This is a modern-English version of The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, by the British Parliament (1839), originally written by Clarkson, Thomas.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
THE HISTORY OF THE RISE, PROGRESS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE, BY THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT
By THOMAS CLARKSON, M.A. 1839
Figure 1. Thomas Clarkson
Figure 1. Thomas Clarkson
TO
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM, LORD GRENVILLE,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM, LORD GRENVILLE,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES, EARL GREY,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES, EARL GREY,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE FRANCIS, EARL MOIRA,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE FRANCIS, EARL MOIRA,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN, EARL SPENCER,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE GEORGE JOHN, EARL SPENCER,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY RICHARD, LORD HOLLAND,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY RICHARD, LORD HOLLAND,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS, LORD ERSKINE,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS, LORD ERSKINE,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EDWARD, LORD ELLENBOROUGH,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EDWARD, LORD ELLENBOROUGH,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD HENRY PETTY,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD HENRY PETTY,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THOMAS GRENVILLE,
THE HONOURABLE THOMAS GRENVILLE,
NINE OUT OF TWELVE OF HIS MAJESTY'S LATE CABINET MINISTERS,
NINE OUT OF TWELVE OF HIS MAJESTY'S LATE CABINET MINISTERS,
TO WHOSE WISE AND VIRTUOUS ADMINISTRATION BELONGS
TO WHOSE WISE AND VIRTUOUS ADMINISTRATION BELONGS
THE UNPARALLELED AND ETERNAL GLORY
UNMATCHED AND EVERLASTING GLORY
OF THE ANNIHILATION,
OF THE DESTRUCTION,
AS FAR AS THEIR POWER EXTENDED,
AS FAR AS THEIR POWER REACHED,
OF ONE OF THE GREATEST SOURCES OF CRIMES AND SUFFERINGS,
OF ONE OF THE GREATEST SOURCES OF CRIMES AND SUFFERINGS,
EVER RECORDED IN THE ANNALS OF MANKIND;
EVER RECORDED IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANKIND;
AND TO THE MEMORIES OF
AND TO THE MEMORIES OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM PITT,
THE HONOURABLE WILLIAM PITT,
AND OF
AND OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES JAMES FOX,
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES JAMES FOX,
UNDER WHOSE FOSTERING INFLUENCE
UNDER WHOSE GUIDANCE
THE GREAT WORK WAS BEGUN AND PROMOTED;
THE GREAT WORK WAS STARTED AND SUPPORTED;
THIS HISTORY
THIS HISTORY
OF
OF
THE RISE, PROGRESS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE,
THE RISE, PROGRESS, AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE,
IS RESPECTFULLY AND GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED.
Is respectfully and gratefully inscribed.
CONTENTS
- PREFATORY REMARKS ON THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY
- CHAPTER I Introduction.—Estimate of the evil of the Slave Trade; and of the blessing of the Abolition of it.—Usefulness of the contemplation of this subject
- CHAPTER II Those, who favoured the cause of the Africans previously to 1787, were so many necessary forerunners in it.—Cardinal Ximenes; and others
- CHAPTER III Forerunners continued to 1787; divided now into four classes.—First consists of persons in England of various descriptions, Godwyn, Baxter, and others
- CHAPTER IV Second, of the Quakers in England, George Fox, and his religious descendants
- CHAPTER V Third, of the Quakers in America.—Union of these with individuals of other religious denominations in the same cause
- CHAPTER VI Facility of junction between the members of these three different classes
- CHAPTER VII Fourth, consists of Dr. Peckard; then of the Author.—Author wishes to embark in the cause; falls in with several of the members of these classes
- CHAPTER VIII Fourth class continued; Langton, Baker, and others.—Author now embarks in the cause as a business of his life
- CHAPTER IX Fourth class continued; Sheldon, Mackworth, and others.—Author seeks for further information on the subject; and visits Members of Parliament
- CHAPTER X Fourth class continued.—Author enlarges his knowledge.—Meeting at Mr. Wilberforce's.—Remarkable junction of all the four classes, and a Committee formed out of them, in May, 1787, for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.
- CHAPTER XI History of the preceding classes, and of their junction, shown by means of a map.
- CHAPTER XII Author endeavours to do away the charge of ostentation in consequence of becoming so conspicuous in this work.
- CHAPTER XIII Proceedings of the Committee; Emancipation declared to be no part of its object.—Wrongs of Africa by Mr. Roscoe.
- CHAPTER XIV Author visits Bristol to collect information.—Ill-usage of seamen in the Slave Trade.—Articles of African produce.—Massacre at Calabar.
- CHAPTER XV Mode of procuring and paying seamen in that trade; their mortality in it.—Construction and admeasurement of slave-ships.—Difficulty of procuring evidence.—Cases of Gardiner and Arnold.
- CHAPTER XVI Author meets with Alexander Falconbridge; visits ill-treated and disabled seamen; takes a mate out of one of the slave-vessels, and puts another in prison for murder.
- CHAPTER XVII Visits Liverpool.—Specimens of African produce.—Dock duties.—Iron instruments used in the traffic.—His introduction to Mr. Norris.
- CHAPTER XVIII Manner of procuring and paying seamen at Liverpool in the Slave Trade; their treatment and mortality.—Murder of Peter Green.—Dangerous situation of the Author in consequence of his inquiries.
- CHAPTER XIX Author proceeds to Manchester; delivers a discourse there on the subject of the Slave Trade.—Revisits Bristol; new and difficult situation there; suddenly crosses the Severn at night.—Returns to London.
- CHAPTER XX Labours of the Committee during the Author's journey.—Mr. Sharp elected chairman.—Seal engraved.—Letters from different correspondents to the Committee.
- CHAPTER XXI Further labours of the Committee to February, 1788.—List of new Correspondents.
- CHAPTER XXII Progress of the cause to the middle of May.—Petitions to Parliament.—Author's interviews with Mr. Pitt and Mr. Grenville.—Privy Council inquire into the subject; examine Liverpool delegates.—Proceedings of the Committee for the Abolition.—Motion and Debate in the House of Commons; discussion of the general question postponed to the next Session.
- CHAPTER XXIII Progress to the middle of July.—Bill to diminish the horrors of the Middle Passage; Evidence examined against it; Debates; Bill passed through both Houses.—Proceedings of the Committee, and effects of them.
- CHAPTER XXIV Continuation from June, 1788, to July, 1789.—Author travels in search of fresh evidence.—Privy Council resume their examinations; prepare their report.—Proceedings of the Committee for the Abolition; and of the Planters and others.—Privy Council report laid on the table of the House of Commons; debate upon it.—Twelve propositions.—Opponents refuse to argue from the report; examine new evidence of their own in the House of Commons.—Renewal of the Middle Passage Bill.—Death and character of Ramsay.
- CHAPTER XXV Continuation from July, 1789, to July, 1790.—Author travels to Paris to promote the abolition in France; his proceedings there; returns to England.—Examination of opponents' evidence resumed in the Commons.—Author travels in quest of new evidence on the side of the Abolition; this, after great opposition, introduced.—Renewal of the Middle Passage Bill.—Section of the slave-ship.—Cowper's Negro's Complaint.—Wedgewood's Cameos.
- CHAPTER XXVI Continuation from July, 1790, to July, 1791.—Author travels again.—Examinations on the side of the Abolition resumed in the Commons; list of those examined.—Cruel circumstances of the times.—Motion for the Abolition of the Trade; debates; motion lost.—Resolutions of the Committee.—Sierra Leone Company established.
- CHAPTER XXVII Continuation from July, 1791, to July, 1792.—Author travels again.—People begin to leave off sugar; petition Parliament.—Motion renewed in the Commons; debates; abolition resolved upon, but not to commence till 1796.—The Lords determine upon hearing evidence on the resolution; this evidence introduced; further hearing of it postponed to the next Session
- CHAPTER XXVIII Continuation from July, 1792, to July, 1793.—Author travels again.—Motion to renew the Resolution of the last year in the Commons; motion lost.—New motion to abolish the foreign Slave Trade; motion lost.—Proceeding of the Lords
- CHAPTER XXIX Continuation from July, 1793, to July, 1794.—Author travels again.—Motion to abolish the foreign Slave Trade renewed, and carried; but lost in the Lords; further proceedings there.—Author, on account of declining health, obliged to retire from the cause
- CHAPTER XXX Continuation from July, 1794, to July, 1799.—Various motions within this period
- CHAPTER XXXI Continuation from July, 1799, to July, 1805.—Various motions within this period
- CHAPTER XXXII Continuation from July, 1805, to July, 1806.—Author, restored, joins the Committee again.—Death of Mr. Pitt.—Foreign Slave Trade abolished.—Resolution to take measures for the total abolition of the trade.—Address to the King to negotiate with foreign powers for their concurrence in it.—Motion to prevent new vessels going into the trade.—All these carried through both Houses of Parliament
- CHAPTER XXXIII Continuation from July, 1806, to July, 1807.—Death of Mr. Fox.—Bill for the total abolition carried in the Lords; sent from thence to the Commons; amended, and passed there, and sent back to the Lords; receives the royal assent.—Reflections on this great event
- Map
- Plan and Sections of a Slave Ship
PREFATORY REMARKS
TO
THE PRESENT EDITION.
The invaluable services rendered by Thomas Clarkson to the great question of the Slave Trade in all its branches, have been universally acknowledged both at home and abroad, and have gained him a high place among the greatest benefactors of mankind. The History of the Abolition which this volume contains, affords some means of appreciating the extent of his sacrifices and his labours in this cause. But after these, with the unwearied exertions of William Wilberforce, had conducted its friends to their final triumph, in 1807, they did not then rest from their labours. There remained four most important objects, to which the anxious attention of all Abolitionists was now directed.
The invaluable contributions made by Thomas Clarkson to the critical issue of the Slave Trade in all its forms have been widely recognized both domestically and internationally, earning him a prominent spot among the greatest benefactors of humanity. The History of the Abolition contained in this volume provides some insight into the extent of his sacrifices and efforts in this cause. However, even after Clarkson and the tireless efforts of William Wilberforce led their supporters to final victory in 1807, they did not stop their work. There were still four crucial goals that all Abolitionists were now focused on.
First,—The law had been passed, forced upon the Planters, the Traders, and the Parliament, by the voice of the people; and there was a necessity for keeping a watchful eye over its execution.
First,—The law had been passed, imposed on the Planters, the Traders, and Parliament, by the voice of the people; and there was a need to keep a close watch on its implementation.
Secondly,—The statute, however rigorously it might be enforced, left, of course, the whole amount of the Foreign Slave traffic untouched, and it was infinitely to be desired that means should be adopted for extending our Abolition to other nations.
Secondly,—The law, no matter how strictly it was enforced, still allowed the entire Foreign Slave trade to continue, and it was greatly hoped that efforts would be made to expand our Abolition efforts to other countries.
Thirdly,—Some compensation was due to Africa, for the countless miseries which our criminal conduct had for ages inflicted upon her, and strict justice, to say nothing of common humanity and Christian charity, demanded that every means should be used for aiding in the progress of her civilization, and effacing as far as possible the dreadful marks which had been left upon her by our crimes.
Thirdly,—Some compensation was owed to Africa for the countless sufferings our wrongful actions had inflicted on her for ages. Strict justice, not to mention basic humanity and Christian compassion, demanded that we utilize every possible means to support her development and to erase, as much as we could, the terrible scars left by our wrongdoings.
Lastly,—Many of those whom we had transported by fraud and violence from their native country, and still more of the descendants of others who had fallen a sacrifice to our cruelties, and perished in the course of nature, slaves in a foreign land, remained to suffer the dreadful evils of West India bondage. It seemed to follow, that the earliest opportunity consistent with their own condition, should be taken to free those unhappy beings, the victims of our sordid cruelty; and all the more to be pitied, as we were all the more to be blamed, because one result of our transgression was the having placed them in so unnatural a position, that their enemies might seem to be furnished with an argument more plausible than sound, drawn from the Negro's supposed unfitness for immediate emancipation.
Lastly,—Many of those we had forcibly and deceitfully taken from their home country, and even more of their descendants who had suffered due to our brutal actions, and perished in a foreign land as slaves, continued to endure the terrible hardships of West Indian bondage. It seemed clear that at the earliest chance that aligned with their circumstances, we should work to free those unfortunate souls, the victims of our selfish cruelty; and they deserved even more sympathy because we should bear even more blame, as one result of our wrongdoing was that we placed them in such an unnatural situation that their oppressors could make a seemingly convincing argument, though not a sound one, based on the idea that Black people were not ready for immediate freedom.
In order to promote these four great objects, a society was formed in May 1807, called the African Institution, and although, at first, its labours were chiefly directed to the portion of the subject relating to Africa, by degrees, as the extinction of the British Slave Trade was accomplished, its care was chiefly bestowed on West India matters, which were more within the power of this country than the slave traffic, still carried on by foreign nations. But it is necessary in the first place, to recite the measures by which our own share in that enormous crime was surrendered, and the stigma partially obliterated, which it had brought upon our national character, Thomas Clarkson bore a forward and important part in all these useful and virtuous proceedings. His health was now, by rest among the Lakes of Westmoreland for several years, comparatively restored and his mind once more bent itself to the accomplishment of the grand object; of his life, we may he permitted reverently to suggest, the end of his existence.
To promote these four important goals, a society was established in May 1807, called the African Institution. Initially, the group's efforts focused mainly on issues related to Africa. However, as the end of the British Slave Trade was achieved, their attention shifted primarily to West Indian matters, which were more within the control of this country compared to the slave trade still perpetuated by foreign nations. First, it’s important to outline the actions that led to our own involvement in that massive crime being relinquished, and how the shame it brought upon our national identity was partially removed. Thomas Clarkson played a leading and crucial role in all these meaningful and commendable efforts. His health, after resting among the Lakes of Westmoreland for several years, had improved significantly, and his focus turned again to achieving the main purpose of his life, which we respectfully suggest was the ultimate aim of his existence.
Mr. Stephen and others, at first, deemed the certainty of the Act passed in March 1807, being evaded under the stimulus, and the insurance against capture afforded by the enormous profits of the traffic, so clear, that they expected the law to become, almost from the time of its being enacted, a dead letter. There soon appeared the strongest reasons to concur in this opinion, the result of long and close observation in the Islands where Mr. Stephen had passed part of his life. The slave-dealers knew the risk of penalty and forfeiture which they ran; but they also knew that if one voyage in three or four was successful, they were abundantly remunerated for all their losses; and, therefore, they were no more restrained by the Abolition Act, than by any moderate increase of the cost or the risk attending their wicked adventures. This was sure, to be the case, as long as the law only treated slavetrading as a contraband commerce, subjecting those who drove it to nothing but pecuniary penalties. But it was equally evident that the same persons who made these calculations of profit and risk, while they only could lose the ship or the money by a seizure, would hesitate before they encountered the hazard of being tried as for a crime. And, surely, if ever these was an act which deserved to be declared felony, and dealt with as such, it was this of slave-trading. Accordingly, in 1810, Mr. Brougham, then a member of the House of Commons, in moving an address to the crown, (which was unanimously agreed to,) for more vigorous measures against the traffic, both British and Foreign, gave notice of the Bill, which he next year carried through Parliament, and which declared the traffic to be a felony, punishable with transportation. Some years afterwards it was by another Act made capital, under the name of Piracy, but this has since been repealed. Several convictions have taken place under the former Act, (of 1811,) and there cannot be the least doubt that the law has proved effectual, and that the Slave Trade has long ceased to exist as far as the British dominions are concerned.
Mr. Stephen and others initially believed that the certainty of the Act passed in March 1807 would be easily avoided, driven by the profits from the trade and the insurance against capture, so much so that they expected the law to become irrelevant almost immediately after its enactment. Strong evidence soon emerged to support this view, based on Mr. Stephen's extensive observations in the Islands where he had spent part of his life. The slave-dealers understood the penalties and losses they faced, but they also realized that if just one out of three or four voyages succeeded, they would more than compensate for any losses. Consequently, they were no more deterred by the Abolition Act than by a moderate increase in costs or risks associated with their immoral activities. This situation was guaranteed to persist as long as the law treated slave trading as simply a prohibited trade, subject only to financial penalties. However, it was also clear that those making these calculations of profit and risk would think twice before risking a trial for a crime. If any act warranted being classified as a felony and treated as such, it was the slave trade. In 1810, Mr. Brougham, then a member of the House of Commons, proposed an address to the crown (which was unanimously accepted) for stronger measures against both British and foreign slave trading, announcing a Bill that he would advance through Parliament the following year. This Bill declared the trade a felony punishable by transportation. Some years later, it was designated capital under the name of Piracy, but that has since been repealed. Several convictions occurred under the previous Act (of 1811), and there is no doubt that the law has been effective, leading to the end of the Slave Trade within British territories.
That foreign states continue shamefully to carry it on, is no less certain. There are yearly transported to Cuba and Brazil, above 100,000 unhappy beings, by the two weakest nations in Europe, and these two most entirely subject to the influence and even direct control of England. The inevitable consequence is, that more misery is now inflicted on Africa by the criminals, gently called Slave-traders, of these two guilty nations, than if there were no treaties for the abolition of the traffic. The number required is always carried over, and hence, as many perish by a miserable death in escaping from the cruisers, as reach their destination. The recitals of horror which have been made to Parliament and the country on this dreadful subject, are enough to curdle the blood in the veins and heart of any one endued with the common feelings of humanity. The whole system of prevention, or rather of capture, after the crime has been committed, seems framed with a view to exasperate the evils of the infernal traffic, to scourge Africa with more intolerable torments, and to make human blood be spilt like water. Our cruisers, are excited to an active discharge of their duty, by the benefit of sharing in the price fetched when the captured ship is condemned and sold; but this is a small sum, indeed, compared with the rich reward of head-money held out, being so much for every slave taken on board. It is thus made the direct interest of these cruisers, that the vessels should have their human cargoes on board, rather than be prevented from shipping them. True, this vile policy may prove less mischievous where no treaty exists, giving a right to seize when there are no slaves in the vessel, because here a slave ship is suffered to pass, how clear soever her destination might be; yet, even here, the inducement to send in boats, and seize as soon as a slave or two may be on board, is removed, and the cruiser is told, "only let all these wretched beings be torn from their country, and safely lodged in the vessel's hold, and your reward is great and sure." Then, whenever there is an outfit clause, that is a power to seize vessels fitted for the traffic, this mischievous plan tends directly to make the cruiser let the slaver make ready and put to sea, or it has no tendency or meaning at all. Accordingly, the course is for the cruiser to stand out to sea, and not allow herself to be seen in the offing—the crime is consummated—the slaves are stowed away—the pirate—captain weighs anchor—the pirate-vessel freighted with victims, and manned by criminals fares forth—the cruiser, the British cruiser, gives chace—and then begin those scenes of horror, surpassing all that the poet ever conceived, whose theme was the torments of the damned and the wickedness of the fiends. Casks are filled with the slave, and in these they are stowed away; or to lighten the vessel, they are flung overboard by the score; sometimes they are flung overboard in casks, that the chasing ship may be detained by endeavours to pick them up; the dying and the dead strew the deck; women giving birth to the fruit of the womb, amidst the corpses of their husbands and their children; and other, yet worse and nameless atrocities, fill up the terrible picture, of impotent justice and triumphant guilt. But the guilt is not all Spanish and Portuguese. The English Government can enforce its demands on the puny cabinets of Madrid and Lisbon, scarce conscious of a substantive existence, in all that concerns our petty interests: wherever justice and mercy to mankind demand our interference, there our voice sinks within us, and no sound is uttered. That any treaty without an outfit clause should be suffered to exist between powers so situated, is an outrage upon all justice, all reason, all common sense. But one thing is certain, that unless we are to go further, we have gone too far, and must in mercy to hapless Africa retrace our steps. Unless we really put the traffic down with a strong hand, and instantly, we must instantly repeal the treaties that pretended to abolish it, for these exacerbate the evil a hundred fold, and are ineffectual to any one purpose but putting money into the pockets of our men of war. The fact is as unquestionable, as it is appalling, that all our anxious endeavours to extinguish the Foreign Slave Trade, have ended in making it incomparably worse than it was before we pretended to put it down; that owing to our efforts, there are thrice the number of slaves yearly torn from Africa; and that wholly because of our efforts, two thirds of these are murdered on the high seas and in the holds of the pirate vessels.
That foreign countries continue to shamefully participate in it is absolutely clear. Every year, over 100,000 suffering individuals are transported to Cuba and Brazil by the two weakest nations in Europe, both of which are entirely under the influence and even direct control of England. The unavoidable result is that more misery is now inflicted on Africa by the criminals, lightly referred to as slave traders, from these two guilty nations than if there were no treaties aimed at abolishing the trade. The required number of slaves is always brought over, which means just as many die a miserable death while trying to escape from the patrols as make it to their destination. The horrifying accounts presented to Parliament and the public about this terrible issue are enough to chill the blood of anyone with the basic feelings of humanity. The entire system intended to prevent, or rather capture after the crime has been committed, seems designed to worsen the evils of this horrific trade, inflicting more unbearable suffering on Africa and causing human blood to flow like water. Our patrols are pushed to actively do their duty with the incentive of a share in the money made when a captured ship is condemned and sold; but this is a pittance compared to the substantial reward offered for every slave taken aboard. Therefore, it becomes in the direct interest of these patrols that the vessels have their human cargoes on board, rather than being prevented from loading them. Admittedly, this cruel strategy may be less harmful where no treaty exists that allows for seizure when there are no slaves on the vessel because here, a slave ship is allowed to pass, no matter how clear her destination might be; even in such cases, the motivation to send boats to seize as soon as a slave or two may be on board is diminished, and the patroller is told, "just let all these unfortunate souls be taken from their homeland and safely stored in the vessel's hold, and your reward will be great and guaranteed." Whenever there is a provision for outfitting, which is the power to seize vessels prepared for the trade, this harmful scheme directly encourages the patroller to let the slaver prepare and set sail, or it holds no real purpose at all. Accordingly, the approach is for the patroller to head out to sea and avoid being seen offshore—the crime is completed—the slaves are packed away—the pirate captain lifts anchor—the pirate ship laden with victims and crewed by criminals sets off—the British patroller gives chase—and then begin those scenes of horror that surpass all that any poet whose subject was the sufferings of the damned and the wickedness of evil spirits could ever imagine. Casks are filled with slaves, and in them, they are concealed; or to lighten the ship, they are tossed overboard by the dozens; sometimes they are thrown overboard in casks, so that the pursuing ship may be delayed by attempts to retrieve them; the dying and the dead litter the deck; women giving birth amidst the corpses of their husbands and children; and other, even worse and unnamed atrocities complete the dreadful picture of powerless justice and victorious guilt. But the guilt is not solely that of the Spanish and Portuguese. The English government can impose its demands on the small governments of Madrid and Lisbon, which barely recognize their own existence regarding our trivial interests: wherever justice and mercy for humanity call for our intervention, our voice falls silent. Allowing any treaty without an outfitting clause to exist between such powers is an affront to all justice, all reason, and all common sense. One thing is certain: unless we intend to take further action, we have already gone too far and must, out of compassion for unfortunate Africa, retrace our steps. Unless we genuinely stamp out the slave trade with firm action right now, we must immediately repeal the treaties that pretend to abolish it, as they aggravate the issue a hundredfold, and do nothing but line the pockets of our naval personnel. The truth is as undeniable as it is horrifying—that all our desperate attempts to eradicate the Foreign Slave Trade have ended up making it infinitely worse than it was before we falsely tried to suppress it; due to our actions, the number of slaves taken from Africa each year has tripled, and wholly because of our efforts, two-thirds of these are killed on the open sea and in the holds of pirate ships.
It is said, that when these scenes were described to an indignant nation last session of Parliament, the actual effects of this bad system were denied, though its tendency could not be disputed.
It’s said that when these situations were presented to an outraged nation during the last session of Parliament, the real impacts of this poor system were denied, although its implications couldn't be argued against.
It was averred that "no British seaman could be capable of neglecting his duty for the sake of increasing the gains of the station." But nothing could be more absurd than this. Can the direct and inevitable tendency of the head-money system be doubted? Are cruisers the only men over whom motives have no influence? Then why offer a reward at all? When they want no stimulus to perform their duty, why tell them that if the ship is empty, they get a hundred pounds: if laden, five thousand? They know the rules of arithmetic;—they understand the force of numbers. But, in truth, there is not an individual on all the coast of Africa who will be misled by such appeals, or suffer all this to divert them from their purpose of denouncing the system. There are persons high in rank among the best servants of the crown, who know the facts from their own observations, and who are ready to bear witness to the truth, in spite of all the attempts that have been made to silence them.
It was claimed that "no British seaman could neglect his duty just to boost the profits of the station." But this is completely ridiculous. Can anyone seriously doubt the clear and inevitable impact of the head-money system? Are cruisers the only people who aren’t influenced by incentives? Then why offer a reward at all? If they don’t need any motivation to do their job, why tell them that if the ship is empty, they get a hundred pounds; if loaded, five thousand? They know how to do basic math; they understand the power of numbers. In reality, there isn't a single person on the entire coast of Africa who will be fooled by such appeals or allow it to distract them from their goal of condemning the system. There are people in high positions among the best servants of the crown who know the facts from their own experiences and are willing to testify to the truth, despite all the efforts to silence them.
The other great object of the African Institution regarded the West Indies. The preparation of the negroes for that freedom which was their absolute right, and could only be withheld for an hour, on the ground of their not being prepared for it, and therefore being better without it, was the first thing to be accomplished. Here the friends of the abolition, all but Mr. Stephen, suffered a great disappointment. He alone had uniformly-foretold that the hopes held out, as it seemed very reasonably, of better treatment resulting from the stoppage of the supply of hands, were fallacious. All else had supposed that interest might operate on men whom principle had failed to sway; that they whom no feelings of compassion for their fellow-creatures could move to do their duty, might be touched by a feeling of their own advantage, when interest coincided with duty. The Slave-mart is now closed, it was said; surely the stock on hand will be saved by all means, and not wasted when it can no longer be replaced. The argument was purposely rested on the low ground of regarding human beings as cattle, or even as inanimate chattels, and it was conceived that human life would be regarded of as much value as the wear and tear of beasts, of furniture, or of tools. Hence it was expected that a better system of treatment would follow, from the law which closed the African market, and warned every planter that his stock must be spared by better treatment, and kept up by breeding, since it no longer could be, as it hitherto had been, maintained by new supplies.
The other major focus of the African Institution was the West Indies. The goal was to prepare the enslaved individuals for the freedom that was their undeniable right, which could only be denied for a moment on the grounds that they weren't ready for it and would therefore be better off without it. This was the first challenge to tackle. Here, the abolitionists, except for Mr. Stephen, faced significant disappointment. He alone had consistently warned that the optimistic expectations for improved treatment due to the halt in the supply of enslaved people were misguided. Everyone else thought that financial interests might motivate those who were unmoved by moral principles; that those who felt no compassion for their fellow humans might be influenced by their own self-interest when it aligned with duty. With the slave market now closed, it was said, surely the existing enslaved individuals would be protected and not wasted since they could no longer be replaced. This argument was deliberately based on the low perspective of viewing human beings as property, or even as inanimate possessions, and it was assumed that human life would be valued as much as the depreciation of livestock, furniture, or tools. Therefore, it was expected that better treatment would result from the law that shut down the African market, warning each plantation owner that they needed to care for their existing stock with better treatment and maintain it through breeding, since they could no longer rely on new supplies as they had in the past.
Two considerations were, in these arguments, kept out of view, both of a practical nature, and both known to Mr. Stephen,—the cultivation of the Islands by agents having wholly different interests from their masters, and the gambling spirit of trading and culture which long habit had implanted in the West Indian nature. The comforts of the slave depended infinitely more upon the agent on the spot, than the owner generally resident in the mother country; and though the interest of the latter might lead to the saving of negro life, and care for negro comforts, the agent had no such motives to influence his conduct; besides, it was with the eyes of this agent that the planter must see, and he gave no credence to any accounts but his. Now the consequence of cruelty is to make men at war with its objects. No one but a most irritable person feels angry with his beast, and even the anger of such a person is of a moment's duration. But towards an inanimate chattel even the most irritable of sane men can feel nothing like rage. Why? Because in the one case there is little, in the other no conflict or resistance at all. It is otherwise with a slave; he is human, and can disobey—can even resist. This feeling always rankles in his oppressor's bosom, and makes the tyrannical superior hate, and the more oppress his slave. The agent on the spot feels thus, and thus acts; nor can the voice of the owner at a distance be heard, even if interest, clearly proved, were to prompt another course. But the chief cause of the evil is the spirit of speculation, and it affects and rules resident owners even more than absentees. Let sugar rise in price, and all cold calculations of ultimate loss to the gang are lost in the vehement thirst of great present gain. All, or nearly all, planters are in distressed circumstances. They look to the next few years as their time; and if the sun shines they must make hay. They are in the mine, toiling for a season, with every desire to escape and realize something to spend elsewhere. Therefore they make haste to be rich, and care little, should the speculation answer and much sugar bring in great gain, what becomes of the gang ten years hence. Add to all this, that any interference of the local legislatures to discourage sordid or cruel management, to clothe the slaves with rights, to prepare them for freedom by better education, to pave the way for emancipation by restraining the master's power, to create an intermediate State of transition from slavery to freedom by partial liberty, as by attaching them to the soil, and placing them in the preparatory state through which our ancestors in Europe passed from bondage in gross to entire independence—all such measures were in the absolute discretion; not of the planters, but of the resident agents, one of the worst communities in the world, who had little interest in preparing for an event which they deprecated, and whose feelings of party, as well as individually, were all ranged on the oppressor's side. All this Mr. Stephen, enlightened by experience, and wise by long reflection, clearly and alone foresaw; all this vision of the future was too surely realized by the event. No improvement of treatment took place; no additional liberality in the supplies was shown; no abstinence in the exaction of labour appeared; no interference of the Colonial Legislature to check misconduct was witnessed; far less was the least disposition perceived to give any rights to the slaves, any security against oppression, any title independent of his Master, any intermediate state or condition which might prepare him for freedom. It is enough to say, that a measure which every man, except Mr. Stephen, had regarded as the natural, almost the necessary effect of the abolition—attaching the slaves to the soil—was not so much as propounded, far less adopted; it may be even said, was never mentioned in any one local assembly of any of our numerous colonies, during the thirty years which elapsed between the abolition and the emancipation! This is unquestionable, and it is decisive.
Two practical considerations were overlooked in these arguments, both known to Mr. Stephen: the cultivation of the Islands by agents with interests completely different from their masters, and the risk-taking attitude towards trading and agriculture that had long been ingrained in the West Indian mindset. The well-being of the enslaved people depended much more on the local agent than on the owner usually residing in the mother country. While the owner might have an interest in preserving the lives of the enslaved and caring for their comfort, the agent had no such motivations. Moreover, the planter relied on the agent's perspective and only believed his accounts. The consequence of cruelty is that it breeds conflict with its victims. Nobody but the most irritable person gets angry at an animal, and even then, such anger is fleeting. However, with an inanimate object, even the most irritable person feels no rage at all. Why? Because in one scenario, there's some conflict, whereas in the other, there is none. A slave is different; he is human and capable of disobedience and even resistance. This idea sits painfully with the oppressor, causing the tyrant to hate and oppress their slave even more. The local agent feels this way and acts accordingly; the distant owner's voice cannot be heard, even if there’s a demonstrated interest in a different approach. But the main issue is the speculative mindset, which affects local owners even more than absentee ones. If sugar prices go up, all calculated risks of loss from enslaving people are overshadowed by the intense desire for immediate profit. Almost all planters are struggling financially. They see the next few years as their opportunity, and when the sun shines, they must seize their chance. They are like miners, working temporarily with every intention to escape and turn their labor into money for elsewhere. Thus, they rush to get rich and care little about the consequences for the enslaved people ten years down the line. Adding to this is the fact that any attempts by local legislatures to discourage greedy or cruel practices, to grant enslaved people rights, to prepare them for freedom through better education, or to create a transitional state from slavery to freedom—like tying them to the land or providing some preparatory stage—were entirely up to the planters' resident agents, one of the worst kinds of communities, who had little interest in preparing for an outcome they opposed. Their loyalties, both as a group and individually, were all aligned with the oppressors. Mr. Stephen, enlightened by experience and wise from deep reflection, clearly foresaw all of this; his vision of the future was confirmed by actual events. There was no improvement in treatment; no increase in the generosity of provisions; no reduction in labor demands; no intervention from the Colonial Legislature to curb misconduct; and hardly any willingness to grant any rights to enslaved people, any protection against oppression, or any independence from their Master, nor any intermediate state that might help them transition to freedom. It suffices to say that a measure which everyone, except Mr. Stephen, considered a natural and necessary outcome of abolition—attaching the enslaved to the land—was never even proposed, much less adopted; in fact, it can be said that it was never mentioned in any local assembly of our numerous colonies throughout the thirty years between abolition and emancipation! This fact is undeniable and conclusive.
As soon as it began to be perceived that such was likely to be the result of the abolition in regard to the emancipation, Mr. Stephen's authority with his coadjutors, always high, rose in proportion to the confirmations which the event had lent his predictions; and his zealous endeavours and unwearied labours for the subversion of the accursed system became both more extensive and more effectual. If, however, strict justice requires the tribute which we have paid to this eminent person's distinguished services, justice also renders it imperative on the historian of the Abolition in all its branches, to record an error into which he fell. Having originally maintained that the traffic would survive the Act of 1807, in which he was right, that Act only imposing pecuniary penalties, he persisted in the same opinion after the Act of 1811 had made slave-trading a felony; and long after it had been effectually put down in the British dominions, he continued to maintain that it was carried on nearly as much as ever, reasoning upon calculations drawn from the island returns. Hence he insisted upon a general Registry Act, as essential to prevent the continuance of an importation which had little or no real existence. The importance of such a measure was undeniable, with a view to secure the good treatment of the negroes in the islands; but the extinction of the Slave Trade had long before been effectually accomplished.
As soon as it started to be recognized that this was likely to be the outcome of the abolition related to emancipation, Mr. Stephen's influence with his collaborators, always strong, increased as the events confirmed his predictions. His dedicated efforts and tireless work to dismantle the hated system became both broader and more effective. However, while it's important to acknowledge this notable individual's exceptional contributions, it’s also crucial for the historian of Abolition in all its aspects to note an error he made. Initially, he argued that the trade would continue after the Act of 1807, which he was correct about, as that Act only imposed financial penalties. He continued to hold the same view even after the Act of 1811 made slave trading a felony. Long after it had been effectively suppressed in British territories, he still claimed it was happening almost as much as before, relying on statistics from the island reports. Consequently, he advocated for a general Registry Act as essential to stop an importation that had little to no real occurrence. The significance of such a measure was undeniable to ensure the proper treatment of the enslaved people in the islands, but the end of the Slave Trade had already been achieved long before.
In the efforts to obtain Negro Emancipation, all the Abolitionists were now prepared to join. The conduct of the Colonial Assemblies having long shown the fallacy of those expectations which had been entertained of the good work being done in the islands as soon as the supply of new hands should be stopped by the Abolition, there remained no longer any doubt whatever, that the mother country alone could abate a nuisance hateful in the sight of God and man. Constant opportunities were therefore offered to agitate this great question, which was taken up by the enlightened, the humane, and the religious, all over the empire.
In the efforts to achieve Black Emancipation, all the Abolitionists were now ready to come together. The actions of the Colonial Assemblies had long revealed the false hopes that people had about things improving in the islands as soon as the influx of new workers was stopped by the Abolition. There was no longer any doubt that only the mother country could eliminate a problem that was detestable in the eyes of both God and humanity. Therefore, there were constant opportunities to raise this important issue, which was embraced by the educated, the compassionate, and the faithful throughout the empire.
The magnitude of the subject was indeed worthy of all the interest it excited. The destiny of nearly a million of human beings—nay, the question whether they should be treated as men with rational souls, or as the beasts which perish—should enjoy the liberty to which all God's creatures are entitled, as of right, or be harassed, oppressed, tormented, and stinted, both as regarded bodily food, and spiritual instruction—whether the colonies should be peopled with tyrants and barbarians, or inhabited by civilized and improving christian communities—was one calculated to put in action all the best principles of our nature, and to move all the noblest feelings of the human heart.
The importance of the topic truly justified the considerable interest it generated. The fate of nearly a million human beings—indeed, the question of whether they should be treated as individuals with rational souls or as mere animals that perish—should they enjoy the freedom that all of God's creatures deserve by right, or be oppressed, tormented, and deprived, both in terms of physical sustenance and spiritual guidance—whether the colonies should be filled with tyrants and savages, or inhabited by civilized and advancing Christian communities—was a matter that stirred all the best aspects of our nature and evoked the noblest feelings of the human heart.
Thomas Clarkson, as far as his means extended, aided this great excitement. He renewed his committees of correspondence all over the country; aided by the Society of Friends, his early and steady coadjutors in this pious work, he recommenced the epistolary intercourse with the provinces, held for so many hopeless years on the Slave Trade, but now made far more promising by the victory which had been obtained, and by the unanimity with which all Abolitionists now were resolved to procure emancipation. He also recommenced his journeys through the different parts of the island, and visited in succession part of Scotland, almost all England, and the whole of Wales, encouraging and interesting the friends of humanity wherever he went, and forming local societies and committees for furthering the common object.
Thomas Clarkson, with the resources he had, supported this huge movement. He revived his communication committees across the country; with help from the Society of Friends, his early and steadfast allies in this noble cause, he started writing to different regions again after so many frustrating years regarding the Slave Trade. Now, things looked much more hopeful due to the victory that had been achieved and the unity among all Abolitionists who were determined to secure freedom. He also began traveling around the island again, visiting parts of Scotland, almost all of England, and all of Wales, encouraging and engaging supporters of humanity wherever he went, and setting up local societies and committees to advance the shared goal.
But it was, after all, in Parliament that the battle must be fought; and Mr. Buxton, of whose invaluable services in the House of Commons the cause has lately been deprived, repeatedly, with the support of Messrs. Wilberforce, William Smith, Brougham, Lushington, and others, urged the necessity of interference upon the representatives of a people unanimous in demanding it; and he repeatedly urged it in vain. The Government always leaned towards the planter, and the most flimsy excuses were constantly given for preferring to the effectual measures propounded by the Abolitionists, the most flimsy of expedients, useless for any one purpose, save that of making pretences and gaining time.
But ultimately, it was in Parliament that the struggle had to take place; and Mr. Buxton, whose invaluable contributions in the House of Commons the cause has recently lost, repeatedly urged the need for action upon the representatives of a people who unanimously demanded it, with support from Messrs. Wilberforce, William Smith, Brougham, Lushington, and others; yet he repeatedly urged in vain. The Government consistently sided with the planter, and the most ridiculous excuses were constantly given for preferring to the effective measures proposed by the Abolitionists the most trivial of alternatives, useless for any single purpose, except for putting on a facade and buying time.
At length came the great case of the missionary Smith's persecution, trial, and untimely death, when all the forms of judicature had been prostituted, all the rules of law broken, all the principles of justice outraged, by men assuming to sit in judgment as a court of criminal jurisprudence; and though assisted by legal functionaries, exhibiting such a spectacle of daring violation of the most received and best known canons of procedure, as no civilized community ever before were called upon to endure. This subject was immediately brought before Parliament by Mr. Brougham, and his motion of censure, which might have been an impeachment of the governor and the court of Demerara, was powerfully supported by Mr. Wilberforce, the amiable, eloquent, and venerable leader of the party, Mr. Denman, Mr. Williams, and Dr. Lushington, but rejected by a majority of the Commons, whom Mr. Canning led, in a speech little worthy of his former exertions against the Slave Trade, and far from being creditable either to his judgment or to his principles. Yet this memorable debate was of singular service to the cause. The great speeches delivered were spread through all parts of the country; the nakedness of the horrid system was exposed; the corruptions as well as cruelty of slavery were laid bare; the determination of colonies to protect its worst abuses was demonstrated; necessity of the mother-country interfering with a strong hand was declared; and even the loss of the motion showed the people of England how much their own exertions were still required if they would see slavery extirpated, by proving that upon them alone the fate of the execrable system hung.
At last, the significant case of the missionary Smith's persecution, trial, and premature death occurred. Every aspect of the legal system had been corrupted, all laws had been broken, and all principles of justice had been violated by individuals who pretended to act as a criminal court. Even with the help of legal officials, they presented a shocking display of blatant disregard for the most accepted and well-known legal procedures, something no civilized community had been forced to endure before. Mr. Brougham quickly brought this issue before Parliament, and his motion of censure, which could have been a formal accusation against the governor and the court of Demerara, was strongly backed by Mr. Wilberforce, the kind, eloquent, and respected leader of the party, along with Mr. Denman, Mr. Williams, and Dr. Lushington. However, it was dismissed by a majority in the Commons, led by Mr. Canning, whose speech was unworthy of his previous efforts against the Slave Trade and reflected poorly on both his judgment and principles. Nonetheless, this remarkable debate was incredibly beneficial to the cause. The powerful speeches made were disseminated throughout the country; the horrific nature of the system was revealed; the corruption and cruelty of slavery were exposed; the colonies' commitment to protecting its worst abuses was shown; the need for the mother country to intervene forcefully was stated; and even the defeat of the motion illustrated to the people of England how much effort was still needed if they wanted to see slavery eradicated, proving that the fate of this abhorrent system depended solely on them.
The effects of this great debate cannot be over estimated. The case of the missionary became the universal topic; The name of the martyred Smith, the general rallying cry. The superior interest excited by individual sufferings to any general misery inflicted upon masses of the people, or any evil, however gigantic, which operates over a large space, and in a course of time, has always been observed. The remark was peculiarly applicable in this instance. Although all reflecting men had, for many long years, been well aware of the evils pervading our colonial system, and though the iniquity and perverseness of West Indian judicatures had long been the topic of universal comment, yet this single case of a persecuted individual falling a victim to those gross perversions of law and justice which are familiar to the colonial people, produced an impression far more general and more deep than all that had ever been written or declaimed against system of West India slavery; and looking back on the consummation of all our hopes in 1833 and 1838, we at once revert from this auspicious era to that ever memorable occasion as having laid the solid foundation of our ultimate triumph.
The effects of this major debate can't be overstated. The case of the missionary became the main topic of conversation; the name of the martyred Smith became a rallying cry. The heightened attention brought about by individual suffering often overshadows any widespread misery affecting large groups of people, or any massive evil that unfolds over time. This point was especially relevant here. Although thoughtful individuals had been aware for many years of the issues within our colonial system, and the corruption and unfairness of West Indian courts had been widely discussed, this one case of a persecuted individual falling victim to those blatant injustices—so familiar to the colonial populace—created a much stronger and more profound impact than anything previously written or said against the West Indian slavery system. Looking back at the fulfillment of our hopes in 1833 and 1838, we can't help but think of that pivotal moment as the solid foundation for our ultimate victory.
In this important day, which has thus by its effects proved decisive of the Emancipation question, Mr. Stephen bore no part. He had long ceased to adorn and enlighten the House of Commons. His retirement was the result of honest differences of opinion respecting West India slavery with his political friends, then in the plenitude of their power. Those differences caused him to take the noble part, so rarely acted by politicians, of withdrawing from Parliament rather than lend his great support to men with whom he differed upon a question admitting no compromise; and he devoted his exertions in private life to the furtherance of the cause ever nearest his heart, the publication of his able and elaborate work on the Colonial Slave Laws was the fruit of his leisure; and had he never lent any other aid to the Emancipation, this would alone have placed him high among its most able and effective supporters. In all the consultations which were held before Mr. Brougham's motion in 1824, he bore an active and useful part. In pushing the advantages gained by the debate he was unwearied and successful. Unhappily it pleased Providence that he should not receive here below the final reward of his long and valued labours; for he was called to his final repose some months before the Emancipation Bill passed into a law.
On this significant day, which has proven pivotal in the Emancipation debate, Mr. Stephen had no role. He had long stopped gracing the House of Commons with his presence. His withdrawal was due to genuine disagreements about West India slavery with his political allies, who were then at the height of their influence. Those disagreements led him to take the rare and commendable step of leaving Parliament rather than support those with whom he fundamentally disagreed on an issue that allowed for no compromise. He dedicated his efforts in private life to advancing the cause he cared about most. The publication of his thorough and well-crafted work on Colonial Slave Laws was a product of his time. Even if he had contributed nothing else to the cause of Emancipation, this alone would have positioned him among its most capable and impactful advocates. In all the discussions that took place before Mr. Brougham's motion in 1824, he played an active and valuable role. He tirelessly and successfully pushed to capitalize on the advantages gained from the debate. Unfortunately, it was not meant for him to see the ultimate reward of his lengthy and significant efforts, as he passed away a few months before the Emancipation Bill became law.
