NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP. (Hansard, 9 April 1838)

§ Lord Denman
presented a petition from the inhabitants of St. Mawes, Cornwall, for the immediate Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship. He would take that opportunity to notice something which had occurred in their Lordships' House a few evenings since, when a noble and learned Friend of his, (Lord Brougham) not then in his place, had referred to a letter written by him (Lord Denman) on the subject of the slavery question. His noble and learned Friend had mentioned that letter with his entire concurrence. He had indeed written it with the intention that his noble and learned Friend should make use of his opinion just as he might think proper. It was right that he should state this, to place the conduct of his noble and learned Friend in its proper course of view, and farther, on his own account to declare, that the opinion contained in that letter was not an opinion hastily or precipitately formed, but was one which he had entertained during the whole of his life on this most important and most in- 476 teresting subject. On a proper occasion (and such an occasion would shortly arrive) he should feel it to be his duty to state his opinion fully on this question, and to enter into such arguments as were, he thought, entirely conclusive, with respect to the opinion which he had formed of the law on this subject.

§ Lord Abinger
was understood to ask, if an action were brought before the noble and learned Lord, on a contract entered into with reference to the reserved labour of the negro apprentice, admitted by the Act of Parliament, would not the plaintiff have his remedy? His noble and learned Friend might object to the morality of the system, but could any defence, in point of law, be cited against an Act of Parliament? An alleged breach of contract, on the part of the planter with the legislature, could not be so cited.

§ Lord Denman
said, that any contract entered into between two planters as individuals, must certainly be fulfilled. He had no doubt whatsoever, that as between a planter and a mortgagee, who, as the law now stood, advanced money on this reserved labour, the contract would be binding. No doubt could be entertained that these parties would be bound by any contract agreed to by them, and which appeared to have the sanction of the law. But what he spoke of was a contract between the state and any other party whatever, or between the Colonial Assembly and the planters, as a body of persons, by which that was sought to be continued which had been declared unlawful. This must strike their Lordships more forcibly when it was recollected that this subject had been before the country for half a century, and the unlawfulness of slavery and of the slave trade had been recognized. Still, notwithstanding what had been laid down by the legislature in 1788, the system continued, in consequence of the supineness of Parliament. After the extinction of the slave trade, from 1807 to 1833, slavery was still admitted, but, strange to say, this very Act of 1833, which abolished slavery was now made the ground for the preservation and continuance of it. It was absolutely necessary, in the first instance, to look clearly and distinctly at the nature of that in which property was now claimed, and it appeared to him to be impossible to contend that anything like property in slaves could be recognized, after the legislature 477 had taken measures to do away with slavery itself. He would not now enter into the subject at large; but, if there were a compact or contract at all, he felt alarmed at the consequences which might arise from it. Other claims, he feared, might be advanced under it; and, indeed, it would appear, from papers which had been laid on the table connected with this subject, that a wish or an intention existed if possible to keep up the accursed system of slavery beyond the year 1840. In his opinion every man who felt the immense importance of this subject (and no man could remain neutral with respect to it) ought to state his opinion on the very first opportunity.

§ The Duke of Wellington
observed, that he should not have thought it necessary to have said one word on the present occasion, but from the observations which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He felt it necessary, however, to say a few words in explanation of what had formerly fallen from him on this subject. It appeared to him, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) to whom allusion had been made, and who was not in his place, was anxious to avail himself of the authority and opinion of the noble and learned Lord opposite; and he could assure that noble and learned Lord that no man more sincerely than himself respected his opinion, or put greater confidence in his judicial decisions, although he might differ from him on this particular point. It appeared to him, then, that the noble and learned Lord had stated in this letter that if a question of slavery had come before him heretofore, previously to the Act of 1833, he should have declared it to be his opinion that such slavery was not legal. Now he confessed it had always seemed to him that slavery, however improper, however desirable it might be to put an end to it, yet that it was legal according to the law of England; nay more that if an action came before the noble and learned Lord in the Court of Queen's Bench, to secure such property, that noble and learned Lord, acting on his judgment according to the law of England, must have pronounced a decision in favour of the existence of such slavery. Well, then, in this state of things a law was passed, which provided, that in consideration of a certain amount of compensation, 20,000,000l. sterling, and farther, in consideration of certain individuals giving 478 their services to the planters for six years as indentured apprentices, they should at the conclusion of those stipulated six years, be made perfectly free. Such being the fact, would the noble and learned Lord tell him that there was no property in this labour? The noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Melbourne) had plainly stated, that there was a beneficial interest in the service of those persons, on behalf of every proprietor in England or in the colonies. That was what he contended for, and he was ready to meet the noble and learned Lord on that point, Further, he would say, that, previous to the year 1833, slavery was legal, according to the law of England.

The Marquess of Clanricarde
did not mean to go into the question of compact or contract; but he would enter his humble protest against the idea entertained by the noble Duke, that slavery was recognised as part and parcel of the law of England. The law of England was a very vague phrase; but, he believed, it had been decided in different cases that slavery was not recognised as part or parcel of the common law of England, though it might have been recognized by the statute law.

§ Lord Denman
was of opinion, that the noble Duke did not describe the nature of the Act of 1833 correctly, when he said that slavery was recognized by law, and that it was put an end to in consideration of the payment of 20,000,000l. and the continuance for a given time, of the services of the slaves as indentured apprentices. The noble and learned Lord then read the preamble of the Bill to show that slavery was put an end to as an inhuman and unchristian practice. When it was said, that the legislature admitted the planters to demand the services of the indentured apprentices for six years, he should only observe, that with respect to any pecuniary compensation, the legislature might be bound to fulfil it; but he should argue that they had no more right to sell the service of the slaves because they were slaves, than they had, in the first instance, to kidnap the negroes.