all violence of language on the part of those interested, and all violence of measures on the part of his Majesty's Government. He felt convinced that the language which had been used, and the measures which had been adopted, had brought the temper of the colonial legislatures into such a state that at the present moment, by their means, nothing could be done. But it must also be recollected that at no moment, without their willing co-operation, could anything be effected. For whatever might be the measures Government forced them to adopt, in what manner could the execution of those measures be provided for? The execution of such measures must rest with the planters themselves; and unless their feelings were consulted, and a line of conduct adopted full of temper and prudence, the managers treated with kindness, and the local legislatures of the West-India colonies with respect, he was quite satisfied that, instead of going forward towards that object of humanity which the House had in view, they would be depriving themselves of the advantage which they at present possessed. He rather concurred in the opinion of those who doubted the policy of appointing this Committee, and greatly feared it would lead to mutual exasperation. If this subject continued to be discussed with good temper in that House, the most advisable course would be, to recall the authority that had been given to that Committee. He, therefore, entirely concurred with what had been said by the noble Lord opposite. He most earnestly desired that good should come from the Committee; but good could only come from it by the observance of a line of conduct distinguished by prudence, temper, and the utmost candour.

Lord Suffield

had promised their Lordships that he would not trouble them with a speech, nor enter into a general view of the subject. Having given that promise, he would not then yield to the temptation afforded him by the noble Baron who had just sat down, who had not confined himself to the petition before the House, but had entered into the general question in a manner very much calculated to provoke discussion, but which he would resist. He would present the petition, and trusted he should not exceed the ordinary limits of explanation. He must begin by denying, in toto, that which had been attributed to him on the part of the noble Earl, who said, that he (Lord Suffield) had stated that the West-India planters were the only persons who were examined before the Committee. He had not said so, because he knew the contrary to be the fact. The Duke of Manchester, Mr. Hinchliffe, and Mr. Baillie were ex-mined. These three witnesess were not all planters; but what he had stated was this, that the witnesses selected for this purpose were selected by the West-India party—that party who moved for the Committee. He was surprised at the complaints made by noble Lords on the other side, of the nature of his observations respecting the proceedings of the Committee. He was really at a loss to account for it, when not a single remark had been made by him as to the proceedings of that Committee that could be objected to, or at which any man could take offence. His remarks, as he had said before, were limited to the conduct of the party commonly called the West-India party. Another noble Lord had accused him of having stated that a majority of the Committee were blind to the interests, and deaf to the entreaties, of their fellow-countrymen: he had never said so. It would have been false upon the face of it. What he had said was, that the opinions of the majority of the Members of that House were such, upon this subject, as to make one despair of getting a good Committee formed of the Members of that House, or one that could give satisfaction. He had gone on to say, how can a Committee gain the confidence of the public, selected from such a House, who, blind to the interests and deaf to the entreaties of their next-door neighbours, could hardly be expected to feel for their transatlantic fellow-subjects, who had no Representation in the House of Commons, and no better advocate in their Lordships' House than the individual now addressing them. One thing he had learned from the conversation of that evening. It had made him sufficiently sensible of the predicament in which he stood. He stood alone in that House the strenuous, energetic, and uncompromising advocate for the abolition of slavery. But that was not all the exclusiveness: he stood in that situation beyond what their Lordships were aware of, for he was not supported by the Anti-slavery Society, as it was called. Those who agreed with him in his opinions would much rather that he would not attend this Committee. It was laborious enough; but he did it, because he felt that, as a Member of their Lordships' House, he was not the Representative of the Anti-slavery Society, or of any part of the people of England. He was there to discharge his duty; and, please God, with life and health, he would continue to attend that Committee; and if there should be any fallacy existing there, so long as he possessed the power, he would attend it and expose such fallacies as deserved exposing. Inability from ill health, or the want of power to discharge his duty there satisfactorily to himself, would alone induce him to abandon his post. The noble Earl had spoken of the improvement of the negroes. That had been said for the last forty or fifty years: it was the old story. On every occasion of inquiry, it had been said, that no time was given for improvement: and when, in the year 1790, evidence was taken on this subject, everything was happy; slavery was a happy state, and the slaves were as well-conditioned as possible; so much so, indeed, that a certain Admiral examined before the Privy Council, declared that he wished to be a slave; and so far as the inquiry before the Committee had gone, if he knew no more, he (Lord Suffield) should have been tempted to say—"Make me a slave!"—like the worthy Admiral. Another noble Lord had said, that there were accusations of cruelty and ill treatment of slaves, without end and without foundation. He would meet the noble Lord on that subject at once, by the production of well-authenticated cases of that kind before the Committee. He had already suffered for having made allusion to such cases. It had happened to him to quote a Protector of Slaves' reports, in the year 1825, at a public meeting in Norfolk. He had a newspaper in his possession, in the West-India interest, which had proclaimed him a liar, and held him up to public execration, in those exact words. Although a Peer of the realm, and one on whose word the life of a fellow-subject might by the law be made to depend, he had not prosecuted the libeller, but he moved for the production of papers which he (Lord Suffield) had quoted, to lie on the Table. In 1826, a few months after his speech in Norfolk, he had repeated in that House the same facts, and called any one, having the papers in his hands, to contradict him if he could. He had not then been contradicted. An observation had been made on his supposed want of delicacy, in stating his own opinion with regard to the object for which this Committee was required. He had not stated his own opinion. But, paradoxical as it might appear, and feeling a little excited by the observations of his noble friend, he would then declare his opinion as to the motive and real object for which this Committee was asked. Far as it must be from his intention to attribute to the noble Earl such a motive, still he was quite certain, that those who urged the noble Earl to move for the Committee were desirous of it as a pretext for delay—as a means of postponing emancipation. They had that, and that only, for their object. They wished to throw obscurity upon the subject, knowing full well that, at that very moment, instead of inquiring into the state of slavery in the West Indies, the House ought to be employed in ascertaining the safest, surest, and most expeditious mode of abolishing slavery altogether. He would read one part of the petition, in answer to the charge made against the petitioners—namely, that they were persons desirous abruptly to put an end to slavery. The petitioners prayed that their Lordships would be pleased to proceed to the immediate consideration of a measure for the abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions, at the earliest period compatible with the substitution of a system of judicial restraint for the irresponsible authority of the master. He must now conclude by pre- senting the petitions which had been confided to him; namely, from Nottingham, and other places of consideration, twenty-one in all, to which were attached 6,896 signatures.

Petitions to lie on the Table.