There remains little to add, except that this measure, which was carried with little opposition in 1833, owed its success in Parliament to the ample bribe of twenty millions, by which the acquiescence of the West Indians was purchased. The measure had hardly come into operation, when all men perceived that the intermediate state of apprenticeship was anything rather than a preparation for freedom, and anything rather than a mitigation of slavery. It is due to some able and distinguished friends of the negro race to state, that they all along were averse to this plan of a transition state. Lord Howick, then in the Colonial Office as Under-Secretary, went so far as to leave the department, from his dislike of this part of the measure. Mr. Buxton and others protested against it. Even its friends intimated that they wished the period of apprenticeship to end in 1838 instead of 1840; but there was a general belief of the preparatory step being necessary,—a belief apparently founded on experience of the negro character, and indeed of the vicious tendency of all slavery, to extinguish the power of voluntary labour, as well as to make the sudden change to freedom unsafe for the peace of the community. The fact soon dispersed these opinions. Antigua in a minute emancipated all her slaves to the number of thirty thousand and upwards. Not a complaint was ever heard of idleness or indolence; and, far from any breach of the peace being induced by the sudden change in the condition of the people, the Christmas of 1833 was the first, for the last twenty years, that martial law was not proclaimed, in order to preserve the public peace. Similar evidence from Jamaica and other islands, proving the industrious and peaceable habits of the apprentices, showed that there was nothing peculiar in the circumstances of Antigua.
There’s not much more to say, except that this measure, which passed with little resistance in 1833, owed its success in Parliament to the hefty bribe of twenty million, which bought the support of the West Indians. As soon as the measure was put into effect, everyone realized that the temporary state of apprenticeship was anything but a step towards freedom, and anything but a reduction of slavery. It’s important to acknowledge some capable and notable advocates for the black community who were opposed to this plan for a transitional state. Lord Howick, who was then the Under-Secretary in the Colonial Office, even left the department because he disliked this aspect of the measure. Mr. Buxton and others voiced their objections. Even its supporters hinted that they preferred the apprenticeship period to end in 1838 instead of 1840; however, there was a widespread belief that this preliminary step was necessary — a belief seemingly based on experiences regarding the nature of black individuals and the negative effect of all forms of slavery, which stifles the ability for voluntary labor and makes a sudden shift to freedom risky for community peace. These assumptions were quickly proven wrong. Antigua swiftly emancipated all her slaves, totaling over thirty thousand. Not a single complaint was raised about laziness or lack of motivation; and rather than any disruption of peace arising from the abrupt change in the people's status, Christmas 1833 marked the first time in twenty years that martial law wasn’t declared to maintain public order. Similar evidence from Jamaica and other islands demonstrated that the hardworking and peaceful nature of the apprentices in Antigua was not an isolated case.
An important occurrence is now to be recorded as having exercised a powerful influence upon the question of immediate emancipation. Joseph Sturge, of Birmingham, a member of the Society of Friends, stricken with a sense of the injustice perpetrated against the African race, repaired to the West Indies, in order that he might examine, with his own eyes, the real state of the question between the two classes. He was accompanied by John Scoble and Thomas Harvey; and these able, excellent, and zealous men returned in a few months with such ample evidence of the effects produced by apprenticeship, and the fitness of the negroes for liberty, that the attention of the community was soon awakened to the subject, even more strenuously than it ever before had been; and the walls of Parliament were soon made once more to ring with the sufferings of the slave, only emancipated in name, and the injustice of withholding from him any longer the freedom which was his indefeasible right, as soon as he was shown capable of enjoying it beneficially for himself and safely for the rest of the community.
An important event needs to be noted as it had a significant impact on the issue of immediate emancipation. Joseph Sturge from Birmingham, a member of the Society of Friends, was deeply aware of the injustice done to the African race and traveled to the West Indies to see for himself the real situation between the two groups. He was joined by John Scoble and Thomas Harvey, and these capable, dedicated men returned a few months later with substantial evidence of the effects of apprenticeship and the suitability of the Black population for freedom. This new information quickly drew the community's attention to the issue, more forcefully than ever before, and soon the halls of Parliament echoed once again with the struggles of the enslaved, who were only free in name, and the injustice of denying them their rightful freedom, which should be granted as soon as they were proven capable of enjoying it responsibly for themselves and safely for the rest of society.
In these transactions, both in Jamaica, where he is one of the largest planters, and in Parliament, where he is one of the most respected members, the Marquess of Sligo bore an eminent and an honourable part. His praise has been justly sounded by all who have supported the cause of negro freedom, and his conduct was by all admitted to be as much marked by the disinterested virtue of a good citizen and amiable man, as it was by the sagacity and ability of an enlightened statesman. Both as governor of Jamaica, as the owner of slaves whom he voluntarily liberated, and as a peer of Parliament, his patriotism, his humanity, and his talents, shone conspicuously through this severe and glorious struggle. While such was the conduct of those eminent philanthropists, some difference of opinion prevailed among the other and older leaders of the cause, chiefly grounded upon doubts whether the arrangement made by Parliament in 1833, might not be regarded as a compact with the planters which it would be unjust to violate by terminating their right to the labour of the apprentices at a period earlier than the one fixed in the Emancipation Act. A little consideration of the question at issue soon dispelled those doubts, and removed every obstacle to united exertion, by restoring entire unanimity of opinion. The slaves, it was triumphantly affirmed, were no party to the compact. But moreover, the whole arrangement of the apprenticeship was intended as a benefit to them, by giving them the preparation thought to be required before they could, safely for themselves, be admitted to unrestricted freedom,—not as a benefit to the planters, whose acquiescence was purchased with the grant of twenty millions. Experience having shown that no preparation at all was required, it was preposterous to continue the restraint upon natural liberty an hour longer, as regarded the negroes,—the only party whom we had any right to consider in the question; and as for the planters there was the grossest absurdity in further regarding any interests or any claims of theirs. The arrangement of 1833, as far as regards the transition or intermediate state, had been made under an error in fact, an error propagated by the representations of the masters. That error was now at an end, and an immediate alteration of the provisions to which it had given rise was thus a matter of strict justice;—not to mention that the planters had failed to perform their part of the contract. The Colonial Assemblies had, except in Antigua, done nothing for the slave in return for the large sum bestowed upon the West India body. So that in any view there was an end of all pretext for the further delay of right and justice.
In these dealings, both in Jamaica, where he is one of the largest plantation owners, and in Parliament, where he is one of the most respected members, the Marquess of Sligo played a significant and honorable role. His contributions have been justly recognized by everyone who has supported the movement for black freedom, and his actions have been acknowledged as being characterized by the selfless virtue of a good citizen and kind person, as much as by the insight and skill of a knowledgeable politician. As the governor of Jamaica, the owner of slaves whom he willingly freed, and as a member of the House of Lords, his patriotism, humanity, and talents stood out prominently throughout this challenging and noble struggle. While he behaved in such a commendable way, there was some disagreement among the other, more experienced leaders of the movement, primarily based on concerns about whether the deal made by Parliament in 1833 should be seen as an agreement with the plantation owners that would be unfair to break by ending their right to the labor of the apprentices sooner than the timeframe set in the Emancipation Act. A little thought about the issue quickly cleared up those doubts and eliminated any barriers to working together by restoring complete agreement. It was confidently stated that the enslaved individuals were not part of the agreement. Furthermore, the entire apprenticeship arrangement was meant to benefit them, providing the preparation believed necessary before they could safely be granted full freedom—not as a favor to the plantation owners, who had been compensated with a twenty-million-pound grant. Experience had shown that no preparation was needed at all, making it ridiculous to keep restricting the natural freedom of the black individuals—who were the only group we had any right to consider in this matter; and as for the plantation owners, there was sheer nonsense in continuing to acknowledge any of their interests or claims. The agreement from 1833, regarding the transition or intermediate stage, was established based on a false premise promoted by the plantation owners. That misconception was now over, and changing the rules that had stemmed from it was now a matter of pure justice—not to mention that the plantation owners had failed to uphold their part of the agreement. The Colonial Assemblies had, except in Antigua, done nothing for the enslaved individuals in exchange for the substantial amount given to the West India interests. Therefore, in every respect, there was no longer any justification for delaying right and justice.
The ground now taken by the whole Abolitionists; therefore, both in and out of Parliament was, that the two years which remained of the indentured apprenticeship must immediately be cut off, and freedom given to the slaves in August, 1838, instead of 1840; The peace of the West Indian community, and the real interests of the planters, were affirmed to be as much concerned in this change as the rights of the negroes themselves. Far from preparing them for becoming peaceable subjects and contented members of society at the end of their apprenticeship, those two years of compulsory labour would, it was justly observed, be a period of heart-burning and discontent between master and servant, which must, in the mean while, be dangerous to the peace of society, and must leave, at the end of the time, a feeling of mutual ill-will and distrust. The question could no longer be kept from the cognizance of the negro people. Indeed, their most anxious expectations were already pointed towards immediate liberty, and their strongest feelings were roused to obtain it.
The ground now taken by all the Abolitionists, both in and out of Parliament, was that the two years left of the indentured apprenticeship should be cut off immediately, granting freedom to the slaves in August 1838 instead of 1840. The peace of the West Indian community and the actual interests of the planters were said to be as much at stake in this change as the rights of the Black people themselves. Rather than preparing them to be peaceful citizens and satisfied members of society at the end of their apprenticeship, those two years of forced labor would, as justly pointed out, be a time of resentment and dissatisfaction between master and servant, which could be dangerous to social peace and would ultimately leave both sides with feelings of mutual hostility and distrust. The issue could no longer be ignored by the Black community. In fact, their most anxious hopes were already focused on immediate freedom, and their strongest emotions were stirred to achieve it.
Of these sentiments the whole community partook; meetings were everywhere held; petitions crowded the tables of Parliament; the press poured forth innumerable tracts which were eagerly received; the pulpit lent its aid to this holy cause; and discussions upon petitions and upon incidental motions shook the walls of Parliament, while they stimulated the zeal of the people. The Government adopted an unfortunate course, which contributed greatly to weaken their hold on the confidence and affections of the country; they resisted all the motions that were made on behalf of the slaves, and appeared to regard only the interests of the master, turning a deaf ear to the arguments of right and of justice.
The whole community shared these feelings; meetings were held everywhere; petitions flooded the tables of Parliament; the press published countless pamphlets that were eagerly received; the pulpit supported this noble cause; and discussions about petitions and incidental motions shook the walls of Parliament while energizing the people. The Government made a miscalculated move that significantly weakened their grip on the trust and support of the country; they resisted every motion proposed for the benefit of the slaves and seemed to only care about the interests of the masters, ignoring the arguments of right and justice.
It was found, during the course of these debates, that a new Slave Trade had sprung up in the East Indies, with the sanction of an English Order in Council. Under pretence that hands were wanted to cultivate their estates, the Demerara planters had obtained permission to import what they termed, with a delicacy borrowed from the vocabulary of the African Slave Trade, "labourers" from Asia and from Africa east of the Cape, and to make them Indentured Apprentices for a term of years. No restrictions whatever were imposed by this unheard-of Order. No tonnage was required in proportion to the numbers shipped, no amount of provision, no medical assistance; no precautions were taken, or so much as thought of, to prevent kidnapping and fraud, nay, to prevent main force being used in any part of Eastern Africa, or of all Asia, in carrying on board the victims of West Indian avarice; in short, a worse Slave Trade than the African was established, and all the dominions of the East India Company, with all the African and Asiatic coasts, as yet independent, were given over to its ravages. This was repeatedly denounced by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords; and although his motion for rescinding the order was supported by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Wharncliffe, the influence of the Government and the planters prevailed, and the House rejected it. A bill was afterwards brought in to check the enormities complained of; but no remedy at all effectual is as yet applied. The official documents, however, proved that already men had been inveigled on board, by the agents of the Mauritius planters, in different parts of the East, and that the mortality on that comparatively short voyage exceeded even the dreadful waste of life which had characterized, and impressed with marks of horrid atrocity, the accursed Middle Passage.
It was discovered during these discussions that a new Slave Trade had emerged in the East Indies, backed by an English Order in Council. Under the pretense of needing workers to cultivate their estates, the Demerara planters were allowed to import what they referred to, using terminology reminiscent of the African Slave Trade, as "laborers" from Asia and Africa east of the Cape, and to make them Indentured Apprentices for a fixed number of years. There were no restrictions whatsoever imposed by this unprecedented Order. No tonnage was required relative to the number of individuals shipped, no provisions were mandated, no medical assistance was provided; no precautions were taken, nor even considered, to prevent kidnapping and fraud, or to stop the use of force in any part of Eastern Africa or Asia in bringing aboard the victims of West Indian greed. In short, a more devastating Slave Trade than that of Africa was established, with all the territories of the East India Company and all the coasts of Africa and Asia, which were still independent, falling prey to its destruction. Lord Brougham repeatedly condemned this in the House of Lords; and although his motion to rescind the order was supported by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Ellenborough, and Lord Wharncliffe, the influence of the Government and the planters won out, and the House rejected it. A bill was later introduced to address the reported abuses; however, no effective remedy has been implemented yet. The official documents, however, indicated that men had already been lured aboard by agents of the Mauritius planters in various parts of the East, and that the death toll on that relatively short voyage exceeded even the horrific loss of life that had marked, and left scars of dreadful atrocity, the notorious Middle Passage.
This subject, as might well be expected, once more roused the energies of Thomas Clarkson: he addressed an able and convincing letter to Lord Brougham, his old friend and coadjutor in the sacred cause; and it was printed and universally circulated. The subject still remains unsettled: and the labours of the enlightened philanthropist cannot now be directed to one more important, or more urgent.
This topic, as you might expect, once again energized Thomas Clarkson. He wrote a powerful and persuasive letter to Lord Brougham, his longtime friend and partner in the noble cause, and it was printed and widely distributed. The issue is still unresolved, and the efforts of the enlightened philanthropist cannot be focused on anything more important or urgent right now.
Meanwhile, in the spring of 1838, the question of Immediate Emancipation was agitated throughout the country. The Government proved hostile. Immense meetings were held at Exeter Hall, which were attended by many members of Parliament, over which Lord Brougham presided. Among others who were present and bore a distinguished part, were certain representatives of Ireland who promised their strenuous support. It is a painful duty to add, that their fellow-members from Ireland did not, on this great occasion, follow their good example; for eleven only of those, on whose votes reliance had been placed, opposed the Government, while no less than twenty-seven gave them support.
Meanwhile, in the spring of 1838, the issue of Immediate Emancipation was a hot topic across the country. The Government was unwelcoming. Huge meetings were held at Exeter Hall, attended by many members of Parliament, with Lord Brougham presiding. Among the notable attendees were some representatives from Ireland who pledged their strong support. Unfortunately, it’s painful to note that their fellow members from Ireland did not follow suit on this important occasion; only eleven of those whose votes were expected to be reliable opposed the Government, while as many as twenty-seven lent their support to it.
The question was rejected by the House of Lords, when brought forward by Lord Brougham; but in spite of the efforts of the Government; the defalcation of the Irish, of a still greater proportion of the Scotch representatives, two hundred and seventeen members of the House of Commons voted for Immediate Abolition, out of four hundred and eighty-nine who were present on the occasion. A second effort in the same session placed Ministers in a minority; but they immediately gave notice, they should strenuously oppose any attempt to carry into practical effect this decision of the House; and in this determination they were supported by a majority on a third division.
The House of Lords rejected the question when Lord Brougham brought it up; however, despite the Government's efforts and the lack of participation from more Irish and an even larger number of Scottish representatives, two hundred and seventeen members of the House of Commons voted for Immediate Abolition out of the four hundred and eighty-nine present at the time. A second attempt in the same session put Ministers in a minority, but they quickly announced that they would strongly oppose any efforts to implement this decision of the House, and they had the backing of a majority in a third vote.
The word, however, had gone forth all over England, that the Slave should be free. It had not only pervaded Europe, it had reached America; and the West Indians at length perceived that they could no longer resist the voice of the British people, when it spoke the accents of humanity and of justice. The slaves would have met the dawn of the first of August,—the day which all the motions in Parliament and all the prayers of the petitions had fixed,—with perfect quiet, but with a resolute determination to do no work. The peace would not have been broken, but no more would a clod have been turned after that appointed sun had risen. A handful of whites surrounded by myriads of negroes,—now substantially free, and free without a blow,—must have been overwhelmed in an hour after sunrise on that day, had they resisted. The Colonial Legislatures, therefore, now listened to the voice of reason, and they, one after another, emancipated their slaves. The first of August saw not a bondsman, under whatever appellation, in any part of the Western Sea which owns the British rule.
The word had spread all over England that the Slave should be free. It didn’t just reach Europe, it made its way to America; and the people in the West Indies eventually realized they could no longer ignore the call of the British public when it spoke up for humanity and justice. The enslaved people would have greeted the dawn of August first—the day that all the actions in Parliament and all the petitions’ prayers had targeted—with perfect calm, but with a firm commitment to not work. There would have been peace, but no more land would have been tilled after the sun rose that day. A small group of whites surrounded by countless black individuals—now effectively free, and without any violence—would have been overwhelmed within an hour of sunrise had they opposed it. The Colonial Legislatures, therefore, now paid attention to reason, and one by one, they set their slaves free. By August first, there was not a single person in bondage, under whatever name, anywhere in the Western Sea under British rule.
The Mauritius, however, still held out, and on the Mauritius the hand of the Imperial Parliament must and will be laid, to enforce mercy and justice on those to whom mercy and justice have so long called aloud in vain. In truth, if the case for instant emancipation was strong everywhere, it was in no quarter half so strong as in the Mauritius; and the distribution of the grant by Parliament to this Colony was the most unjustifiable, and even incomprehensible. For, elsewhere, there existed at least a title to the slave, over whom an unjust and unchristian law recognised the right of property. But in the Mauritius there was not, nor is there now, one negro to whom a good title is clearly provable. The atrocious conduct of Governors and other functionaries, in conniving at the Slave Trade of Eastern Africa, had filled that Colony with thousands of negroes, every one of whom was carried there by the commission of felony, long after Slave Trading had been declared a capital crime by the law of the land, as by the law of nature it always was. Sir George Murray, when Colonial Secretary of State, had admitted, that at least thirty thousand of the negroes in the settlement were nominally slaves, but in reality free, having been carried thither contrary to law. He understated it by twenty thousand or more: yet on all these negroes, in respect of property, were two millions and more claimed: for all these the compensation money was given and taken, which Parliament had lavishly bestowed. How then was it possible to doubt, that every slave in the Mauritius should receive his freedom, when the only ground alleged for not singling out and liberating this fifty thousand, was the inability to distinguish them from the rest? If ten men are tried for an offence, and it is clear that five are innocent, though you cannot distinguish them from their companions, what jury will hesitate in acquitting the whole, on the ordinary principle of its being better five guilty should escape than five guiltless suffer? The same is still the state of the case in that most criminal settlement, which, having far surpassed all others in the enormity of its guilt, is now the only one where no attempt has been made to evince repentance by amendment of conduct. But the Government which has the power of compelling justice will share the crime which they refuse to prevent, and the Legislature must compel the Government, if their guilty reluctance shall continue, or it will take that guilt upon itselfA.
The Mauritius, however, still resisted, and the Imperial Parliament must and will step in to enforce mercy and justice on those who have been denied it for so long. In fact, if the argument for immediate freedom was strong everywhere, it was especially strong in the Mauritius. The way Parliament distributed funds to this Colony was the most unjustifiable and even baffling. Elsewhere, there was at least some claim to the slave, over whom an unfair and unchristian law recognized ownership. But in the Mauritius, there wasn’t a single Black person with a clear claim of ownership. The terrible actions of Governors and other officials, who turned a blind eye to the Slave Trade from Eastern Africa, had filled that Colony with thousands of Black individuals, each of whom was brought there through illegal means, long after the Slave Trade had been declared a capital offense by both the law and, as the law of nature dictates, always was. Sir George Murray, when he was Colonial Secretary of State, admitted that at least thirty thousand of the Black people in the settlement were formally slaves, but in reality, they were free, having been brought there against the law. He lowballed the numbers by at least another twenty thousand. Yet claims of over two million in property rights were made on all these individuals; for them, the compensation funds were given and accepted, which Parliament had generously allocated. How then can we doubt that every slave in the Mauritius should be granted freedom when the only argument against identifying and freeing these fifty thousand is the inability to differentiate them from the others? If ten men are on trial for a crime, and it’s obvious that five are innocent, even if you can’t identify them among their peers, what jury would hesitate to acquit all of them based on the principle that it’s better for five guilty ones to go free than for five innocent ones to suffer? The situation still stands the same in that highly culpable settlement, which has gone far beyond others in terms of guilt and is now the only place where no effort has been made to show remorse through changes in behavior. However, the Government, which has the authority to enforce justice, will share the blame for the wrongs they refuse to stop, and the Legislature must force the Government's hand if their guilty hesitation continues, or it will take that blame upon itself.A.
A: It is truly gratifying to state, that the late Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Glenelg, has, since this was written, given the most satisfactory assurances of orders having been sent over for immediate emancipation, in case the former instructions to the Governor of Mauritius should have failed, to make the Colonists themselves adopt the measure. Lord Glenelg's conduct on this occasion is most creditable to him.
A: It is really satisfying to say that the former Secretary for the Colonies, Lord Glenelg, has, since this was written, provided solid confirmation that orders have been sent for immediate emancipation, in case the previous instructions to the Governor of Mauritius didn't lead the Colonists to take action themselves. Lord Glenelg's actions in this situation are commendable.
The latest act of Thomas Clarkson's life has been one which, or rather the occasion for which, it is truly painful to contemplate; but this too must be recorded, or the present historical sketch would be incomplete. He whose days had all been spent in acts of kindness and of justice to others, was at last forced to exert his powers, supposed, by some, and erroneously supposed, to be enfeebled by age, in obtaining redress for his own wrongs. He whose thoughts had all been devoted to the service of his fellow-creatures, was now obliged to think of himself. A life spent in works of genuine philanthropy, alike standing aloof from party, and retiring with genuine humility from the public gaze, might have well hoped to escape that detraction, which is the lot of those who assume the leading stations among their contemporaries, and mingle in the contentious scenes of worldly affairs. Or, at least, it might have been expected that his traducers would only be found among the oppressors of the New World, or the slave-traders of the Old. This felicity has not been his lot; and the evening of his days has been overcast by an assault upon his character, proceeding from the quarter of all others the most unexpected and the most strange.
The latest chapter in Thomas Clarkson's life has been one that is genuinely painful to think about, yet it must be included, or the current historical overview would be lacking. A man whose life was dedicated to kindness and justice for others was finally forced to use his, often mistakenly considered, weakened abilities due to age to seek justice for his own wrongs. A person who had devoted all his thoughts to helping others now had to focus on himself. After a life spent in true philanthropy, remaining apart from political parties and stepping back with genuine humility from the public eye, he might have reasonably hoped to avoid the criticism that often falls on those in the spotlight and involved in the conflicts of the world. At the very least, it could have been expected that his critics would only come from the oppressors of the New World or the slave traders of the Old. This, however, has not been his experience; the twilight of his life has been overshadowed by an attack on his character from an unexpected and truly strange source.
The sons of his old and dear friend William Wilberforce,—whose incomparable merits he had ever been the first to acknowledge, whom he loved as a brother, and revered as the great leader of the cause to which his whole life had been devoted,—in publishing a Life of their illustrious parent, thought fit to charge Thomas Clarkson with having suppressed his services while he exaggerated his own; and not content with bringing a charge utterly groundless, (as it was instantly proved,) they deemed it worthy of their subject and of their name, to drag forth into the light of day a private correspondence of a delicate nature, with the purpose of proving that their father and others had assisted him with money, and that he had been pressing in his demands of a subscription. Two extracts of Letters of his were printed by these reverend gentlemen, upon which a statement was afterwards grounded in the Edinburgh Review of their book, that the subscription was raised to remunerate him for his services in the Abolition. They further asserted, that their father was in the field before him, and that it was under their father's direction that he, and the Abolition Committee of 1786, acted. In the whole history of controversy, we venture to affirm, there never was an instance of so triumphant a refutation as that by which these slanderous aspersions were instantly refuted, and their authors and their accomplices reduced to a silence as prudent as discreditable.
The sons of his old and dear friend William Wilberforce—whose outstanding contributions he always acknowledged first, whom he loved like a brother, and respected as the leading figure in the cause to which he had dedicated his entire life—in publishing a biography of their famous father, chose to accuse Thomas Clarkson of downplaying his own contributions while exaggerating his own. Not satisfied with making a completely unfounded accusation (which was immediately disproven), they thought it appropriate to bring to light a private correspondence of a sensitive nature, intending to show that their father and others had financially supported him and that he had been insistent in his requests for a subscription. Two excerpts from his letters were published by these reverend gentlemen, which later formed the basis for a claim in the Edinburgh Review regarding their book that the subscription was raised to compensate him for his efforts in the Abolition. They also claimed that their father was active before him and that it was under their father's guidance that he and the Abolition Committee of 1786 operated. In the entire history of disputes, we dare to say there has never been such a decisive refutation as the one that instantly discredited these slanderous accusations, leaving their authors and associates in a silence that was as prudent as it was shameful.
The venerable philanthropist took up his pen, worn down in the cause of humanity and of justice. First, he showed, by incontrovertible evidence, the utter falsehood of the charge, that he had underrated the merits of others and exalted his own. These proofs were the references to his volumes themselves, which it really seemed as if the two reverend authors had never even looked into. He then proved to demonstration that he had taken the field earlier than William Wilberforce. This was shown, first, by known dates, matter of history; next, by letters from the friends of both parties, as Archdeacon Corbet and William Smith; but, lastly, by the words of William Wilberforce himself, as well privately as at public meetings, asserting that he (William Wilberforce) came into the field after his valued friend. But a striking fact may be cited, as a sample at once of the course pursued by the assailants, and the completeness of the defence. The reverend authors in proof of their unqualified assertion, that Thomas Clarkson and the Committee acted from the first under William Wilberforce's directions, refer to "MS. Minutes of the Committee" for their authority. But the friend who so ably superintended the publication of Thomas Clarkson's defence, and who added to that tract an appendix of singular merit and great interest (H.C. Robinson), showed that the parts referred to by the reverend authors, in proof of their assertion, completely disproved it; and that six months after the Committee had been working, William Wilberforce applied to them for any information of which they might be possessed on the subject of the Slave Trade.
The respected philanthropist picked up his pen, worn down from his fight for humanity and justice. First, he demonstrated, with undeniable evidence, the complete falsehood of the claim that he had belittled the efforts of others while promoting his own. These proofs were the references to his own works, which it appeared the two reverend authors hadn’t even bothered to read. He then clearly showed that he had started his efforts before William Wilberforce. This was established, first, through well-known dates and historical facts; next, through letters from friends of both men, like Archdeacon Corbet and William Smith; and finally, through the statements of William Wilberforce himself, both privately and at public meetings, claiming that he (William Wilberforce) came into the field after his dear friend. But a notable fact serves as an example of both the approach taken by the attackers and the strength of the defense. The reverend authors, to support their unfounded assertion that Thomas Clarkson and the Committee acted from the start under William Wilberforce's direction, referenced the "MS. Minutes of the Committee" as their authority. However, the friend who expertly oversaw the publication of Thomas Clarkson's defense and added a remarkable and highly interesting appendix (H.C. Robinson) demonstrated that the sections cited by the reverend authors to back up their claim actually disproved it; and that six months after the Committee had begun its work, William Wilberforce reached out to them for any information they might have regarding the Slave Trade.
But the publication of the letters and the colour given to the transaction were far worse. The preservation of that correspondence, at all, by the sons, could only be justified by the belief of its being accidentally kept by the father, but, of course, never intended to be made public; least of all without the usual precaution of asking the writer's leave, and giving him the opportunity of explaining it. The biographers printed it without any kind of communication with him, and he saw it for the first time in print.
But the release of the letters and the way the situation was portrayed were even worse. The fact that the sons kept that correspondence could only be justified by the belief that it was accidentally saved by the father, and certainly never meant to be shared publicly; especially not without the standard practice of asking the writer's permission and giving him a chance to explain it. The biographers published it without communicating with him at all, and he saw it for the first time in print.
Then, the attempt was made to represent this pure, and valuable, and disinterested man as a mendicant philanthropist, who, for his exertions in the cause of justice, stooped to the humiliating attitude of collecting a remuneration from his friends. The words of William Wilberforce, and other Abolition leaders, prove that he had expended a very considerable portion of his own small patrimony in the cause, and that the subscription was to pay a debt,—a just and lawful debt; not to confer a bounty, or reward, or remuneration for services performed. It is also proved, that after being reimbursed to the amount of the sum contributed, or rather levied on those for whom the poorest of their body had advanced his own money, he remained out of pocket far more than others had ever given, after their share of the repayment was credited to them, in this debtor and creditor account.
Then, an effort was made to portray this pure, valuable, and selfless man as a beggar philanthropist who, for his efforts in the pursuit of justice, lowered himself to the embarrassing position of asking for compensation from his friends. The words of William Wilberforce and other abolition leaders show that he had spent a significant part of his own small inheritance on the cause, and that the subscription was to pay off a debt—a fair and lawful debt; not to provide a gift, reward, or payment for services rendered. It is also shown that after being reimbursed to the extent of the amount contributed—or rather collected from those for whom the most disadvantaged among them had advanced his own funds—he ended up financially worse off than others who had contributed, even after their share of the repayment had been accounted for in this debtor and creditor tally.
But this is not all: Mr. Wilberforce himself, then a man of ample fortune, and Member for Yorkshire, had in 1807, published a pamphlet in the cause. The Minutes of the Committee for 6th June, 1811, contained an entry of an order to pay 83l. out of the subscription funds to Mr. Cadell, being Mr. Wilberforce's share of the loss sustained by that publication. There had been no mention at all of this in his life, by these reverend authors, who scrupled not to print the garbled letters, with the manifest design of lowering the character of their father's friend, by ranking him among venal stipendiary pretenders to philanthropy, and jobbing mendicant patriots.
But that's not all: Mr. Wilberforce himself, a wealthy man and Member for Yorkshire, published a pamphlet in support of the cause in 1807. The Minutes of the Committee from June 6, 1811, included an entry to pay £83 from the subscription funds to Mr. Cadell, which was Mr. Wilberforce's share of the loss from that publication. This was never mentioned during his lifetime by these reverend authors, who had no qualms about printing the distorted letters with the clear intention of tarnishing the reputation of their father's friend, placing him among corrupt, paid pretenders to philanthropy and opportunistic faux patriots.
Wherefore, it may be asked, was this matter at all dragged forth to light, except to effect that unworthy purpose, and to give pain to a man as eminently as deservedly respected and beloved? The false pretext is, the vindication of their father's memory.—But it had never been attacked. They affect to suppose such an attack, that they may have a pretext for inflicting a wound in a fictitious and almost a fraudulent defence.—But if it had been ever so rudely attacked, the letters are no defence. For the only possible pretence of attack was the notion of Thomas Clarkson having assumed the priority, and these letters can have no earthly relation to that point. Whether Wilberforce, or Clarkson, or neither of them, first began the abolition struggle, is a question as utterly wide of the subscription as any one private matter in the life of either party can be of any one public transaction in which both were engaged.
Why, then, is this issue being brought to light at all, if not to achieve that unjust goal and to cause pain to a man who is not only highly respected but also genuinely loved? The false excuse is about defending their father's memory—but it was never under attack. They pretend to believe such an attack exists so they can justify inflicting harm under a made-up and almost dishonest defense. But even if it had been badly attacked, the letters offer no defense. The only possible claim of an attack was the idea that Thomas Clarkson claimed to be first, and these letters have no real connection to that point. Whether Wilberforce, Clarkson, or neither of them started the abolition movement first is a question that is completely unrelated to the subscription as any personal matter in either person's life can be to any public event they both participated in.
The indignation of mankind was awakened by this disgraceful proceeding, and it was in vain that the friends of the Wilberforces urged, as some extenuation of their offence, the zeal which they naturally cherished for the memory of their parent. Men of reflection felt that no well-regulated mind can ever engage in slandering one person for the purpose of elevating another. Men of ordinary discernment perceived that the assaults on Clarkson's reputation had no possible tendency to raise Wilberforce's reputation. Men of observation saw at once that there lurked behind the wish to praise the one party, a desire to wound the other; and gave them far less credit for over-anxiety to gratify their filial affections than eagerness to indulge their hostile feelings. It was plain, too, that they sought this gratification at the hazard of bringing a stain upon the memory of their father; for what could be more natural than the suspicion that they had obtained from him the materials out of which their web of detraction was woven? And what more discreditable to the author of the affectionate and familiar letters of Wilberforce to Clarkson than their discrepancy with the charges now urged against him? It is due to the memory of this venerable man, now gone to his rest, to say that no one who knew him, ever so slightly, could believe in the possibility of his holding one language to his friend and another to his children: far less of his bequeathing to them anything like materials for the attack upon one to whom he professed the most warm and steady attachment. But if such be the conclusion of all who knew the man, assuredly in arriving at it they have derived no help from the lights afforded by his family.
The outrage of people was stirred by this disgraceful act, and it was pointless for Wilberforce's friends to defend them by highlighting their natural devotion to their father's memory. Thoughtful individuals recognized that no rational person would slander one person to elevate another. Average observers understood that the attacks on Clarkson's reputation would not boost Wilberforce's reputation at all. Those who paid attention realized that behind the desire to praise one side, there was a wish to hurt the other; they attributed more motivation to their desire to express hostility than an actual need to honor their parental feelings. It was also clear that they sought this satisfaction at the risk of tarnishing their father's memory; after all, what could be more suspicious than the thought that they had received from him the very materials from which they wove their slander? And what could be more shameful for the author of the affectionate and familiar letters from Wilberforce to Clarkson than their inconsistency with the accusations now made against him? It’s only right to honor the memory of this respected man, now at peace, by stating that no one who even slightly knew him could believe that he would speak one way to his friend and another to his children; much less that he would leave them any sort of materials to attack someone to whom he claimed the deepest and most steadfast loyalty. But if this is the conclusion reached by everyone who knew the man, they certainly did not gain any support for it from the insights provided by his family.
The vindication of Thomas Clarkson has been triumphant; the punishment of his traducers has been exemplary. His character stands higher than ever; his name is lofty and it is unsullied; they have a character to retrieve,—a name which they have tarnished since it descended upon them, they have to restore by their own future deserts.
The vindication of Thomas Clarkson has been a success; the punishment of his slanderers has been fitting. His reputation is stronger than ever; his name is respected and untarnished; they have a reputation to repair—a name they have damaged since it was given to them, which they must restore through their future actions.
The astonishment of the world was at its pitch when the champion of Abolition, the steady ally of Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharpe, the Edinburgh Review, was seen attempting to rescue these parties, and taking part against the injured man, the patriarch of a cause defended by that celebrated Journal during a brilliant period of much above thirty years. The boldness displayed in its pages on this occasion was excessive. As if feeling that the weak and indefensible part in the assault was the publishing of the letters, it had the confidence to affirm, that this proceeding was called for in justice to Wilberforce's memory. So daring an attempt upon the integrity of facts has not often been witnessed. What! The publication of these letters, which had no possible connexion with Wilberforce's character, (a character, indeed, that no one had assailed,) letters which were absolutely foreign even to the question of priority in the abolition cause,—the publication of these necessary to the defence of Wilberforce? Then, upon what ground necessary? How had he been attacked? Where was he to be defended? But, if attacked, how did the letters aid,—how connect themselves with,—how, in any manner of way, bear upon the defence, or any defence, or any portion of Wilberforce's character and life? They showed him to have contributed towards the payment of a debt he had contracted to Clarkson. But who had ever charged him with refusing to pay his debts? With his merits as to the Abolition, (if that be what is meant by his character,)—merits which it was a mere fabrication to pretend that Clarkson had ever been slow to acknowledge,—those letters had absolutely no possible connexion; and whoever, on this score, affects to defend this publication, is capable of vindicating the printing any private letter upon the most delicate subject, by any man who writes the history of any other affair, or who writes on any subject from which the correspondence is wholly foreign. It is proper to add, that the editors of this Journal have most properly published a retractation of the charges made, in their ignorance of the whole facts of the case.
The world was in complete shock when the champion of abolition, the steadfast supporter of Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharpe, the Edinburgh Review, was seen trying to defend these individuals while opposing the wronged man, who was a leading figure in a cause that this well-known journal had supported for over thirty years. The boldness shown in its articles during this time was outrageous. It seemed to believe that the weak and indefensible part of the attack was the publication of the letters, boldly claiming that this action was necessary to honor Wilberforce's memory. Such a brazen attempt to distort the truth is rarely seen. What? The release of these letters, which had no connection to Wilberforce's character (a character that had not been attacked by anyone), letters that were completely irrelevant even to the question of priority in the abolition movement—were these published to defend Wilberforce? On what basis was this necessary? How had he been criticized? What was he being defended against? But if he was criticized, how did the letters help—how were they connected—how did they relate to defending any part of Wilberforce's character and life? They merely showed that he had made a payment towards a debt he owed to Clarkson. But who ever accused him of not paying his debts? As for his merits regarding abolition (if that's what's meant by his character)—merits that it’s absurd to claim Clarkson ever acknowledged slowly—those letters had no connection at all; and anyone who tries to justify this publication on those grounds is capable of justifying the printing of any private letter on the most sensitive subject by anyone who writes the history of any other issue, or who writes on any subject unrelated to the correspondence. It's worth mentioning that the editors of this journal have correctly published a retraction of the accusations made, due to their ignorance of the entire situation.
The acute and sagacious editor of T. Clarkson's vindication, has given his reasons for suspecting that this criticism, in the Edinburgh Review, must have proceeded from some party directly concerned in the publication of Wilberforce's life. We enter into no discussion of the circumstantial evidence adduced in favour of this supposition. The editors of the Journal are the parties to whom we look; and as they, after being to all appearance misled by some partial writer, have made the best reparation for an involuntary error, by doing justice to the injured party, we can have no further remark to make upon the subject.
The sharp and insightful editor of T. Clarkson's defense has explained his reasons for believing that the criticism in the Edinburgh Review likely came from someone directly involved in the publication of Wilberforce's biography. We won't get into a discussion about the circumstantial evidence supporting this idea. The editors of the Journal are the ones we look to, and since they seem to have been misled by a biased writer but have made the best effort to correct their unintentional mistake by doing right by the affected party, we have nothing more to say on the matter.
But it is impossible to close these pages without mentioning the extraordinary merit of this latest, and, in all likelihood, this last production of Clarkson's pen. It is indeed a most able performance, and has been admired by some of the ablest controversial writers of the age, as a model of excellence in controversial writing. Plain, vigorous, convincing, perfectly calm and temperate, devoid of all acrimony, barely saying enough to repel unjust aggression without one word of retaliation, never losing sight for a moment of its purely defensive object, and accordingly, from the singleness of purpose with which that object is pursued, attaining it with the most triumphant success,—no wonder that the public judgment has been loudly and universally pronounced in its favour, that its adversaries have been reduced to absolute silence, that its author's name has been exalted even higher than before it stood. But the wonder is to see such unimpaired vigour at four-score years of age, after a life of unwearied labour, latterly clouded by domestic calamity, and a spirit as young as ever in zeal for justice, tempered only by the mellowness which the kindly heart spreads over the fruits of the manly understanding.
But it's impossible to finish these pages without mentioning the incredible merit of this latest, and probably last, work from Clarkson. It truly is an impressive piece, praised by some of the most skilled writers of the time as a benchmark of excellence in argumentative writing. It’s straightforward, strong, persuasive, completely calm and measured, free from any bitterness, only saying enough to counter unjust attacks without a word of revenge, never losing sight of its purely defensive goal, and as a result of the single-mindedness with which that goal is pursued, achieving it with spectacular success. No wonder public opinion has been loudly and universally in its favor, that its opponents have been rendered completely silent, and that its author's name has been elevated even higher than before. But what’s astounding is to witness such undiminished energy at eighty years old, after a lifetime of tireless work, recently overshadowed by personal tragedy, and a spirit as youthful as ever in its pursuit of justice, tempered only by the wisdom that a kind heart brings to the insights of a strong mind.
There wanted no testimonials of esteem from his country to consummate the venerable philanthropist's renown; yet these too have been added. Various meetings have addressed their gratulations to him. Of these the great corporation of London claims the first regard, and after presenting him with the freedom of the city, they have ordered to be erected in their hall, as a memorial of his extraordinary virtue, a likeness of the mortal form of Thomas Clarkson.
There was no need for endorsements of respect from his country to complete the esteemed philanthropist's legacy; however, these have also been given. Different organizations have sent him their congratulations. Among them, the notable corporation of London holds the highest regard, and after awarding him the freedom of the city, they have decided to erect a statue of Thomas Clarkson in their hall as a tribute to his remarkable character.
CHAPTER I.
HISTORY OF THE ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
No subject more pleasing than that of the removal of evils.—Evils have existed almost from the beginning of the world; but there is a power in our nature to counteract them—this power increased by Christianity.—Of the evils removed by Christianity one of the greatest is the Slave Trade.—The joy we ought to feel on its abolition from a contemplation of the nature of it; and of the extent of it; and of the difficulty of subduing it.—Usefulness also of the contemplation of this subject.
No topic is more satisfying than the elimination of evils. Evils have been present since nearly the start of the world, but we have an inherent ability to combat them—this ability has grown stronger through Christianity. One of the biggest evils that Christianity has helped eliminate is the Slave Trade. We should feel joy at its abolition when we consider its nature, its widespread impact, and the challenges of overcoming it. Reflecting on this subject is also valuable.
I scarcely know of any subject, the contemplation of which is more pleasing, than that of the correction or of the removal of any of the acknowledged evils of life; for while we rejoice to think that the sufferings of our fellow-creatures have been thus, in any instance, relieved, we must rejoice equally to think, that our own moral condition must have been necessarily improved by the change.
I hardly know of any topic that is more enjoyable to think about than fixing or eliminating the known problems of life. As we take pleasure in the thought that the suffering of others has been eased in any way, we should also be happy to recognize that our own moral state must have improved because of that change.
That evils, both physical and moral, have existed long upon earth there can be no doubt. One of the sacred writers, to whom we more immediately appeal for the early history of mankind, informs us that the state of our first parents was a state of innocence and happiness; but that, soon after their creation, sin and misery entered into the world. The poets in their fables, most of which, however extravagant they may seem, had their origin in truth, speak the same language. Some of these represent the first condition of man by the figure of the golden, and his subsequent degeneracy and subjection to suffering by that of the silver, and afterwards of the iron age. Others tell us that the first female was made of clay; that she was called Pandora, because every necessary gift, qualification, or endowment, was given to her by the gods, but that she received from Jupiter, at the same time, a box from which, when opened, a multitude of disorders sprung, and that these spread themselves immediately afterwards among all of the human race. Thus it appears, whatever authorities we consult, that those which may be termed the evils of life existed in the earliest times. And what does subsequent history, combined with our own experience, tell us, but that these have been continued, or that they have come down in different degrees through successive generations of men, in all the known countries of the universe, to the present day?
That both physical and moral evils have existed on earth for a long time is undeniable. One of the sacred writers, whom we often refer to for the early history of humanity, tells us that our first parents were in a state of innocence and happiness; however, shortly after their creation, sin and suffering entered the world. The poets in their fables, most of which, no matter how extravagant they may seem, have roots in truth, express the same idea. Some depict the initial condition of humanity with the image of the golden age, and the subsequent decline and suffering with the silver and then the iron age. Others say that the first woman was made from clay; she was called Pandora because every necessary gift, quality, or ability was given to her by the gods, but she also received a box from Jupiter that, when opened, released many troubles, which then spread immediately among all of humanity. Thus, it seems, regardless of which sources we consult, that what we may call the evils of life existed in the earliest times. And what does later history, combined with our own experiences, tell us if not that these evils have persisted, or that they have continued in varying degrees through successive generations in all the known countries of the world to this day?
But though the inequality visible in the different conditions of life, and the passions interwoven into our nature, (both which have been allotted to us for wise purposes, and without which we could not easily afford a proof of the existence of that, which is denominated virtue,) have a tendency to produce vice and wretchedness among us, yet we see, in this our constitution, what may operate partially as preventives and corrective of them. If there be a radical propensity in our nature to do that which is wrong, there is, on the other hand, a counteracting power within it, or an impulse by means of the action of the divine Spirit upon our minds, which urges us to do that which is right. If the voice of temptation, clothed in musical and seducing accents, charms us one way, the voice of holiness, speaking to us from within, in a solemn and powerful manner, commands us another. Does one man obtain a victory over his corrupt affections? an immediate perception of pleasure, like the feeling of a reward divinely conferred upon him, is noticed. Does another fall prostrate beneath their power? a painful feeling, and such as pronounces to him the sentence of reproof and punishment is found to follow. If one, by suffering his heart to become hardened, oppresses a fellow-creature, the tear of sympathy starts up in the eye of another, and the latter instantly feels a desire, involuntarily generated, of flying to his relief. Thus impulses, feelings, and dispositions have been implanted in our nature, for the purpose of preventing and rectifying the evils of life. And as these have operated, so as to stimulate some men to lessen them by the exercise of an amiable charity, so they have operated to stimulate others in various other ways to the same end. Hence the philosopher has left moral precepts behind him in favour of benevolence, and the legislator has endeavoured to prevent barbarous practices by the introduction of laws.
But even though the inequality evident in different life situations and the passions that are part of our nature (both of which have been given to us for wise reasons, and without which it would be hard to provide evidence for what we call virtue) tend to lead to vice and suffering among us, we can also see in our makeup what may act as partial preventatives and correctives. If there is a fundamental tendency in our nature to do wrong, there is, on the other hand, an opposing force within it, or a driving impulse from the divine Spirit influencing our minds, that pushes us to do what is right. If the voice of temptation, dressed in charming and enticing tones, lures us one way, the voice of holiness, speaking from within in a strong and serious way, directs us another. If one person overcomes their corrupt desires, they immediately feel a pleasure akin to a reward bestowed upon them, while if another succumbs to those desires, they experience a painful feeling that brings them the message of blame and punishment. If one person, by hardening their heart, mistreats another, the tear of compassion wells up in someone else's eye, and they instantly feel an involuntary urge to help. Thus, impulses, feelings, and tendencies have been embedded in our nature to help prevent and correct life's evils. As these have inspired some people to reduce suffering through acts of kindness, they've prompted others in various ways to do the same. This is why philosophers have left behind moral teachings promoting kindness, and lawmakers have sought to stop cruel practices through the creation of laws.
In consequence then of these impulses and feelings, by which the pure power in our nature is thus made to act as a check upon the evil part of it, and in consequence of the influence which philosophy and legislative wisdom have had in their respective provinces, there has been always, in all times and countries, a counteracting energy, which has opposed itself, more or less, to the crimes and miseries of mankind. But it seems to have been reserved for Christianity to increase this energy, and to give it the widest possible domain. It was reserved for her, under the same divine influence, to give the best views of the nature and of the present and future condition of man; to afford the best moral precepts, to communicate the most benign stimulus to the heart, to produce the most blameless conduct, and thus to cut off many of the causes of wretchedness, and to heal it wherever it was found. At her command, wherever she has been duly acknowledged, many of the evils of life have already fled. The prisoner of war is no longer led into the amphitheatre to become a gladiator, and to imbrue his hands in the blood of his fellow-captive for the sport of a thoughtless multitude. The stern priest, cruel through fanaticism and custom, no longer leads his fellow-creature to the altar to sacrifice him to fictitious gods. The venerable martyr, courageous through faith and the sanctity of his life, is no longer hurried to the flames. The haggard witch, poring over her incantations by moon-light, no longer scatters her superstitious poison among her miserable neighbours, nor suffers for her crime.
As a result of these impulses and feelings, which make the inherent power in our nature act as a check on our darker sides, and because of the impact that philosophy and wise laws have had in their areas, there has always been, throughout history and across cultures, a counteracting force that has opposed, to varying degrees, the crimes and suffering of humanity. However, it seems that Christianity has uniquely amplified this force and expanded its reach. It was Christianity, under divine influence, that provided the best understanding of human nature and our current and future conditions; it offered the finest moral teachings, inspired the most positive feelings in the heart, and promoted the most virtuous behavior, effectively reducing many sources of misery and healing it wherever it appeared. At its behest, wherever it has been properly recognized, many of life's evils have already diminished. The prisoner of war is no longer taken to the arena to become a gladiator, stained with the blood of fellow captives for the entertainment of a careless crowd. The harsh priest, cruel out of fanaticism and tradition, no longer brings his fellow human to the altar to sacrifice him to imaginary gods. The esteemed martyr, brave because of his faith and virtuous life, is no longer rushed to the flames. The weary witch, hunched over her incantations by moonlight, no longer spreads her superstitious poison among her unfortunate neighbors, nor does she suffer for her actions.
But in whatever way Christianity may have operated towards the increase of this energy, or towards a diminution of human misery, it has operated in none more powerfully than by the new views and consequent duties, which it introduced on the subject of charity, or practical benevolence and love. Men in ancient times looked upon their talents, of whatever description, as, their own, which they might use, or cease to use at their discretion. But the Author of our religion was the first who taught that, however in a legal point of view, the talent of individuals might belong exclusively to themselves, so that no other person had a right to demand the use of it by force, yet in the Christian dispensation they were but the stewards of it for good; that so much was expected from this stewardship, that it was difficult for those who were intrusted with it to enter into his spiritual kingdom; that these had no right to conceal their talent in a napkin, but that they were bound to dispense a portion of it to the relief of their fellow-creatures; and that, in proportion to the magnitude of it, they were accountable for the extensiveness of its use. He was the first who pronounced the misapplication of it to be a crime, and to be a crime of no ordinary dimensions. He was the first who broke down the boundary between Jew and Gentile, and, therefore, the first who pointed out to men the inhabitants of other countries, for the exercise of their philanthropy and love. Hence a distinction is to be made both in the principle and practice of charity, as existing in ancient or in modern times. Though the old philosophers, historians, and poets, frequently inculcated benevolence, we have no reason to conclude from any facts they have left us, that persons in their days did anything more than occasionally relieve an unfortunate object, who might present himself before them, or that, however they might deplore the existence of public evils among them, they joined in associations for their suppression, or that they carried their charity, as bodies of men, into other kingdoms. To Christianity alone we are indebted for the new and sublime spectacle, of seeing men going beyond the bounds of individual usefulness to each other; of seeing them associate for the extirpation of private and public misery; and of seeing them carry their charity, as a united brotherhood, into distant lands. And in this wider field of benevolence it would be unjust not to confess, that no country has shone with more true lustre than our own, there being scarcely any case of acknowledged affliction, for which some of her Christian children have not united in an attempt to provide relief.
But in whatever way Christianity may have contributed to increasing this energy or reducing human suffering, it has done so most powerfully through the new perspectives and responsibilities it introduced regarding charity, practical kindness, and love. In ancient times, people viewed their abilities, in any form, as their own, which they could use or not use as they pleased. However, the Founder of our faith was the first to teach that, while legally speaking, an individual's talents might belong solely to them—so that no one else could rightfully demand their use by force—within the Christian framework, they were merely stewards of those talents for good. There was so much expected from this stewardship that it was hard for those entrusted with it to enter into his spiritual kingdom. They had no right to hide their talents away but were obligated to share a portion of it to help their fellow humans, and they were accountable for how extensively they used their gifts based on their significance. He was the first to declare the misuse of these talents a crime, and not just any crime, but a serious one. He was the first to break down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, and thus the first to highlight to people the inhabitants of other countries as deserving of their compassion and love. Therefore, a distinction should be made both in the principles and practice of charity as seen in ancient versus modern times. Although ancient philosophers, historians, and poets often promoted kindness, there is no evidence to suggest that people in their times did much more than occasionally help an unfortunate individual who sought their aid, or that despite their lamentations over public injustices, they formed associations to combat them, or that they extended their charity as groups into other lands. We owe to Christianity the new and remarkable sight of people going beyond individual support for each other; of seeing them unite to eradicate both private and public suffering; and of seeing them carry their compassion, as a united community, into distant territories. And in this broader realm of generosity, it would be unfair not to acknowledge that no country has shone with more genuine brilliance than our own, with hardly an instance of recognized suffering for which some of its Christian members have not come together to offer aid.
Among the evils corrected or subdued, either by the general influence of Christianity on the minds of men, or by particular associations of Christians, the AfricanA. Slave Trade appears to me to have occupied the foremost place. The abolition of it, therefore, of which it has devolved upon me to write the history, should be accounted as one of the greatest blessings, and as such should be one of the most copious sources of our joy: indeed, I know of no evil, the removal of which should excite in us a higher degree of pleasure. For, in considerations of this kind, are we not usually influenced by circumstances? Are not our feelings usually affected according to the situation, or the magnitude, or the importance of these? Are they not more or less elevated, as the evil under our contemplation has been more or less productive of misery, or more or less productive of guilt? Are they not more or less elevated again, as we have found it more or less considerable in extent? Our sensations will undoubtedly be in proportion to such circumstances, or our joy to the appreciation or mensuration of the evil which has been removed.
Among the evils that have been addressed or diminished, either through the widespread impact of Christianity on people's minds or through specific actions by Christians, the African Slave Trade stands out to me as the most significant. Therefore, the abolition of it, which I have the responsibility to document, should be regarded as one of the greatest blessings and, as such, should be a major source of our joy: indeed, I can’t think of any evil whose removal would bring us greater happiness. When considering matters like this, don’t we tend to be influenced by certain circumstances? Aren’t our feelings typically affected by the situation, the size, or the importance of these issues? Aren't they heightened based on how much suffering or guilt the issue has caused? And don’t they also vary depending on how significant we’ve found the issue to be in terms of its scope? Our feelings will definitely correspond to these factors, or our joy will reflect our understanding of the evil that has been eliminated.
A: Slavery had been before annihilated by Christianity; I mean in the West of Europe, at the close of the twelfth century
A: Slavery had already been eliminated by Christianity; I'm referring to the western part of Europe at the end of the twelfth century.
To value the blessing of the abolition as we ought, or to appreciate the joy and gratitude which we ought to feel concerning it, we must enter a little into the circumstances of the trade. Our statement, however, of these needs not be long: a few pages will do all that is necessary! A glance only into such a subject as this will be sufficient to affect the heart,—to arouse our indignation and our pity,—and to teach us the importance of the victory obtained.
To truly appreciate the blessing of abolition and feel the joy and gratitude we should, we need to consider the circumstances surrounding the trade. However, our discussion doesn’t have to be lengthy; just a few pages will be enough! Even a brief look at this topic will be enough to touch our hearts, spark our indignation and pity, and teach us the significance of the victory achieved.
The first subject for consideration, towards enabling us to make the estimate in question, will be that of the nature of the evil belonging to the Slave Trade. This may be seen by examining it in three points of view. First, as it has been proved to arise on the Continent of Africa, in the course of reducing the inhabitants of it to slavery. Secondly, in the course of conveying them from thence to the lands or colonies of other nations. And, thirdly, in continuing them there as slaves.
The first thing we need to think about to help us make the estimate is the nature of the harm caused by the Slave Trade. We can examine this from three perspectives. First, it has been shown to originate in Africa, where the local population is enslaved. Second, it involves transporting them from Africa to the lands or colonies of other countries. And third, it includes keeping them as slaves in those places.
To see it, as it has been shown, to arise in the first case, let us suppose ourselves on the Continent just mentioned. Well then, We are landed,—We are already upon our travels,—We have just passed through one forest,—We are now come to a more open place, which indicates an approach to habitation. And what object is that which first obtrudes itself upon our sight? Who is that wretched woman whom we discover under that noble tree, wringing her hands, and beating her breast, as if in the agonies of despair? Three days has she been there, at intervals, to look and to watch; and this is the fourth morning, and no tidings of her children yet. Beneath its spreading boughs they were accustomed to play: but, alas! the savage man-stealer interrupted their playful mirth, and has taken them for ever from her sight.
To see it, as it has been shown, to arise in the first case, let’s imagine ourselves on the continent just mentioned. So, we’ve just arrived — we’re already on our journey — we’ve just passed through one forest — and now we’ve come to a more open area, suggesting we’re getting closer to civilization. And what’s that that catches our eye first? Who is that distressed woman we see under that grand tree, wringing her hands and beating her chest, as if she’s in utter despair? She’s been here for three days, checking and waiting, and this is the fourth morning with no news about her children. Beneath its wide branches, they used to play, but sadly, the brutal kidnapper interrupted their joyful games and took them away from her forever.
But let us leave the cries of this unfortunate woman, and hasten into another district. And what do we first see here? Who is he that just now started across the narrow pathway, as if afraid of a human face? What is that sudden rustling among the leaves? Why are those persons flying from our approach, and hiding themselves in yon darkest thicket? Behold, as we get into the plain, a deserted village! The rice-field has been just trodden down around it; an aged man,—venerable by his silver beard,—lies wounded and dying near the threshold of his hut. War, suddenly instigated by avarice, has just visited the dwellings which we see. The old have been butchered, because unfit for slavery, and the young have been carried off, except such as have fallen in the conflict, or have escaped among the woods behind us.
But let’s leave the cries of this unfortunate woman and move on to another area. What do we see here first? Who is that person just crossing the narrow path as if they're scared of seeing anyone? What’s that noise in the leaves? Why are those people running away from us and hiding in that dark thicket over there? Look, as we enter the open field, there’s a deserted village! The rice field around it has just been trampled down; an elderly man—with his silver beard—lies wounded and dying near the entrance of his hut. War, suddenly sparked by greed, has recently struck the homes we see. The elderly have been killed because they can’t be enslaved, and the young have been taken away, except for those who fell in battle or managed to escape into the woods behind us.
But let us hasten from this cruel scene, which gives rise to so many melancholy reflections. Let us cross yon distant river, and enter into some new domain. But are we relieved even here from afflicting spectacles? Look at that immense crowd which appears to be gathered in a ring. See the accused innocent in the middle! The ordeal of poisonous water has been administered to him, as a test of his innocence or his guilt: he begins to be sick and pale. Alas! yon mournful shriek of his relatives confirms that the loss of his freedom is now sealed.
But let's move away from this cruel scene, which brings up so many sad thoughts. Let's cross that distant river and enter a new place. But are we free from disturbing sights even here? Look at that huge crowd gathered in a circle. See the innocent person in the middle! He has been made to drink poisonous water as a test of his innocence or guilt: he's starting to feel sick and pale. Unfortunately, that heartbreaking scream from his family confirms that his freedom is now lost.
And whither shall we go now? the night is approaching fast. Let us find some friendly hut, where sleep may make us forget for a while the sorrows of the day. Behold a hospitable native ready to receive us at his door! let us avail ourselves of his kindness. And now let its give ourselves to repose. But why, when our eyelids are but just closed, do we find ourselves thus suddenly awakened? What is the meaning of the noise around us, of the trampling of people's feet, of the rustling of the bow, the quiver, and the lance? Let us rise up and inquire. Behold! the inhabitants are all alarmed! a wakeful woman has shown them yon distant column of smoke and blaze. The neighbouring village is on fire: the prince, unfaithful to the sacred duty of the protection of his subjects, has surrounded them. He is now burning their habitations, and seizing, as saleable booty, the fugitives from the flames.
And where shall we go now? Night is coming on quickly. Let’s find a friendly place where we can sleep and forget the day’s troubles for a bit. Look, there’s a welcoming local ready to take us in! Let’s take advantage of his kindness. And now let’s settle in for some rest. But why, just as our eyelids are closing, do we find ourselves suddenly awake? What’s that noise around us, the sound of people’s footsteps, the rustling of bows, quivers, and spears? Let’s get up and see what’s happening. Look! Everyone is in a panic! A vigilant woman has pointed out that distant column of smoke and fire. The nearby village is burning; the prince, failing in his sacred duty to protect his people, has surrounded them. He’s now setting their homes on fire and capturing those fleeing from the flames as if they were loot.
Such then are some of the scenes that have been passing in Africa, in consequence, of the existence of the Slave Trade; or such is the nature of the evil, as it has shown itself in the first of the cases we have noticed. Let us now estimate it as it has been proved to exist in the second; or let us examine the state of the unhappy Africans reduced to slavery in this manner, while on board the vessels, which are to convey them across the ocean to other lands. And here I must observe at once, that, as far as this part of the evil is concerned, I am at a loss to describe it. Where shall I find words to express properly their sorrow, as arising from the reflection of being parted for ever from their friends, their relatives, and their country? Where shall I find language to paint, in appropriate colours, the horror of mind brought on by thoughts of their future unknown destination, of which they can augur nothing but misery from all that they have yet seen? How shall I make known their situation, while labouring, under painful disease, or while struggling in the suffocating holds of their prisons, like animals enclosed in an exhausted receiver? How shall I describe their feelings as exposed to all the personal indignities, which lawless appetite or brutal passion may suggest? How shall I exhibit their sufferings as determining to refuse sustenance and die, or as resolving to break their chains, and, disdaining to live as slaves, to punish their oppressors? How shall I give an idea of their agony when under various punishments and tortures for their reputed crimes? Indeed, every part of this subject defies my powers, and I must, therefore, satisfy myself and the reader with a general representation, or in the words of a celebrated member of Parliament, that "Never was so much human suffering condensed in so small a space."
Here are some of the scenes happening in Africa because of the Slave Trade; this reflects the nature of the evil, as shown in the first case we've discussed. Now, let’s evaluate it as it has been demonstrated in the second case; or let’s look at the condition of the unfortunate Africans who are enslaved in this way while on board the ships that will take them across the ocean to other lands. And I must immediately point out that when it comes to this aspect of the evil, I struggle to find the right words to describe it. Where can I find the words to truly express their pain, knowing they are being separated forever from their friends, their families, and their homeland? How can I articulate the horror they feel as they think about their unknown future destination, which they can only anticipate will be filled with misery based on everything they’ve experienced so far? How do I convey their suffering as they endure painful illnesses or struggle in the suffocating holds of their prisons, like animals trapped in a sealed container? How can I explain their emotions when they face personal indignities inflicted by ruthless desires or violent passions? How do I portray their anguish as they decide to refuse food and die, or resolve to break their chains and, choosing not to live as slaves, punish their oppressors? How can I express the agony they feel when subjected to various punishments and tortures for crimes they are accused of? Truly, every part of this topic defies my ability to articulate it, so I must, therefore, settle for a general representation, or echo the words of a well-known member of Parliament, that "Never was so much human suffering condensed in so small a space."
I come now to the evil, as it has been proved to arise in the third case; or to consider the situation of the unhappy victims of the trade, when their painful voyages are over, or after they have been landed upon their destined shores. And here we are to view them, first under the degrading light of cattle: we are to see them examined, handled, selected, separated, and sold. Alas! relatives are separated from relatives, as if, like cattle, they had no rational intellect, no power of feeling the nearness of relationship, nor sense of the duties belonging to the ties of life! We are next to see them labouring; and this for the benefit of those to whom they are under no obligation, by any law either natural or divine, to obey. We are to see them, if refusing the commands of their purchasers, however weary, or feeble, or indisposed, subject to corporal punishments, and if forcibly resisting them to death: we are to see them in a state of general degradation and misery. The knowledge which their oppressors have of their own crime, in having violated the rights of nature, and of the disposition of the injured to seek all opportunities of revenge, produces a fear which dictates to them the necessity of a system of treatment, by which they shall keep up a wide distinction between the two, and by which the noble feelings of the latter shall be kept down, and their spirits broken. We are to see them again subject to individual persecution, as anger, or malice, or any bad passion may suggest: hence the whip, the chain, the iron-collar! hence the various modes of private torture, of which so many accounts have been truly given. Nor can such horrible cruelties be discovered so as to be made punishable, while the testimony of any number of the oppressed is invalid against the oppressors, however they may be offences against the laws. And, lastly, we are to see their innocent offspring, against whose personal liberty the shadow of an argument cannot be advanced, inheriting all the miseries of their parents' lot.
I’ll now discuss the evil that has been shown to exist in the third case, or consider the plight of the unfortunate victims of the trade, after their painful journeys are over, or once they have been brought to their intended destinations. Here, we will first view them in the degrading light of livestock: we will see them examined, handled, selected, separated, and sold. Unfortunately, family members are torn apart from each other, as if, like cattle, they lack rational thought, an ability to feel the closeness of family, or any sense of the responsibilities that come with relationships! Next, we will see them forced to work; this is for the benefit of people to whom they owe no obligations, either by natural or divine law. We will see them subjected to physical punishment if they refuse the demands of their buyers, no matter how tired, weak, or unwell they may be, and if they resist violently, they could be killed. We will witness them in a state of overall degradation and despair. The oppressors know their own crime of violating the rights of nature and are aware of the victims' desire for revenge, which creates a fear that leads them to implement a system of treatment designed to maintain a strict division between the two groups. They aim to suppress the noble feelings of the victims and break their spirits. We will again see them enduring individual torment as anger, spite, or any negative emotion may dictate: thus, the whip, the chain, the iron collar! This leads to various forms of personal torture that have been widely documented. Such horrific abuses often go unpunished since the accounts of any number of the oppressed carry no weight against their oppressors, regardless of how much they violate the law. And lastly, we will see their innocent children, who cannot be argued against in terms of their personal liberty, inheriting all the sufferings of their parents' fate.
The evil then, as far as it has been hitherto viewed, presents to us, in its three several departments, a measure of human suffering not to be equalled—not to be calculated—not to be described. But would that we could consider this part of the subject as dismissed! would that in each of the departments now examined there was no counterpart left us to contemplate! But this cannot be; for if there be persons who suffer unjustly there must be others who oppress: and if there be those who oppress, there must be to the suffering, which has been occasioned, a corresponding portion of immorality or guilt.
The evil we've looked at so far shows us, in its three different areas, a level of human suffering that can't be matched, measured, or fully explained. How I wish we could consider this part of the topic closed! How I wish we could say that in each area we've discussed, there's nothing left for us to think about! But that's just not possible; because if some people suffer unjustly, there are others who are doing the oppressing. And if there are those who oppress, then there must be a corresponding amount of immorality or guilt linked to the suffering that has been caused.
We are obliged then to view the counterpart of the evil in question, before we can make a proper estimate of the nature of it. And, in examining this part of it, we shall find that we have a no less frightful picture to behold than in the former cases; or that, while the miseries endured by the unfortunate Africans excite our pity on the one hand, the vices, which are connected with them, provoke our indignation and abhorrence on the other. The Slave Trade, in this point of view, must strike us as an immense mass of evil on account of the criminality attached to it, as displayed in the various branches of it, which have already been examined. For, to take the counterpart of the evil in the first of these, can we say that no moral turpitude is to be placed to the account of those, who, living on the continent of Africa, give birth to the enormities, which take place in consequence of the prosecution of this trade? Is not that man made morally worse, who is induced to become a tiger to his species, or who, instigated by avarice, lies in wait in the thicket to get possession of his fellow-man? Is no injustice manifest in the land, where the prince, unfaithful to his duty, seizes his innocent subjects, and sells them for slaves? Are no moral evils produced among those communities, which make war upon other communities for the sake of plunder, and without any previous provocation or offence? Does no crime attach to those, who accuse others falsely, or who multiply and divide crimes for the sake of the profit of the punishment, and who for the same reason continue the use of barbarous and absurd ordeals as a test of innocence or guilt?
We must first acknowledge the opposite of the evil in question before we can accurately assess its true nature. In examining this aspect, we will find that the situation is just as horrific as in previous cases. On one hand, the suffering endured by the unfortunate Africans evokes our sympathy, while on the other hand, the associated vices provoke our outrage and disgust. From this perspective, the Slave Trade appears as a massive source of evil due to the criminality involved, as demonstrated in the various aspects we have already discussed. To consider the flip side of the evil in the first case: can we claim that there's no moral wrongdoing attributed to those living in Africa who give rise to the atrocities resulting from this trade? Is not a person morally degraded when he is driven to become a predator to his own kind, or when he, motivated by greed, lurks in the bushes to capture his fellow man? Is not injustice evident in a land where a ruler, disloyal to his responsibilities, seizes his innocent subjects and sells them into slavery? Do moral evils not arise among those communities that wage war against others for the sake of looting, without any prior provocation or offense? Is there no crime connected to those who falsely accuse others or who fabricate and amplify crimes for the sake of monetary gain from the punishments, and who, for the same reason, persist in using cruel and nonsensical trials as a means of determining innocence or guilt?
In the second of these branches, the counterpart of the evil is to be seen in the conduct of those who purchase the miserable natives in their own country, and convey them to distant lands. And here questions, similar to the former, may be asked. Do they experience no corruption of their nature, or become chargeable with no violation of right, who, when they go with their ships to this continent, know the enormities which their visits there will occasion, who buy their fellow-creature man, and this, knowing the way in which he comes into their hands, and who chain, and imprison, and scourge him? Do the moral feelings of those persons escape without injury, whose hearts are hardened? And can the hearts of those be otherwise than hardened, who are familiar with the tears and groans of innocent strangers forcibly torn away from every thing that is dear to them in life, who are accustomed to see them on board their vessels in a state of suffocation and in the agonies of despair, and who are themselves in the habit of the cruel use of arbitrary power?
In the second branch, the counterpart of evil is seen in the actions of those who buy the unfortunate locals in their own country and transport them to faraway lands. Similar questions can be raised here. Do they experience no corruption of their nature or are they not guilty of violating rights when they travel to this continent, aware of the terrible consequences their presence will bring, and buy their fellow human beings, knowing how those individuals came into their possession, while they chain, imprison, and whip them? Do the moral feelings of those individuals remain unscathed, whose hearts have become calloused? And can the hearts of those who are used to seeing the tears and cries of innocent people forcefully taken from everything they hold dear, who regularly observe them aboard their ships in a state of suffocation and in despair, and who themselves routinely engage in the cruel exercise of unchecked power, be anything but hardened?
The counterpart of the evil in its third branch is to be seen in the conduct of those, who, when these miserable people have been landed, purchase and carry them to their respective homes. And let us see whether a mass of wickedness is not generated also in the present case. Can those have nothing to answer for, who separate the faithful ties which nature and religion have created? Can their feelings be otherwise than corrupted, who consider their fellow-creatures as brutes, or treat those as cattle, who may become the temples of the Holy Spirit, and in whom the Divinity disdains not himself to dwell? Is there no injustice in forcing men to labour without wages? Is there no breach of duty, when we are commanded to clothe the naked, and feed the hungry, and visit the sick and in prison, in exposing them to want, in torturing them by cruel punishment, and in grinding them down by hard labour, so as to shorten their days? Is there no crime in adopting a system, which keeps down all the noble faculties of their souls, and which positively debases and corrupts their nature? Is there no crime in perpetuating these evils among their innocent offspring? And finally, besides all these crimes, is there not naturally in the familiar sight of the exercise, but more especially in the exercise itself, of uncontrolled power, that which vitiates the internal man? In seeing misery stalk daily over the land, do not all become insensibly hardened? By giving birth to that misery themselves, do they not become abandoned? In what state of society are the corrupt appetites so easily, so quickly, and so frequently indulged, and where else, by means of frequent indulgence, do these experience such a monstrous growth? Where else is the temper subject to such frequent irritation, or passion to such little control? Yes—if the unhappy slave is in an unfortunate situation, so is the tyrant who holds him. Action and reaction are equal to each other, as well in the moral as in the natural world. You cannot exercise an improper dominion over a fellow-creature, but by a wise ordering of Providence you must necessarily injure yourself.
The counterpart to the evil in its third aspect can be seen in the actions of those who, after these unfortunate individuals have been brought to shore, buy them and take them to their homes. Let’s consider whether a huge amount of wrongdoing is not also created in this situation. Can those who break the strong ties that nature and religion have established be innocent? Can their feelings remain untainted when they view their fellow human beings as animals or treat them like livestock, despite the fact that these individuals could house the Holy Spirit and are valued by the Divine? Is it not unjust to force people to work without compensation? Is there not a failure to uphold our duties when we are instructed to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit the sick and imprisoned, yet expose them to need, torment them with harsh punishments, and force them into grueling labor that shortens their lives? Is there no wrongdoing in embracing a system that stifles their noble qualities and actively degrades and corrupts their nature? Is there no guilt in passing down these wrongs to their innocent children? Ultimately, beyond all these crimes, does the constant presence of unrestrained power not poison the internal self? In witnessing suffering daily across the land, do people not gradually become hardened? By creating that suffering, do they not become morally lost? In what kind of society are corrupt desires so easily, quickly, and frequently satisfied, and where, due to this constant indulgence, do these desires grow so alarmingly? Where else is the temper so easily provoked and passion so poorly controlled? Yes—if the suffering slave is in a dire situation, so is the tyrant who enslaves them. Action and reaction are equally matched in both moral and natural realms. You cannot exert an improper control over another human being without, through a wise design of Providence, bringing harm upon yourself.
Having now considered the nature of the evil of the Slave Trade in its three separate departments of suffering, and in its corresponding counterparts of guilt, I shall make a few observations on the extent of it.
Having considered the nature of the evil of the Slave Trade in its three separate areas of suffering, and in its corresponding aspects of guilt, I will share a few observations on its extent.
On this subject it must strike us, that the misery and the crimes included in the evil, as it has been found in Africa, were not like common maladies, which make a short or periodical visit and then are gone, but that they were continued daily. Nor were they like diseases, which from local causes attack a village or a town, and by the skill of the physician, under the blessing of Providence, are removed; but they affected a whole continent. The trade with all its horrors began at the river Senegal, and continued, winding with the coast, through its several geographical divisions to Cape Negro; a distance of more than three thousand miles. In various lines or paths formed at right angles from the shore, and passing into the heart of the country, slaves were procured and brought down. The distance, which many of them travelled, was immense. Those, who have been in Africa, have assured us, that they came as far as from the sources of their largest rivers, which we know to be many hundred miles inland, and the natives have told us, in their way of computation, that they came a journey of many moons.
On this topic, it's important to note that the suffering and crimes related to the issue, as seen in Africa, were not like common diseases that make a brief or occasional appearance and then disappear; they were ongoing and persistent. They also weren't like illnesses caused by local factors that attack a village or town and can be treated by a skilled doctor with help from higher powers; rather, they impacted an entire continent. The horrific trade started at the Senegal River and continued along the coast, spanning across various geographical regions to Cape Negro, covering a distance of over three thousand miles. In different routes branching off from the shoreline and moving into the interior, slaves were captured and transported. The distances many of them traveled were staggering. Those who have been to Africa have confirmed that they came from the origins of the continent's largest rivers, which are known to be many hundreds of miles inland, and the locals have described their journeys in terms of many moons.
It must strike us again, that the misery and the crimes, included in the evil, as it has been shown in the transportation, had no ordinary bounds. They were not to be seen in the crossing of a river, but of an ocean. They did not begin in the morning and end at night, but were continued for many weeks, and sometimes by casualties for a quarter of the year. They were not limited to the precincts of a solitary ship, but were spread among many vessels; and these were so constantly passing, that the ocean itself never ceased to be a witness of their existence.
It should hit us again that the suffering and the crimes tied to the evil, as demonstrated in the transportation, had no ordinary limits. They weren't just seen in crossing a river, but an entire ocean. They didn’t start in the morning and end at night; they went on for many weeks, and sometimes due to unforeseen events, lasted for up to a quarter of the year. They weren’t confined to a single ship but were spread across many vessels; and these were constantly moving, so the ocean itself was always witnessing their existence.
And it must strike us, finally, that the misery and crimes, included in the evil as it has been found in foreign lands, were not confined within the shores of a little island. Most of the islands of a continent, and many of these of considerable population and extent, were filled with them. And the continent itself, to which these geographically belong, was widely polluted by their domain. Hence, if we were to take the vast extent of space occupied by these crimes and sufferings from the heart of Africa to its shores, and that which they filled on the continent of America and the islands adjacent, and were to join the crimes and sufferings in one to those in the other, by the crimes and sufferings which took place in the track of the vessels successively crossing the Atlantic, we should behold a vast belt as it were of physical and moral evil, reaching through land and ocean to the length of nearly half the circle of the globe.
And it should finally strike us that the misery and crimes found in foreign lands were not limited to a small island. Many islands across a continent, and numerous ones with significant populations and sizes, were filled with them. The continent itself, to which these islands belong, was heavily tainted by their presence. So, if we were to consider the vast areas filled with these crimes and suffering from the heart of Africa to its shores, and also those on the continent of America and the nearby islands, and combine the crimes and suffering in one area with those in another through the atrocities committed during the journeys of ships crossing the Atlantic, we would see a massive belt of physical and moral evil extending through land and ocean for nearly half the circumference of the globe.
The next view which I shall take of this evil will be as it relates to the difficulty of subduing it.
The next perspective I’ll have on this issue will focus on how hard it is to overcome it.
This difficulty may be supposed to have been more than ordinarily great. Many evils of a public nature, which existed in former times, were the offspring of ignorance and superstition, and they were subdued of course by the progress of light and knowledge. But the evil in question began in avarice. It was nursed also by worldly interest. It did not therefore so easily yield to the usual correctives of disorders in the world. We may observe also, that the interest by which it was thus supported, was not that of a few individuals, nor of one body, but of many bodies of men. It was interwoven again into the system of the commerce and of the revenue of nations. Hence the merchant—the planter—the mortgagee—the manufacturer—the politician—the legislator—the cabinet-minister—lifted up their voices against the annihilation of it. For these reasons, the Slave Trade may be considered like the fabulous hydra, to have a hundred heads, every one of which it was necessary to cut off before it could be subdued. And as none but Hercules was fitted to conquer the one, so nothing less than extraordinary prudence, courage, labour, and patience, could overcome the other. To protection in this manner by his hundred interests, it was owing, that the monster stalked in security for so long a time. He stalked too in the open day, committing his mighty depredations. And when good men, whose duty it was to mark him as the object of their destruction, began to assail him, he did not fly, but gnashed his teeth at them, growling savagely at the same time, and putting himself into a posture of defiance.
This difficulty was probably greater than usual. Many public issues of the past were born from ignorance and superstition, and they were naturally overcome by advancements in knowledge and understanding. However, the issue at hand originated from greed. It was also fueled by worldly interests. As a result, it didn’t easily give in to the usual remedies for social ills. Moreover, the interests sustaining it were not just those of a few individuals or a single group, but of many groups of people. It was deeply woven into the systems of commerce and national revenues. Consequently, merchants, plantation owners, lenders, manufacturers, politicians, legislators, and cabinet ministers all raised their voices against its abolition. For these reasons, the Slave Trade can be likened to the mythical hydra, with a hundred heads, each of which needed to be severed before it could be defeated. Just like only Hercules was suited to conquer the hydra, nothing less than extraordinary wisdom, courage, hard work, and patience could overcome this issue. Because of this protection from so many vested interests, the monster continued to thrive for a long time, openly committing its terrible acts. And when good people, who had a duty to mark it as their target, began to attack it, the monster didn’t flee; instead, it bared its teeth at them, growled menacingly, and stood defiantly.
We see then, in whatever light we consider the Slave Trade, whether we examine into the nature of it, or whether we look into the extent of it, or whether we estimate the difficulty of subduing it, we must conclude that no evil more monstrous has ever existed upon earth. But if so, then we have proved the truth of the position, that the abolition of it ought to be accounted by us as one of the greatest blessings, and that it ought to be one of the most copious sources of our joy. Indeed, I do not know, how we can sufficiently express what we ought to feel upon this occasion. It becomes us, as individuals, to rejoice. It becomes us, as a nation, to rejoice. It becomes us even to perpetuate our joy to our posterity. I do not mean, however, by anniversaries, which are to be celebrated by the ringing of bells and convivial meetings, but by handing down this great event so impressively to our children, as to raise in them, if not continual, yet frequently renewed thanksgivings, to the great Creator of the universe, for the manifestation of this his favour, in having disposed our legislators to take away such a portion of suffering from our fellow-creatures, and such a load of guilt from our native land.
When we look at the Slave Trade from any perspective—whether we explore its nature, its extent, or the challenges in overcoming it—we must conclude that no greater evil has ever existed on this earth. If that’s the case, then we’ve confirmed that abolishing it should be seen as one of our greatest blessings and a significant source of joy. Honestly, I’m not sure how we can fully express what we should feel about this moment. As individuals, we should celebrate. As a nation, we should celebrate. We should even ensure that our joy is passed down to future generations. I’m not referring to anniversaries marked by bell ringing and celebrations, but rather, we should commemorate this significant event in a way that inspires our children to regularly express their gratitude to the Creator of the universe for this blessing—in having led our lawmakers to relieve so much suffering for our fellow humans and to lift such a burden of guilt from our homeland.
And as the contemplation of the removal of this monstrous evil should excite in us the most pleasing and grateful sensations, so the perusal of the history of it should afford us lessons, which it must be useful to us to know or to be reminded of. For it cannot be otherwise than useful to us to know the means which have been used, and the different persons who have moved in so great a cause. It cannot be otherwise than useful to us to be impressively reminded of the simple axiom which the perusal of this history will particularly suggest to us, that "the greatest works must have a beginning;" because the fostering of such an idea in our minds cannot but encourage us to undertake the removal of evils, however vast they may appear in their size, or however difficult to overcome. It cannot, again, be otherwise than useful to us to be assured, (and this history will assure us of it,) that in any work, which is a work of righteousness, however small the beginning may be, or however small the progress may be that we may make in it, we ought never to despair; for that, whatever checks and discouragements we may meet with, "no virtuous effort is ever ultimately lost." And finally, it cannot be otherwise than useful to us, to form the opinion, which the contemplation of this subject must always produce, namely, that many of the evils which are still left among us, may, by an union of wise and virtuous individuals, be greatly alleviated, if not entirely done away; for if the great evil of the Slave Trade, so deeply entrenched by its hundred interests, has fallen prostrate before the efforts of those who attacked it, what evil of a less magnitude shall not be more easily subdued? O may reflections of this sort always enliven us, always encourage us, always stimulate us to our duty! May we never cease to believe, that many of the miseries of life are still to be remedied, or to rejoice that we may be permitted, if we will only make ourselves worthy by our endeavours, to heal them! May we encourage for this purpose every generous sympathy that arises in our hearts, as the offspring of the Divine influence for our good, convinced that we are not born for ourselves alone, and that the Divinity never so fully dwells in us, as when we do his will, and that we never do his will more agreeably, as far as it has been revealed to us, than when we employ our time in works of charity towards the rest of our fellow-creatures!
And as we think about getting rid of this terrible evil, it should bring us the most uplifting and grateful feelings. Reading about its history should teach us lessons that are important for us to know or remember. It’s definitely useful for us to understand the methods used and the different people involved in such an important cause. We should especially be reminded of the simple truth that "every great achievement starts somewhere," because holding onto that idea can encourage us to tackle problems, no matter how huge or hard they seem to overcome. It’s also reassuring, and this history will confirm it, that in any righteous endeavor, no matter how small the start or the progress we make, we should never lose hope; because regardless of the obstacles and discouragements we face, "no good effort is ever ultimately wasted." Finally, it’s beneficial for us to recognize, as we think about this topic, that many of the issues still existing in our society can be significantly improved, if not entirely resolved, through the united efforts of wise and virtuous individuals. If the massive evil of the Slave Trade, so deeply rooted in various interests, has been brought down by those who fought against it, what lesser problem could not be more easily overcome? Oh, may thoughts like these always inspire us, motivate us, and push us to fulfill our responsibilities! May we never stop believing that many of life’s hardships can still be fixed, or be grateful that we have the chance, if we strive to be worthy, to help heal them! Let’s nurture every genuine compassion that arises in our hearts as a sign of divine influence for our good, convinced that we are not here just for ourselves, and that the divine presence is fully within us when we do what is right, and we do it best when we dedicate our time to charity for our fellow beings!
CHAPTER II.
As it is desirable to know the true sources of events in history, so this will be realized in that of the abolition of the Slave Trade.—Inquiry as to those who favoured the cause of the Africans previously to the year 1787.—All these to be considered as necessary forerunners in that cause.—First forerunners were Cardinal Ximenes; the Emperor Charles the Fifth; Pope Leo the Tenth; Elizabeth, queen of England; Louis the Thirteenth, of France.
Just as it's important to understand the true sources of historical events, we will explore the abolition of the Slave Trade. We will look into those who supported the African cause before 1787. All of these figures are essential precursors to that effort. The first precursors were Cardinal Ximenes, Emperor Charles the Fifth, Pope Leo the Tenth, Queen Elizabeth of England, and Louis the Thirteenth of France.
It would be considered by many, who have stood at the mouth of a river, and witnessed its torrent there, to be both an interesting and a pleasing journey to go to the fountain head, and then to travel on its banks downwards, and to mark the different streams in each side, which should run into it and feed it. So I presume the reader will not be a little interested and entertained, in viewing with me the course of the abolition of the Slave Trade, in first finding its source, and then in tracing the different springs which have contributed to its increase. And here I may observe that, in doing this, we shall have advantages, which historians have not always had in developing the causes of things. Many have handed down to us, events, for the production of which they have given us but their own conjectures. There has been often, indeed, such a distance between the events themselves, and the lives of those who have recorded them, that the different means and motives belonging to them have been lost through time. On the present occasion, however, we shall have the peculiar satisfaction of knowing, that we communicate the truth, or that those which we unfold, are the true causes and means; for the most remote of all the human springs, which can be traced as having any bearing upon the great event in question, will fall within the period of three centuries, and the most powerful of them within the last twenty years. These circumstances indeed have had their share in inducing me to engage in the present history. Had I measured it by the importance of the subject, I had been deterred; but believing that most readers love the truth, and that it ought to be the object of all writers to promote it, and believing, moreover, that I was in possession of more facts on this subject than any other person, I thought I was peculiarly called to undertake it.
It would be seen by many who have stood at the mouth of a river and witnessed its rushing water as both an interesting and enjoyable journey to go up to the source and then travel along its banks downstream, observing the different streams on each side that flow into it and nourish it. So, I believe the reader will find it intriguing and entertaining to explore with me the course of the abolition of the Slave Trade, starting with discovering its origins and then tracing the various influences that contributed to its progression. I should point out that we will have advantages that historians often lack when uncovering the causes of events. Many have handed down stories of events but only provided their own guesses about what caused them. Often, there has been such a gap between the events themselves and the lives of those who recorded them that the different factors and motivations behind them have been lost over time. However, in this case, we will have the unique advantage of knowing that we are revealing the truth, and that what we uncover are the real causes and influences; since the most distant elements connected to this significant event will date back no more than three centuries, and the most influential ones within the last twenty years. These factors have indeed contributed to my decision to write this history. If I had judged it solely by the importance of the topic, I might have hesitated, but I believe that most readers value the truth and that it should be the goal of all writers to promote it. Furthermore, I believe I possess more facts on this topic than anyone else, which makes me feel particularly compelled to take on this task.
In tracing the different streams from whence the torrent arose, which has now happily swept away the Slave Trade, I must begin with an inquiry as to those who favoured the cause of the injured Africans, from the year 1516, to the year 1787, at which latter period, a number of persons associated themselves, in England, for its abolition. For though they, who belonged to this association, may, in consequence of having pursued a regular system, be called the principal actors, yet it must be acknowledged, that their efforts would never have been so effectual, if the minds of men had not been prepared by others, who had moved before them. Great events have never taken place without previously disposing causes. So it is in the case before us. Hence they, who lived even in early times, and favoured this great cause, may be said to have been necessary precursors in it. And here it may be proper to observe, that it is by no means necessary that all these should have been themselves actors in the production of this great event. Persons have contributed towards it in different ways:—Some have written expressly on the subject, who have had no opportunity of promoting it by personal exertions. Others have only mentioned it incidentally in their writings. Others, in an elevated rank and station, have cried out publicly concerning it, whose sayings have been recorded. All these, however, may be considered as necessary forerunners in their day; for all of them have brought the subject more or less into notice. They have more or less enlightened the mind upon it; they have more or less impressed it; and therefore each may be said to have had his share in diffusing and keeping up a certain portion of knowledge and feeling concerning it, which has been eminently useful in the promotion of the cause.
In tracing the various influences that led to the eventual end of the Slave Trade, I need to start by examining those who supported the plight of the wronged Africans from 1516 to 1787. It was during the latter year that a group of individuals in England came together to advocate for its abolition. While the members of this group might be considered the main players due to their organized efforts, we must recognize that their impact would not have been so significant without the groundwork laid by others who preceded them. Major events don't occur without prior causes. This situation is no different. Thus, those who lived in earlier times and supported this important issue can be seen as essential forerunners. It’s important to note that it wasn’t necessary for all of them to be directly involved in bringing about this major change. People have contributed in various ways: some have written specifically about the topic without having the chance to promote it through direct action. Others have only mentioned it in passing in their works. Still, some in higher positions have spoken out publicly about it, and their words have been documented. All of them can be viewed as essential supporters in their time, as they each helped to raise awareness about the issue. They have informed others to varying degrees and left an impact, meaning that each person played a role in spreading knowledge and sentiment about the cause, which has been crucial in advancing it.
It is rather remarkable, that the first forerunners and coadjutors should have been men in power.
It’s pretty remarkable that the first pioneers and supporters were people in power.
So early as in the year 1503, a few slaves had been sent from the Portuguese settlements in Africa into the Spanish colonies in America. In 1511, Ferdinand the Fifth, king of Spain, permitted them to be carried in great numbers. Ferdinand, however, must have been ignorant in these early times of the piratical manner in which the Portuguese had procured them. He could have known nothing of their treatment when in bondage, nor could he have viewed the few uncertain adventurous transportations of them into his dominions in the western world, in the light of a regular trade. After his death, however; a proposal was made by Bartholomew de las Casas, the bishop of Chiapa, to Cardinal Ximenes, who held the reigns of the government of Spain till Charles the Fifth came to the throne, for the establishment of a regular system of commerce in the persons of the native Africans. The object of Bartholomew de las Casas was undoubtedly to save the American Indians, whose cruel treatment and almost extirpation he had witnessed during his residence among them, and in whose behalf he had undertaken a voyage to the court of Spain. It is difficult to reconcile this proposal with the humane and charitable spirit of the bishop of Chiapa. But it is probable he believed that a code of laws would soon be established in favour both of Africans and of the natives in the Spanish settlements, and that he flattered himself that, being about to return and to live in the country of their slavery, he could look to the execution of it. The cardinal, however, with a foresight, a benevolence, and a justice which will always do honour to his memory, refused the proposal, not only judging it to be unlawful to consign innocent people to slavery at all, but to be very inconsistent to deliver the inhabitants of one country from a state of misery by consigning to it those of another. Ximenes, therefore, may be considered as one of the first great friends of the Africans after the partial beginning of the trade.
As early as 1503, a few slaves were sent from the Portuguese settlements in Africa to the Spanish colonies in America. In 1511, Ferdinand V, king of Spain, allowed them to be transported in large numbers. However, Ferdinand likely had no idea about the brutal way the Portuguese were obtaining them at that time. He wouldn’t have known about their treatment while in bondage, nor would he have seen the sparse, risky shipments of them into his domains in the Western world as part of a regular trade. After his death, a proposal was made by Bartholomew de las Casas, the bishop of Chiapa, to Cardinal Ximenes, who governed Spain until Charles V took the throne, for the establishment of a formal system of commerce involving the native Africans. Bartholomew de las Casas aimed to protect the American Indians, whose harsh treatment and near extermination he had witnessed during his time with them, and on behalf of whom he had made a trip to the Spanish court. It’s hard to reconcile this proposal with the kind and charitable nature of the bishop of Chiapa. However, he probably believed that a set of laws would soon be put in place to benefit both Africans and the natives in the Spanish colonies, and that he could count on its enforcement, as he was planning to return and live in the land of their enslavement. The cardinal, however, with a foresight, kindness, and sense of justice that will always honor his legacy, rejected the proposal, deeming it unlawful to subject innocent people to slavery at all, and inconsistent to relieve one group’s suffering by enslaving another. Thus, Ximenes can be regarded as one of the early major allies of the Africans after the beginning of the trade.
This answer of the cardinal, as it showed his virtue as an individual, so was it peculiarly honourable to him as a public man, and ought to operate as a lesson to other statesmen, how they admit any thing new among political regulations and establishments, which is connected in the smallest degree with injustice; for evil, when once sanctioned by governments, spreads in a tenfold degree, and may, unless seasonably checked, become so ramified as to effect the reputation of a country, and to render its own removal scarcely possible without detriment to the political concerns of the state. In no instance has this been verified more than in the case of the Slave Trade. Never was our national character more tarnished, and our prosperity more clouded by guilt. Never was there a monster more difficult to subdue. Even they, who heard as it were the shrieks of oppression, and wished to assist the sufferers, were fearful of joining in their behalf. While they acknowledged the necessity of removing one evil, they were terrified by the prospect of introducing another; and were, therefore, only able to relieve their feelings by, lamenting, in the bitterness of their hearts, that this traffic had ever been begun at all.
This response from the cardinal, while showcasing his personal integrity, was especially commendable for him as a public figure and should serve as a lesson for other politicians about how they embrace any new changes to political rules and systems that are even slightly linked to injustice. This is because wrongdoing, once legitimized by governments, spreads exponentially and can, if not promptly addressed, become so widespread that it harms a country's reputation and makes it nearly impossible to eliminate without negative consequences for the state’s political situation. This has been particularly evident in the case of the Slave Trade. Our national character has never been more tarnished, and our prosperity has never been more shadowed by guilt. There has never been a problem more challenging to overcome. Even those who heard the cries of the oppressed and wanted to help were apprehensive about getting involved. While they recognized the need to eliminate one injustice, they were terrified of inadvertently creating another and could only ease their discomfort by bitterly lamenting that this trade had ever started in the first place.
After the death of Cardinal Ximenes, the emperor Charles the Fifth, who had come into power, encouraged the Slave Trade. In 1517, he granted a patent to one of his Flemish favourites, containing an exclusive right of importing four thousand Africans into America. But he lived long enough to repent of what he had thus inconsiderately done; for in the year 1542, he made a code of laws for the better protection of the unfortunate Indians in his foreign dominions, and he stopped the progress of African slavery by an order that all slaves in his American islands should he made free. This order was executed by Pedro de la Gasca. Manumission took place as well in Hispaniola as on the Continent; but on the return of Gasca to Spain, and the retirement of Charles into a monastery, slavery was revived.
After Cardinal Ximenes died, Emperor Charles the Fifth, who had just come to power, promoted the Slave Trade. In 1517, he issued a patent to one of his Flemish favorites, granting an exclusive right to import four thousand Africans into America. However, he lived long enough to regret this thoughtless decision; in 1542, he created a set of laws aimed at better protecting the unfortunate Indians in his overseas territories, and he halted the expansion of African slavery with an order that all slaves in his American islands should be freed. This order was carried out by Pedro de la Gasca. Manumission occurred both in Hispaniola and on the mainland, but when Gasca returned to Spain and Charles retired to a monastery, slavery was reinstated.
It is impossible to pass over this instance of the abolition of slavery by Charles, in all his foreign dominions, without some comments. It shows him, first, to have been a friend both to the Indians and the Africans, as a part of the human race; it shows he was ignorant of what he was doing when he gave his sanction to this cruel trade; it shows when legislators give one set of men undue power over another, how quickly they abuse it, or he never would have found himself obliged, in the short space of twenty-five years, to undo that which he had countenanced as a great state measure; and while it confirms the former lesson to statesmen of watching the beginnings or principles of things in their political movements, it should teach them never to persist in the support of evils, through the false shame of being obliged to confess that they had once given them their sanction, nor to delay the cure of them because, politically speaking, neither this nor that is the proper season; but to do them away instantly, as there can only be one fit or proper time in the eye of religion, namely, on the conviction of their existence.
It's impossible to overlook Charles's abolition of slavery in all his foreign territories without some commentary. It shows that he was, first and foremost, a friend to both the Indians and Africans as part of humanity. It indicates he was unaware of the implications when he approved of this brutal trade. It demonstrates that when lawmakers grant one group of people excessive power over another, they quickly misuse it; otherwise, he would never have found himself having to reverse his approval of what he had once considered a significant state initiative in just twenty-five years. While it reinforces the previous lesson to politicians about paying attention to the origins of political issues, it should also remind them not to continue supporting wrongs out of false pride for having once endorsed them, nor to postpone rectifying these wrongs because they think it's not the right time politically. Instead, they should act immediately, as there is only one appropriate time in the eyes of morality, which is as soon as they acknowledge the existence of these issues.
From the opinions of Cardinal Ximenes and of the emperor Charles the Fifth, I hasten to that which was expressed much about the same time, in a public capacity, by Pope Leo the Tenth. The Dominicans in Spanish America, witnessing the cruel treatment which the slaves underwent there, considered slavery as utterly repugnant to the principles of the gospel, and recommended the abolition of it. The Franciscans did not favour the former in this their scheme of benevolence; and the consequence was, that a controversy on this subject sprung up between them, which was carried to this pope for his decision. Leo exerted himself, much to his honour, in behalf of the poor sufferers, and declared "That not only the Christian religion, but that Nature herself cried out against a state of slavery." This answer was certainly worthy of one who was deemed the head of the Christian Church. It must, however, be confessed that it would have been strange if Leo, in his situation as pontiff, had made a different reply. He could never have denied that God was no respecter of persons. He must have acknowledged that men were bound to love each other as brethren; and, if he admitted the doctrine that all men were accountable for their actions hereafter, he could never have prevented the deduction that it was necessary they should be free. Nor could he, as a man of high attainments, living early in the sixteenth century, have been ignorant of what had taken place in the twelfth; or that, by the latter end of this latter century, christianity had obtained the undisputed honour of having extirpated slavery from the western part of the European world.
From the views of Cardinal Ximenes and Emperor Charles the Fifth, I move to what was stated around the same time by Pope Leo the Tenth in a public capacity. The Dominicans in Spanish America, witnessing the brutal treatment of the slaves there, found slavery completely incompatible with the principles of the gospel and advocated for its abolition. The Franciscans did not support the Dominicans in this act of compassion, leading to a controversy between them that was brought to the pope for resolution. Leo worked hard, to his credit, on behalf of the poor victims and declared, "Not only the Christian religion, but Nature itself cries out against slavery." This response was certainly fitting for someone considered the leader of the Christian Church. However, it must be admitted that it would have been odd if Leo, in his position as pope, had given a different answer. He could never say that God favored some people over others. He had to recognize that people should love one another as equals; and if he accepted the belief that all individuals are responsible for their actions in the afterlife, he could never ignore the conclusion that freedom was essential. Additionally, as a well-educated person living in the early sixteenth century, he could not have been unaware of the events that occurred in the twelfth century or that by the end of this century, Christianity had gained the indisputable recognition of having eradicated slavery from the western part of Europe.
From Spain and Italy I come to England. The first importation of slaves from Africa, by our countrymen, was in the reign of Elizabeth, in the year 1562. This great princess seems on the very commencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seems to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it; and, indeed, to have revolted at the very thought of it. She seems to have been aware of the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were sanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure the persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have viewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place, we may conjecture from this fact,—that when Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither he had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill's Naval History expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be carried off without their free consent, declaring that "it would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of heaven upon the undertakers." Captain Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth in this respect, but he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africa again, he seized many of the inhabitants and carried them off as slaves, which occasioned Hill, in the account he gives of his second voyage, to use these remarkable words:—"Here began the horrid practice of forcing the Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity which, so sure as there is vengeance in heaven for the worst of crimes, will some time be the destruction of all who allow or encourage it." That the trade should have been suffered to continue under such a princess, and after such solemn expressions as those which she has been described to have uttered, can be only attributed to the pains taken by those concerned in it to keep her ignorant of the truth.
From Spain and Italy, I come to England. The first importation of slaves from Africa by our countrymen happened during the reign of Elizabeth, in 1562. This great queen seemed to question the legality of the trade from the very beginning. She appeared to have a moral dilemma about it and, indeed, to have been repulsed by the idea. She seemed to recognize the dangers that its continuation might lead to or that, if it were allowed, the most unethical means might be used to capture the people of Africa. We can speculate on how she would have viewed any actions of this kind if they had occurred, based on the fact that when Captain (later Sir John) Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, where he had taken slaves, she summoned him. As noted in Hill's Naval History, she expressed her worry that any Africans might be taken without their free consent, stating that "it would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of heaven upon the undertakers." Captain Hawkins promised to follow Elizabeth's instructions in this matter, but he did not keep his promise; when he went to Africa again, he captured many of the locals and took them as slaves, prompting Hill, in his account of the second voyage, to use these striking words: "Here began the horrid practice of forcing the Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity which, as sure as there is vengeance in heaven for the worst of crimes, will someday lead to the destruction of all who allow or encourage it." That the trade was allowed to continue under such a queen, and after such serious statements attributed to her, can only be explained by the efforts of those involved in the trade to keep her unaware of the truth.
From England I now pass over to France. Labat, a Roman missionary, in his account of the isles of America, mentions that Louis the Thirteenth was very uneasy when he was about to issue the edict by which all Africans coming into his colonies were to be made slaves, and that this uneasiness continued till he was assured that the introduction of them in this capacity into his foreign dominions was the readiest way of converting them to the principles of the Christian religion.
From England, I now move on to France. Labat, a Roman missionary, in his account of the islands of America, notes that Louis the Thirteenth was very anxious when he was about to issue the decree that would make all Africans entering his colonies slaves. This anxiety lasted until he was convinced that bringing them in this role to his overseas territories was the quickest way to convert them to the Christian faith.
These, then, were the first forerunners in the great cause of the abolition of the Slave Trade: nor have their services towards it been of small moment; for, in the first place, they have enabled those who came after them, and who took an active interest in the same cause, to state the great authority of their opinions and of their example. They have enabled them, again, to detail the history connected with these, in consequence of which circumstances have been laid open which it is of great importance to know; for have they not enabled them to state that the African Slave Trade never would have been permitted to exist but for the ignorance of those in authority concerning it—that at its commencement there was a revolting of nature against it—a suspicion, a caution, a fear, both as to its unlawfulness and its effects? Have they not enabled them to state that falsehoods were advanced, and these concealed under the mask of religion, to deceive those who had the power to suppress it? Have they not enabled them to state that this trade began in piracy, and that it was continued upon the principles of force? And, finally, have not they who have been enabled to make these statements, knowing all the circumstances connected with them, found their own zeal increased, and their own courage and perseverance strengthened; and have they not, by the communication of them to others, produced many friends and even labourers in the cause?
These were the first pioneers in the significant fight against the Slave Trade, and their contributions have been crucial. First, they allowed those who followed them and were passionate about the same cause to highlight the strong authority of their beliefs and actions. They also provided a way for them to share the relevant history, revealing important facts that we must know. They showed that the African Slave Trade would never have been allowed to exist if those in power had been informed about it—that at its start, there was a natural revulsion against it, along with suspicion, caution, and fear regarding its legality and consequences. They pointed out that lies were spread, masked as religion, to mislead those who could end it. They noted that this trade began with piracy and continued through force. Finally, those who were able to make these statements, understanding all the associated circumstances, found their own enthusiasm heightened and their courage and determination strengthened; and by sharing this knowledge with others, they gained many supporters and even advocates for the cause.
CHAPTER III.
Forerunners continued to 1787; divided from this time into four classes.—First class consists principally of persons in Great Britain of various descriptions: Godwyn; Baxter; Tryon; Southern; Primatt; Montesquieu; Hutcheson; Sharp; Ramsay; and a multitude of others, whose names and services follow.
Forerunners continued to 1787, at which point they were divided into four classes. The first class mainly includes various individuals from Great Britain: Godwyn, Baxter, Tryon, Southern, Primatt, Montesquieu, Hutcheson, Sharp, Ramsay, and many others, whose names and contributions will be listed next.
I have hitherto traced the history of the forerunners in this great cause only up to about the year 1640. If I am to pursue my plan, I am to trace it to the year 1787. But in order to show what I intend in a clearer point of view, I shall divide those who have lived within this period, and who will now consist of persons in a less elevated station, into four classes: and I shall give to each class a distinct consideration by itself.
I have so far outlined the history of the pioneers in this important cause only up until around the year 1640. If I'm going to continue with my plan, I need to cover it up to the year 1787. To clarify my intentions, I will categorize those who lived during this period, particularly those in less prominent positions, into four groups. I will examine each group separately and with careful consideration.
Several of our old English writers, though they have not mentioned the African Slave Trade, or the slavery consequent upon it, in their respective works, have yet given their testimony of condemnation against both. Thus our great Milton:—
Several of our old English writers, even though they haven't talked about the African Slave Trade or the slavery that followed, have still given their disapproval of both in their works. Take our great Milton, for example:—
Above his brethren, to himself assuming
Authority usurpt, from God not given;
He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
Dominion absolute; that right we hold
By his donation; but man over men
He made not lord, such title to himself
Reserving, human left from human free.
I might mention Bishop Saunderson and others, who bore a testimony equally strong against the lawfulness of trading in the persons of men, and of holding them in bondage; but as I mean to confine myself to those who have favoured the cause of the Africans specifically, I cannot admit their names into any of the classes which have been announced.
I could mention Bishop Saunderson and others who strongly opposed the legality of trading in human beings and keeping them enslaved; however, since I plan to focus on those who specifically supported the cause of Africans, I can't include their names in any of the categories that have been listed.
Of those, who compose the first class, defined as it has now been, I cannot name any individual who took a part in this cause till between the years 1670 and 1680; for in the year 1640, and for a few years afterwards, the nature of the trade and of the slavery was but little known, except to a few individuals, who were concerned in them; and it is obvious that these would neither endanger their own interest nor proclaim their own guilt by exposing it. The first, whom I shall mention is Morgan Godwyn, a clergyman of the established church. This pious divine wrote a treatise upon the subject, which he dedicated to the then archbishop of Canterbury. He gave it to the world, at the time mentioned, under the title of "The Negroes' and Indians' Advocate." In this treatise he lays open the situation of these oppressed people, of whose sufferings he had been an eye-witness in the island of Barbados. He calls forth the pity of the reader in an affecting manner, and exposes with a nervous eloquence the brutal sentiments and conduct of their oppressors. This seems to have been the first work undertaken in England expressly in favour of the cause.
Of those who make up the first group, as it's been defined now, I can't name any individual who was involved in this cause until between 1670 and 1680. In 1640, and for a few years after, the nature of the trade and slavery was not well understood, except by a few individuals involved in it; clearly, they wouldn’t risk their own interests or admit their guilt by speaking out. The first person I’ll mention is Morgan Godwyn, a member of the established church. This devoted clergyman wrote a treatise on the subject, which he dedicated to the then archbishop of Canterbury. He published it during the mentioned period under the title "The Negroes' and Indians' Advocate." In this work, he reveals the plight of these oppressed people, whose suffering he had witnessed firsthand in Barbados. He evokes the reader's sympathy in a moving way and describes the brutal attitudes and actions of their oppressors with compelling eloquence. This seems to have been the first work undertaken in England specifically in support of the cause.
The next person, whom I shall mention, is Richard Baxter, the celebrated divine among the nonconformists. In his Christian Directory, published about the same time as The Negroes' and Indians' Advocate, he gives advice to those masters in foreign plantations, who have negroes and other slaves. In this he protests loudly against this trade. He says expressly that they, who go out as pirates, and take away poor Africans, or people of another land, who never forfeited life or liberty, and make them slaves and sell them, are the worst of robbers, and ought to be considered as the common enemies of mankind; and that they who buy them, and use them as mere beasts for their own convenience, regardless of their spiritual welfare, are fitter to be called demons than christians. He then proposes several queries, which he answers in a clear and forcible manner, showing the great inconsistency of this traffic, and the necessity of treating those then in bondage with tenderness and a due regard to their spiritual concerns.
The next person I want to mention is Richard Baxter, the well-known theologian among the nonconformists. In his Christian Directory, published around the same time as The Negroes' and Indians' Advocate, he offers advice to plantation owners who have enslaved Africans and others. He strongly condemns this trade. He states clearly that those who act as pirates, stealing poor Africans or people from other lands who have never lost their lives or freedom, making them slaves and selling them, are the worst kind of thieves and should be seen as common enemies of humanity. He argues that those who buy them and treat them as mere animals for their own convenience, without caring for their spiritual well-being, are more deserving of the label demons than Christians. He also poses several questions, which he answers clearly and forcefully, highlighting the severe inconsistency of this trade and the necessity of treating those in bondage with kindness and an appropriate regard for their spiritual needs.
The Directory of Baxter was succeeded by a publication called Friendly Advice to the Planters in three parts. The first of these was, A brief Treatise of the principal Fruits and Herbs that grow in Barbados, Jamaica, and other Plantations in the West Indies. The second was, The Negroes' Complaint, or their hard Servitude, and the Cruelties practised upon them by divers of their Masters professing Christianity. And the third was, A Dialogue between an Ethiopian and a Christian, his Master, in America. In the last of these, Thomas Tryon, who was the author, inveighs both against the commerce and the slavery of the Africans, and in a striking manner examines each by the touchstone of reason, humanity, justice, and religion.
The Directory of Baxter was followed by a publication called Friendly Advice to the Planters in three parts. The first part was A Brief Treatise on the Main Fruits and Herbs that Grow in Barbados, Jamaica, and Other Plantations in the West Indies. The second was The Negroes' Complaint, or Their Hard Servitude, and the Cruelties Practiced on Them by Various Masters Who Claim to Be Christian. The third was A Dialogue between an Ethiopian and His Christian Master in America. In the last part, Thomas Tryon, the author, strongly criticizes both the slave trade and the enslavement of Africans, examining each issue thoughtfully through the lenses of reason, humanity, justice, and religion.
In the year 1696, Southern brought forward his celebrated tragedy of Oronooko, by means of which many became enlightened upon the subject, and interested in it. For this tragedy was not a representation of fictitious circumstances, but of such as had occurred in the colonies, and as had been communicated in a publication by Mrs. Behn.
In 1696, Southern introduced his famous tragedy of Oronooko, which enlightened many people about the topic and sparked their interest. This tragedy didn’t portray made-up situations, but rather events that had actually happened in the colonies, as shared in a publication by Mrs. Behn.
The person who seems to have noticed the subject next was Dr. Primatt. In his Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy, and on the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, he takes occasion to advert to the subject of the African Slave Trade. "It has pleased God," says he, "to cover some men with white skins and others with black; but as there is neither merit nor demerit in complexion, the white man, notwithstanding the barbarity of custom and prejudice, can have no right by virtue of his colour to enslave and tyrannize over the black man. For whether a man be white or black, such he is by God's appointment, and, abstractly considered, is neither a subject for pride, nor an object of contempt."
The next person who seems to have noticed the topic was Dr. Primatt. In his Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy, and on the Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals, he brings up the issue of the African Slave Trade. "It has pleased God," he says, "to cover some men with white skin and others with black; but since there's no merit or demerit in skin color, the white man, despite the cruelty of custom and prejudice, has no right, because of his color, to enslave and oppress the black man. Whether a man is white or black is God's decision, and, when you think about it abstractly, neither is a reason for pride or a cause for disrespect."
After Dr. Primatt, we come to Baron Montesquieu, "Slavery," says he, "is not good in itself. It is neither useful to the master nor to the slave; not to the slave, because he can do nothing from virtuous motives; not to the master, because he contracts among his slaves all sorts of bad habits, and accustoms himself to the neglect of all the moral virtues. He becomes haughty, passionate, obdurate, vindictive, voluptuous, and cruel." And with respect to this particular species of slavery, he proceeds to say, "It is impossible to allow the negroes are men, because, if we allow them to be men, it will begin to be believed that we ourselves are not Christians."
After Dr. Primatt, we move on to Baron Montesquieu, who says, "Slavery isn't good in itself. It benefits neither the master nor the slave; not the slave, because he can't act from virtuous motives; not the master, because he develops all sorts of bad habits among his slaves and becomes accustomed to neglecting all moral virtues. He becomes arrogant, angry, hard-hearted, vengeful, indulgent, and cruel." Regarding this specific type of slavery, he goes on to say, "It’s impossible to acknowledge that negroes are men, because if we recognize them as men, it will start to be believed that we ourselves are not Christians."
Hutcheson, in his System of Moral Philosophy, endeavours to show, that he who detains another by force in slavery, can make no good title to him, and adds, "Strange that in any nation where a sense of liberty prevails, and where the Christian religion is professed, custom and high prospect of gain can so stupify the consciences of men, and all sense of natural justice, that they can hear such computations made about the value of their fellow-men and their liberty, without abhorrence and indignation!"
Hutcheson, in his System of Moral Philosophy, tries to demonstrate that someone who forcibly keeps another person in slavery has no rightful claim to them. He adds, "It's strange that in any country where the idea of freedom is valued, and where Christianity is practiced, customs and the lure of profit can so dull people's consciences and their sense of natural justice, that they can listen to discussions about the worth of their fellow humans and their freedom without feeling disgust and outrage!"
Foster, in his Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue, calls the slavery under our consideration "a criminal and outrageous violation of the natural rights of mankind." I am sorry that I have not room to say all that he says on this subject. Perhaps the following beautiful extracts may suffice:—
Foster, in his Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue, refers to the slavery we're discussing as "a criminal and outrageous violation of the natural rights of mankind." I wish I had more space to elaborate on everything he says about this topic. Maybe the following beautiful quotes will be enough:—
"But notwithstanding this, we ourselves, who profess to be Christians, and boast of the peculiar advantages we enjoy by means of an express revelation of our duty from heaven, are in effect these very untaught and rude heathen countries. With all our superior light, we instil into those whom we call savage and barbarous, the most despicable opinion of human nature. We, to the utmost of our power, weaken and dissolve the universal tie that binds and unites mankind. We practise what we should exclaim against as the utmost excess of cruelty and tyranny, if nations of the world, differing in colour and form of government from ourselves, were so possessed of empire as to be able to reduce us to a state of unmerited and brutish servitude. Of consequence, we sacrifice our reason, our humanity, our Christianity, to an unnatural sordid gain. We teach other nations to despise and trample under foot all the obligations of social virtue. We take the most effectual method to prevent the propagation of the Gospel, by representing it as a scheme of power and barbarous oppression, and an enemy to the natural privileges and rights of man."
"Perhaps all that I have now offered may be of very little weight to restrain this enormity, this aggravated iniquity. However, I shall still have the satisfaction of having entered my private protest against a practice which, in my opinion, bids that God, who is the God and Father of the Gentiles unconverted to Christianity, most daring and bold defiance, and spurns at all the principles both of natural and revealed religion."
"But despite this, we, who claim to be Christians and take pride in the clear guidance we receive from heaven, are actually just like those uneducated and uncivilized societies. With all our supposed knowledge, we instill in those we call savage and barbaric the most contemptible views of human nature. We, as best as we can, weaken and break the universal bond that connects all of humanity. We engage in actions that we would condemn as the worst cruelty and tyranny if nations different from us in color and government were in a position to reduce us to a state of undeserved and dehumanizing servitude. As a result, we sacrifice our reason, our humanity, and our Christianity for greedy, unnatural gains. We teach other nations to ignore and trample on the principles of social virtue. We effectively prevent the spread of the Gospel by presenting it as a tool of power and brutal oppression, an enemy to the natural rights and privileges of mankind."
"Maybe everything I've shared won’t really stop this serious wrongdoing. Still, I’ll find comfort in having made my personal protest against a practice that, in my opinion, openly challenges God—who is the God and Father of those Gentiles who haven't converted to Christianity—and dismisses all the principles of both natural and revealed religion."
The next author is Sir Richard Steele, who, by means of the affecting story of Inkle and Yarico, holds up this trade again to our abhorrence.
The next author is Sir Richard Steele, who, through the touching story of Inkle and Yarico, brings this trade back into our disgust.
In the year 1735, Atkins, who was a surgeon in the navy, published his Voyage to Guinea, Brazil, and the West Indies, in his Majesty's ships Swallow and Weymouth. In this work he describes openly the manner of making the natives slaves, such as by kidnapping, by unjust accusations and trials, and by other nefarious means. He states also the cruelties practised upon them by the white people, and the iniquitous ways and dealings of the latter, and answers their argument, by which they insinuated that the condition of the Africans was improved by their transportation to other countries.
In 1735, Atkins, who was a navy surgeon, published his Voyage to Guinea, Brazil, and the West Indies, in His Majesty's Ships Swallow and Weymouth. In this work, he openly describes how the natives were turned into slaves, including methods like kidnapping, false accusations, unfair trials, and other wicked tactics. He also talks about the cruelty inflicted on them by white people and the unjust actions and behaviors of these individuals. He responds to their claim that moving Africans to other countries improved their situation.
From this time, the trade beginning to be better known, a multitude of persons of various stations and characters sprung up, who by exposing it, are to be mentioned among the forerunners and coadjutors in the cause.
From this time on, as the trade started to become better known, many people from different backgrounds and walks of life emerged, who by promoting it, should be recognized as pioneers and supporters of the cause.
Pope, in his Essay on Man, where he endeavours to show that happiness in the present depends, among other things, upon the hope of a future state, takes an opportunity of exciting compassion in behalf of the poor African, while he censures the avarice and cruelty of his master:—
Pope, in his Essay on Man, aims to demonstrate that happiness in the present relies, among other factors, on the hope for a future state. He takes this opportunity to evoke compassion for the poor African, while criticizing the greed and cruelty of his master:—
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk, or milky-way;
Yet simple Nature to his hope was given
Behind the cloud-topt hill an humbler heaven;
Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the watery waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
Thomson also, in his Seasons, marks this traffic as destructive and cruel, introducing the well-known fact of sharks following the vessels employed in it:—
Thomson also, in his Seasons, highlights this trade as harmful and brutal, noting the well-known fact that sharks follow the ships involved in it:—
His jaws horrific arm'd with three-fold fate,
Here dwells the direful shark. Lured by the scent
Of steaming crowds, of rank disease, and death;
Behold! he rushing cuts the briny flood,
Swift as the gale can bear the ship along,
And from the partners of that cruel trade;
Which spoils unhappy Guinea of her sons,
Demands his share of prey, demands themselves.
The stormy fates descend: one death involves
Tyrants and slaves; when straight their mangled limbs
Crashing at once, he dyes the purple seas
With gore, and riots in the vengeful meal.
Neither was Richard Savage forgetful in his poems of the Injured Africans: he warns their oppressors of a day of retribution for their barbarous conduct. Having personified Public Spirit, he makes her speak on the subject in the following manner:—
Neither was Richard Savage forgetful in his poems of the Injured Africans: he warns their oppressors of a day of reckoning for their brutal actions. Having personified Public Spirit, he has her speak about the issue in the following way:—
And cry, while they enslave, they civilize!
Know, Liberty and I are still the same
Congenial—ever mingling flame with flame!
Why must I Afric's sable children see
Vended for slaves, though born by nature free,
The nameless tortures cruel minds invent
Those to subject whom Nature equal meant?
If these you dare (although unjust success
Empowers you now unpunished, to oppress),
Revolving empire you and yours may doom—
(Rome all subdu'd—yet Vandals vanquish'd Rome)
Yes—Empire may revolt—give them the day,
And yoke may yoke, and blood may blood repay.
Wallis, in his System of the Laws of Scotland, maintains, that "neither men nor governments have a right to sell those of their own species. Men and their liberty are neither purchaseable nor saleable." And, after arguing the case, he says, "This is the law of nature, which is obligatory on all men, at all times, and in all places.—Would not any of us, who should be snatched by pirates from his native land, think himself cruelly abused, and at all times entitled to be free? Have not these unfortunate Africans, who meet with the same cruel fate, the same right? Are they not men as well as we? And have they not the same sensibility? Let us not, therefore, defend or support an usage, which is contrary to all the laws of humanity."
Wallis, in his System of the Laws of Scotland, asserts that "neither individuals nor governments have the right to sell their own kind. People and their freedom are neither something you can buy nor sell." After making his case, he adds, "This is the law of nature, which applies to all people, at all times, and in all places. Wouldn't any of us, who were taken by pirates from our homeland, feel severely wronged and always believe we deserve to be free? Do these unfortunate Africans, who suffer the same cruel fate, not have the same right? Are they not human just like us? And do they not feel just as we do? Therefore, let us not defend or support a practice that goes against all the principles of humanity."
In the year 1750, the reverend Griffith Hughes, rector of St. Lucy, in Barbados, published his Natural History of that island. He took an opportunity, in the course of it, of laying open to the world the miserable situation of the poor Africans, and the waste of them by hard labour and other cruel means, and he had the generosity to vindicate their capacities from the charge, which they who held them in bondage brought against them, as a justification of their own wickedness in continuing to deprive them of the rights of men.
In 1750, Reverend Griffith Hughes, rector of St. Lucy in Barbados, published his Natural History of the island. Throughout the work, he took the opportunity to expose the terrible situation of the poor Africans and how they were being wasted through hard labor and other cruel methods. He generously defended their abilities against the accusations made by those who enslaved them, trying to justify their own wrongdoing in continuing to deny them their human rights.
Edmund Burke, in his account of the European settlements, (for this work is usually attributed to him,) complains "that the Negroes in our colonies endure a slavery more complete, and attended with far worse circumstances, than what any people in their condition suffer, in any other part of the world, or have suffered in any other period of time. Proofs of this are not wanting. The prodigious waste, which we experience in this unhappy part of our species, is a full and melancholy evidence of this truth." And he goes on to advise the planters, for the sake of their own interest, to behave like good men, good masters, and good Christians, and to impose less labour upon their slaves, and to give them recreation on some of the grand festivals, and to instruct them in religion, as certain preventives of their decrease.
Edmund Burke, in his account of the European settlements, (which is typically attributed to him) expresses his concern that "the Black people in our colonies face a slavery that is more complete and comes with far worse conditions than any group in a similar situation experiences in any other part of the world or has faced at any other time. There is no shortage of evidence for this. The huge loss we see in this unfortunate segment of our population is a clear and sad proof of this reality." He then advises the plantation owners, for their own benefit, to act like decent people, good masters, and good Christians by reducing the workload on their enslaved workers, allowing them some time off during major holidays, and teaching them about religion as potential ways to prevent their decline.
An anonymous author of a pamphlet, entitled, An Essay in Vindication of the Continental Colonies of America, seems to have come forward next. Speaking of slavery there, he says, "It is shocking to humanity, violative of every generous sentiment, abhorrent utterly from the Christian religion.—There cannot be a more dangerous maxim than that necessity is a plea for injustice, for who shall fix the degree of this necessity? What villain so atrocious, who may not urge this excuse, or, as Milton has happily expressed it,
An anonymous writer of a pamphlet titled An Essay in Vindication of the Continental Colonies of America appears to have stepped forward next. Discussing slavery there, he states, "It is shocking to humanity, goes against every noble sentiment, and is completely contrary to the Christian religion. There is no more dangerous belief than that necessity justifies injustice, because who determines the level of this necessity? What villain is so terrible that they can’t use this excuse, or, as Milton has aptly put it,
The tyrant's plea, excuse his devilish deed?
"That our colonies," he continues, "want people, is a very weak argument for so inhuman a violation of justice.—Shall a civilized, a Christian nation encourage slavery, because the barbarous, savage, lawless African hath done it? To what end do we profess a religion whose dictates we so flagrantly violate? Wherefore have we that pattern of goodness and humanity, if we refuse to follow it? How long shall we continue a practice which policy rejects, justice condemns, and piety revolts at?"
"That our colonies need people is a pretty weak argument for such an inhumane violation of justice. Should a civilized, Christian nation promote slavery just because the uncivilized, savage, and lawless Africans do it? What’s the point of professing a religion whose teachings we ignore so openly? Why do we have this model of goodness and humanity if we won’t follow it? How long will we keep a practice that policy rejects, justice condemns, and piety rejects?"
The poet Shenstone, who comes next in order, seems to have written an elegy on purpose to stigmatize this trade. Of this elegy I shall copy only the following parts:—
The poet Shenstone, who follows next, appears to have written an elegy specifically to condemn this trade. Of this elegy, I will copy only the following parts:—
Ah! not in love's delightful fetters bound!
No radiant smile his dying peace restores,
No love, nor fame, nor friendship, heals his wound.
Shall I the mockery of grief display?
No; let the muse his piercing pangs disclose,
Who bleeds and weeps his sum of life away!
Ere the shrill boatswain gave the hated sign;
He dropt a tear unseen into the flood,
He stole one secret moment to repine—
What savage race protects this impious gain?
Shall foreign plagues infest this teeming land,
And more than sea-born monsters plough the main?
Here the blue asps with livid poison swell;
Here the dry dipsa writhes his sinuous mail;
Can we not here secure from envy dwell?
When the stern panther sought his midnight prey;
What fate reserved me for this Christian race?
O race more polished, more severe than they!
And favour'd isles, with golden fruitage crown'd,
Where tufted flow'rets paint the verdant plain,
And every breeze shall medicine every wound."
In the year 1755, Dr. Hayter, bishop of Norwich, preached a sermon before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in which he bore his testimony against the continuance of this trade.
In 1755, Dr. Hayter, the bishop of Norwich, delivered a sermon for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, where he spoke out against the ongoing practice of this trade.
Dyer, in his poem called The Fleece, expresses his sorrow on account of this barbarous trade, and looks forward to a day of retributive justice on account of the introduction of such an evil.
Dyer, in his poem titled The Fleece, shares his sadness about this ruthless trade and hopes for a future where justice is served because of the emergence of such a wrongdoing.
In the year 1760, a pamphlet appeared, entitled, Two Dialogues on the Man-trade, by John Philmore. This name is supposed to be an assumed one. The author, however, discovers himself to have been both an able and a zealous advocate in favour of the African race.
In 1760, a pamphlet was published called Two Dialogues on the Man-trade by John Philmore. This name is believed to be a pseudonym. The author, however, shows himself to be both a skilled and passionate supporter of the African race.
Malachi Postlethwaite, in his Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, proposes a number of queries on the subject of the Slave Trade. I have not room to insert them at full length, but I shall give the following as the substance of some of them to the reader: "Whether this commerce be not the cause of incessant wars among the Africans—Whether the Africans, if it were abolished, might not become as ingenious, as humane, as industrious, and as capable of arts, manufactures, and trades, as even the bulk of Europeans—Whether, if it were abolished, a much more profitable trade might not be substituted, and this to the very centre of their extended country, instead of the trifling portion which now subsists upon their coasts—And whether the great hindrance to such a new and advantageous commerce has not wholly proceeded from that unjust, inhuman, unchristianlike traffic, called the Slave Trade, which is carried on by the Europeans." The public proposal of these and other queries by a man of so great commercial knowledge as Postlethwaite, and by one who was himself a member of the African Committee, was of great service in exposing the impolicy as well as immorality of the Slave Trade.
Malachi Postlethwaite, in his Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, raises several questions about the Slave Trade. I don’t have space to include them all, but I’ll share the main ideas of some: "Is this trade not the cause of constant wars among Africans? If it were ended, could Africans not become just as innovative, compassionate, hard-working, and skilled in arts, manufacturing, and trades as most Europeans? Wouldn’t a much more profitable trade be possible, reaching deep into their vast territories instead of just the small area currently affected on their coasts? And is the major obstacle to such a new and beneficial trade not entirely due to that unjust, inhumane, and un-Christian traffic known as the Slave Trade, which is conducted by Europeans?" The public discussion of these and similar questions by someone as knowledgeable about commerce as Postlethwaite, who was also a member of the African Committee, was very helpful in highlighting the unreasonableness and immorality of the Slave Trade.
In the year 1761, Thomas Jeffery published an account of a part of North America, in which he lays open the miserable state of the slaves in the West Indies, both as to their clothing, their food, their labour, and their punishments. But, without going into particulars, the general account be gives of them is affecting: "It is impossible," he says, "for a human heart to reflect upon the slavery of these dregs of mankind, without in some measure feeling for their misery, which ends but with their lives—nothing can be more wretched than the condition of this people."
In 1761, Thomas Jeffery released a description of a part of North America, where he reveals the terrible situation of slaves in the West Indies regarding their clothing, food, labor, and punishments. Without going into details, the overall description he gives is impactful: "It is impossible," he states, "for a human heart to reflect on the slavery of these lowest members of society without feeling some compassion for their suffering, which lasts until their deaths—nothing can be more miserable than the circumstances of these people."
Sterne, in his account of the Negro girl in his Life of Tristram Shandy, took decidedly the part of the oppressed Africans. The pathetic, witty, and sentimental manner, in which he handled this subject, occasioned many to remember it, and procured a certain portion of feeling in their favour.
Sterne, in his account of the Black girl in his Life of Tristram Shandy, clearly sided with the oppressed Africans. The emotional, clever, and heartfelt way he approached this topic made it memorable for many and generated a sense of empathy on their behalf.
Rousseau contributed not a little in his day to the same end.
Rousseau made a significant contribution in his time to the same goal.
Bishop Warburton, preached a sermon in the year 1766, before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, in which he took up the cause of the miserable Africans, and in which he severely reprobated their oppressors. The language in this sermon is so striking, that I shall make an extract from it. "From the free savages," says he, "I now come to the savages in bonds. By these I mean the vast multitudes yearly stolen from the opposite continent, and sacrificed by the colonists to their great idol, the god of gain. But what then say these sincere worshippers of Mammon? They are our own property which we offer up,—Gracious God! to talk, as of herds of cattle, of property in rational creatures, creatures endued with all our faculties, possessing all our qualities but that of colour, our brethren both by nature and grace, shocks all the feelings of humanity, and the dictates of common sense? But, alas! what is there, in the infinite abuses of society, which does not shock them! Yet nothing is more certain in itself and apparent to all, than that the infamous traffic for slaves directly infringes both divine and human law. Nature created man free, and grace invites him to assert his freedom.
Bishop Warburton delivered a sermon in 1766 before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, where he championed the cause of the suffering Africans and strongly condemned their oppressors. The language in this sermon is so powerful that I will quote an excerpt. "From the free savages," he says, "I now turn to the savages in chains. By this, I mean the countless individuals stolen each year from the other continent and sacrificed by the colonists to their great idol, the god of profit. But what do these sincere worshippers of Mammon say? They are our own property, which we offer up—Gracious God! To speak of rational beings as if they were herds of cattle, discussing property in creatures endowed with all our faculties, sharing all our traits except for skin color, our brothers in both nature and grace, goes against all sense of humanity and basic common sense! Yet, sadly, what in the countless abuses of society doesn’t shock them? Yet, nothing is more obvious and clear to everyone than that the disgraceful slave trade directly violates both divine and human law. Nature created man free, and grace encourages him to claim that freedom.
"In excuse of this violation it hath been pretended, that though, indeed, these miserable outcasts of humanity be torn from their homes and native country by fraud and violence, yet they thereby become the happier, and their condition the more eligible. But who are you, who pretend to judge of another man's happiness; that state which each man under the guidance of his Maker forms for himself, and not one man for another? To know what constitutes mine or your happiness is the sole prerogative of him who created us, and cast us in so various and different moulds. Did your slaves ever complain to you of their unhappiness amidst their native woods and deserts? or rather let me ask, did they ever cease complaining of their condition under you their lordly masters, where they see, indeed, the accommodations of civil life, but see them all pass to others, themselves unbenefited by them? Be so gracious then, ye petty tyrants over human freedom, to let your slaves judge for themselves, what it is which makes their own happiness, and then see whether they do not place it in the return to their own country, rather than in the contemplation of your grandeur, of which their misery makes so large a part; a return so passionately longed for, that, despairing of happiness here, that is, of escaping the chains of their cruel task-masters, they console themselves with feigning it to be the gracious reward of heaven in their future state."
"In defense of this wrongdoing, it has been claimed that although these unfortunate outcasts of humanity are taken from their homes and native lands through deceit and violence, they are somehow happier for it, and their situation is more favorable. But who are you to determine another person's happiness? Each individual, guided by their Creator, shapes their own state of happiness, not one person for another. Only the one who made us, and formed us in so many different ways, truly knows what constitutes my happiness or yours. Did your slaves ever complain to you about their unhappiness amidst their native forests and deserts? Or let me ask, did they ever stop complaining about their condition under you, their powerful masters, where they see the comforts of civilized life but watch as those comforts go to others, without benefiting from them? So please, you small tyrants over human freedom, allow your slaves to determine for themselves what brings them happiness, and see if they do not find it in returning to their own country, rather than admiring your grandeur, which is largely built on their suffering; a return they long for so desperately that, in despair of finding happiness here—meaning escaping the chains of their cruel taskmasters—they comfort themselves by imagining it to be a gracious reward from heaven in their afterlife."
About this time certain cruel and wicked practices, which must now be mentioned, had arrived at such a height, and had become so frequent in the metropolis, as to produce of themselves other coadjutors to the cause.
About this time, certain cruel and wicked practices, which must now be mentioned, had reached such levels and had become so common in the city that they, in turn, generated more supporters for the cause.
Before the year 1700, planters, merchants, and others, resident in the West Indies, but coming to England, were accustomed to bring with them certain slaves to act as servants with them during their stay. The latter, seeing the freedom and the happiness of servants in this country, and considering what would be their own hard fate on their return to the islands, frequently absconded. Their masters of course made search after them, and often had them seized and carried away by force. It was, however, thrown out by many on these occasions, that the English laws did not sanction such proceedings, for that all persons who were baptized became free. The consequence of this was, that most of the slaves, who came over with their masters, prevailed upon some pious clergyman to baptize them. They took of course godfathers of such citizens as had the generosity to espouse their cause. When they were seized they usually sent to these, if they had an opportunity, for their protection. And in the result, their godfathers, maintaining that they had been baptized, and that they were free on this account as well as by the general tenour of the law of England, dared those who had taken possession of them to send them out of the kingdom.
Before 1700, planters, merchants, and others living in the West Indies who traveled to England often brought along certain slaves to serve them during their stay. The slaves, witnessing the freedom and happiness of servants in England and thinking about their own grim fate upon returning to the islands, frequently ran away. Naturally, their masters searched for them and often had them captured and taken away by force. However, many people pointed out during these incidents that English law did not support such actions, as anyone who was baptized became free. As a result, most slaves who traveled with their masters sought out some kind clergyman to baptize them. They, of course, chose godfathers among generous citizens willing to support their cause. When they were captured, they usually reached out to these godfathers for protection if they had the chance. Ultimately, their godfathers argued that since they had been baptized, they were free because of that, as well as under the general principles of English law, daring anyone who had seized them to send them out of the country.
The planters, merchants, and others, being thus circumstanced, knew not what to do. They were afraid of taking their slaves away by force, and they were equally afraid of bringing any of the cases before a public court. In this dilemma, in 1729, they applied to York and Talbot, the attorney and solicitor-general for the time being, and obtained the following strange opinion from them:—"We are of opinion, that a slave by coming from the West Indies into Great Britain or Ireland, either with or without his master, does not become free, and that his master's right and property in him is not thereby determined or varied, and that baptism doth not bestow freedom on him, nor make any alteration in his temporal condition in these kingdoms. We are also of opinion, that the master may legally compel him to return again to the plantations."
The planters, merchants, and others in this situation didn’t know what to do. They were afraid to forcibly take their slaves away, and they were just as afraid to bring any cases to a public court. In this predicament, in 1729, they turned to York and Talbot, the attorney and solicitor-general at the time, and received the following unusual opinion: “We believe that a slave coming from the West Indies to Great Britain or Ireland, with or without his master, does not become free, and that his master’s rights and property in him are not changed or affected, and that baptism does not grant him freedom or alter his status in these kingdoms. We also believe that the master can legally compel him to return to the plantations.”
This cruel and illegal opinion was delivered in the year 1729. The planters, merchants, and others, gave it of course all the publicity in their power. And the consequences were as might easily have been apprehended. In a little time slaves absconding were advertised in the London papers as runaways, and rewards offered for the apprehension of them, in the same brutal manner as we find them advertised in the land of slavery. They were advertised also, in the same papers, to be sold by auction, sometimes by themselves, and at others with horses, chaises, and harness? They were seized also by their masters, or by persons employed by them, in the very streets, and dragged from thence to the ships; and so unprotected now were these poor slaves, that persons in nowise concerned with them began to institute a trade in their persons, making agreements with captains of ships going to the West Indies to put them on board at a certain price. This last instance shows how far human nature is capable of going, and is an answer to those persons who have denied that kidnapping in Africa was a source of supplying the Slave Trade. It shows, as all history does from the time of Joseph, that where there is a market for the persons of human beings, all kinds of enormities will be practised to obtain them.
This cruel and illegal opinion was expressed in 1729. The planters, merchants, and others, of course, publicized it in every way they could. And the consequences were as predictable as could be. Before long, escaping slaves were advertised in London papers as runaways, with rewards offered for their capture, just like we see in slave-holding countries. They were also advertised in those same papers for auction, sometimes on their own and other times alongside horses, carriages, and harnesses. Their masters or hired individuals would grab them right off the streets and drag them to the ships; these poor slaves were so vulnerable that even people who had nothing to do with them started a trade in their lives, making deals with ship captains headed to the West Indies to put them on board for a set price. This last example illustrates the lengths to which human nature can go and responds to those who have denied that kidnapping in Africa contributed to the Slave Trade. It shows, as history has shown since the time of Joseph, that where there’s a demand for human lives, all kinds of atrocities will be committed to fulfill it.
These circumstances then, as I observed before, did not fail of producing new coadjutors in the cause. And first they produced that able and indefatigable advocate, Mr. Granville Sharp. This gentleman is to be distinguished from those who preceded him by this particular, that, whereas these were only writers, he was both a writer and an actor in the cause. In fact, he was the first labourer in it in England. By the words "actor" and "labourer," I mean that he determined upon a plan of action in behalf of the oppressed Africans, to the accomplishment of which he devoted a considerable portion of his time, talents, and substance. What Mr. Sharp has done to merit the title of coadjutor in this high sense, I shall now explain. The following is a short history of the beginning and of the course of his labours:—
These circumstances, as I mentioned before, definitely led to new supporters in the cause. First, they brought forth that skilled and tireless advocate, Mr. Granville Sharp. This gentleman stands apart from those who came before him because, while they were just writers, he was both a writer and an active participant in the cause. In fact, he was the first person to take action on it in England. By "active participant" and "worker," I mean that he developed a plan to help the oppressed Africans, to which he dedicated a significant amount of his time, skills, and resources. Now, I will explain what Mr. Sharp has done to earn the title of supporter in this meaningful way. Here is a brief history of the beginning and progress of his efforts:—
In the year 1765, Mr. David Lisle had brought over from Barbados Jonathan Strong, an African slave, as his servant. He used the latter in a barbarous manner at his lodgings in Wapping, but particularly by beating him over the head with a pistol, which occasioned his head to swell. When the swelling went down, a disorder fell into his eyes, which threatened the loss of them. To this an ague and fever succeeded, and a lameness in both his legs.
In 1765, Mr. David Lisle brought Jonathan Strong, an African slave, from Barbados to be his servant. He treated him brutally at his place in Wapping, especially by hitting him on the head with a pistol, causing his head to swell. Once the swelling subsided, he developed an eye condition that jeopardized his sight. This was followed by chills, fever, and lameness in both his legs.
Jonathan Strong, having been brought into this deplorable situation, and being therefore wholly useless, was left by his master to go whither he pleased. He applied accordingly to Mr. William Sharp, the surgeon, for his advice, as to one who gave up a portion of his time to the healing of the diseases of the poor. It was here that Mr. Granville Sharp, the brother of the former, saw him. Suffice it to say, that in process of time he was cured. During this time Mr. Granville Sharp, pitying his hard case, supplied him with money, and he afterwards got him a situation in the family of Mr. Brown, an apothecary, to carry out medicines.
Jonathan Strong, after being put in this terrible situation and being completely useless, was allowed by his master to go wherever he wanted. He went to see Mr. William Sharp, the surgeon, for advice, as someone who dedicated a portion of his time to helping the poor with their health issues. It was at this point that Mr. Granville Sharp, the brother of William, noticed him. Eventually, he was cured. During this time, Mr. Granville Sharp, feeling sorry for his difficult situation, helped him with money and later helped him get a job in the household of Mr. Brown, a pharmacist, to deliver medicines.
In this new situation, when Strong had become healthy and robust in his appearance, his master happened to see him. The latter immediately formed the design of possessing him again. According, when he had found out his residence, he procured John Ross, keeper of the Poultry-counter, and William Miller, an officer under the Lord Mayor, to kidnap him. This was done by sending for him to a public-house in Fenchurch-street, and then seizing him. By these he was conveyed, without any warrant, to the Poultry-counter, where he was sold by his master, to John Kerr, for thirty pounds.
In this new situation, when Strong had become healthy and looked strong, his master happened to see him. The master quickly decided he wanted to have him back. So, after finding out where Strong lived, he got John Ross, who ran the Poultry-counter, and William Miller, an officer under the Lord Mayor, to help kidnap him. They called him to a pub on Fenchurch Street and then grabbed him. They took him, without any warrant, to the Poultry-counter, where his master sold him to John Kerr for thirty pounds.
Strong, in this situation, sent, as was usual, to his godfathers, John London and Stephen Nail, for their protections. They went, but were refused admittance to him. At length he sent for Mr. Granville Sharp: the latter went, but they still refused access to the prisoner. He insisted, however, upon seeing him, and charged the keeper of the prison at his peril to deliver him up, till he had been carried before a magistrate.
Strong, in this situation, sent, as was usual, to his godfathers, John London and Stephen Nail, for their protections. They went, but were denied access to him. Finally, he called for Mr. Granville Sharp: the latter went, but they still refused to let him see the prisoner. He insisted on meeting him and warned the jailer that he would be held responsible if he didn’t bring the prisoner forth until he had been taken before a magistrate.
Mr. Sharp, immediately upon this, waited upon Sir Robert Kite, the then lord mayor, and entreated him to send for Strong and to hear his case. A day was accordingly appointed. Mr. Sharp attended, and also William McBean, a notary public, and David Laird, captain of the ship Thames, which was to have conveyed Strong to Jamaica, in behalf of the purchaser, John Kerr. A long conversation ensued, in which the opinion of York and Talbot was quoted. Mr. Sharp made his observations. Certain lawyers who were present seemed to be staggered at the case, but inclined rather to recommit the prisoner: the lord mayor, however, discharged Strong, as he had been taken up without a warrant.
Mr. Sharp, right after this, went to see Sir Robert Kite, the current lord mayor, and asked him to call Strong in and hear his case. A day was set for this. Mr. Sharp showed up, along with William McBean, a notary public, and David Laird, captain of the ship Thames, which was supposed to take Strong to Jamaica for the buyer, John Kerr. They had a lengthy conversation, during which the opinions of York and Talbot were mentioned. Mr. Sharp shared his thoughts. Some lawyers present seemed uncertain about the case but leaned towards sending the prisoner back. However, the lord mayor let Strong go since he had been arrested without a warrant.
As soon as this determination was made known, the parties began to move off. Captain Laird, however, who kept close to Strong, laid hold of him before he had quitted the room, and said aloud, "Then I now seize him as my slave." Upon this Mr. Sharp put his hand upon Laird's shoulder, and pronounced these words: "I charge you, in the name of the king, with an assault upon the person of Jonathan Strong, and all these are my witnesses." Laird was greatly intimidated by this charge, made in the presence of the lord mayor and others, and, fearing a prosecution, let his prisoner go, leaving him to be conveyed away by Mr. Sharp.
As soon as everyone found out about this decision, the group started to disperse. Captain Laird, however, who was close to Strong, grabbed him before he could leave the room and declared, "Then I now claim him as my slave." At this, Mr. Sharp placed his hand on Laird's shoulder and said, "I charge you, in the name of the king, with assaulting Jonathan Strong, and all these people are my witnesses." Laird was very intimidated by this accusation, made in front of the lord mayor and others, and fearing legal trouble, he released his prisoner and let Mr. Sharp take him away.
Mr. Sharp having been greatly affected by this case, and foreseeing how much he might be engaged in others of a similar nature, thought it time that the law of the land should be known upon this subject: he applied, therefore, to Dr. Blackstone, afterwards Judge Blackstone, for his opinion upon it. He was, however, not satisfied with it when he received it; nor could he obtain any satisfactory answer from several other lawyers, to whom he afterwards applied. The truth is that the opinion of York and Talbot, which had been made public and acted upon by the planters, merchants, and others, was considered of high authority, and scarcely any one dared to question the legality of it. In this situation Mr. Sharp saw no means of help but in his own industry, and he determined immediately to give up two or three years to the study of the English law, that he might the better advocate the cause of these miserable people. The result of these studies was the publication of a book in the year 1769, which he called, A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England. In this work he refuted, in the clearest manner, the opinion of York and Talbot: he produced against it the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice Holt, who, many years before, had determined that every slave coming into England became free: he attacked and refuted it again by a learned and laborious inquiry into all the principles of Villenage. He refuted it again by showing it to be an axiom in the British constitution, "That every man in England was free to sue for and defend his rights, and that force could not be used without a legal process," leaving it to the judges to determine whether an African was a man. He attacked also the opinion of Judge Blackstone, and showed where his error lay. This valuable book, containing these and other kinds of arguments on the subject, he distributed, but particularly among the lawyers, giving them an opportunity of refuting or acknowledging the doctrines it contained.
Mr. Sharp was deeply impacted by this case and, realizing how involved he might become in similar cases, decided it was important for the law in this area to be clarified. He reached out to Dr. Blackstone, who later became Judge Blackstone, for his opinion on the matter. However, he wasn’t satisfied with the response he received, nor could he get a satisfactory answer from several other lawyers he consulted afterward. The truth is that the opinion of York and Talbot, which had been made public and was acted upon by planters, merchants, and others, was considered highly authoritative, and few dared to challenge its legality. In this situation, Mr. Sharp saw no way to find help other than through his own efforts, so he decided to dedicate two or three years to studying English law to better advocate for these unfortunate people. The outcome of his studies was the publication of a book in 1769 titled, A Representation of the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England. In this work, he clearly refuted the opinion of York and Talbot; he presented the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Holt, who had determined years earlier that every slave entering England became free. He challenged and refuted their position again through a thorough examination of the principles of Villenage. He further argued that it was a fundamental principle of the British constitution that "every man in England was free to sue for and defend his rights, and that force could not be used without legal process," leaving it up to the judges to decide if an African was considered a man. He also criticized Judge Blackstone's opinion, highlighting where his mistake lay. This important book, filled with these and other arguments on the topic, was distributed widely, especially among lawyers, giving them the chance to either counter or acknowledge the ideas it contained.
While Mr. Sharp was engaged in this work, another case offered, in which he took a part: this was in the year 1768. Hylas, an African slave, prosecuted a person of the name of Newton for having kidnapped his wife, and sent her to the West Indies. The result of the trial was, that damages to the amount of a shilling were given, and the defendant was bound to bring back the woman, either by the first ship, or in six months from this decision of the court.
While Mr. Sharp was busy with this work, another case came up that he got involved in: this was in 1768. Hylas, an African slave, sued a man named Newton for kidnapping his wife and sending her to the West Indies. The outcome of the trial was that damages of one shilling were awarded, and the defendant was required to return the woman, either by the first ship or within six months of the court's decision.
But soon after the work just mentioned was out, and when Mr. Sharp was better prepared, a third case occurred: this happened in the year 1770. Robert Stapylton, who lived at Chelsea, in conjunction with John Malony and Edward Armstrong, two watermen, seized the person of Thomas Lewis, an African slave, in a dark night, and dragged him to a boat lying in the Thames; they then gagged him and tied him with a cord, and rowed him down to a ship, and put him on board to be sold as a slave in Jamaica. This base action took place near the garden of Mrs. Banks, the mother of the late Sir Joseph Banks. Lewis, it appears, on being seized, screamed violently. The servants of Mrs. Banks, who heard his cries, ran to his assistance, but the boat was gone. On informing their mistress of what had happened, she sent for Mr. Sharp, who began now to be known as the friend of the helpless Africans, and professed her willingness to incur the expense of bringing the delinquents to justice. Mr. Sharp, with some difficulty, procured a habeas corpus, in consequence of which Lewis was brought from Gravesend just as the vessel was on the point of sailing. An action was then commenced against Stapylton, who defended himself on the plea, "That Lewis belonged to him as his slave." In the course of the trial, Mr. Dunning, who was counsel for Lewis, paid Mr. Sharp a handsome compliment; for he held in his hand Mr. Sharp's book, on the Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England, while he was pleading; and in his address to the jury he spoke and acted thus:—"I shall submit to you," says Mr. Dunning, "what my ideas are upon such evidence, reserving to myself an opportunity of discussing it more particularly, and reserving to myself a right to insist upon a position, which I will maintain (and here he held up the book to the notice of those present,) in any place and in any court of the kingdom, that our laws admit of no such propertyA." The result of the trial was, that the jury pronounced the plaintiff not to have been the property of the defendant, several of them crying out, "No property, no property."
But shortly after the previously mentioned work was released, and as Mr. Sharp was better prepared, a third case came up: this happened in 1770. Robert Stapylton, who lived in Chelsea, along with John Malony and Edward Armstrong, two watermen, seized Thomas Lewis, an African slave, one dark night, and dragged him to a boat on the Thames; they then gagged him, tied him up with a rope, and rowed him down to a ship to sell him as a slave in Jamaica. This disgraceful act took place near the garden of Mrs. Banks, the mother of the late Sir Joseph Banks. It seems that when Lewis was captured, he screamed loudly. The servants of Mrs. Banks, who heard his cries, rushed to help him, but the boat was already gone. When they informed their mistress about what happened, she called for Mr. Sharp, who was starting to be recognized as a friend of helpless Africans, and expressed her willingness to pay for bringing the wrongdoers to justice. Mr. Sharp, with some difficulty, obtained a habeas corpus, which led to Lewis being brought from Gravesend just as the ship was about to sail. A case was then filed against Stapylton, who argued that "Lewis was his slave." During the trial, Mr. Dunning, who represented Lewis, complimented Mr. Sharp; he held up Mr. Sharp's book, Injustice and Dangerous Tendency of Tolerating Slavery in England, while he spoke. In his address to the jury, Mr. Dunning said, "I'll share my thoughts on this evidence while reserving the right to discuss it in detail later, and to assert a point that I will defend (and here he raised the book for everyone to see), in any place and in any court in the kingdom, our laws do not recognize such property—A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__." The jury's verdict was that the plaintiff was not the property of the defendant, with several jurors shouting, "No property, no property."
A: It is lamentable to think that the same Mr. Dunning, in a cause of this kind, which came on afterwards, took the opposite side of the question.
A: It's unfortunate to realize that the same Mr. Dunning, in a similar case that came up later, argued the opposite side of the issue.
After this one or two other trials came on, in which the oppressor was defeated, and several cases occurred in which poor slaves were liberated from the holds of vessels and other places of confinement, by the exertions of Mr. Sharp. One of these cases was singular. The vessels on board which a poor African had been dragged and confined, had reached the Downs, and had actually got under weigh for the West Indies: in two or three hours she would have been out of sight; but just at this critical moment the writ of habeas corpus was carried on board. The officer who served it on the captain saw the miserable African chained to the mainmast, bathed in tears, and casting a last mournful look on the land of freedom, which was fast receding from his sight. The captain, on receiving the writ, became outrageous; but knowing the serious consequences of resisting the law of the land, he gave up his prisoner, whom the officer carried safe, but now crying for joy, to the shore.
After this, one or two more trials took place where the oppressor lost, and there were several instances where poor slaves were freed from ships and other places of confinement through the efforts of Mr. Sharp. One of these cases was particularly noteworthy. The ship that had dragged and held a poor African had reached the Downs and was about to set sail for the West Indies: in two or three hours, it would have been out of sight; but just at this critical moment, the writ of habeas corpus was brought on board. The officer who served it to the captain saw the miserable African chained to the mainmast, in tears, casting a last sorrowful look at the land of freedom, which was quickly disappearing from view. The captain, upon receiving the writ, became furious; but knowing the serious consequences of defying the law, he surrendered his prisoner, who the officer then safely brought to shore, now crying tears of joy.
But though the injured Africans, whose causes had been tried, escaped slavery, and though many who had been forcibly carried into dungeons, ready to be transported into the Colonies, had been delivered out of them, Mr. Sharp was not easy in his mind: not one of the cases had yet been pleaded on the broad ground, "Whether an African slave, coming into England, became free?" This great question had been hitherto studiously avoided; it was still, therefore, left in doubt. Mr. Sharp was almost daily acting as if it had been determined, and as if he had been following the known law of the land: he wished, therefore, that the next cause might be argued upon this principle. Lord Mansfield too, who had been biassed by the opinion of York and Talbot, began to waver in consequence of the different pleadings he had heard on this subject: he saw also no end of trials like these, till the law should be ascertained, and he was anxious for a decision on the same basis as Mr. Sharp. In this situation the following case offered, which was agreed upon for the determination of this important question.
But even though the injured Africans, whose cases had been heard, managed to avoid slavery, and although many who had been forcibly taken into dark spaces, ready to be shipped off to the Colonies, had been rescued from those conditions, Mr. Sharp was still troubled. Not one of the cases had yet been argued on the key issue, "Does an African slave become free upon entering England?" This important question had so far been carefully sidestepped; it remained unresolved. Mr. Sharp acted as if it had been decided and as if he were following the established law of the land: he hoped that the next case would be argued based on this principle. Lord Mansfield, who had been influenced by the opinions of York and Talbot, began to change his mind due to the various arguments he had heard on this matter. He also recognized that there would be no end to trials like these until the law was clarified, and he was eager for a ruling based on the same premise as Mr. Sharp. In this context, the following case arose, which was agreed upon to address this significant question.
James Somerset, an African slave, had been brought to England by his master, Charles Stewart, in November 1769. Somerset in process of time left him. Stewart took an opportunity of seizing him, and had him conveyed on board the Ann and Mary, Captain Knowles, to be carried out of the kingdom and sold as a slave in Jamaica: the question was, "Whether a slave, by coming into England, became free?"
James Somerset, an African slave, was brought to England by his owner, Charles Stewart, in November 1769. Over time, Somerset left him. Stewart seized the opportunity to capture him and had him taken aboard the Ann and Mary, Captain Knowles, to be transported out of the country and sold as a slave in Jamaica. The question was, "Does a slave become free by entering England?"
In order that time might be given for ascertaining the law fully on this head, the case was argued at three different sittings. First, in January, 1772; secondly, in February, 1772; and thirdly, in May, 1772. And that no decision otherwise than what the law warranted might be given, the opinion of the judges was taken upon the pleadings. The great and glorious result of the trial was, "That as soon as ever any slave set his foot upon English territory, he became free."
In order to allow time to thoroughly determine the law on this matter, the case was debated in three different sessions. First, in January 1772; second, in February 1772; and third, in May 1772. To ensure that no decision was made except as the law permitted, the judges' opinions were sought regarding the pleadings. The significant and commendable outcome of the trial was that "as soon as any slave sets foot on English soil, they become free."
Thus ended the great case of Somerset, which, having, been determined after so deliberate an investigation of the law, can never be reversed while the British Constitution remains. The eloquence displayed in it by those who were engaged on the side of liberty, was perhaps never exceeded on any occasion; and the names of the counsellors Davy, Glynn, Hargrave, Mansfield, and Alleyne, ought always to be remembered with gratitude by the friends of this great cause. For when we consider in how many crowded courts they pleaded, and the number of individuals in these, whose minds they enlightened, and whose hearts they interested in the subject, they are certainly to be put down as no small instruments in the promotion of it; but chiefly to him, under Divine Providence, are we to give the praise, who became the first great actor in it, who devoted his time, his talents, and his substance to this Christian undertaking, and by whose laborious researches the very pleaders themselves were instructed and benefited. By means of his almost incessant vigilance and attention, and unwearied efforts, the poor African ceased to be hunted in our streets as a beast of prey. Miserable as the roof might be, under which he slept, he slept in security. He walked by the side of the stately ship, and he feared no dungeon in her hold. Nor ought we, as Englishmen, to be less grateful to this distinguished individual than the African ought to be upon this occasion. To him we owe it, that we no longer see our public papers polluted by hateful advertisements of the sale of the human species, or that we are no longer distressed by the perusal of impious rewards for bringing back the poor and the helpless into slavery, or that we are prohibited the disgusting spectacle of seeing man bought by his fellow-man. To him, in short, we owe this restoration of the beauty of our constitution—this prevention of the continuance of our national disgrace.
Thus ended the important case of Somerset, which, after a thorough investigation of the law, can never be undone as long as the British Constitution stands. The passion shown by those advocating for liberty was perhaps unmatched at any other time; the names of the lawyers Davy, Glynn, Hargrave, Mansfield, and Alleyne should always be remembered with appreciation by those who support this crucial cause. When we consider how many busy courts they spoke in, and how many individuals they inspired and educated about the issue, they certainly played a significant role in promoting it. But most importantly, we owe our gratitude to the person, under Divine Providence, who became the first key figure in this effort, dedicating his time, skills, and resources to this noble cause, and through whose diligent research the very advocates were informed and benefited. Thanks to his constant vigilance and tireless efforts, the poor African was no longer hunted in our streets like an animal. No matter how shabby the roof over his head was, he found safety. He walked beside the grand ship without fearing the dungeon below deck. As Englishmen, we should be just as grateful to this remarkable individual as the African should be on this occasion. Because of him, we no longer see our public announcements tainted with disgusting ads for selling human beings, nor are we troubled by immoral rewards for capturing the weak and helpless back into slavery, and we are spared the grotesque sight of one person buying another. In short, we owe him this restoration of the dignity of our constitution—this prevention of our national shame.
I shall say but little more of Mr. Sharp at present, than that he felt it his duty, immediately after the trial, to write to Lord North, then principal minister of state, warning him in the most earnest manner, to abolish immediately both the trade and the slavery of the human species in all the British dominions, as utterly irreconcileable with the principles of the British constitution, and the established religion of the land.
I won't say much more about Mr. Sharp right now, except that he felt it was his duty, right after the trial, to write to Lord North, who was the main government minister at the time. He urged him very seriously to end both the slave trade and slavery in all British territories immediately, as they were completely incompatible with the principles of the British constitution and the established religion of the country.
Among other coadjutors, whom the cruel and wicked practices which have now been so amply detailed brought forward, was a worthy clergyman, whose name I have not yet been able to learn. He endeavoured to interest the public feeling in behalf of the injured Africans, by writing an epilogue to the Padlock, in which Mungo appeared as a black servant. This epilogue is so appropriate to the case, that I cannot but give it to the reader. Mungo enters, and thus addresses the audience:—
Among other supporters, who were brought forward by the cruel and wicked actions that have been thoroughly detailed, was a respectable clergyman, whose name I still haven't been able to find out. He tried to engage public sentiment on behalf of the wronged Africans by writing an epilogue to the Padlock, where Mungo appeared as a black servant. This epilogue fits the situation so well that I feel compelled to share it with the reader. Mungo enters and addresses the audience:—
Then let me speak, nor take that freedom ill.
E'en from my tongue some heart-felt truths may fall,
And outraged Nature claims the care of all.
My tale in any place would force a tear,
But calls for stronger, deeper feelings here;
For whilst I tread the free-born British land,
Whilst now before me crowded Britons stand,—
Vain, vain that glorious privilege to me,
I am a slave, where all things else are free.
An heir to all that liberal Nature gave;
My mind can reason, and my limbs can move
The same as yours; like yours my heart can love;
Alike my body food and sleep sustain;
And e'en like yours—feels pleasure, want, and pain.
One sun rolls o'er us, common skies surround;
One globe supports us, and one grave must bound.
That manly comforts to a man can give?
Or life's choice arts; to live—unknown the calm,
Of soft domestic ease; those sweets of life,
The duteous offspring, and th' endearing wife?
To live—to property and rights unknown,
Not e'en the common benefits my own!
No arm to guard me from Oppression's rod,
My will subservient to a tyrant's nod!
No gentle hand, when life is in decay,
To soothe my pains, and charm my cares away;
But helpless left to quit the horrid stage,
Harassed in youth, and desolate in age!
And you in fair Britannia's fairer land;
Comes freedom, then, from colour?—Blush with shame!
And let strong Nature's crimson mark your blame.
I speak to Britons.—Britons—then behold
A man by, Britons snared, and seized, and sold!
And yet no British statute damns the deed,
Nor do the more than murderous villains bleed.
Be all consistent, plead the negro's cause;
That all the nations in your code may see
The British negro, like the Briton, free.
But, should he supplicate your laws in vain,
To break, for ever, this disgraceful chain,
At least, let gentle usage so abate
The galling terrors of its passing state,
That he may share kind Heaven's all social plan;
For, though no Briton, Mungo is—a man.
I may now add, that few theatrical pieces had a greater run than the Padlock; and that this epilogue, which was attached to it soon after it came out, procured a good deal of feeling for the unfortunate sufferers, whose cause it was intended to serve.
I can now say that not many plays had a longer run than the Padlock; and this epilogue, which was added shortly after its release, generated a lot of sympathy for the unfortunate victims it aimed to support.
Another coadjutor, to whom these cruel and wicked practices gave birth, was Thomas Day, the celebrated author of Sandford and Merton, and whose virtues were well known among those who had the happiness of his friendship. In the year 1773 he published a poem, which he wrote expressly in behalf of the oppressed Africans. He gave it the name of The Dying Negro. The preface to it was written in an able manner by his friend Counsellor Bicknell, who is therefore to be ranked among the coadjutors in this great cause. The poem was founded on a simple fact, which had taken place a year or two before. A poor negro had been seized in London, and forcibly put on board a ship, where he destroyed himself, rather than return to the land of slavery. To the poem is affixed a frontispiece, in which the negro is represented. He is made to stand in an attitude of the most earnest address to heaven, in the course of which, with the fatal dagger in his hand, he breaks forth in the following words:
Another supporter, inspired by these cruel and wicked practices, was Thomas Day, the famous author of Sandford and Merton, whose virtues were well-known among those fortunate enough to be his friends. In 1773, he published a poem he wrote specifically for the oppressed Africans. He titled it The Dying Negro. The preface was skillfully written by his friend, Counselor Bicknell, who should also be recognized as one of the supporters of this important cause. The poem was based on a true story that occurred a year or two earlier. A poor Black man was captured in London and forcibly put on a ship, where he took his own life rather than return to a life of slavery. Accompanying the poem is a frontispiece depicting the Black man. He is shown standing in a position of earnest prayer to heaven, during which he, with a deadly dagger in his hand, passionately declares the following words:
To you that spirit, which ye gave, restore.
This poem, which was the first ever written expressly on the subject, was read extensively; and it added to the sympathy in favour of suffering humanity, which was now beginning to show itself in the kingdom.
This poem, which was the first ever written specifically on the subject, was widely read; and it increased the compassion for suffering humanity, which was now starting to emerge in the kingdom.
About this time the first edition of the Essay an Truth made its appearance in the world. Dr. Beattie took an opportunity, in this work, of vindicating the intellectual powers of the Africans from the aspersions of Hume, and of condemning their slavery as a barbarous piece of policy, and as inconsistent with the free and generous spirit of the British nation.
Around this time, the first edition of the Essay on Truth was released to the public. In this work, Dr. Beattie took the chance to defend the intellectual abilities of Africans against Hume's criticisms and to denounce their slavery as a cruel policy that goes against the free and generous spirit of the British people.
In the year 1774, John Wesley, the celebrated divine, to whose pious labours the religious world will long be indebted, undertook the cause of the poor Africans. He had been in America, and had seen and pitied their hard condition. The work which he gave to the world in consequence, was entitled Thoughts on Slavery. Mr. Wesley had this great cause much at heart, and frequently recommended it to the support of those who attended his useful ministry.
In 1774, John Wesley, the well-known minister, whose devoted work the religious community will always be grateful for, took up the cause of poor Africans. He had been to America and had witnessed their difficult situation, which moved him to take action. The work he published as a result was called Thoughts on Slavery. Mr. Wesley was very passionate about this important issue and often urged his followers to support it during his impactful ministry.
In the year 1776, the Abbé Proyart brought out, at Paris, his History of Loango, and other kingdoms in Africa, in which he did ample justice to the moral and intellectual character of the natives there.
In 1776, Abbé Proyart published his History of Loango and other kingdoms in Africa in Paris, where he gave a fair representation of the moral and intellectual character of the local people.
The same year produced two new friends in England, in the same cause, but in a line in which no one had yet moved. David Hartley, then a member of parliament for Hull, and the son of Dr. Hartley who wrote the Essay on Man, found it impossible any longer to pass over without notice the case of the oppressed Africans. He had long felt for their wretched condition, and, availing himself of his legislative situation, he made a motion in the House of Commons, "That the Slave Trade was contrary to the laws of God, and the rights of men." In order that he might interest the members as much as possible in his motion, he had previously obtained some of the chains in use in this cruel traffic, and had laid them upon the table of the House of Commons. His motion was seconded by that great patriot and philanthropist, Sir George Saville. But though I am now to state that it failed, I cannot but consider it as a matter of pleasing reflection, that this great subject was first introduced into parliament by those who were worthy of it; by those who had clean hands and an irreproachable character, and to whom no motive of party or faction could be imputed, but only such as must have arisen from a love of justice, a true feeling of humanity, and a proper sense of religion.
The same year brought two new friends in England, united in the same cause, but in an area where no one had yet made a move. David Hartley, who was then a member of parliament for Hull and the son of Dr. Hartley, the author of the Essay on Man, could no longer ignore the plight of the oppressed Africans. He had long been aware of their terrible condition, and taking advantage of his position in the legislature, he made a motion in the House of Commons stating, "That the Slave Trade was against the laws of God and the rights of men." To engage the members' interest in his motion as much as possible, he had previously obtained some chains used in this brutal trade and had placed them on the table of the House of Commons. His motion was supported by the great patriot and philanthropist, Sir George Saville. Although I must report that it failed, I find it uplifting to note that this important issue was first brought before parliament by those who were deserving of it—by individuals with clean hands and impeccable character, who had no motives tied to party politics or factionalism, but only those stemming from a commitment to justice, genuine compassion, and a sound sense of religion.
About this time two others, men of great talents and learning, promoted the cause of the injured Africans, by the manner in which they introduced them to notice in their respective works.
Around this time, two other men, both highly talented and educated, advocated for the rights of the oppressed Africans by the way they highlighted them in their respective works.
Dr. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, had, so early as the year 1759, held them up in an honourable, and their tyrants in a degrading light. "There is not a Negro from the coast of Africa, who does not, in this respect, possess a degree of magnanimity which the soul of his sordid master is too often scarce capable of conceiving. Fortune never exerted more cruelly her empire over mankind, than when she subjected those nations of heroes to the refuse of the gaols of Europe, to wretches who possess the virtue neither of the countries they came from, nor of those they go to, and whose levity, brutality, and baseness so justly expose them to the contempt of the vanquished." And now, in 1776, in his Wealth of Nations he showed in a forcible manner (for he appealed to the interest of those concerned,) the dearness of African labour; or the impolicy of employing slaves.
Dr. Adam Smith, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, as early as 1759, portrayed them in a positive light, while showing their oppressors in a negative light. "There isn't a single African from the coast of Africa who doesn't, in this regard, possess a level of nobility that the mind of his greedy master is often too incapable of understanding. Fortune has never exercised its power over humanity more cruelly than when it subjected those noble nations to the dregs of European prisons, to miserable people who lack the virtues of both the countries they came from and the ones they go to, and whose carelessness, brutality, and lowliness justly expose them to the disdain of the defeated." And now, in 1776, in his Wealth of Nations, he argued forcefully (by appealing to the interests of those involved) the high cost of African labor, or the impracticality of using slaves.
Professor Millar, in his Origin of Ranks, followed Dr. Smith on the same ground. He explained the impolicy of slavery in general, by its bad effects upon industry, population, and morals. These effects he attached to the system of agriculture as followed in our islands. He showed, besides, how little pains were taken, or how few contrivances were thought of, to ease the labourers there. He contended that the Africans ought to be better treated, and to be raised to a better condition; and he ridiculed the inconsistency of those who held them in bondage. "It affords," says he, "a curious spectacle to observe that the same people, who talk in a high strain of political liberty, and who consider the privilege of imposing their own taxes as one of the unalienable rights of mankind, should make no scruple of reducing a great proportion of their fellow-creatures into circumstances by which they are not only deprived of property, but almost of every species of right. Fortune, perhaps, never produced a situation more calculated to ridicule a liberal hypothesis, or to show how little the conduct of men is at the bottom directed by any philosophical principles." It is a great honour to the University of Glasgow, that it should have produced, before any public agitation of this question, three professorsA, all of whom bore their public testimony against the continuance of the cruel trade.
Professor Millar, in his Origin of Ranks, continued Dr. Smith's argument on the same topic. He explained the drawbacks of slavery in general, highlighting its negative impacts on industry, population, and morals. He connected these effects to the agricultural practices in our islands. Additionally, he pointed out how little effort was made, or how few solutions were considered, to improve the conditions for laborers there. He argued that Africans should be treated better and elevated to a higher status; he mocked the hypocrisy of those who kept them enslaved. "It is," he said, "a strange sight to see the same people who boast about political freedom and view the right to impose their own taxes as one of the intrinsic rights of mankind, having no qualms about subjecting a large portion of their fellow humans to conditions that rob them not only of property but almost of every kind of right. Fortune may never have created a situation more suited to mock a liberal idea or to demonstrate how little human behavior is genuinely guided by philosophical principles." It is a significant honor for the University of Glasgow to have produced, prior to any public debate on this issue, three professorsA, all of whom publicly denounced the continuation of the cruel trade.
From this time, or from about the year 1776, to about the year 1782, I am to put down three other coadjutors, whose labours seem to have come in a right season for the promotion of the cause.
From this time, or around the year 1776, to about 1782, I want to mention three other collaborators whose efforts seem to have arrived just in time to support the cause.
The first of these was Dr. ROBERTSON. In his History of America he laid open many facts relative to this subject. He showed himself a warm friend both of the Indians and Africans. He lost no opportunity of condemning that trade, which brought the latter into bondage: "a trade," says he, "which is no less repugnant to the feelings of humanity than to the principles of religion." And in his Charles the Fifth, he showed in a manner that was clear, and never to be controverted, that Christianity was the great cause in the twelfth century of extirpating slavery from the west of Europe. By the establishment of this fact, he rendered important services to the oppressed Africans. For if Christianity, when it began to be felt in the heart, dictated the abolition of slavery, it certainly became those who lived in a Christian country, and who professed the Christian religion, to put an end to this cruel trade.
The first of these was Dr. ROBERTSON. In his History of America, he uncovered many facts related to this subject. He demonstrated himself to be a strong supporter of both the Indians and Africans. He seized every chance to criticize the trade that enslaved the latter: "a trade," he said, "that is as repugnant to human feelings as it is to the principles of religion." In his Charles the Fifth, he clearly and undeniably showed that Christianity was the main reason for ending slavery in Western Europe during the twelfth century. By establishing this fact, he provided significant support to the oppressed Africans. If Christianity, once truly felt in the heart, led to the abolition of slavery, then it certainly fell to those living in a Christian country who professed the Christian faith to put an end to this cruel trade.
The second was the Abbé Raynal. This author gave an account of the laws, government, and religion of Africa, of the produce of it, of the manners of its inhabitants, of the trade in slaves, of the manner of procuring these, with several other particulars relating to the subject. And at the end of his account, fearing lest the good advice he had given for making the condition of the slaves more comfortable should be construed into an approbation of such a traffic, he employed several pages in showing its utter inconsistency with sound policy, justice, reason, humanity, and religion.
The second was Abbé Raynal. This author provided an overview of the laws, government, and religion of Africa, its resources, the customs of its people, the slave trade, and how slaves were acquired, along with several other details related to the topic. At the conclusion of his account, worried that the helpful suggestions he had made to improve the conditions of slaves might be seen as approval of the trade, he took several pages to illustrate its complete inconsistency with sound policy, justice, reason, humanity, and religion.
"I will not here," says he, "so far debase myself as to enlarge the ignominious list of those writers who devote their abilities to justify by policy what morality condemns. In an age where so many errors are boldly laid open, it would be unpardonable to conceal any truth that is interesting to humanity. If whatever I have hitherto advanced hath seemingly tended only to alleviate the burden of slavery, the reason is, that it was first necessary to give some comfort to those unhappy beings whom we cannot set free, and convince their oppressors that they were cruel, to the prejudice of their real interests. But, in the mean time, till some considerable revolution shall make the evidence of this great truth felt, it may not be improper to pursue this subject further. I shall then first prove that there is no reason of state which can authorize slavery. I shall not be afraid to cite to the tribunal of reason and justice those governments which tolerate this cruelty, or which even are not ashamed to make it the basis of their power."
"I won’t here," he says, "lower myself to join the shameful group of writers who use their skills to justify what morality clearly condemns. In a time when so many mistakes are openly exposed, it would be inexcusable to hide any truth that matters to humanity. If what I’ve previously stated seems to only lighten the burden of slavery, it’s because I first needed to provide some comfort to those unfortunate individuals we cannot free and to show their oppressors that their actions are cruel and actually against their own best interests. However, in the meantime, until a significant change makes this important truth undeniable, it might be appropriate to further explore this topic. I will first demonstrate that there is no valid reason of state that can justify slavery. I won’t hesitate to bring to the court of reason and justice those governments that tolerate this cruelty or even proudly base their power on it."
And a little further on he observes—"Will it be said that he, who wants to make me a slave, does me no injury; but that he only makes use of his rights? Where are those rights? Who hath stamped upon them so sacred a character as to silence mine?"
And a little further on he observes—"Can it really be said that the person who wants to enslave me isn't hurting me, but is just exercising his rights? Where are these rights? Who has given them such sacred status that they can silence mine?"
In the beginning of the next paragraph he speaks thus:—"He who supports the system of slavery is the enemy of the whole human race. He divides it into two societies of legal assassins; the oppressors, and the oppressed. It is the same thing as proclaiming to the world, if you would preserve your life, instantly take away mine, for I want to have yours."
In the beginning of the next paragraph he says:—"Anyone who backs the system of slavery is the enemy of all humanity. He splits it into two groups of legal killers; the oppressors and the oppressed. It’s the same as saying to the world, if you want to stay alive, you need to take my life right now, because I want to take yours."
Going on two pages further, we find these words:—"But the Negroes, they say, are a race born for slavery; their dispositions are narrow, treacherous, and wicked; they themselves allow the superiority of our understandings, and almost acknowledge the justice of our authority. Yes; the minds of the Negroes are contracted, because slavery destroys all the springs of the soul. They are wicked, but not equally so with you. They are treacherous, because they are under no obligation to speak truth to their tyrants. They acknowledge the superiority of our understanding, because we have abused their ignorance. They allow the justice of our authority, because we have abused their weakness."
Going two pages further, we find these words: "But people say that Black individuals are a race meant for slavery; their temperaments are limited, deceitful, and evil; they themselves recognize the superiority of our intelligence and almost concede the fairness of our control. Yes; the minds of Black individuals are limited because slavery destroys all the inner springs of the soul. They are wicked, but not to the same extent as you. They are deceitful because they have no obligation to tell the truth to their oppressors. They acknowledge the superiority of our intelligence because we have exploited their ignorance. They accept the fairness of our control because we have taken advantage of their vulnerability."
"But these Negroes, it is further urged, were born slaves. Barbarians! will you persuade me that a man can be the property of a sovereign, a son the property of a father, a wife the property of a husband, a domestic the property of a master, a Negro the property of a planter?"
"But these Black people, it is further argued, were born into slavery. Savages! Will you convince me that a man can be the property of a ruler, a son the property of his father, a wife the property of her husband, a servant the property of a master, a Black person the property of a plantation owner?"
But I have no time to follow this animated author, even by short extracts, through the varied strains of eloquence which he displays upon this occasion. I can only say that his labours entitle him to a high station among the benefactors to the African race.
But I don’t have time to keep up with this lively author, even through short excerpts, as he showcases his different styles of eloquence on this occasion. I can only say that his efforts earn him a prominent place among those who have helped the African race.
The third was Dr. PALEY, whose genius, talents, and learning have been so eminently displayed in his writings in the cause of natural and revealed religion. Dr. Paley did not write any essay expressly in favour of the Africans. But in his Moral Philosophy, where he treated on slavery, he took an opportunity of condemning, in very severe terms, the continuance of it. In this work he defined what slavery was, and how it might arise consistently with the law of nature; but he made an exception against that which arose from the African trade. "The Slave Trade," says he, "upon the coast of Africa, is not excused by these principles. When slaves in that country are brought to market, no questions, I believe, are asked about the origin or justice of the vendor's title. It may be presumed, therefore, that this title is not always, if it be ever, founded in any of the causes above assigned.
The third was Dr. PALEY, whose brilliance, skills, and knowledge have been prominently showcased in his writings on natural and revealed religion. Dr. Paley didn't write any specific essay supporting Africans. However, in his Moral Philosophy, where he discussed slavery, he took the opportunity to strongly condemn its continuation. In this work, he defined what slavery is and how it might occur in line with the law of nature; but he made an exception for slavery that arose from the African trade. "The Slave Trade," he says, "along the coast of Africa, cannot be justified by these principles. When slaves in that region are put up for sale, no questions, I believe, are asked about the origin or fairness of the vendor's title. It can be presumed, therefore, that this title is not always, if ever, based on any of the reasons mentioned above."
"But defect of right in the first purchase is the least crime with which this traffic is chargeable. The natives are excited to war and mutual depredation, for the sake of supplying their contracts, or furnishing the markets with slaves. With this the wickedness begins. The slaves, torn away from their parents, wives, and children, from their friends and companions, from their fields and flocks, from their home and country, are transported to the European settlements in America, with no other accommodation on ship-board than what is provided for brutes. This is the second stage of the cruelty, from which the miserable exiles are delivered, only to be placed, and that for life, in subjection to a dominion add system of laws, the most merciless and tyrannical that ever were tolerated upon the face of the earth: and from all that can be learned by the accounts of people upon the spot, the inordinate authority which the plantation-laws confer upon the slaveholder is exercised, by the English slaveholder especially, with rigour and brutality.
"But the illegitimacy of the initial purchase is the least of the crimes connected to this trade. The locals are driven to violence and mutual destruction to fulfill their contracts or supply the markets with slaves. This marks the start of the real wrongdoing. The slaves, ripped away from their parents, spouses, and children, from their friends and peers, from their lands and livestock, and from their homes and countries, are shipped to European settlements in America, receiving no better accommodations on board than what is offered to animals. This is the second phase of the cruelty, from which the unfortunate exiles are freed, only to find themselves subjected—permanently—to a system of control and laws that are some of the most heartless and oppressive ever allowed in history. Based on what can be gathered from reports by people in the area, the extreme power granted to slaveholders through plantation laws is enforced, particularly by English slaveholders, with harshness and brutality."
"But necessity is pretended, the name under which every enormity is attempted to be justified; and after all, what is the necessity? It has never been proved that the land could not be cultivated there, as it is here, by hired servants. It is said, that it could not be cultivated with quite the same conveniency and cheapness, as by the labour of slaves; by which means, a pound of sugar, which the planter now sells for sixpence, could not be afforded under sixpence-halfpenny—and this is the necessity!
"But necessity is just a pretense, a term used to justify all kinds of wrongs; and really, what is the necessity? It has never been proven that the land couldn't be farmed there just as it is here, by hired workers. It's claimed that it couldn't be farmed with the same convenience and affordability as with slave labor; and because of that, a pound of sugar that the planter currently sells for sixpence couldn't be priced under sixpence-halfpenny—and that’s the necessity!"
"The great revolution which has taken place in the western world, may, probably, conduce (and who knows but that it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny: and now that this contest and the passions which attend it are no more, there may succeed, perhaps, a season for reflecting, whether a legislature, which had so long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire, the most extensive that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world."
"The great revolution that has occurred in the Western world may very well help (and who knows, maybe it was planned) to speed up the end of this terrible tyranny. Now that this struggle and the emotions surrounding it have quieted down, perhaps it’s time to reflect on whether a legislature that has for so long supported an institution filled with human suffering is really fit to be trusted with an empire as vast as any that has ever existed in history."
The publication of these sentiments may be supposed to have produced an extensive effect. For The Moral Philosophy was adopted early by some of the colleges in our universities into the system of their education. It soon found its way also into most of the private libraries of the kingdom; and it was, besides, generally read and approved. Dr. Paley, therefore, must be considered, as having been a considerable coadjutor in interesting the mind of the public in favour of the oppressed Africans.
The release of these ideas likely had a significant impact. The Moral Philosophy was quickly taken up by some universities and included in their educational programs. It soon became popular in many private libraries across the country and was widely read and well-received. Therefore, Dr. Paley should be seen as an important supporter in raising public awareness about the plight of oppressed Africans.
In the year 1783, we find Mr. Sharp coming again into notice. We find him at this time taking a part in a cause, the knowledge of which, in proportion as it was disseminated, produced an earnest desire among all disinterested persons for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
In 1783, we see Mr. Sharp coming back into the spotlight. At this time, he is involved in a cause that, as more people learned about it, created a strong desire among all caring individuals to end the Slave Trade.
In this year, certain underwriters desired to be heard against Gregson and others of Liverpool, in the case of the ship Zong, Captain Collingwood, alleging that the captain and officers of the said vessel threw overboard one hundred and thirty-two slaves alive into the seas in order to defraud them, by claiming the value of the said slaves, as if they had been lost in a natural way. In the course of the trial which afterwards came on, it appeared, that the slaves on board the Zong were very sickly; that sixty of them had already died; and several were ill and likely to die, when the captain proposed to James Kelsall, the mate, and others, to throw several of them overboard, stating, "that if they died a natural death, the loss would fall upon the owners of the ship; but that if they were thrown into the sea, it would fall upon the underwriters." He selected, accordingly, one hundred and thirty-two of the most sickly of the slaves. Fifty-four of these were immediately thrown overboard, and forty-two were made to be partakers of their fate on the succeeding day. In the course of three days afterwards the remaining twenty-six were brought upon deck to complete the number of victims. The first sixteen submitted to be thrown into the sea; but the rest, with a noble resolution, would not suffer the officers to touch them, but leaped after their companions and shared their fate.
In this year, some underwriters wanted to challenge Gregson and others from Liverpool regarding the ship Zong, which was captained by Collingwood. They claimed that the captain and crew threw one hundred and thirty-two slaves overboard alive to deceive them by claiming the value of those slaves as if they had been lost in a natural way. During the trial that followed, it was revealed that the slaves on the Zong were very ill; sixty of them had already died, and several others were sick and likely to die when the captain suggested to James Kelsall, the mate, and others that they throw some overboard. He explained, "If they die a natural death, the owners of the ship will bear the loss; but if we throw them into the sea, the underwriters will be responsible." Accordingly, he selected one hundred and thirty-two of the sickliest slaves. Fifty-four of them were immediately thrown overboard, and forty-two faced the same fate the following day. Three days later, the remaining twenty-six were brought on deck to complete the number of victims. The first sixteen agreed to be thrown into the sea; however, the rest, with remarkable courage, refused to let the officers touch them and jumped after their companions, sharing their fate.
The plea which was set up in behalf of this atrocious and unparalleled act of wickedness was, that the captain discovered, when he made the proposal, that he had only two hundred gallons of water on board, and that he had missed his port. It was proved, however, in answer to this, that no one had been put upon short allowance; and that, as if Providence had determined to afford an unequivocal proof of the guilt, a shower of rain fell and continued for three days immediately after the second lot of slaves had been destroyed, by means of which they might have filled many of their vesselsA with water, and thus have prevented all necessity for the destruction of the third.
The defense for this horrible and unique act of evil was that the captain realized when he made the proposal that he only had two hundred gallons of water on board and that he had missed his port. However, it was proven in response to this that no one had been put on a restricted diet; and as if fate decided to provide clear evidence of guilt, it rained for three days right after the second group of slaves was killed, which could have allowed them to fill many of their vesselsA with water, thus eliminating any need to destroy the third group.
Mr. Sharp was present at this trial, and procured the attendance of a short-hand writer to take down the facts, which should come out in the course of it. These he gave to the public afterwards. He communicated them also, with a copy of the trial, to the Lords of the Admiralty, as the guardians of justice upon the seas, and to the Duke of Portland, as principal minister of state. No notice, however, was taken by any of these, of the information which had been thus sent them.
Mr. Sharp was at this trial and arranged for a stenographer to record the details that came out during it. He later shared this information with the public. He also sent them to the Lords of the Admiralty, who oversee justice at sea, and to the Duke of Portland, the main government minister. However, none of them acknowledged the information he had sent.
But though nothing was done by the persons then in power, in consequence of the murder of so many innocent individuals, yet the publication of an account of it by Mr. Sharp, in the newspapers, made such an impression upon others, that; new coadjutors rose up. For, soon after this, we find Thomas Day entering the lists again as the champion of the injured Africans. He had lived to see his poem of The Dying Negro, which had been published in 1773, make a considerable impression. In 1776, he had written a letter to a friend in America, who was the possessor of slaves, to dissuade him by a number of arguments from holding such property; and now, when the knowledge of the case of the ship Zong was spreading, he published that letter under the title of Fragment of an Original Letter on the Slavery of the Negroes.
But even though nothing was done by those in power as a result of the murder of so many innocent people, the account published by Mr. Sharp in the newspapers made such an impact on others that new supporters emerged. Soon after this, we see Thomas Day stepping up again as a defender of the wronged Africans. He had witnessed his poem, The Dying Negro, published in 1773, make a significant impact. In 1776, he wrote a letter to a friend in America, who owned slaves, persuading him with several arguments against keeping such property; and now, as awareness of the ship Zong’s situation was spreading, he published that letter under the title Fragment of an Original Letter on the Slavery of the Negroes.
In this same year, Dr. Porteus, Bishop of Chester, but now Bishop of London, came forward as a new advocate for the natives of Africa. The way in which he rendered them service, was by preaching a sermon in their behalf, before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Of the wide circulation of this sermon, I shall say something in another place, but much more of the enlightened and pious author of it, who from this time never failed to aid, at every opportunity, the cause which he had so ably undertaken.
In the same year, Dr. Porteus, who was Bishop of Chester and is now Bishop of London, stepped up as a new supporter for the people of Africa. He helped them by delivering a sermon on their behalf in front of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. I’ll discuss the widespread reach of this sermon elsewhere, but I want to focus more on the insightful and devoted author, who from that moment forward consistently supported the cause he had so effectively taken on.
In the year 1784, Dr. GREGORY produced his Essays, Historical and Moral. He took an opportunity of disseminating in these a circumstantial knowledge of the Slave Trade, and an equal abhorrence of it at the same time. He explained the manner of procuring slaves in Africa; the treatment of them on the passage, (in which he mentioned the case of the ship Zong) and the wicked and cruel treatment of them in the colonies. He recited and refuted also the various arguments adduced in defence of the trade. He showed that it was destructive to our seamen. He produced many weighty arguments also against the slavery itself. He proposed clauses for an Act of Parliament for the abolition of both; showing the good both to England and her colonies from such a measure, and that a trade might be substituted in Africa, in various articles, for that which he proposed to suppress. By means of the diffusion of light like this, both of a moral and political nature; Dr. Gregory is entitled to be ranked among the benefactors to the African race.
In 1784, Dr. GREGORY published his Essays, Historical and Moral. In these essays, he provided detailed knowledge about the Slave Trade and expressed his strong opposition to it. He described how slaves were obtained in Africa, the conditions they faced during the voyage (including the case of the ship Zong), and the brutal treatment they received in the colonies. He also addressed and countered the various arguments made in support of the trade. He demonstrated that it was harmful to our sailors. Additionally, he presented several compelling arguments against slavery itself. He suggested clauses for an Act of Parliament to abolish both the trade and slavery, arguing that this would benefit both England and its colonies, and that alternative trade in various goods could replace the trade he wanted to end. Through the spread of moral and political awareness like this, Dr. Gregory deserves recognition as a benefactor to the African community.
In the same year, Gilbert Wakefield preached a sermon at Richmond, in Surrey, where, speaking of the people of this nation, he says, "Have we been as renowned for a liberal communication of our religion and our laws as for the possession of them! Have we navigated and conquered to save, to civilize, and to instruct; or to oppress, to plunder, and to destroy? Let India and Africa give the answer to these questions. The one we have exhausted of her wealth and her inhabitants by violence, by famine, and by every species of tyranny and murder. The children of the other we daily carry from off the land of their nativity; like sheep to the slaughter, to return no more. We tear them from every object of their affection, or, sad alternative, drag them together to the horrors of a mutual servitude! We keep them in the profoundest ignorance. We gall them in a tenfold chain, with an unrelenting spirit of barbarity, inconceivable to all but the spectators of it, unexampled among former and other nations, and unrecorded even in the bloody registers of heathen persecution. Such is the conduct of us enlightened Englishmen, reformed Christians! Thus have we profited by our superior advantages, by the favour of God, by the doctrines and example of a meek and lowly Savior. Will not the blessings which we have abused loudly testify against us? Will not the blood which we have shed cry from the ground for vengeance upon our sins?"
In the same year, Gilbert Wakefield delivered a sermon in Richmond, Surrey, where he talked about the people of this nation, saying, "Have we been as well-known for sharing our religion and our laws as we are for just having them? Have we explored and conquered to save, to civilize, and to teach; or to oppress, plunder, and destroy? Let India and Africa answer these questions. We have drained India of its wealth and people through violence, famine, and all kinds of tyranny and murder. Each day, we take children from Africa, like sheep to slaughter, never to return. We rip them away from everything they love or, sadly, force them together into shared suffering! We keep them in utter ignorance. We bind them in a cruel, tenfold chain, with a relentless spirit of brutality that is unimaginable to anyone except those who witness it, unmatched by past and other nations, and unrecorded even in the bloody histories of pagan persecution. This is the behavior of us enlightened Englishmen, reformed Christians! Look at how we’ve taken advantage of our supposed blessings, the favor of God, the teachings and example of a humble Savior. Will not the blessings we have misused loudly testify against us? Will not the blood we have shed cry out from the ground for justice for our sins?"
In the same year, James Ramsay, vicar of Teston in Kent, became also an able, zealous, and indefatigable patron of the African cause. This gentleman had resided nineteen years in the island of St. Christopher, where he had observed the treatment of the slaves, and had studied the laws relating to them. On his return to England, yielding to his own feelings of duty and the solicitations of some amiable friends, he published a work, which he called An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of the African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies. After having given an account of the relative situation of master and slave in various parts of the world, he explained the low and degrading situation which the Africans held in society in our own islands. He showed that their importance would be increased; and the temporal interest of their masters promoted, by giving them freedom, and by granting them other privileges. He showed the great difficulty of instructing them in the state in which they then were, and such as he himself had experienced, both in his private and public attempts, and such as others had experienced also. He stated the way in which private attempts of this nature might probably be successful. He then answered all objections against their capacities, as drawn from philosophy, form, anatomy, and observation; and vindicated these from his own experience. And lastly, he threw out ideas for the improvement of their condition, by an establishment of a greater number of spiritual pastors among them; by giving them more privileges than they then possessed; and by extending towards them the benefits of a proper police. Mr. Ramsay had no other motive for giving this work to the public, than that of humanity, of a wish to serve this much-injured part of the human species. For he compiled it at the hazard of forfeiting that friendship, which he had contracted with many during his residence in the islands, and of suffering much in his private property, as well as subjecting himself to the ill-will and persecution of numerous individuals.
In the same year, James Ramsay, vicar of Teston in Kent, also became a dedicated and tireless supporter of the African cause. This man had lived for nineteen years on the island of St. Christopher, where he witnessed the treatment of slaves and studied the laws affecting them. Upon returning to England, driven by his own sense of duty and the encouragement of some kind friends, he published a book titled An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of the African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies. After detailing the relationships between masters and slaves in different parts of the world, he described the low and degrading status of Africans in our islands. He argued that their value would be enhanced, and their masters' interests better served, by granting them freedom and additional rights. He highlighted the significant challenges of educating them in their current state, which he had experienced both personally and in his public efforts, as others had too. He outlined how private initiatives in this area might be successful. He then addressed all objections regarding their abilities based on philosophy, form, anatomy, and observation, defending them with his own experiences. Finally, he suggested ways to improve their situation by establishing more spiritual leaders among them, providing them with more rights than they had at the time, and extending proper law enforcement benefits to them. Mr. Ramsay’s sole motivation for sharing this work with the public was humanity and a desire to help this much-wronged group of people. He put it together at the risk of losing friendships he had made during his time on the islands, facing potential loss in his personal property, and exposing himself to hostility and persecution from many individuals.
The publication of this book by one who professed to have been so long resident in the islands, and to have been an eyewitness of facts, produced, as may easily be supposed, a good deal of conversation, and made a considerable impression, but particularly at this time, when a storm was visibly gathering over the heads of the oppressors of the African race. These circumstances occasioned one or two persons to attempt to answer it, and these answers brought Mr. Ramsay into the first controversy ever entered into on this subject, during which, as is the case in most controversies, the cause of truth was spread.
The release of this book by someone who claimed to have lived in the islands for a long time and to have witnessed events firsthand sparked a lot of discussion and made a significant impact, especially at a time when a storm was clearly brewing over the oppressors of the African race. These factors led a couple of people to try and respond to it, and their responses brought Mr. Ramsay into the first debate ever held on this topic, during which, as often happens in debates, the cause of truth was advanced.
The works which Mr. Ramsay wrote upon this subject were, the essay just mentioned, in 1784. An Inquiry, also, into the Effects of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in 1784; A Reply to Personal Invectives and Objections, in 1785; A Letter to James Tobin, Esq., in 1787; Objections to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with Answers; and An Examination of Harris's Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade, in 1788; and An Address on the proposed Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in 1789. In short, from the time when he first took up the cause, he was engaged in it till his death, which was not a little accelerated by his exertions. He lived, however, to see this cause in a train of parliamentary inquiry, and he died satisfied; being convinced, as he often expressed, that the investigation must inevitably lead to the total abolition of the Slave Trade.
The works that Mr. Ramsay wrote on this topic were the essay mentioned earlier, in 1784. An Inquiry, also, into the Effects of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in 1784; A Reply to Personal Invectives and Objections, in 1785; A Letter to James Tobin, Esq., in 1787; Objections to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with Answers; and An Examination of Harris's Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade, in 1788; and An Address on the proposed Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in 1789. In short, from the moment he first embraced the cause, he dedicated himself to it until his death, which was hastened, in part, by his efforts. He lived long enough to witness this cause being considered in parliamentary inquiries, and he died content, firmly believing, as he often stated, that the investigation would inevitably lead to the complete abolition of the Slave Trade.
In the next year, that is, in the year 1785, another advocate was seen in Monsieur Necker, in his celebrated work on the French Finances, which had just been translated into the English language from the original work, in 1784. This virtuous statesman, after having given his estimate of the population and revenue of the French West Indian colonies, proceeds thus:—"The colonies of France contain, as we have seen, near five hundred thousand slaves, and it is from the number of these poor wretches that the inhabitants set a value on their plantations. What a dreadful prospect! and how profound a subject for reflection! Alas! how little are we both in our morality and our principles! We preach up humanity, and yet go every year to bind in chains twenty thousand natives of Africa! We call the Moors barbarians and ruffians, because they attack the liberty of Europeans at the risk of their own; yet these Europeans go, without danger, and as mere speculators, to purchase slaves by gratifying the avarice of their masters, and excite all those bloody scenes which are the usual preliminaries of this traffic!" He goes on still further in the same strain. He then shows the kind of power which has supported this execrable trade. He throws out the idea of a general compact, by which all the European nations should agree to abolish it; and he indulges the pleasing hope that it may take place even in the present generation.
In the following year, 1785, another advocate appeared in Monsieur Necker, in his famous work on the French Finances, which had just been translated into English from the original in 1784. This honorable statesman, after providing his assessment of the population and revenue of the French West Indian colonies, states: “The colonies of France contain, as we have seen, nearly five hundred thousand slaves, and it is from the number of these unfortunate individuals that the residents value their plantations. What a horrifying reality! And how deeply troubling to contemplate! Alas! How lacking we are in both our morals and principles! We preach compassion, yet every year we enslave twenty thousand natives of Africa! We label the Moors as savages and thugs for risking their lives to challenge the freedom of Europeans; yet these Europeans, without any danger, merely as speculators, go to buy slaves, feeding the greed of their masters and sparking all those brutal events that typically precede this trade!” He continues in the same vein. He then discusses the kind of power that has upheld this detestable trade. He suggests the concept of a general agreement, where all European nations could unite to abolish it; and he expresses the hopeful notion that this could happen even in our current generation.
In the same year we find other coadjutors coming before our view, but these in a line different from that in which any other belonging to this class had yet moved. Mr. George White, a clergyman of the established church, and Mr. John Chubb, suggested to Mr. William Tucket, the mayor of Bridgewater, where they resided, and to others of that town, the propriety of petitioning parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade. This petition was agreed upon, and, when drawn up, was as follows:—
In the same year, we see other supporters coming into view, but they were taking a different path than any others in this group had so far. Mr. George White, a clergyman from the established church, and Mr. John Chubb, proposed to Mr. William Tucket, the mayor of Bridgewater, where they lived, and to others in that town, that it would be appropriate to petition parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade. This petition was agreed upon and, when written up, it was as follows:—
"The humble petition of the inhabitants of Bridgewater showeth,
"The humble request of the people of Bridgewater shows,"
"That your petitioners, reflecting with the deepest sensibility on the deplorable condition of that part of the human species, the African Negroes, who, by the most flagitious means, are reduced to slavery and misery in the British colonies, beg leave to address this honourable house in their behalf, and to express a just abhorrence of a system of oppression, which no prospect of private gain, no consideration of public advantage, no plea of political expediency, can sufficiently justify or excuse.
"That your petitioners, deeply aware of the terrible condition of the African Negros, who are subjected to slavery and suffering in the British colonies through the most disgraceful means, respectfully address this honorable house on their behalf and express a rightful disgust at a system of oppression that cannot be justified or excused by any potential for personal gain, public benefit, or political convenience."
"That, satisfied as your petitioners are that this inhuman system meets with the general execration of mankind, they flatter themselves the day is not far distant when it will be universally abolished. And they most ardently hope to see a British parliament, by the extinction of that sanguinary traffic, extend the blessings of liberty to millions beyond this realm, held up to an enlightened world a glorious and merciful example, and stand in the defence of the violated rights of human nature."
"Your petitioners are confident that this inhumane system is widely condemned by humanity, and they believe the day is coming soon when it will be completely abolished. They earnestly hope to see a British parliament put an end to that brutal trade, extend the blessings of freedom to millions beyond this realm, present a shining and compassionate example to the enlightened world, and defend the violated rights of human beings."
This petition was presented by the Honourable Ann Poulet, and Alexander Hood, Esq., (afterwards Lord Bridport,) who were the members for the town of Bridgewater. It was ordered to lie on the table. The answer which these gentlemen gave to their constituents relative to the reception of it in the House of Commons is worthy of notice:—"There did not appear," say they in their common letter, "the least disposition to pay any further attention to it. Every one almost says that the abolition of the Slave Trade must immediately throw the West Indian islands into convulsions, and soon complete their utter ruin. Thus they will not trust Providence for its protection for so pious an undertaking."
This petition was submitted by the Honorable Ann Poulet and Alexander Hood, Esq., who later became Lord Bridport, the representatives for the town of Bridgewater. It was ordered to be set aside. The response these gentlemen gave to their constituents regarding its reception in the House of Commons is noteworthy: "There did not seem," they state in their joint letter, "the slightest intention to give it any further consideration. Almost everyone says that ending the Slave Trade will immediately cause turmoil in the West Indian islands and soon lead to their total destruction. Therefore, they will not rely on Providence for protection for such a noble cause."
In the year 1786, Captain J.S. Smith, of the royal navy, offered himself to the notice of the public in behalf of the African cause. Mr. Ramsay, as I have observed before, had become involved in a controversy in consequence of his support of it. His opponents not only attacked his reputation, but had the effrontery to deny his facts. This circumstance occasioned Captain Smith to come forward. He wrote a letter to his friend Mr. Hill, in which he stated that he had seen those things, while in the West Indies, which Mr. Ramsay had asserted to exist, but which had been so boldly denied. He gave, also, permission to Mr. Hill to publish this letter. Too much praise cannot be bestowed on Captain Smith, for thus standing forth in a noble cause, and in behalf of an injured character.
In 1786, Captain J.S. Smith of the royal navy put himself forward to support the African cause. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Ramsay had gotten into a controversy due to his backing of it. His opponents not only attacked his reputation but also had the nerve to deny his facts. This prompted Captain Smith to come forward. He wrote a letter to his friend Mr. Hill, explaining that he had witnessed the things Mr. Ramsay claimed existed while he was in the West Indies, which had been boldly contested. He also gave Mr. Hill permission to publish this letter. Captain Smith deserves great praise for standing up for a noble cause and defending an injured reputation.
The last of the necessary forerunners and coadjutors of this class, whom I am to mention, was our much-admired poet, Cowper; and a great coadjutor he was, when we consider what value was put upon his sentiments, and the extraordinary circulation of his works. There are few persons who have not been properly impressed by the following lines:—
The final important precursor and supporter of this group that I need to mention is our highly respected poet, Cowper; and he was indeed a significant supporter, especially when we think about how much people valued his thoughts and the remarkable reach of his works. Few people haven't been deeply moved by the following lines:—
My soul is sick with every day's report,
Of wrong and outrage with which earth is fill'd.
There is no flesh in man's obdurate heart,
It does not feel for man. The natural bond
Of brotherhood is sever'd as the flax
That falls asunder at the touch of fire.
He finds his fellow guilty of a skin
Not colour'd like his own, and having power
To inforce the wrong, for such a worthy cause
Dooms and devotes him as his lawful prey.
Lands intersected by a narrow frith
Abhor each other. Mountains interpos'd,
Make enemies of nations, who had else,
Like kindred drops been mingled into one.
Thus man devotes his brother, and destroys;
And, worse than all, and most to be deplored
As human Nature's broadest, foulest blot,—
Chains him, and tasks him, and exacts his sweat
With stripes, that Mercy with a bleeding heart
Weeps, when she sees inflicted on a beast.
Then what is man? And what man, seeing this,
And having human feelings, does not blush
And hang his head to think himself a man?
I would not have a slave to till my ground,
To carry me, to fan me while I sleep,
And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth
That sinews bought and sold have ever earn'd.
No: dear as freedom is,—and in my heart's
Just estimation prized above all price,—
I had much rather be myself the slave,
And wear the bonds, than fasten them on him.
We have no slaves at home—then why abroad?
And they themselves once ferried o'er the wave
That parts us, are emancipate and loos'd.
Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
Receive our air, that moment they are free;
They touch our country, and their shackles fallA.
That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it, then,
And let it circulate through every vein
Of all your empire—that where Britain's power
Is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too.
CHAPTER IV.
—Second class of forerunners and coadjutors, up to May 1787, consists of the Quakers in England.—Of George Fox and others.—Of the body of the Quakers assembled at the yearly meeting in 1727; and at various other times.—Quakers, as a body, petition Parliament; and circulate books on the subject.—Individuals among them become labourers and associate in behalf of the Africans; Dilwyn, Harrison, and others.—This the first association ever formed in England for the purpose.
—The second group of forerunners and supporters, up to May 1787, includes the Quakers in England.—About George Fox and others.—About the group of Quakers who met at the yearly meeting in 1727 and at various other times.—The Quakers, as a group, petition Parliament and circulate books on the subject.—Individuals among them become activists and collaborate on behalf of the Africans; Dilwyn, Harrison, and others.—This was the first association ever formed in England for this purpose.
The second class of the forerunners and coadjutors in this great cause, up to May 1787, will consist of the Quakers in England.
The second group of pioneers and supporters in this important cause, up to May 1787, will include the Quakers in England.
The first of this class was George Fox, the venerable founder of this benevolent society.
The first of this group was George Fox, the respected founder of this charitable organization.
George Fox was contemporary with Richard Baxter, being born not long after him, and dying much about the same time. Like him, he left his testimony against this wicked trade. When he was in the island of Barbados, in the year 1671, he delivered himself to those who attended his religious meetings in the following manner:—
George Fox lived at the same time as Richard Baxter, being born shortly after him and passing away around the same time. Like Baxter, he spoke out against this evil trade. While he was in Barbados in 1671, he addressed those who came to his religious meetings in the following way:—
"Consider with yourselves," says he, "if you were in the same condition as the poor Africans are—who came strangers to you, and were sold to you as slaves—I say, if this should be the condition of you or yours, you would think it a hard measure; yea, and very great bondage and cruelty. And, therefore, consider seriously of this; and do you for them and to them, as you would willingly have them, or any others, do unto you, were you in the like slavish condition, and bring them to know the Lord Christ." And in his Journal, speaking of the advice which he gave his friends at Barbados, he says, "I desired also that they would cause their overseers to deal mildly and gently with their negroes, and not to use cruelty towards them, as the manner of some had been, and that after certain years of servitude they should make them free."
"Think about this," he says, "if you found yourselves in the same situation as the poor Africans—who came to you as strangers and were sold into slavery—if that were your situation, or that of your loved ones, you would see it as a terrible hardship; indeed, as severe oppression and cruelty. So, take this seriously; treat them as you would want to be treated if you were in the same enslaved position, and help them come to know the Lord Christ." In his Journal, while discussing the advice he gave his friends in Barbados, he writes, "I also asked them to ensure their overseers treated their workers kindly and gently, and not to be cruel as some had done, and that after a certain number of years of service, they should be freed."
William Edmundson, who was a minister of the society, and, indeed, a fellow-traveller with George Fox, had the boldness in the same island to deliver his sentiments to the governor on the same subject. Having been brought before him and accused of making the Africans Christians, or, in other words, of making them rebel and destroy their owners, he replied, "That it was a good thing to bring them to the knowledge of God and Christ Jesus, and to believe in him who died for them and all men, and that this would keep them from rebelling, or cutting any person's throat; but if they did rebel and cut their throats, as the governor insinuated they would, it would be their own doing, in keeping them in ignorance and under oppression, in giving them liberty to be common with women like brutes, and, on the other hand, in starving them for want of meat and clothes convenient; thus, giving them liberty in that which God restrained, and restraining them in that which was meat and clothing."
William Edmundson, a minister in the community and a companion of George Fox, had the courage to share his views with the governor on the same island. When he was brought before the governor and accused of converting Africans to Christianity, or in other words, inciting them to rebel and harm their owners, he responded, "It’s a good thing to help them know God and Christ Jesus, and to believe in Him who died for them and for everyone. This belief would prevent them from rebelling or harming anyone. However, if they did rebel and hurt others, as you suggest, it would be their own fault for keeping them in ignorance and under oppression. They’ve been allowed to behave like animals with women, while at the same time being deprived of adequate food and clothing. This actually gives them the freedom to engage in what God forbids, while restricting them from the basic needs of food and clothing."
I do not find any individual of this society moving in this cause, for some time after the death of George Fox and William Edmundson. The first circumstance of moment which I discover, is a resolution of the whole Society on the subject, at their yearly meeting, held in London in the year 1727. The resolution was contained in the following words:—"It is the sense of this meeting, that the importing of negroes from their native country and relations by Friends is not a commendable nor allowed practice, and is, therefore, censured by this meeting."
I don't see anyone in this community taking action on this issue for some time after the deaths of George Fox and William Edmundson. The first significant event I note is a decision made by the entire Society at their annual meeting in London in 1727. The decision was stated in these words:—"This meeting believes that the importation of enslaved people from their homeland and families by Friends is not an admirable or acceptable practice and is therefore disapproved by this meeting."
In the year 1758, the Quakers thought it their duty, as a body, to pass another resolution upon this subject. At this, time the nature of the trade beginning to be better known, we find them more animated upon it, as the following extract will show:—
In 1758, the Quakers felt it was their responsibility, as a group, to adopt another resolution on this issue. As the understanding of the trade began to improve, they became more passionate about it, as the following excerpt will demonstrate:—
"We fervently warn all in profession with us, that they carefully avoid being any way concerned in reaping the unrighteous profits, arising from the iniquitous practice of dealing in negro or other slaves; whereby, in the original purchase, one man selleth another, as he doth the beasts that perish, without any better pretension to a property in him than that of superior force; in direct violation of the Gospel rule, which teacheth all to do as they would be done by, and to do good to all; being the reverse of that covetous disposition, which furnisheth encouragement to those poor ignorant people to perpetuate their savage wars, in order to supply the demands of this most unnatural traffic, by which great numbers of mankind, free by nature, are subject to inextricable bondage, and which hath often been observed to fill their possessors with haughtiness, tyranny, luxury, and barbarity, corrupting the minds and debasing the morals of their children, to the unspeakable prejudice of religion and virtue, and the exclusion of that holy spirit of universal love, meekness, and charity, which is the unchangeable nature and the glory of true Christianity. We, therefore, can do no less, than, with the greatest earnestness, impress it upon Friends everywhere, that they endeavour to keep their hands clear of this unrighteous gain of oppression."
"We strongly urge everyone in our profession to carefully avoid being involved in the unjust profits that come from the immoral practice of trading in Black people or other slaves; where, in the original purchase, one person sells another, just like one would sell animals that perish, without any legitimate claim to ownership other than brute strength; this is a direct violation of the Gospel principle, which teaches everyone to treat others as they wish to be treated and to do good to all; this is the opposite of the greedy mindset that encourages those poor, ignorant people to continue their brutal wars to meet the demands of this inhumane trade, through which many people, who are naturally free, are forced into unbreakable bondage, and it has often been noted that it fills their owners with arrogance, cruelty, excess, and savagery, corrupting their minds and degrading the morals of their children, to the unspeakable harm of religion and virtue, and excludes that holy spirit of universal love, humility, and compassion, which is the unchanging essence and glory of true Christianity. Therefore, we must earnestly stress to Friends everywhere that they strive to keep their hands clean of this unjust gain from oppression."
The Quakers hitherto, as appears by the two resolutions which have been quoted, did nothing more than seriously warn all those in religious profession with them against being concerned in this trade. But in three years afterwards, or at the yearly meeting in 1761, they came to a resolution, as we find by the following extract from their minutes, that any of their members haying a concern in it should be disowned:—"This meeting having reason to apprehend that divers under our name, are concerned in the unchristian traffic in negroes, doth recommend it earnestly to the care of Friends everywhere, to discourage, as much as in them lies, a practice so repugnant to our Christian profession; and to deal with all such as shall persevere in a conduct so reproachful to Christianity; and to disown them, if they desist not therefrom."
The Quakers, as shown by the two resolutions quoted, only seriously warned everyone in their religious community against being involved in this trade. However, three years later, at the yearly meeting in 1761, they came to a decision, as we see in the following excerpt from their minutes, that any of their members involved in it should be disowned:—"This meeting has reason to believe that some under our name are involved in the unchristian trade of enslaving Africans. Therefore, we strongly encourage Friends everywhere to discourage this practice, as much as possible, as it goes against our Christian beliefs; and to address anyone who continues to act in a manner that brings shame to Christianity; and to disown them if they don’t stop."
The yearly meeting of 1761, having thus agreed to exclude from membership such as should be found concerned in this trade, that of 1763 endeavoured to draw the cords, still tighter, by attaching criminality to those who should aid and abet the trade in any manner. By the minute, which was made on this occasion, I apprehend that no one belonging to the Society could furnish even materials for such voyages. "We renew our exhortation, that Friends everywhere be especially careful to keep their hands clear of giving encouragement in any shape to the Slave Trade, it being evidently destructive of the natural rights of mankind, who are all ransomed by one Saviour, and visited by one divine light, in order to salvation; a traffic calculated to enrich and aggrandize some upon the misery of others; in its nature abhorrent to every just and tender sentiment, and contrary to the whole tenour of the Gospel."
The annual meeting of 1761 agreed to exclude from membership anyone involved in this trade. In 1763, they tried to tighten the rules even more by making it a crime to assist or support the trade in any way. According to the minutes from that meeting, no one in the Society could even provide materials for such voyages. "We renew our call for Friends everywhere to be especially careful to avoid giving any support to the Slave Trade, as it clearly violates the natural rights of all people, who are all redeemed by one Savior and illuminated by one divine light for salvation; a trade designed to enrich and empower some at the expense of others; fundamentally repugnant to every just and compassionate sentiment, and opposed to the entire message of the Gospel."
Some pleasing intelligence having been sent on this subject, by the Society in America to the Society in England, the yearly meeting of 1772 thought it their duty to notice it, and to keep their former resolutions alive by the following minute:—"It appears that the practice of holding negroes in oppressive and unnatural bondage hath been so successfully discouraged by Friends in some of the colonies, as to be considerably lessened. We cannot but approve of these salutary endeavours, and earnestly intreat that they may be continued, that through the favour of divine Providence a traffic, so unmerciful and unjust in its nature to a part of our own species made, equally with ourselves, for immortality, may come to be considered by all in its proper light, and be utterly abolished as a reproach to the Christian name."
Some good news has been communicated on this topic, from the Society in America to the Society in England, prompting the yearly meeting of 1772 to take note of it and reaffirm their previous resolutions with the following statement:—"It seems that the practice of keeping enslaved people in harsh and unnatural conditions has been effectively discouraged by Friends in some colonies, resulting in a significant reduction. We wholeheartedly support these positive efforts and strongly urge that they continue, so that, with the grace of divine Providence, a trade so cruel and unjust to a part of our own humanity, made equally with ourselves to aspire to immortality, may be viewed by all in its true light and be completely abolished as a disgrace to the Christian faith."
I must beg leave to stop here for a moment, just to pay the Quakers a due tribute of respect for the proper estimation, in which they have uniformly held the miserable outcasts of society, who have been the subject of these minutes. What a contrast does it afford to the sentiments of many others concerning them! How have we been compelled to prove by a long chain of evidence, that they had the same feelings and capacities as ourselves! How many, professing themselves enlightened, even now view them as of a different species! But in the minutes which have been cited we have seen them uniformly represented, as persons "ransomed by one and the same Saviour," "as visited by one and the same light for salvation," and "as made equally for immortality as others." These practical views of mankind, as they are highly honourable to the members of this Society, so they afford a proof both of the reality and of the consistency of their religion.
I need to pause for a moment to acknowledge the Quakers and the respect they've consistently shown for the unfortunate outcasts of society, who have been the focus of these discussions. What a stark contrast this presents to the views of many others about them! We’ve had to provide extensive evidence that they have the same feelings and abilities as the rest of us! How many people, claiming to be enlightened, still see them as a different kind of human! But in the notes we've referred to, they've always been described as individuals "redeemed by one and the same Savior," "visited by one and the same light for salvation," and "created for immortality just like everyone else." These practical perspectives on humanity not only honor the members of this Society but also demonstrate the authenticity and consistency of their faith.
But to return:—From this time, there appears to have been a growing desire in this benevolent society to step out of its ordinary course in behalf of this injured people. It had hitherto confined itself to the keeping of its own members unpolluted by any gain from their oppression. But it was now ready to make an appeal to others, and to bear a more public testimony in their favour. Accordingly, in the month of June, 1783, when a bill had been brought into the House of Commons for certain regulations to be made with respect to the African Trade, the society sent the following petition to that branch of the legislature:—
But to get back to the point:—From this time on, it seems there was a growing desire in this kind organization to step outside its usual activities on behalf of this wronged people. Until then, it had focused on keeping its own members free from any benefit gained from their oppression. But now, it was willing to reach out to others and publicly advocate for them. So, in June 1783, when a bill was introduced in the House of Commons to propose certain regulations regarding the African Trade, the organization sent the following petition to that branch of the legislature:—
"Your petitioners, met in this their annual assembly, having solemnly considered the state of the enslaved negroes, conceive themselves engaged, in religious duty, to lay the suffering situation of that unhappy people before you, as a subject loudly calling for the humane interposition of the legislature,
"Your petitioners, gathered in their annual assembly, have seriously reflected on the condition of enslaved Black individuals. They feel it is their moral obligation to bring the distressing circumstances of this unfortunate group to your attention, as it is an issue that urgently demands the compassionate intervention of the legislature."
"Your petitioners regret that a nation, professing the Christian faith, should so far counteract the principles of humanity and justice, as by the cruel treatment of this oppressed race to fill their minds with prejudices against the mild and beneficent doctrines of the gospel.
"Your petitioners are saddened that a nation claiming to follow the Christian faith would so completely undermine the principles of humanity and justice by treating this oppressed group cruelly, instilling in them prejudices against the gentle and charitable teachings of the gospel."
"Under the countenance of the laws of this country, many thousand of these our fellow-creatures, entitled to the natural rights of mankind, are held as personal property in cruel bondage; and your petitioners being informed that a Bill for the Regulation of the African Trade is now before the House, containing a clause which restrains the officers of the African Company from exporting negroes, your petitioners, deeply affected with a consideration of the rapine, oppression, and bloodshed, attending this traffic, humbly request that this restriction may be extended to all persons whomsoever, or that the House would grant such other relief in the premises as in its wisdom may seem meet."
"Under the laws of this country, many thousands of our fellow human beings, who are entitled to the natural rights of all people, are kept as personal property in cruel bondage. Your petitioners, having learned that a Bill for the Regulation of the African Trade is currently before the House, which includes a clause preventing the officers of the African Company from exporting enslaved people, sincerely request that this restriction be applied to everyone involved, or that the House provide any other relief it sees fit regarding this issue."
This petition was presented by Sir Cecil Wray, who, on introducing it, spoke very respectfully of the society. He declared his hearty approbation of their application, and said he hoped he should see the day when not a slave would remain within the dominions of this realm. Lord North seconded the motion, saying he could have no objection to the petition, and that its object ought to recommend it to every humane breast; that it did credit to the most benevolent society in the world; but that, the session, being so far advanced, the subject, could not then be taken into consideration; and he regretted that the Slave Trade, against which the petition was so justly directed, was in a commercial view become necessary to almost every nation of Europe. The petition was then brought up and read, after which it was ordered to lie on the table. This was the first petition (being two years earlier than that from the inhabitants of Bridgewater), which was ever presented to parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
This petition was presented by Sir Cecil Wray, who, while introducing it, spoke very respectfully about the society. He expressed his full support for their application and said he hoped to see the day when no slave would remain in this kingdom. Lord North seconded the motion, stating he had no objection to the petition and that its purpose should appeal to every kind-hearted person; that it was a credit to the most compassionate society in the world. However, since the session was already so far along, the issue could not be considered at that time. He lamented that the Slave Trade, which the petition addressed so rightfully, had become almost essential to nearly every European nation from a commercial standpoint. The petition was then brought forward and read, after which it was ordered to be set aside. This was the first petition (being two years earlier than the one from the residents of Bridgewater) ever presented to parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
But the society did not stop here; for having at the yearly meeting of 1783 particularly recommended the cause to a standing committee, appointed to act at intervals, called the Meeting for Sufferings, the latter in this same year resolved upon an address to the public, entitled, The Case of our Fellow-creatures, the oppressed Africans, respectfully recommended to the serious Consideration of the Legislature of Great Britain, by the People called Quakers: in which they endeavoured, in the most pathetic manner, to make the reader acquainted with the cruel nature of this trade; and they ordered 2000 copies of it to be printed.
But the society didn’t stop there; at the annual meeting of 1783, they especially urged a standing committee, called the Meeting for Sufferings, to take action from time to time. That same year, the committee decided to address the public with a document titled, The Case of our Fellow-creatures, the oppressed Africans, respectfully recommended to the serious Consideration of the Legislature of Great Britain, by the People called Quakers: in which they tried, in the most heartfelt way, to inform the reader about the brutal nature of this trade; and they ordered 2000 copies to be printed.
In the year 1784, they began the distribution of this case. The first copy was sent to the king through Lord Carmarthen, and the second and the third, through proper officers, to the queen and the Prince of Wales. Others were sent by a deputation of two members of the society to Mr. Pitt, as prime-minister; to the Lord Chancellor Thurlow; to Lord Gower, as president of the council; to Lords Carmarthen and Sidney, as secretaries of state; to Lord Chief-Justice Mansfield; to Lord Howe, as first lord of the Admiralty; and to C.F. Cornwall, Esq., as speaker of the House of Commons. Copies were sent also to every member of both houses of parliament.
In 1784, they started distributing this case. The first copy was sent to the king through Lord Carmarthen, and the second and third were sent to the queen and the Prince of Wales via the appropriate officials. Other copies were delivered by a delegation of two society members to Mr. Pitt, the prime minister; to Lord Chancellor Thurlow; to Lord Gower, the president of the council; to Lords Carmarthen and Sidney, the secretaries of state; to Lord Chief Justice Mansfield; to Lord Howe, the first lord of the Admiralty; and to C.F. Cornwall, Esq., the speaker of the House of Commons. Copies were also sent to every member of both houses of parliament.
The society, in the same year, anxious that the conduct of its members should be consistent with its public profession on this great subject, recommended it to the quarterly and monthly meetings to inquire through their respective districts, whether any, bearing its name, were in any way concerned in the traffic, and to deal with such, and to report the success of their labours in the ensuing year. Orders were also given for the reprinting and circulation of 10,000 other copies of The Case.
The society, in that same year, concerned that its members' behavior should align with its public stance on this important issue, urged the quarterly and monthly meetings to investigate within their local areas whether anyone associated with the society was involved in the trade, and to address those individuals, reporting back on the results of their efforts in the following year. They also ordered the reprinting and distribution of 10,000 additional copies of The Case.
In the year 1785, the society interested itself again in a similar manner. For the Meeting for Sufferings, as representing it, recommended to the quarterly meetings to distribute a work, written by Anthony Benezet, in America, called A Caution to Great Britain and her Colonies, in a short Representation of the calamitous State of the enslaved Negroes in the British Dominions. This book was accordingly forwarded to them for this purpose. On receiving it, they sent it among several public bodies, the regular and dissenting clergy, justices of the peace, and particularly among the great Schools of the kingdom, that the rising youth might acquire a knowledge, and at the same time a detestation, of this cruel traffic. In this latter base, a deputation of the society waited, upon the masters, to know if they would allow their scholars to receive it. The schools of Westminster, the Charter-house, St. Paul, Merchant-Taylors, Eton, Winchester, and Harrow, were among those visited. Several academies also were visited for this purpose.
In 1785, the society took an active interest once again. The Meeting for Sufferings, representing the society, recommended that the quarterly meetings distribute a book written by Anthony Benezet in America, titled A Caution to Great Britain and her Colonies, in a Short Representation of the Calamitous State of the Enslaved Negroes in the British Dominions. This book was sent to them for that purpose. Upon receiving it, they distributed it among various public bodies, including both regular and dissenting clergy, justices of the peace, and especially the major schools of the kingdom, so that young people would learn about and abhor this cruel trade. In this latter effort, a delegation from the society met with the school leaders to see if they would permit their students to receive the book. They visited schools such as Westminster, Charter-house, St. Paul's, Merchant-Taylors, Eton, Winchester, and Harrow, along with several other academies for this purpose.
But I must now take my leave of the Quakers as a public bodyA and go back to the year 1783, to record an event, which will be found of great importance in the present history, and in which only individuals belonging to the society were concerned. This event seems to have arisen naturally out of existing or past circumstances. For the society, as I have before stated, had sent a petition to parliament in this year, praying for the abolition, of the Slave Trade. It had also laid the foundation for a public distribution of the books as just mentioned, with a view of enlightening others on this great subject. The case of the ship Zong, which I have before had occasion to explain, had occurred this same year. A letter also had been presented, much about the same time, by Benjamin West, from Anthony Benezet, before mentioned, to our queen, in behalf of the injured Africans, which she had received graciously. These subjects occupied at this time the attention of many Quaker families, and among others, that of a few individuals, who were in close intimacy with each other. These, when they met together, frequently conversed upon them. They perceived, as facts came out in conversation, that there was a growing knowledge and hatred of the Slave Trade, and that the temper of the times was ripening towards its abolition. Hence a disposition manifested itself among these, to unite as labourers for the furtherance of so desirable an object. An union was at length proposed and approved of, and the following persons (placed in alphabetical order) came together to execute the offices growing out of it:—
But now I have to say goodbye to the Quakers as a public groupA and go back to the year 1783 to note an event that is very important in the history today, involving only individuals from the society. This event seems to have developed naturally from existing or past situations. As I mentioned before, the society had sent a petition to parliament that year, asking for the abolition of the Slave Trade. They had also set the groundwork for a public distribution of the books mentioned earlier, aiming to educate others on this significant issue. The case of the ship Zong, which I have previously explained, occurred in the same year. A letter was also presented around this time by Benjamin West from Anthony Benezet, mentioned earlier, to our queen, on behalf of the wronged Africans, which she received kindly. These topics captured the attention of many Quaker families at the time, including a few individuals who were close friends. When they gathered, they often discussed these issues. They noticed, as facts emerged in conversation, that there was an increasing awareness of and opposition to the Slave Trade, and that the mood of the times was shifting towards its abolition. This led to a desire among them to come together as advocates for such a worthy cause. Eventually, a union was proposed and accepted, and the following individuals (listed in alphabetical order) came together to take on the responsibilities arising from it:—
A: The Quakers, as a public body, kept the subject alive at their yearly meeting in 1784, 1785, 1787, &c.
A: The Quakers, as a group, continued to bring up the topic at their annual meetings in 1784, 1785, 1787, etc.
WILLIAM DILLWYN, | THOMAS KNOWLES, M.D. |
GEORGE HARRISON, | JOHN LLOYD, |
SAMUEL HOARE, | JOSEPH WOODS. |
The first meeting was held on the seventh of July, 1783. At this "they assembled to consider what steps they should take for the relief and liberation of the negro slaves in the West Indies, and for the discouragement of the Slave Trade on the coast of Africa."
The first meeting took place on July 7, 1783. At this meeting, they gathered to discuss what actions they should take to help free the enslaved people in the West Indies and to discourage the Slave Trade along the coast of Africa.
To promote this object; they conceived it necessary that the public mind should be enlightened respecting it. They had recourse; therefore, to the public papers, and they appointed their members in turn to write in these, and to see that their productions were inserted. They kept regular minutes for this purpose. It was not however known to the world that such an association existed.
To promote this idea, they thought it was important to inform the public about it. So, they turned to the newspapers and took turns having their members write articles to ensure their work was published. They kept regular records for this purpose. However, the world did not know that such an association existed.
It appears that they had several meetings in the course of this year. Before the close of it they had secured a place in the General Evening Post, in Lloyd's Evening Post, in the Norwich, Bath, York, Bristol, Sherborne, Liverpool, Newcastle, and other provincial papers, for such articles as they chose to send to them. These consisted principally of extracts from such authors, both in prose and verse, as they thought would most enlighten and interest the mind upon the subject of their institution.
It looks like they had several meetings this year. By the end of it, they had secured a spot in the General Evening Post, in Lloyd's Evening Post, and in various local papers like those from Norwich, Bath, York, Bristol, Sherborne, Liverpool, Newcastle, and others, for any articles they wanted to send. These mainly included excerpts from authors, both in prose and poetry, that they believed would best inform and engage people about their organization.
In the year 1784 they pursued the same plan; but they began now to print books. The first was from a manuscript composed by Joseph Woods, one of the committee; It was entitled, Thoughts on the Slavery of the Negroes. This manuscript was well put together. It was a manly and yet feeling address in behalf of the oppressed Africans. It contained a sober and dispassionate appeal to the reason of all, without offending the prejudices of any. It was distributed at the expense of the association, and proved to be highly useful to the cause which it was intended to promote.
In 1784, they followed the same plan, but this time they started printing books. The first one was based on a manuscript written by Joseph Woods, one of the committee members. It was titled, Thoughts on the Slavery of the Negroes. This manuscript was well-crafted. It was a strong yet heartfelt address for the oppressed Africans. It made a clear and rational appeal to everyone’s reasoning without upsetting anyone's biases. It was distributed at the association's expense and turned out to be very helpful for the cause it aimed to support.
A communication having been made to the committee, that Dr. Porteus, then Bishop of Chester, had preached a sermon before the society for the propagation of the gospel, in behalf of the injured Africans, (which sermon was noticed in the last chapter,) Samuel Hoare was deputed to obtain permission to publish it. This led him to a correspondence with Mr. Ramsay before mentioned. The latter applied in consequence to the bishop, and obtained his consent. Thus this valuable sermon was also given to the world.
A communication was sent to the committee informing them that Dr. Porteus, who was then Bishop of Chester, had delivered a sermon for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel on behalf of the wronged Africans (which sermon was mentioned in the last chapter). Samuel Hoare was assigned to get permission to publish it. This led him to correspond with Mr. Ramsay, as mentioned earlier. Ramsay subsequently reached out to the bishop and got his approval. As a result, this important sermon was also shared with the public.
In the year 1785, the association continued their exertions as before; but I have no room to specify them. I may observe, however, that David Barclay, a grandson of the great apologist of that name, assisted at one of their meetings, and (what is singular) that he was in a few years afterwards unexpectedly called to a trial of his principles on this very subject. For he and his brother John became, in consequence of a debt due to them, possessed of a large grazing farm, or pen, in Jamaica, which had thirty-two slaves upon it. Convinced, however, that the retaining of their fellow-creatures in bondage was not only irreconcilable with the principles of Christianity, but subversive of the rights of human nature, they determined upon the emancipation of these. And theyA performed this generous office to the satisfaction of their minds, to the honour of their characters, to the benefit of the public, and to the happiness of the slaveB. I mention this anecdote, not only to gratify myself, by paying a proper respect to those generous persons who sacrificed their interest to principle, but also to show the sincerity of David Barclay, (who is now the only surviving brother,) as he actually put in practice what at one of these meetings he was desirous of recommending to others.
In 1785, the group kept up their efforts as before, but I don’t have the space to go into detail about them. I will note, though, that David Barclay, a grandson of the famous apologist by the same name, attended one of their meetings. Interestingly, a few years later, he was unexpectedly faced with a test of his beliefs on this very issue. He and his brother John found themselves owning a large grazing farm in Jamaica due to a debt owed to them, which included thirty-two slaves. However, they believed that keeping their fellow human beings in bondage was not only against Christian principles but also violated basic human rights. So, they decided to emancipate them. They performed this noble act to the satisfaction of their own conscience, to the credit of their reputation, to the public's benefit, and to the happiness of the slaves. I share this story not only to honor those generous individuals who prioritized principles over their own interests but also to highlight the sincerity of David Barclay, the only surviving brother, as he truly practiced what he sought to encourage at those meetings.
A: They engaged an agent to embark for Jamaica in 1796 to effect this business, and had the slaves conveyed to Philadelphia, where they were kindly received by the Society for improving the Condition of free Black people. Suitable situations were found for the adults, and the young ones were bound out apprentices to handicraft trades, and to receive school learning.
A: They hired an agent to go to Jamaica in 1796 to handle this matter, and brought the slaves to Philadelphia, where they were warmly welcomed by the Society for Improving the Condition of Free Black People. Appropriate jobs were found for the adults, and the young ones were apprenticed to skilled trades and given a chance for an education.
B: James Pemberton, of Philadelphia, made the following observation in a letter to a Friend in England:—"David Barclay's humane views towards the Blacks from Jamaica have been so far realized, that these objects of his concern enjoy their freedom with comfort to themselves, and are respectable in their characters, keeping up a friendly intercourse with each other, and avoiding to intermix with the common Blacks of this city, being sober in their conduct and industrious in their business."
B: James Pemberton, of Philadelphia, wrote the following in a letter to a friend in England:—"David Barclay's compassionate views towards the Blacks from Jamaica have been largely achieved, as these individuals benefit from their freedom, live comfortably, and are respected in their communities. They maintain friendly relationships with one another and choose not to mix with the common Blacks of this city, demonstrating sobriety in their behavior and diligence in their work."
Having now brought up the proceedings of this little association towards the year 1786, I shall take my leave of it, remarking, that it was the first ever formed in England for the promotion of the abolition of the Slave Trade. That Quakers have had this honour is unquestionable. Nor is it extraordinary that they should have taken the lead on this occasion, when we consider how advantageously they have been situated for so doing. For the Slave Trade, as we have not long ago seen, came within the discipline of the society in the year 1727. From thence it continued to be an object of it till 1783. In 1783 the society petitioned parliament, and in 1784 it distributed books to enlighten the public concerning it. Thus we see that every Quaker, born since the year 1727, was nourished as it were in a fixed hatred against it. He was taught, that any concern in it was a crime of the deepest dye. He was taught, that the bearing of his testimony against it was a test of unity with those of the same religious profession. The discipline of the Quakers was therefore a school for bringing them up as advocates for the abolition of this trade. To this it may be added, that the Quakers knew more about the trade and the slavery of the Africans, than any other religious body of men, who had not been in the land of their sufferings. For there had been a correspondence between the society in America and that in England on the subject, the contents of which must have been known to the members of each. American ministers also were frequently crossing the Atlantic on religious missions to England. These, when they travelled through various parts of our island, frequently related to the Quaker families in their way the cruelties they had seen and heard of in their own country. English ministers were also frequently going over to America on the same religious errand. These, on their return, seldom failed to communicate what they had learned or observed, but more particularly relative to the oppressed Africans, in their travels. The journals also of these, which gave occasional accounts of the sufferings of the slaves, were frequently published. Thus situated in point of knowledge, and brought up moreover from their youth in a detestation of the trade, the Quakers were ready to act whenever a favourable opportunity should present itself.
Having now discussed the activities of this small group around the year 1786, I’ll take my leave by noting that it was the first organization formed in England to promote the abolition of the Slave Trade. It’s clear that the Quakers were the ones to take on this honor. It’s not surprising they led the way, given how well-positioned they were to do so. The Slave Trade became a focus for the society in 1727, and this continued until 1783. In 1783, the society petitioned Parliament, and in 1784, it distributed books to educate the public about it. This means that every Quaker born since 1727 was raised with a deep-seated hatred for it. They were taught that any involvement in it was a serious crime and that standing against it was a way to show unity with others of the same faith. The Quaker discipline thus acted as a training ground for them to become advocates for abolishing this trade. Additionally, the Quakers were more informed about the trade and the enslavement of Africans than any other religious group that hadn’t experienced the suffering firsthand. There was communication between the society in America and England about the matter, and the details would have been known among their members. American ministers regularly crossed the Atlantic on religious missions to England. When they traveled across different parts of our island, they often shared with Quaker families the brutalities they had witnessed in their own country. Similarly, English ministers often traveled to America for the same religious reasons and would usually share what they learned or observed, especially regarding the oppressed Africans, upon their return. Furthermore, the journals of these ministers, which sometimes reported on the suffering of slaves, were often published. In this context of knowledge and having been raised with a strong aversion to the trade, the Quakers were prepared to act whenever the right opportunity arose.
CHAPTER V.
Third class of forerunners and coadjutors, up to 1787, consists of the Quakers and others in America.—Yearly meeting for Pennsylvania and the Jerseys takes up the subject in 1696; and continue it till 1787.—Other five yearly meetings take similar measures.—Quakers, as individuals, also become labourers; William Burling and others.—Individuals of other religious denominations take up the cause also; Judge Sewell and others.—Union of the Quakers with others in a society for Pennsylvania, in 1774; James Pemberton; Dr. Rush.—Similar union of the Quakers with others for New York and other provinces.
The third group of forerunners and supporters, up to 1787, includes the Quakers and others in America. The Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania and New Jersey addresses the issue in 1696 and continues doing so until 1787. The other five Yearly Meetings take similar actions. Quakers, as individuals, also engage in the work, including William Burling and others. People from other religious groups join the cause too, like Judge Sewell and others. In 1774, the Quakers form a union with others in a society for Pennsylvania, including James Pemberton and Dr. Rush. A similar union of Quakers occurs with others for New York and other provinces.
The next class of the forerunners and coadjutors, up to the year 1787, will consist, first, of the Quakers in America; and then of others, as they were united to these for the same object.
The next group of forerunners and helpers, up to the year 1787, will include, first, the Quakers in America; and then others who joined them for the same cause.
It may be asked, How the Quakers living there should have become forerunners and coadjutors in the great work now under our consideration. I reply, first, that it was an object for many years with these to do away the Slave Trade as it was carried on in their own ports. But this trade was conducted in part, both before and after the independence of America, by our own countrymen. It was, secondly, an object with these to annihilate slavery in America; and this they have been instruments in accomplishing to a considerable extent. But any abolition of slavery within given boundaries must be a blow to the Slave Trade there. The American Quakers, lastly, living in a land where both the commerce and slavery existed, were in the way of obtaining a number of important facts relative to both, which made for their annihilation; and communicating many of these facts to those in England, who espoused the same cause, they became fellow-labourers with these in producing the event in question.
It might be asked how the Quakers living there became pioneers and supporters in the significant work we're discussing. I respond that, firstly, for many years, they aimed to end the Slave Trade as it operated in their own ports. However, this trade was partly run by our own countrymen before and after America's independence. Secondly, they sought to eliminate slavery in America, and they have played a significant role in achieving this. Any effort to abolish slavery within specific boundaries also strikes a blow to the Slave Trade in that area. Lastly, the American Quakers, living in a place where both commerce and slavery thrived, were in a position to gather many important facts about both, which favored their abolition. By sharing many of these facts with those in England who supported the same cause, they became partners in the effort to bring about the discussed change.
The Quakers in America, it must be owned, did most of them originally as other settlers there with respect to the purchase of slaves. They had lands without a sufficient number of labourers, and families without a sufficient number of servants, for their work. Africans were poured in to obviate these difficulties, and these were bought promiscuously by all. In these days, indeed, the purchase of them was deemed favourable to both parties, for there was little or no knowledge of the manner in which they had been procured as slaves. There was no charge of inconsistency on this account, as in later times. But though many of the Quakers engaged, without their usual consideration, in purchases of this kind, yet those constitutional principles, which belong to the society, occasioned the members of it in general to treat those whom they purchased with great tenderness, considering them, though of a different colour, as brethren, and as persons for whose spiritual welfare it became them to be concerned; so that slavery, except as to the power legally belonging to it, was in general little more than servitude in their hands.
The Quakers in America, it has to be acknowledged, initially engaged in the purchase of slaves much like other settlers. They had land without enough laborers and families without enough servants for their needs. Africans were brought in to solve these issues, and they were bought indiscriminately by everyone. Back then, buying them was seen as beneficial for both sides, as there was little understanding of how they had been acquired as slaves. There were no accusations of hypocrisy for this, unlike in later times. Although many Quakers participated in these purchases without their usual care, their core principles led them to treat those they bought with great compassion, viewing them, despite their different skin color, as brothers and individuals whose spiritual well-being they should care about. Thus, slavery, aside from the legal power associated with it, was typically little more than servitude in their eyes.
This treatment, as it was thus mild on the continent of America where the members of this society were the owners of slaves, so it was equally mild in The West India Islands where they had a similar property. In the latter countries, however, where only a few of them lived, it began soon to be productive of serious consequences; for it was so different from that which the rest of the inhabitants considered to be proper, that the latter became alarmed at it. Hence in Barbados an act was passed in 1676, under Governor Atkins, which was entitled, An Act to prevent the people called Quakers from bringing their Negroes into their meetings for worship, though they held these in their own houses. This act was founded on the pretence, that the safety of the island might be endangered, if the slaves were to imbibe the religious principles of their masters. Under this act Ralph Fretwell and Richard Sutton were fined in the different sums of eight hundred and of three hundred pounds, because each of them had suffered a meeting of the Quakers at his own house, at the first of which eighty negroes, and at the second of which thirty of them were present. But this matter was carried still further; for in 1680, Sir Richard Dutton, then governor of the island, issued an order to the Deputy Provost Marshal and others, to prohibit all meetings of this society. In the island of Nevis the same bad spirit manifested itself. So early as in 1661, a law was made there prohibiting members of this society from coming on shore. Negroes were put in irons for being present at their meetings, and they themselves were fined also. At length, in 1677, another act was passed, laying a heavy penalty on every master of a vessel who should even bring a Quaker to the island. In Antigua and Bermudas similar proceedings took place, so that the Quakers were in time expelled from this part of the world. By these means a valuable body of men were lost to the community in these islands, whose example might have been highly useful; and the poor slave, who saw nothing but misery in his temporal prospects, was deprived of the only balm which could have soothed his sorrow—the comfort of religion.
This treatment was as mild in America, where the members of this society owned slaves, as it was in the West Indies, where they had similar properties. However, in those islands, where only a few lived, it soon led to serious consequences; it was so different from what the other inhabitants considered proper that they became alarmed. Consequently, in Barbados, an act was passed in 1676 under Governor Atkins, titled "An Act to Prevent the People Called Quakers from Bringing Their Negroes into Their Meetings for Worship," even though they held these in their own homes. This act was based on the idea that the safety of the island could be threatened if slaves were to adopt the religious beliefs of their masters. Under this act, Ralph Fretwell and Richard Sutton were fined various amounts of eight hundred and three hundred pounds because each of them had hosted a Quaker meeting at his house, with eighty and thirty slaves attending, respectively. The situation escalated further, as in 1680, Sir Richard Dutton, the island’s governor, ordered the Deputy Provost Marshal and others to prohibit all meetings of this society. The same negative sentiment appeared in Nevis; as early as 1661, a law was enacted there banning members of this society from coming ashore. Slaves were put in chains for attending their meetings, and the members themselves were fined as well. Eventually, in 1677, another law was passed imposing heavy penalties on any ship captain who brought a Quaker to the island. Similar actions took place in Antigua and Bermuda, leading to the expulsion of the Quakers from this region. Through these measures, a valuable group of individuals was lost to the community in these islands, whose example could have been highly beneficial; and the poor slave, seeing nothing but misery in his future, was denied the only comfort that could ease his sorrow—the solace of faith.
But to return to the continent of America. Though the treatment which the Quakers adopted there towards those Africans who fell into their hands, was so highly commendable, it did not prevent individuals among them from becoming uneasy about holding them in slavery at all. Some of these bore their private testimony against it from the beginning as a wrong practice, and in process of time brought it before the notice of their brethren as a religious body. So early as in the year 1688, some emigrants from Krieshiem in Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and followed him into Pennsylvania, urged, in the yearly meeting of the society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian religion.
But let's go back to the continent of America. Even though the way the Quakers treated the Africans who came into their care was very commendable, it didn't stop some individuals among them from feeling uneasy about owning slaves at all. Some of these people openly spoke against it from the start as a wrong practice, and over time, they brought it to the attention of their community as a religious group. As early as 1688, some immigrants from Krieshiem in Germany, who had embraced the ideas of William Penn and followed him to Pennsylvania, brought up at the yearly meeting of the society there the contradiction of buying, selling, and owning people as slaves with the principles of the Christian faith.
In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that province took up the subject as a public concern, and the result was, advice to the members of it to guard against future-importations of African slaves, and to be particularly attentive to the treatment of those who were then in their possession.
In 1696, the annual meeting for that province addressed the issue as a public matter, and the outcome was advice to its members to prevent future importations of African slaves and to pay special attention to the treatment of those they currently had.
In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice which had been before given.
In 1711, the same annual meeting revisited the important subject and reaffirmed the advice that had been previously given.
From this time it continued to keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that though individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued the custom, and in greater numbers than it was apprehended would have been the case after the public declarations which had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore it issued, in the same year, the following pertinent letter to all the members within its jurisdiction:—
From this point on, the issue stayed relevant; however, after realizing that, even though some people refused to buy slaves, others still participated in the practice and in larger numbers than expected after the public statements made, it decided in 1754 to publish its views more thoroughly and seriously. So, in that same year, it sent out the following important letter to all its members:—
Dear Friends,
It hath frequently been the concern of our yearly meeting to testify their uneasiness and disunity with the importation and purchasing of negroes and other slaves, and to direct the overseers of the several meetings to advise and deal with such as engage therein. And it hath likewise been the continual care of many weighty friends to press those who bear our name, to guard, as much as possible, against being in any respect concerned in promoting the bondage of such unhappy people. Yet, as we have with sorrow to observe, that their number is of late increased among us, we have thought it proper to make our advice and judgment more public, that none may plead ignorance of our principles therein; and also again earnestly to exhort all to avoid, in any manner, encouraging that practice of making slaves of our fellow-creatures.
Now, dear friends, if we continually bear in mind the royal law of doing to others as we would be done by, we should never think of bereaving our fellow-creatures of that valuable blessing—liberty, nor endure to grow rich by their bondage. To live in ease and plenty by the toil of those whom violence and cruelty have put in our power, is neither consistent with Christianity nor common justice; and, we have good reason to believe, draws down the displeasure of Heaven; it being a melancholy but true reflection, that, where slave-keeping prevails, pure religion and sobriety decline, as it evidently tends to harden the heart, and render the soul less susceptible of that holy spirit of love, meekness and charity, which is the peculiar characteristic of a true Christian.
How then can we, who have been concerned to publish the Gospel of universal love and peace among mankind, be so inconsistent with ourselves, as to purchase such as are prisoners of war, and thereby encourage, this anti-Christian practice; and more especially as many of these poor creatures are stolen away, parents from children, and children from parents; and others, who were in good circumstances in their native country, inhumanly torn from what they esteemed a happy situation, and compelled to toil in a state of slavery, too often extremely cruel!
What dreadful scenes of murder and cruelty those barbarous ravages must occasion in these unhappy people's country are too obvious to mention. Let us make their case our own, and consider what we should think, and how we should feel, were we in their circumstances. Remember our blessed Redeemer's positive command—to do unto others as we would have them do unto us;—and that with what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us again. And we intreat you to examine, whether the purchasing of a negro, either born here or imported, doth not contribute to a further importation, and, consequently, to the upholding of all the evils above mentioned, and to the promoting of man-stealing, the, only theft which by the Mosaic law was punished with death;—He that stealeth a man and selleth him or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.'
The characteristic and badge of a true Christian is love and continual exercise of them: 'Love one, another,' says he, 'as I have loved you.' But how can we be said to love our brethren who bring, or, for selfish ends, keep them in bondage? Do we act consistently with this noble principle, who lay such heavy burdens on our fellow creatures? Do we consider that they are called and do we sincerely desire that they may become heirs with us in glory, and that they may rejoice in the liberty of the sons of God, whilst we are withholding from them the common liberties of mankind? Or can the spirit of God, by which we have always professed to be led, be the author of these oppressive and unrighteous measures? Or do we not thereby manifest, that temporal interest hath more influence on our conduct herein, than the dictates of that merciful, holy, and unerring Guide?
And we, likewise, earnestly recommend to all who have slaves, to be careful to come up in the performance of their duty towards them, and to be particularly watchful over their own hearts, it being, by sorrowful experience, remarkable that custom and a familiarity with evil of any kind, have a tendency to bias the judgment and to deprave the mind; and it is obvious, that the future welfare of these poor slaves, who are now in bondage, is generally too much disregarded by those who keep them. If their daily task of labour be but fulfilled, little else, perhaps, is thought of: nay, even that which in others would be looked upon with horror and detestation, is little regarded in them by their masters; such as the frequent separation of husbands from wives, and wives from husbands, whereby they are tempted to break their marriage covenants, and live in adultery, in direct opposition to the laws of God and men, although we believe that Christ died for all men without respect of persons. How fearful then ought we to be of engaging in what hath so natural a tendency to lesson our humanity, and of suffering ourselves to be inured to the exercise of hard and cruel measures, lest thereby, in any degree, we lose our tender and feeling sense of the miseries of our fellow-creatures, and become worse than those who have not believed.
And, dear friends, you, who by inheritance have slaves born in your families, we beseech you to consider them as souls committed to your trust, whom the Lord will require at your hand, and who, as well as you, are made partakers of the Spirit of grace, and called to be heirs of salvation. And let it be your constant care to watch over them for good, instructing them in the fear of God and the knowledge of the Gospel of Christ, that they may answer the end of their creation, and that God may be glorified and honoured by them, as well as by us. And so train them up, that if you should come to behold their unhappy situation, in the same light that many worthy men who are at rest have done, and many of your brethren now do, and should think it your duty to set them free, they may be the more capable of making proper use of their liberty.
Finally, brethren, we intreat you, in the bowels of Gospel-love, seriously to weigh the Cause of detaining them in bondage. If it be for your own private gain, or any other motive than their good, it is much to be feared that the love of God, and the influence of the Holy Spirit, are not the prevailing principles in you, and that your hearts are not sufficiently redeemed from the world, which, that you with ourselves may more and more come to witness, through the cleansing virtue of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, is our earnest desire. With the salutation of our love we are your friends and brethren:—
"Signed, in behalf of the yearly meeting, by
JOHN EVANS, ABRAHAM FARRINGDON, JOHN SMITH, JOSEPH NOBLE, THOMAS CARLETON, JAMES DANIEL, WILLIAM TRIMBLE, JOSEPH GIBSON, JOHN SCARBOROUGH, JOHN SHOTWELL, JOSEPH HAMPTON, JOSEPH PARKER."
Dear Friends,
Every year, we discuss our discomfort and disagreement with the buying and importation of enslaved people, and we ask the overseers of our meetings to talk to anyone involved in these actions. Many respected members consistently encourage those who share our values to do everything possible to avoid participating in the oppression of these unfortunate individuals. However, we’ve sadly noticed an increase in their numbers among us, so we feel it’s important to make our advice and views more public. This way, no one can claim ignorance of our principles; we also strongly urge everyone to refrain from supporting the practice of enslaving our fellow human beings.
If we constantly remember the fundamental principle of treating others as we wish to be treated, we should never consider taking away the precious gift of freedom from others, nor should we tolerate gaining wealth through their oppression. Living comfortably and abundantly off the labor of those made vulnerable by violence and cruelty goes against Christian values and basic justice; moreover, we believe it draws disapproval from above. It’s a sad but undeniable truth that where slavery exists, true religion and self-control diminish, hardening hearts and making souls less receptive to that holy spirit of love, gentleness, and kindness, which defines a genuine Christian.
How can we, who focus on spreading the Gospel of universal love and peace, be so contradictory as to buy those who are prisoners of war, thus encouraging this anti-Christian practice? Especially when many of these poor individuals are taken from their families—parents from their children and children from their parents. Others, who were living well in their home countries, are inhumanely ripped away from their happy lives and forced to work in extremely cruel conditions!
The horrific acts of murder and cruelty those brutal attacks cause in these unfortunate people's countries are too obvious to ignore. Let’s empathize with their situation and consider how we would feel and react if we were in their shoes. Remember our blessed Redeemer's clear command—to treat others as we want to be treated;—and that with the measure we give, it will be measured back to us. We urge you to reflect on whether buying a Black person, whether born here or imported, contributes to further importation and, consequently, supports all the aforementioned evils and encourages man-stealing—the only form of theft punished with death by Mosaic law: "He that steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his possession, he shall surely be put to death."
The main quality and symbol of a true Christian is love and its ongoing practice: 'Love one another,' He says, 'as I have loved you.' But how can we claim to love our brothers and sisters while either bringing them into bondage or keeping them there for selfish reasons? Are we living up to this noble principle when we impose heavy burdens on our fellow beings? Do we recognize that they are also called, and do we truly want them to be heirs with us in glory and enjoy the freedom of God's children, while denying them basic human rights? Can the Spirit of God, whom we always say we follow, really support these oppressive and unjust actions? Or do we reveal that our temporary interests matter more to us than the guidance of that merciful, holy, and infallible Guide?
We also strongly urge everyone who owns slaves to be mindful of their responsibilities toward them and to pay special attention to their feelings. Sadly, it’s clear from experience that becoming accustomed to any kind of wrongdoing can cloud judgment and corrupt the mind. It’s obvious that the future well-being of these poor slaves in bondage is often overlooked by their owners. If their daily tasks are simply completed, not much else is considered. Indeed, behaviors that would be deemed horrifying in other contexts are often ignored in their treatment by masters, like the frequent separation of husbands and wives, which tempts them to break their marriage vows and live in adultery, contradicting both divine and human laws, even though we believe that Christ died for everyone without favoritism. How fearful, then, should we be of engaging in practices that naturally tend to diminish our humanity and allow ourselves to become accustomed to harsh and cruel behaviors, lest we lose our compassion for others’ suffering and become worse than those who do not believe.
And, dear friends, to those of you who have inherited slaves born into your families, we urge you to see them as souls entrusted to you, for whom the Lord will hold you accountable, and who, like you, share in the Spirit of grace and are called to be heirs of salvation. Make it your ongoing responsibility to care for them, teaching them to respect God and understand the Gospel of Christ, so they can fulfill their purpose, and that God may be glorified and honored by them, just as He is by us. Train them well so that if you ever witness their unfortunate situation, as many respected individuals in the past have done and many of your peers currently do, and you feel responsible to set them free, they will be better prepared to make good use of their freedom.
Finally, friends, we urge you, in the spirit of Gospel love, to seriously assess your reasons for keeping them in bondage. If it's for your personal gain or for any reason other than their well-being, it's concerning that the love of God and the influence of the Holy Spirit aren’t guiding you, and that your hearts aren’t fully freed from worldly concerns. Our sincere desire is that we all come to witness more and more of this through the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ. With our heartfelt love, we remain your friends and brothers:—
"Signed, on behalf of the yearly meeting, by
JOHN EVANS, ABRAHAM FARRINGDON, JOHN SMITH, JOSEPH NOBLE, THOMAS CARLETON, JAMES DANIEL, WILLIAM TRIMBLE, JOSEPH GIBSON, JOHN SCARBOROUGH, JOHN SHOTWELL, JOSEPH HAMPTON, JOSEPH PARKER."
This truly Christian letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of the society better known and attended to on the subject of the Slave Trade. It contains, as we see, exhortations to all the members within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their condition. But that the first part of the subject of this exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of it, that "these might treat with them, as they might be directed in the wisdom of truth."
This heartfelt Christian letter, written in 1754, aimed to raise awareness about the society's views on the Slave Trade. It includes calls to all members of the yearly meeting in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys to stop buying and importing slaves and to show compassion for those they already owned. To emphasize the importance of this message, the yearly meeting for those provinces decided in 1755 that if any member bought or imported slaves, the overseers should notify their monthly meetings so that "these might address them, as guided by the wisdom of truth."
In the year 1774, we find the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject. By the preceding resolution they who became offenders, were subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline, and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary occasions of the Society; but, by the resolution of the present year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing, giving, or transferring negro or other slaves, or otherwise acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond the term limited by lawA or custom, were directed to be excluded from membership or disowned. At this meeting also all the members of it were cautioned and advised against acting as executors or administrators to estates, where slaves were bequeathed, or likely to be detained in bondage.
In 1774, the same annual meeting took action again on the same topic. By the previous resolution, those who committed offenses were only excluded from discipline meetings and barred from contributing to the Society's financial matters. However, by the resolution this year, all members involved in importing, selling, buying, giving, or transferring Black people or any other slaves, or otherwise acting in ways that would keep them in slavery beyond the time set by law or custom, were required to be excluded from membership or disowned. At this meeting, all members were also warned and advised against serving as executors or administrators for estates where slaves were left behind or likely to remain in bondage.
A: This alludes to the term of servitude for white persons in these provinces.
A: This refers to the period of servitude for white individuals in these regions.
In the year 1776, the same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were to be disowned likewise.
In 1776, that same annual meeting took the issue even further. It was decided that owners of slaves who refused to execute the necessary documents to grant them their freedom would also be disowned.
In 1778 it was enacted by the same meeting, that the children of those who had been set free by members, should be tenderly advised, and have a suitable education given them.
In 1778, the same meeting decided that the children of those who had been freed by members should be carefully advised and provided with a proper education.
It is not necessary to proceed further on this subject. It may be sufficient to say, that from this time the minutes of the yearly meeting for Pennsylvania and the Jerseys exhibit proofs of an almost incessant attention, year after yearB, to the means not only of wiping away the stain of slavery from their religious community, but of promoting the happiness of those restored to freedom, and of their posterity also; and as the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys set this bright example, so those of New England, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and of the Carolinas and Georgia, in process of time followed it.
It’s not necessary to go any further on this topic. It’s enough to say that from this point, the minutes of the yearly meeting for Pennsylvania and the Jerseys show evidence of almost constant attention, year after yearB, towards not only removing the stain of slavery from their religious community but also promoting the well-being of those who gained their freedom and their descendants. As the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys set this positive example, so did those of New England, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas and Georgia in time.
B: Thus in 1778-1782, 1784-1786. The members also of this meeting petitioned their own legislature on this subject, both in 1783 and in 1786.
B: So, in 1778-1782 and 1784-1786, the members of this meeting also asked their own legislature about this issue, both in 1783 and in 1786.
But, whilst the Quakers were making these exertions at their different yearly meetings in America, as a religious body, to get rid both of the commerce and slavery of their fellow-creatures, others, in the same profession; were acting as individuals, (that is, on their own grounds, and independently of any influence from their religious communion,) in the same cause, whose labours it will now be proper, in a separate narrative, to detail.
But while the Quakers were working hard at their various yearly meetings in America as a religious group to abolish both the trade and slavery of their fellow human beings, others in the same faith were acting individually, meaning on their own terms and independently of any influence from their religious community, in the same cause. It is now appropriate to detail their efforts in a separate narrative.
The first person of this description in the Society, was William Burling, of Long Island. He had conceived an abhorrence of slavery from early youth. In process of time he began to bear his testimony against it, by representing the unlawfulness of it to those of his own Society, when assembled at one of their yearly meetings. This expression of his public testimony, he continued annually on the same occasion. He wrote also several Tracts with the same design, one of which, published in the year 1718, he addressed to the elders of his own church, on the inconsistency of compelling people and their posterity to serve them continually and arbitrarily, and without any proper recompense for their services.
The first person in this description within the Society was William Burling from Long Island. He grew to deeply dislike slavery from a young age. Over time, he began to speak out against it, highlighting its unlawfulness to those in his Society during their yearly meetings. He continued to share this public testimony every year on the same occasion. He also wrote several pamphlets with the same purpose, one of which, published in 1718, he directed to the elders of his own church, discussing the inconsistency of forcing people and their descendants to serve them endlessly and arbitrarily, without any fair compensation for their work.
The next was Ralph Sandiford, a merchant in Philadelphia. This worthy person had many offers of pecuniary assistance, which would have advanced him in life, but he declined them all because they came from persons who had acquired their independence by the oppression of their slaves. He was very earnest in endeavouring to prevail upon his friends, both, in and out of the society, to liberate those whom they held in bondage. At length he determined upon a work called the Mystery of Iniquity, in a brief examination of the practice of the times. This he published in the year 1780, though the chief judge had threatened him if he should give it to the world, and he circulated it free of expense wherever he believed it would be useful. The above work was excellent as a composition; the language of it was correct; the style manly and energetic; and it abounded with facts, sentiments, and quotations, which, while, they showed the virtue and talents of the author, rendered it a valuable appeal in behalf of the African cause.
The next person was Ralph Sandiford, a merchant in Philadelphia. This honorable man received many offers of financial help that could have advanced his career, but he turned them all down because they came from people who had gained their independence by oppressing their slaves. He was very passionate about convincing his friends, both within and outside of the society, to free those they held in bondage. Eventually, he decided to write a work titled Mystery of Iniquity, which provided a brief examination of the practices of the time. He published it in 1780, even though the chief judge had threatened him if he went public with it, and he distributed it for free wherever he thought it would be helpful. The work was well-written; the language was precise, the style was strong and impactful, and it was filled with facts, sentiments, and quotes that not only highlighted the author's virtues and talents but also made it a valuable appeal for the African cause.
The next public advocate was Benjamin LayA, who lived at Abington, at the distance of twelve or fourteen miles from Philadelphia. Benjamin Lay was known, when in England, to the royal family of that day, into whose private presence he was admitted. On his return to America, he took an active part in behalf of the oppressed Africans. In the year 1737, he published a Treatise on Slave-Keeping. This he gave away among his neighbours and others, but more particularly among the rising youth, many of whom he visited in their respective schools. He applied also to several of the governors for interviews, with whom he held conferences on the subject. Benjamin Lay was a man of strong understanding and of great integrity, but of warm and irritable feelings, and more particularly so when he was called forth on any occasion in which the oppressed Africans were concerned; for he had lived in the island of Barbados, and he had witnessed there scenes of cruelty towards them which had greatly disturbed his mind, and which unhinged it, as it were, whenever the subject of their sufferings was brought before him. Hence, if others did not think precisely as he did, when he conversed with them on the subject, he was apt to go out of due bounds. In bearing what he believed to be his testimony against this system of oppression, he adopted sometimes a singularity of manner, by which, as conveying demonstration of a certain eccentricity of character, he diminished in some degree his usefulness to the cause which he had undertaken; as far, indeed, as this eccentricity might have the effect of preventing others from joining him in his pursuit, lest they should be thought singular also, so far it must be allowed that he ceased to become beneficial. But there can be no question, on the other hand, that his warm and enthusiastic manners awakened the attention of many to the cause, and gave them first impressions concerning it, which they never afterwards forgot, and which rendered them useful to it in the subsequent part of their lives.
The next public advocate was Benjamin LayA, who lived in Abington, about twelve or fourteen miles from Philadelphia. Benjamin Lay was known in England to the royal family of that time, and he had even met with them privately. Upon returning to America, he became actively involved in advocating for the oppressed Africans. In 1737, he published a Treatise on Slave-Keeping. He distributed this work among his neighbors and others, focusing particularly on the young people, many of whom he visited in their schools. He also reached out to several governors for meetings, where he discussed the issue with them. Benjamin Lay was a man of strong intellect and great integrity, but he had intense and volatile emotions, especially when it came to the plight of oppressed Africans. Having lived in Barbados, he had witnessed horrific acts of cruelty towards them, which deeply troubled him and affected him whenever the topic of their suffering arose. As a result, if others didn’t share his exact views during discussions, he often became overly passionate. While advocating against this system of oppression, he sometimes adopted unusual behaviors, which, due to their eccentricity, somewhat limited his effectiveness in the cause he championed; this was especially true if his behavior discouraged others from joining him for fear of being seen as odd themselves. However, there’s no doubt that his enthusiastic approach drew many people's attention to the cause and left a lasting impression, making them advocates for it later in their lives.
A: Benjamin Lay attended the meetings for worship, or associated himself with the religious society of the Quakers. His wife, too, was an approved minister of the Gospel in that society; but I believe he was not long an acknowledged member of it himself.
A: Benjamin Lay went to the worship meetings and was involved with the Quaker community. His wife was also a recognized minister of the Gospel in that community; however, I don't think he was a formal member for very long.
The person who laboured next in the society, in behalf of the oppressed Africans, was John Woolman.
The person who worked next in society for the oppressed Africans was John Woolman.
John Woolman was born at Northampton, in the county of Burlington and province of Western New Jersey, in the year 1720. In his very early youth he attended, in an extraordinary manner, to the religious impressions which he perceived upon his mind, and began to have an earnest solicitude about treading in the right path. "From what I had read and heard," says he, in his JournalA, "I believed there had been in past ages, people who walked in uprightness before God in a degree exceeding any, that I knew or heard of, now living. And the apprehension of there being less steadiness and firmness among people of this age, than in past ages, often troubled me while I was a child." An anxious desire to do away, as far as himself was concerned, this merited reproach, operated as one among other causes to induce him to be particularly watchful over his thoughts and actions, and to endeavour to attain that purity of heart, without which he conceived there could be no perfection of the Christian character. Accordingly, in the twenty-second year of his age, he had given such proof of the integrity of his life, and of his religious qualifications, that he became an acknowledged minister of the Gospel in his own society.
John Woolman was born in Northampton, Burlington County, and the province of Western New Jersey, in 1720. From a very young age, he paid close attention to the religious feelings he felt in his mind and began to genuinely care about following the right path. "From what I had read and heard," he says in his JournalA, "I believed that in earlier times, there were people who walked uprightly before God in a way that surpassed anyone I knew or heard of now. The thought that there was less steadiness and firmness among people today compared to past ages often troubled me as a child." A strong desire to eliminate, as much as he could, this deserved criticism motivated him to be particularly vigilant over his thoughts and actions and to strive for a purity of heart, without which he believed there could be no perfection in the Christian character. By the time he was twenty-two, he had shown such integrity in his life and his religious qualifications that he became an acknowledged minister of the Gospel in his own community.
A: This short sketch of the life and labours of John Woolman, is made up from his Journal.
A: This brief overview of John Woolman's life and work is based on his Journal.
At a time prior to his entering upon the ministry, being in low circumstances, he agreed for wages to "attend shop for a person at Mount Holly, and to keep his books." In this situation we discover, by an occurrence that happened, that he had thought seriously on the subject, and that he had conceived proper views of the Christian unlawfulness of slavery. "My employer," says he, "having a Negro woman, sold her, and desired me to write a bill of sale, the man being waiting who bought her. The thing was sudden, and though the thought of writing an instrument of slavery for one of my fellow-creatures made me feel uneasy, yet I remembered I was hired by the year, that it was my master who directed me to do it, and that it was an elderly man, a member of our society, who bought her. So through weakness I gave way and wrote, but, at executing it, I was so afflicted in my mind, that I said before my master and the friend, that I believed slave-keeping to be a practice inconsistent with the Christian religion. This in some degree abated my uneasiness; yet, as often as I reflected seriously upon it, I thought I should have been clearer, if I had desired to have been excused from it, as a thing against my conscience; for such it was. And some time after this, a young man of our society spoke to me to write a conveyance of a slave to him, he having lately taken a Negro into his house. I told him I was not easy to write it; for though many of our meeting, and in other places, kept slaves, I still believed the practice was not right, and desired to be excused from the writing. I spoke to him in good-will; and he told me that keeping slaves was not altogether agreeable to his mind, but that the slave being a gift to his wife he had accepted of her."
Before he began his ministry and while he was in tough financial situations, he agreed to work for a man in Mount Holly, keeping his store and books. Through a particular event, we see that he had seriously considered the issue and developed a clear understanding of the Christian immorality of slavery. "My boss," he said, "owned a Black woman whom he sold and asked me to write up a bill of sale since the buyer was waiting. The situation was unexpected, and even though writing a document to enslave one of my fellow humans made me uncomfortable, I reminded myself that I was employed for the year, that it was my employer who instructed me to do it, and that the buyer was an older man and a member of our community. So out of weakness, I complied and wrote it, but while doing so, I felt so troubled that I expressed to my boss and his friend that I believed slavery was incompatible with Christian values. This somewhat eased my discomfort, but whenever I seriously thought about it, I wished I had asked to be excused from it, as it went against my conscience; because it truly did. Some time later, a young man from our community asked me to draft a transfer of a slave to him because he had recently taken in a Black person. I told him that I wasn’t comfortable writing it; even though many in our meeting and elsewhere owned slaves, I still believed it was wrong and requested to be excused from the task. I spoke to him kindly, and he told me that while he wasn’t fully at ease with owning slaves, he accepted the slave as a gift for his wife."
We may easily conceive that a person so scrupulous and tender on this subject, (as indeed John Woolman was on all others,) was in the way of becoming in time more eminently serviceable to his oppressed fellow-creatures. We have seen already the good seed sown in his heart, and it seems to have wanted only providential seasons and occurrences to be brought into productive fruit. Accordingly we find that a journey, which he took as a minister of the Gospel in 1746 through the provinces of Maryland, Virginia, and, North Carolina, which were then more noted than others for the number of slaves in them, contributed to prepare him as an instrument for the advancement of this great cause. The following are his own observations upon this journey:—"Two things were remarkable to me in this journey; first, in regard to my entertainment. When I ate, drank, and lodged free-cost, with people who lived in ease on the hard labour of their slaves, I felt uneasy; and, as my mind was inward to the Lord, I found, from place to place, this uneasiness return upon me at times through the whole visit. Where the masters bore a good share of the burden and lived frugally, so that their servants were well provided for; and their labour moderate, I felt more easy; but where they lived in a costly way, and laid heavy burdens on their slaves, my exercise was often great, and I frequently had conversations with them in private concerning it. Secondly, this trade of importing slaves from their native country being much encouraged among them, and the white people and their children so generally living without much labour, was frequently the subject of my serious thoughts: and I saw in these southern provinces so many vices and corruptions, increased by this trade and this way of life, that it appeared to me as a gloom over the land."
We can easily understand that someone as careful and compassionate about this issue, as John Woolman was about everything, was on track to become even more helpful to his suffering fellow humans over time. We’ve already noted the good qualities nurtured in his heart, which just needed the right moments and circumstances to bear fruit. Accordingly, we see that a journey he took as a Gospel minister in 1746 through Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina—places then particularly known for their large numbers of enslaved people—helped prepare him to be a key player in this important cause. Here are his own thoughts on that journey:—"Two things stood out to me during this trip; first, regarding my hospitality. Whenever I was fed and housed for free by people who lived comfortably off the hard work of their slaves, I felt uncomfortable. As I sought connection with the Lord, I found this discomfort returned at different moments throughout the visit. When the masters shared the burden of work and lived modestly, ensuring their servants were well cared for, I felt more at ease. But where they lived lavishly and imposed heavy demands on their slaves, I often felt troubled, and I frequently had private talks with them about it. Secondly, the trade of bringing in slaves from their home countries was heavily promoted among them, leading many white people and their children to live with little effort, which was often on my mind. In those southern regions, I saw so many vices and corruptions fueled by this trade and lifestyle that it cast a shadow over the land."
From the year 1747 to the year 1758, he seems to have been occupied chiefly as a minister of religion, but in the latter year he published a work upon slave-keeping; and in the same year, while travelling within the compass of his own monthly meeting, a circumstance happened which kept alive his attention to the same Subjects.
From 1747 to 1758, he was mostly engaged as a minister. However, in 1758, he published a book on slaveholding. That same year, while traveling within his own monthly meeting, an event occurred that continued to draw his attention to those issues.
"About this time" says he, "a person at some distance lying sick, his brother came to me to write his will. I knew he had slaves, and asking his brother was told he intended to leave them as slaves to his children. As writing was a profitable employ, and as offending sober people was disagreeable to my inclination, I was straitened in my mind, but as I looked to the Lord he inclined my heart to his testimony; and I told the man that I believed the practice of continuing slavery to this people was not right, and that I had a scruple in my mind against doing writings of that kind; that, though many in our society kept them as slaves, still I was not easy to be concerned in it, and desired to be excused from going to write the will. I spoke to him in the fear of the Lord; and he made no reply to what I said, but went away: he also had some concerns in the practice, and I thought he was displeased with me. In this case I had a confirmation, that acting contrary to present outward interest from a motive of Divine love, and in regard to truth and righteousness, opens the way to a treasure better than silver, and to a friendship exceeding the friendship of men."
"About this time," he says, "a person who was sick a bit distant had his brother come to me to write his will. I knew he owned slaves, and when I asked his brother, he told me that the plan was to leave them as slaves to his children. Since writing was a profitable job and I didn’t want to offend decent folks, I felt torn inside. But as I looked to the Lord, He encouraged me to follow my convictions; I told the man that I believed continuing slavery for these people was wrong and that I had a moral objection to writing documents like that. I explained that even though many in our community kept slaves, I wasn’t comfortable being involved and asked to be excused from writing the will. I spoke to him with respect for the Lord, and he didn’t respond but just walked away; he had some interests in this matter too, and I thought he was upset with me. In this situation, I realized that acting against my immediate self-interest for the sake of divine love and in consideration of truth and justice leads to a greater treasure than silver and a friendship that surpasses human friendship."
From 1753 to 1755, two circumstances of a similar kind took place, which contributed greatly to strengthen him in the path he had taken; for in both these cases the persons who requested him to make their wills were so impressed by the principle upon which he refused them, and by his manner of doing it, that they bequeathed liberty to their slaves.
From 1753 to 1755, two similar situations occurred that significantly reinforced his commitment to the path he had chosen. In both instances, the individuals who asked him to prepare their wills were so moved by the principle behind his refusal and by the way he handled it that they left their slaves free in their bequests.
In the year 1756, he made a religious visit to several of the society in Long Island. Here it was that the seed, now long fostered by the genial influences of Heaven, began to burst forth into fruit; Till this time he seems to have been a passive instrument, attending only to such circumstances as came in his way on this subject. But now he became an active one, looking out for circumstances for the exercise of his labours.
In 1756, he made a religious visit to several communities on Long Island. It was here that the seed, now nurtured by the positive influences of Heaven, started to bear fruit. Until then, he seemed to be a passive participant, only responding to the situations that came his way regarding this matter. But now he became proactive, seeking out opportunities to put in his efforts.
"My mind," says he; "was deeply engaged in this visit, both in public and private; and at several places, observing that members kept slaves, I found myself under a necessity, in a friendly way, to labour with them, on that subject, expressing, as the way opened, the inconsistency of that practice with the parity of the Christian religion, and the ill effects of it as manifested amongst us."
"My mind," he says, "was heavily focused on this visit, both publicly and privately; and at several locations, noticing that some members owned slaves, I felt it was necessary, in a friendly manner, to discuss that issue with them, pointing out, as the opportunity arose, how inconsistent that practice is with the equality promoted by Christianity, and the negative effects it has shown among us."
In the year 1757, he felt, his mind so deeply interested on the same subject, that he resolved to travel over Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, in order to try to convince persons, principally in his own society, of the inconsistency of holding slaves. He joined his brother with him in this arduous service. Having passed the Susquehanna into Maryland, he began to experience great agitation of mind. "Soon after I entered this province," says he, "a deep and painful exercise came upon me, which I often had some feeling of since my mind was drawn towards these parts, and with which I had acquainted my brother, before we agreed to join as companions."
In 1757, he felt a strong interest in the same issue, so he decided to travel through Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to try to persuade people, especially in his own community, about the inconsistency of owning slaves. He partnered with his brother for this challenging task. After crossing the Susquehanna into Maryland, he began to experience significant mental turmoil. "Shortly after I entered this area," he says, "a deep and painful burden came over me, which I had often felt since my mind was drawn to these regions, and I had shared this with my brother before we agreed to join forces."
"As the people in this and the southern provinces live much on the labour of slaves, many of whom are used hardly, my concern was that I might attend with singleness of heart to the voice of the true Shepherd, and be so supported, as to remain unmoved at the faces of men."
"As the people in this and the southern provinces rely heavily on the labor of slaves, many of whom are treated poorly, I was worried about focusing completely on the guidance of the true Shepherd and being strong enough to stay unaffected by others' opinions."
It is impossible for me to follow him in detail, through this long and interesting journey, when I consider the bounds I have prescribed to myself in this work. I shall say, therefore, what I propose to offer generally, and in a few words.
It’s impossible for me to track him closely during this long and fascinating journey, especially when I think about the limits I’ve set for myself in this work. So, I’ll briefly summarize what I plan to present overall.
It appears that he conversed with persons occasionally, who were not of his own society, with a view of answering their arguments, and of endeavouring to evince the wickedness and impolicy of slavery. In discoursing with these, however strenuous he might appear, he seems never to have departed from a calm, modest, and yet dignified and even friendly demeanour. At the public meetings for discipline, held by his own society in these provinces, he endeavoured to display the same truths, and in the same manner, but particularly to the elders of his own society, exhorting them, as the most conspicuous rank, to be careful of their conduct, and to give a bright example in the liberation of their slaves. He visited, also, families for the same purpose: and he had the well-earned satisfaction of finding his admonitions kindly received by some, and of seeing a disposition in others to follow the advice he had given them.
It seems that he occasionally talked to people outside of his own community to respond to their arguments and to demonstrate the wrongness and impracticality of slavery. In these discussions, no matter how passionate he might have seemed, he never lost his calm, humble, yet dignified and friendly demeanor. At the public meetings for discipline held by his own community in these regions, he tried to convey the same messages in a similar way, especially to the elders of his community, urging them, as the most visible leaders, to be mindful of their behavior and set a strong example by freeing their slaves. He also visited families for the same reason, and he was pleased to find that his advice was well received by some and that others showed a willingness to follow his guidance.
In the year 1758, he attended the yearly meeting at Philadelphia, where he addressed his brethren on the propriety of dealing with such members as should hereafter purchase slaves. On the discussion of this point he spoke a second time, and this to such effect that, he had the satisfaction at this meeting to see minutes made more fully than any before, and a committee appointed for the advancement of the great object, to which he had now been instrumental in turning the attention of many, and to witness a considerable spreading of the cause. In the same year, also, he joined himself with two others of the society to visit such members of it as possessed slaves in Chester county. In this journey he describes himself to have met with several who were pleased with his visit, but to have found difficulties with others, towards whom, however, he felt a sympathy and tenderness, on account of their being entangled by the spirit of the world.
In 1758, he attended the annual meeting in Philadelphia, where he spoke to his peers about the importance of addressing members who might buy slaves in the future. During the discussion on this topic, he spoke again, and as a result, he was pleased to see that detailed minutes were taken, more so than ever before, and a committee was formed to further the important cause that he had successfully drawn many people's attention to, witnessing a significant growth in support. That same year, he teamed up with two other members of the society to visit those within it who owned slaves in Chester County. On this journey, he noted that some members appreciated his visit, while he faced challenges with others, towards whom he felt compassion and empathy because they were caught up in worldly concerns.
In the year 1759, he visited several of the society who held slaves in Philadelphia. In about three months afterwards, he travelled there again, in company with John Churchman, to see others under similar circumstances. He then went to different places on the same errand. In this last journey he went alone. After this he joined himself to John Churchman again, but he confined his labours to his own province. Here he had the pleasure of finding that the work prospered. Soon after this he took Samuel Eastburne as a coadjutor, and pleaded the cause of the poor Africans with many of the society in Bucks county, who held them in bondage there.
In 1759, he visited several members of the society who owned slaves in Philadelphia. About three months later, he traveled there again with John Churchman to meet others in similar situations. He then went to various places for the same purpose. On this last trip, he went alone. After this, he teamed up with John Churchman again, but focused his efforts in his own province. Here, he was pleased to see that the work was thriving. Shortly after, he brought on Samuel Eastburne as a partner and advocated for the poor Africans with many members of the society in Bucks County who kept them in bondage there.
In the year 1760, he travelled, in company with his friend Samuel Eastburne, to Rhode Island, to promote the same object. This island had been long noted for its trade to Africa for slaves. He found at Newport, the great sea-port town belonging to it, that a number of them had been lately imported. He felt his mind deeply impressed on this account. He was almost over-powered in consequence of it, and became ill. He thought once of prompting a petition to the legislature, to discourage all such importations in future. He then thought of going and speaking to the House of Assembly, which was then sitting; but he was discouraged from both these proceedings. He held, however, conference with many of his own society in the meeting-house chamber, where the subject of his visit was discussed on both sides with a calm and peaceable spirit. Many of those present manifested the concern they felt at their former practices, and others a desire of taking suitable care of their slaves at their decease. From Newport he proceeded to Nantucket; but observing the members of the society there to have few or no slaves, he exhorted them to persevere in abstaining from the use of them, and returned home.
In 1760, he traveled with his friend Samuel Eastburne to Rhode Island to support the same cause. This island had long been known for its trade in African slaves. When he arrived in Newport, the major seaport there, he discovered that several slaves had recently been brought in. This deeply affected him. He felt overwhelmed by the situation and became ill. At one point, he considered drafting a petition to the legislature to discourage future imports. He also thought about addressing the House of Assembly, which was in session at the time, but he was dissuaded from both actions. However, he did have discussions with many members of his community in the meeting-house chamber, where they talked about the issue calmly and peacefully. Many attendees expressed remorse for their past actions, while others wanted to ensure they took proper care of their slaves upon their passing. After Newport, he traveled to Nantucket, but noticing that the society there had few or no slaves, he encouraged them to continue abstaining from using slaves and then returned home.
In the year 1761, he visited several families in Pennsylvania, and, in about three months afterwards, others about Shrewsbury and Squan in New Jersey. On his return he added a part to the treatise before published on the keeping of care which had been growing upon him for some years.
In 1761, he visited several families in Pennsylvania, and about three months later, he visited others around Shrewsbury and Squan in New Jersey. When he returned, he added a section to the previously published treatise on caregiving that he had been developing for several years.
In the year 1762, he printed, published, and distributed this treatise.
In 1762, he printed, published, and distributed this treatise.
In 1767, he went on foot to the western shores of the same province on a religious visit. After having crossed the Susquehanna, his old feelings returned to him; for coming amongst people living in outward ease and greatness, chiefly on the labour of slaves, his heart was much affected, and he waited with humble resignation to learn how he should further perform his duty to this injured people. The travelling on foot, though it was agreeable to the state of his mind, he describes to have been wearisome to his body. He felt himself weakly at times, in consequence of it, but yet continued to travel on. At one of the quarterly meetings of the society, being in great sorrow and heaviness, and under deep exercise on account of the miseries of the poor Africans, he expressed himself freely to those present, who held them in bondage. He expatiated on the tenderness and loving-kindness of the apostles, as manifested in labours, perils, and sufferings, towards the poor Gentiles, and contracted their treatment of the Gentiles with it, whom he described in the persons of their slaves; and was much satisfied with the result of his discourse.
In 1767, he traveled on foot to the western shores of the same province for a religious visit. After crossing the Susquehanna, his old feelings resurfaced; being among people who lived in comfort and wealth, largely supported by the labor of slaves, deeply affected him. He waited with humble acceptance to figure out how he could further serve this oppressed group. While walking suited his mindset, he found it physically exhausting. At times, he felt weak because of it, but he kept moving forward. During one of the quarterly meetings of the society, filled with sorrow and heaviness and deeply troubled by the suffering of the poor Africans, he spoke openly to those present who kept them in bondage. He elaborated on the compassion and kindness of the apostles, shown through their efforts, dangers, and suffering for the sake of the poor Gentiles, and compared their treatment of the Gentiles to that of their slaves. He felt quite pleased with how his talk went.
From this time we collect little more, from his journal concerning him, than that, in 1772, he embarked for England on a religious visit. After his arrival there, he travelled through many counties, preaching in different meetings of the society, till he came to the city of York. But even here, though he was far removed from the sight of those whose interests he had so warmly espoused, he was not forgetful of their wretched condition. At the quarterly meeting for that county, he brought their case before, those present in an affecting manner. He exhorted these to befriend their cause. He remarked that as they, the society, when under outward sufferings, had often found a concern to lay them before the legislature, and thereby, in the Lord's time, had obtained relief; so he recommended this oppressed part of the creation to their notice, that they might, as, the way opened, represent their sufferings as individuals, if not as a religious society, to those in authority in this land. This was the last opportunity that he had of interesting himself in behalf of this injured people for soon afterwards he was seized with the small-pox at the house of a friend in the city of York, where he died.
From this point, we learn little more from his journal about him, except that in 1772, he set off for England on a religious visit. After he arrived there, he traveled through various counties, preaching at different meetings of the society until he reached the city of York. But even here, far from the view of those whose causes he had passionately supported, he did not forget their miserable situation. At the quarterly meeting for that county, he presented their case to those gathered in a moving way. He urged them to support their cause. He noted that as they, the society, had often felt the need to bring their struggles before the legislature during times of hardship, and thus had, in the Lord's timing, found relief; he encouraged them to pay attention to this oppressed group, so they could, as opportunities arose, represent their hardships as individuals, if not as a religious society, to those in power in this country. This was the last chance he had to advocate for this wronged people, as he soon fell ill with smallpox at a friend's house in the city of York, where he passed away.
The next person belonging to the society of the Quakers, who laboured in behalf of the oppressed Africans, was Anthony Benezet. He was born before, and he lived after, John Woolman; of course he was contemporary with him. I place him after John Woolman, because he was not so much known as a labourer, till two or three years after the other had begin to move in the same cause.
The next person in the Quaker community who worked for the oppressed Africans was Anthony Benezet. He was born before and lived after John Woolman, so they were contemporaries. I mention him after John Woolman because he wasn't as well-known for his efforts until two or three years after Woolman started advocating for the same cause.
Anthony Benezet was born at St. Quintin, in Picardy, of a respectable family, in the year 1713. His father was one of the many Protestants who, in consequence of the persecutions which followed the revocation of the edict of Nantz, sought an asylum in foreign countries. After a short stay in Holland, he settled, with his wife and children, in London, in 1715.
Anthony Benezet was born in St. Quintin, Picardy, to a respectable family in 1713. His father was one of the many Protestants who, following the persecutions that came after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, sought refuge in other countries. After a brief stay in Holland, he moved with his wife and children to London in 1715.
Anthony Benezet having received from his father a liberal education, served an apprenticeship in an eminent mercantile house in London. In 1731, however, he removed with his family to Philadelphia, where he joined in profession with the Quakers. His three brothers then engaged in trade, and made considerable pecuniary acquisitions in it. He himself might have partaken both of their concerns and of their prosperity; but he did not feel himself at liberty to embark in their undertakings. He considered the accumulation of wealth as of no importance, when compared with the enjoyment of doing good; and he chose the humble situation of a schoolmaster, as according best with this notion, believing, that by endeavouring to train up youth in knowledge and virtue, he should become more extensively useful than in any other way to his fellow-creatures.
Anthony Benezet, having received a good education from his father, apprenticed at a well-known trading company in London. In 1731, however, he moved to Philadelphia with his family and became associated with the Quakers. His three brothers entered into trade and achieved significant financial success. He could have joined them in their business and shared in their wealth, but he didn’t feel free to pursue their ventures. He believed that accumulating wealth was not important compared to the satisfaction of doing good, so he chose the modest role of a schoolteacher, thinking that by trying to educate young people in knowledge and virtue, he would be of greater service to others than in any other way.
He had not been long in his new situation, before he manifested such an uprightness of conduct, such a courtesy of manners, such a purity of intention, and such a spirit of benevolence, that he attracted the notice, and gained the good opinion, of the inhabitants among whom he lived. He had ready access to them, in consequence, upon all occasions; and, if there were any whom he failed to influence at any of these times, he never went away without the possession of their respect.
He hadn't been in his new job for long before he showed such honesty, politeness, good intentions, and kindness that he caught the attention and earned the respect of the people around him. Because of this, he was able to connect with them whenever needed, and even if he couldn’t sway everyone in those moments, he always left with their respect.
In the year 1756, when a considerable number of French families were removed from Acadia into Pennsylvania, on account of some political suspicions, he felt deeply interested about them. In a country where few understood their language, they were wretched and helpless; but Anthony Benezet endeavoured to soften the rigour of their situation, by his kind attention towards them. He exerted himself, also, in their behalf, by procuring many contributions for them, which, by the consent of his fellow-citizens, were intrusted to his care.
In 1756, when a significant number of French families were taken from Acadia to Pennsylvania due to some political suspicions, he became very invested in their plight. In a place where few people understood their language, they felt miserable and powerless; however, Anthony Benezet worked to ease the harshness of their situation with his compassionate support. He also made efforts on their behalf by gathering many donations for them, which, with the approval of his fellow citizens, were placed in his care.
As the principle of benevolence, when duly cultivated, brings forth fresh shoots, and becomes enlarged, so we find this amiable person extending the sphere of his usefulness by becoming an advocate for the oppressed African race. For this service he seems to have been peculiarly qualified. Indeed, as in all great works, a variety of talents is necessary to bring them to perfection, so Providence seems to prepare different men as instruments, with dispositions and qualifications so various, that each, in pursuing that line which seems to suit him best, contributes to furnish those parts which, when put together, make up a complete whole. In this point of view, John Woolman found in Anthony Benezet the coadjutor whom, of all others, the cause required. The former had occupied himself principally on the subject of slavery. The latter went to the root of the evil, and more frequently attacked the trade. The former chiefly confined his labours to America, and chiefly to those of his own society there. The latter, when he wrote, did not write for America only, but for Europe also, and endeavoured to spread a knowledge and hatred of the traffic through the great society of the world.
As the principle of kindness, when properly nurtured, produces new growth and expands, we see this kind person broadening his impact by becoming an advocate for the oppressed African race. He seems especially suited for this role. Indeed, just like in any significant endeavor, a range of talents is needed to achieve perfection, so it appears that Providence prepares different people as instruments, each with unique qualities and skills, allowing everyone to contribute in their own way to create a complete picture. In this regard, John Woolman found in Anthony Benezet the collaborator that the cause truly needed. Woolman focused mainly on the issue of slavery, while Benezet tackled the root of the problem and frequently challenged the trade itself. Woolman primarily concentrated his efforts in America, particularly within his own community there. In contrast, Benezet, when he wrote, aimed not just at America but also at Europe, and sought to promote awareness and disdain for the slave trade throughout the wider society of the world.
One of the means which Anthony Benezet took to promote the cause in question, (and an effectual one it proved, as far as it went,) was to give his scholars a due knowledge and proper impressions concerning it. Situated as they were likely to be in after-life, in a country where, slavery, was a custom, he thus prepared many, and this annually, for the promotion of his plans.
One of the ways that Anthony Benezet worked to promote the cause in question (and it proved to be effective, at least to some extent) was by educating his students with the right knowledge and understanding about it. Given that they were likely to be in a country where slavery was a common practice in their future lives, he prepared many of them each year to support his efforts.
To enlighten others, and to give them a similar bias, he had recourse to different measures from time to time. In the almanacs published annually in Philadelphia, he procured articles to be inserted, which he believed would attract the notice of the reader, and make him pause, at least for a while, as to the licitness of, the Slave Trade. He wrote also, as he saw occasion, in the public papers of the day. From small things he proceeded to greater. He collected, at length, further information on the subject, and, winding it up with observations and reflections, he produced several little tracts, which he circulated successively (but generally at his, own expense), as he considered them adapted to the temper and circumstances of the times.
To enlighten others and give them a similar perspective, he used various strategies over time. In the almanacs published every year in Philadelphia, he arranged for articles to be included that he thought would catch the reader's attention and make them stop, at least for a moment, to think about the morality of the Slave Trade. He also wrote when he felt it was necessary in the public newspapers of the time. From small efforts, he moved on to bigger ones. He eventually gathered more information on the topic and, combining it with his observations and thoughts, he created several small pamphlets that he distributed one after another (usually at his own expense), as he believed they were suited to the mood and situation of the times.
In the course of this his employment, having found some who had approved his tracts, and, to whom, on that account, he wished to write, and sending his tracts to others, to whom he thought it proper to introduce them by letter, he found himself engaged in a correspondence which much engrossed his time, but which proved of great importance in procuring many advocates for his cause.
In the course of his job, he found some people who appreciated his writings and wanted to write to them for that reason. He also sent his writings to others, introducing them by letter, which led him to get involved in a correspondence that took up a lot of his time but ultimately helped him gain many supporters for his cause.
In the year 1762, when he had obtained a still greater store of information, he published a larger work. This, however, he entitle A short Account of that part of Africa inhabited by the Negroes In 1767 he published A Caution and Warning to Great Britain and her colonies on the calamitous state of the enslaved Negroes in the British Dominions; and soon after this appeared, An Historical Account of Guinea, its Situation, Produce, and the general Disposition of its Inhabitants: with an Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of the Slave Trade, its Nature, and Calamitous Effects. This pamphlet contained a clear and distinct development of the subject, from the best authorities. It contained also, the sentiments of many enlightened upon it; and it became instrumental beyond any other book ever before published, in disseminating a proper knowledge and detestation of this trade.
In 1762, after gaining even more knowledge, he published a larger work. He titled it A Short Account of That Part of Africa Inhabited by the Negroes. In 1767, he released A Caution and Warning to Great Britain and Her Colonies on the Calamitous State of the Enslaved Negroes in the British Dominions; shortly after, he published An Historical Account of Guinea, Its Situation, Produce, and the General Disposition of Its Inhabitants: With an Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of the Slave Trade, Its Nature, and Calamitous Effects. This pamphlet provided a clear and thorough exploration of the topic, drawing from the best sources. It also included the views of many enlightened individuals and became more effective than any other book published before it in spreading proper knowledge and a strong opposition to this trade.
Anthony Benezet may be considered as one of the most zealous, vigilant, and active advocates which the cause of the oppressed Africans ever had. He seemed to have been born and to have lived for the promotion of it and therefore he never omitted any the least opportunity of serving it. If a person called upon him who was going a journey his first thoughts usually were how he could make him an instrument in its favour; he either gave him tracts to distribute or he sent letters by him, or he gave him some commission on the subject; so that he was the means of employing several persons at the same time, in various parts of America; in advancing the work he had undertaken.
Anthony Benezet can be seen as one of the most passionate, dedicated, and active advocates for the cause of oppressed Africans. He seemed to be born and lived for this purpose, and he never missed even the smallest opportunity to support it. If someone visited him who was about to travel, his first thoughts were usually about how he could turn that person into an ally for the cause; he would either provide them with pamphlets to distribute, send letters with them, or give them some task related to the issue. This way, he managed to involve multiple people at the same time across various parts of America in furthering his mission.
In the same manner he availed himself of every other circumstance, as far as he could, to the same end. When he heard that Mr. Granville Sharp had obtained; in the year 1772, the noble verdict in the cause of Somerset the slave, he opened a correspondence with him which he kept up, that there might be an union of action between them for the future, as far as it could be effected, and that they might each give encouragement to the other to proceed.
In the same way, he took advantage of every other situation, as much as he could, to reach the same goal. When he found out that Mr. Granville Sharp had achieved the important verdict in the Somerset slave case in 1772, he started a correspondence with him, which he maintained so they could work together in the future as much as possible and encourage each other to move forward.
He opened also a correspondence with George Whitfield and John Wesley that these might assist him in promoting the cause of the oppressed.
He also started communicating with George Whitefield and John Wesley so they could help him in promoting the cause of the oppressed.
He wrote also a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon on the following subject:—She had founded a college, at the recommendation of George Whitfield, called the Orphan-house near Savannah, in Georgia, and had endowed it. The object of this institution was to furnish scholastic instruction to the poor, and to prepare some of them for the ministry. George Whitfield, ever attentive to the cause of the poor Africans, thought that this institution might have been useful to them also; but soon after his death, they who succeeded him bought slaves, and these in unusual numbers to extend the rice and indigo plantations belonging to the college. The letter then in question was written by Anthony Benezet, in order to lay before the Countess, as a religious woman, the misery she was occasioning in Africa, by allowing the managers of her college in Georgia to give encouragement to the Slave Trade. The Countess replied, that such a measure should never have her countenance, and that she would take care to prevent it.
He also wrote a letter to the Countess of Huntingdon about the following topic: she had established a college, based on George Whitfield's recommendation, called the Orphan-house near Savannah, Georgia, and had funded it. The purpose of this institution was to provide education to the poor and to prepare some of them for the ministry. George Whitfield, always concerned about the welfare of poor Africans, believed that this institution could be beneficial for them as well; however, shortly after his death, those who took over purchased slaves, and in significant numbers, to expand the rice and indigo plantations owned by the college. The letter in question was written by Anthony Benezet to highlight to the Countess, as a religious woman, the suffering she was causing in Africa by allowing the managers of her college in Georgia to support the Slave Trade. The Countess responded that such actions would never have her approval and that she would make sure to stop it.
On discovering that the Abbé Raynal had brought out his celebrated work, in which he manifested a tender feeling in behalf of the injured Africans, he entered into a correspondence with him, hoping to make him yet more useful to their cause.
On finding out that Abbé Raynal had published his famous work, in which he showed a deep concern for the suffering Africans, he started corresponding with him, hoping to make him even more helpful to their cause.
Finding, also, in the year 1783 that the Slave Trade, which had greatly declined during the American war, was reviving, he addressed a pathetic letter to our Queen, (as I mentioned in the last chapter,) who, on hearing the high character of the writer of it from Benjamin West, received it with marks of peculiar condescension and attention. The following is a copy of it:—
Finding out, in 1783, that the Slave Trade, which had decreased significantly during the American war, was making a comeback, he wrote a heartfelt letter to our Queen (as I mentioned in the last chapter). Upon hearing about the esteemed reputation of the letter's author from Benjamin West, she received it with notable kindness and interest. Here is a copy of it:—
TO CHARLOTTE, QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN.
Impressed with a sense of religious duty, and encouraged by the opinion generally entertained of thy benevolent disposition to succor the distressed, I take the liberty; very respectfully, to offer to thy perusal some tracts, which, I believe, faithfully describe the suffering condition of many hundred thousands of our fellow-creatures of the African race, great numbers of whom, rent from every tender connexion in life, are annually taken from their native land; to endure, in the American islands and plantations, a most rigorous and cruel slavery; whereby many, very many of them, are brought to a melancholy and untimely end.
When it is considered that the inhabitants of Great Britain, who are themselves so eminently blessed in the enjoyment of religious and civil liberty, have long been, and yet are, very deeply concerned in this flagrant violation of the common rights of mankind, and that even its national authority is exerted in support of the African Slave Trade, there is much reason to apprehend that this has been, and, as long as the evil exists, will continue to be, an occasion of drawing down the Divine displeasure on the nation and its dependencies. May these considerations induce thee to interpose thy kind endeavours in behalf of this greatly injured people, whose abject situation gives them an additional claim to the pity and assistance of the generous mind, inasmuch as they are altogether deprived of the means of soliciting effectual relief for themselves; that so thou mayest not only be a blessed instrument in the hand of him 'by whom kings reign and princes decree justice,' to avert the awful judgments by which the empire has already been so remarkably shaken, but that the blessings of thousands ready to perish may come upon thee, at a time when the superior advantages attendant on thy situation in this world will no longer be of any avail to thy consolation and support.
To the tracts on this subject to which I have thus ventured to crave thy particular attention, I have added some which at different times I have believed it my duty to publishA, and which, I trust, will afford thee some satisfaction, their design being for the furtherance of that universal peace and good-will amongst men, which the Gospel was intended to introduce.
A: These related to the principles of the religious society of the Quakers.
"I hope thou wilt kindly excuse the freedom used on this occasion by an ancient man, whose mind, for more than forty years past, has been much separated from the common intercourse of the world, and long painfully exercised in the consideration of the miseries under which so large a part of mankind, equally with us the objects of redeeming love, are suffering the most unjust and grievous oppression, and who sincerely desires thy temporal and eternal felicity, and that of thy royal consort.
"ANTHONY BENEZET."
TO CHARLOTTE, QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN.
With a sense of religious obligation and inspired by the widespread belief in your caring nature, I respectfully present some pamphlets that I believe accurately portray the suffering of hundreds of thousands of our fellow people of African descent. Many of them, torn from their beloved connections, are taken from their homeland each year to endure harsh and cruel slavery in the American islands and plantations, leading many to face tragic and premature ends.
When you consider the people of Great Britain, who are fortunate to enjoy religious and civil freedoms, it is troubling to see how deeply they are complicit in this blatant violation of human rights. The national leadership even endorses the African Slave Trade, raising concerns about the potential for this to invite divine disfavor on the nation and its territories as long as this injustice persists. I hope these reasons motivate you to take action on behalf of this profoundly wronged people, whose desperate situation makes them worthy of compassion and assistance from those with kind hearts, especially since they have no way to seek effective relief for themselves. By doing so, you may not only become a blessing in the hands of the one "by whom kings reign and princes decree justice," helping to avert the terrible judgments that have already shaken the empire, but you may also earn the gratitude of thousands who are on the edge of despair, at a time when the advantages of your position in this world will no longer comfort or support you.
In addition to the writings on this issue that I’ve asked you to focus on, I’ve also included some that I felt compelled to publish at various times—__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__. I hope these will provide you with some satisfaction, as their goal is to promote the universal peace and goodwill among people that the Gospel intended to bring.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__: These are related to the principles of the Quaker religious community.
"I hope you will kindly excuse my straightforwardness on this occasion as an older man whose mind, for over forty years, has been mostly away from regular interactions with the world, and has long been deeply focused on contemplating the sufferings of so many individuals who, like us, are objects of redeeming love, enduring the most unjust and severe oppression. I sincerely wish for your happiness, both in this life and the next, as well as that of your royal partner."
"ANTHONY BENEZET."
Anthony Benezet, besides the care he bestowed upon forwarding the cause of the oppressed Africans in different parts of the world, found time to promote the comforts, and improve the condition of those, in the state in which he lived. Apprehending that much advantage would arise both to them and the public from instructing them in common learning, he zealously promoted the establishment of a school for that purpose. Much of the two last years of his life he devoted to a personal attendance on this school, being earnestly desirous that they who came to it might be better qualified for the enjoyment of that freedom to which great numbers of them had been then restored. To this he sacrificed the superior emoluments of his former school, and his bodily ease also, although the weakness of his constitution seemed to demand indulgence. By his last will he directed, that, after the decease of his widow, his whole little fortune (the savings of the industry of fifty years) should, except a few very small legacies, be applied to the support of it. During his attendance upon it he had the happiness to find, (and his situation enabled him to make the comparison,) that Providence had been equally liberal to the Africans in genius and talents as to other people.
Anthony Benezet, in addition to his efforts to support oppressed Africans around the world, also took the time to enhance the well-being and improve the circumstances of those in his own community. Recognizing that educating them in basic skills would benefit both them and society, he actively worked towards establishing a school for this purpose. He dedicated much of the last two years of his life to personally overseeing this school, genuinely wanting those who attended to be better prepared for the freedom that many of them had recently gained. He sacrificed the higher income from his former school and his own comfort, even though his health issues suggested he should take it easy. In his will, he specified that after his widow passed away, his entire modest estate (the savings from fifty years of hard work), aside from a few small legacies, should be used to support the school. While attending to it, he was pleased to find, and was in a position to compare, that God had been equally generous to Africans in terms of talent and intellect as with other people.
After a few days' illness, this excellent man died at Philadelphia, in the spring of 1784. The interment of his remains was attended by several thousands of all ranks, professions, and parties, who united in deploring their loss. The mournful procession was closed by some hundreds of those poor Africans who had been personally benefited by his labours, and whose behaviour on the occasion showed the gratitude and affection they considered to be due to him as their own private benefactor, as well as the benefactor of their whole race.
After a few days of illness, this remarkable man passed away in Philadelphia during the spring of 1784. The burial of his remains was attended by thousands of people from all walks of life, who came together to mourn his loss. The sorrowful procession was concluded by a few hundred of the impoverished Africans who had directly benefited from his efforts. Their behavior during this time reflected the gratitude and affection they felt towards him as their personal benefactor, as well as a benefactor to their entire race.
Such, then, were the labours of the Quakers in America; of individuals, from 1718 to 1784, and of the body at large, from 1696 to 1787, in this great cause of humanity and religion. Nor were the effects produced from these otherwise than corresponding with what might have been expected from such an union of exertion in such a cause; for both the evils, that is, the evil of buying and selling, and the evil of using slaves, ceased at length with the members of this benevolent society. The leaving off all concern with the Slave Trade took place first. The abolition of slavery, though it followed, was not so speedily accomplished; for, besides the loss of property, when slaves were manumitted, without any pecuniary consideration in return, their owners had to struggle, in making them free, against the laws and customs of the times. In Pennsylvania, where the law in this respect was the most favourable, the parties wishing to give freedom to a slave were obliged to enter into a bond for the payment of thirty pounds currency, in case the said slave should become chargeable for maintenance. In New Jersey the terms were far less favorable, as the estate of the owner remained liable to the consequences of misconduct in the slave, or even in his posterity. In the southern parts of America manumission was not permitted but on terms amounting nearly to a prohibition. But, notwithstanding these difficulties, the Quakers could not be deterred, as they became convinced of the unlawfulness of holding men in bondage, from doing that which they believed to be right. Many liberated their slaves, whatever the consequences were; and some gave the most splendid example in doing it, not only by consenting, as others did, thus to give up their property, and to incur the penalties of manumission, but by calculating and giving what was due to them, over and above their food and clothing, for wagesA from the beginning of their slavery to the day when their liberation commenced. Thus manumission went on, some sacrificing more; and others less; some granting it sooner, and others later; till, in the year 1787B there was not a slave in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker.
Such were the efforts of the Quakers in America; individuals from 1718 to 1784, and the group as a whole, from 1696 to 1787, in this important cause of humanity and religion. The results of these efforts were as expected from such a collective commitment to such a noble cause. Both the issues of buying and selling, and the issues surrounding the use of slaves, eventually ended with the members of this compassionate society. They first stopped all involvement with the Slave Trade. Although the abolition of slavery followed, it didn't happen quickly; aside from the loss of property when slaves were freed without any financial compensation, their owners faced challenges in achieving freedom due to the laws and customs of the time. In Pennsylvania, where the laws were the most favorable, those who wanted to free a slave had to sign a bond for thirty pounds in case that slave needed support afterward. In New Jersey, the conditions were much less favorable, as the owner's estate remained liable for any wrongdoing by the slave or even their descendants. In the southern parts of America, freeing slaves was almost completely prohibited. Despite these obstacles, the Quakers were undeterred, convinced that holding people in bondage was wrong. Many chose to free their slaves, regardless of the consequences; some went above and beyond by not only giving up their property and facing the penalties of manumission but also by providing compensation for wages owed, beyond just food and clothing, for their labor from the start of their enslavement to the day their freedom began. Thus, manumission continued, with some sacrificing more and others less, some granting freedom sooner and others later, until by the year 1787, there were no slaves left in the possession of an acknowledged Quaker.
A: One of the brightest instances was that afforded by Warner Mifflin. He gave unconditional liberty to his slaves. He paid all the adults, on their discharge, the sum, which arbitrators, mutually chosen, awarded them.
A: One of the most notable examples was that of Warner Mifflin. He granted complete freedom to his slaves and paid all the adults the amount that was awarded to them by mutually chosen arbitrators upon their release.
B: Previously to the year 1787, several of the states had made the terms of manumission more easy.
B: Before 1787, some states had made it easier to free enslaved individuals.
Having given to the reader the history of the third class of forerunners and coadjutors, as it consisted of the Quakers in America, I am now to continue it, as it consisted of an union of these with others on the same continent, in the year 1774, in behalf of the African race. To do this, I shall begin with the causes which led to the production of this great event.
Having shared the history of the third group of forerunners and allies, which included the Quakers in America, I will now continue by discussing their collaboration with others on the same continent in 1774, advocating for the African race. To do this, I will start with the reasons that led to this significant event.
And, in the first place, as example is more powerful than precept, we cannot suppose that the Quakers could have shown these noble instances of religious principle, without supposing also that individuals of other religious denominations would be morally instructed by them. They who lived in the neighborhood where they took place, must have become acquainted with the motives which led to them. Some of them must at least have praised the action, though they might not themselves have been ripe to follow the example: nor is it at all improbable that these might be led, in the course of the workings of their own minds, to a comparison between their own conduct and that of the Quakers on this subject, in which they themselves might appear to be less worthy in their own eyes. And as there is sometimes a spirit of rivalship among the individuals of religious sects, where the character of one is sounded forth as higher than that of another; this, if excited by such a circumstance, would probably operate for good. It must have been manifest also to many, after a lapse of time, that there was no danger in what the Quakers had done, and that there was even sound policy in the measure. But, whatever were the several causes, certain it is, that the example of the Quakers in leaving off all concern with the Slave Trade, and in liberating their slaves, (scattered, as they were, over various parts of America,) contributed to produce in many of a different religious denomination from themselves, a more tender disposition than had been usual towards the African race.
And first of all, since example is more powerful than instruction, we can't assume that the Quakers could have demonstrated these admirable instances of religious principle without believing that individuals from other religious groups would learn from them. Those who lived nearby must have understood the motives behind these actions. At least some of them must have praised the actions, even if they weren't ready to follow the example themselves. It's also quite possible that these individuals, through their own reflection, compared their behavior to that of the Quakers on this issue and felt less worthy in their own eyes. Additionally, since there can be a sense of rivalry among different religious sects, where one group’s character is seen as superior to another's, this rivalry could actually lead to positive outcomes if it were triggered by such circumstances. After some time, many must have realized that there was no risk in what the Quakers had done and that there was even sound reasoning behind their actions. Regardless of the various reasons, it's clear that the Quakers' decision to disengage from the Slave Trade and free their slaves—who were spread across different parts of America—helped foster a more compassionate attitude toward the African race among many from different religious backgrounds than they had previously shown.
But a similar disposition towards these oppressed people was created in others, by means of other circumstances or causes. In the early part of the eighteenth century, Judge Sewell of New England came forward as a zealous advocate for them: he addressed a memorial to the legislature, which he called, The Selling of Joseph, and in which he pleaded their cause both as a lawyer and, a Christian. This memorial produced an effect upon many, but particularly upon those of his own persuasion; and from this time the Presbyterians appear to have encouraged a sympathy in their favour.
But a similar attitude toward these oppressed people was formed in others due to different circumstances or reasons. In the early part of the eighteenth century, Judge Sewell from New England stepped up as a passionate advocate for them: he presented a memorial to the legislature, which he titled, The Selling of Joseph, in which he argued for their cause both as a lawyer and a Christian. This memorial had an impact on many, especially those of his own faith; and from that time on, the Presbyterians seemed to promote a feeling of sympathy for them.
In the year 1739, the celebrated George Whitfield became an instrument in turning the attention of many others to their hard case, and of begetting in these a fellow sympathy towards them. This laborious minister, having been deeply affected with what he had seen in the course of his religious travels in America, thought it his duty, to address a letter from Georgia to the inhabitants of Maryland, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. This letter was printed in the year above mentioned, and is in part as follows:—
In 1739, the famous George Whitfield played a key role in drawing attention to the struggles of many and inspiring sympathy among them. This dedicated minister, having been deeply moved by what he witnessed during his religious travels in America, felt it was his duty to write a letter from Georgia to the people of Maryland, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. This letter was published in that same year and reads in part as follows:—
As I lately passed through your provinces in my way hither, I was sensibly touched with a fellow-feeling for the miseries of the poor negroes. Whether it be lawful for Christians to buy slaves, and thereby encourage the nations, from whom they are bought, to be at perpetual war with each other, I shall not take upon me to determine. Sure I am, it is sinful, when they have bought them to use them as bad as though they were brutes, nay, worse; and whatever particular exceptions there may be, (as I would charitably hope there are some,) I fear the generality of you who own negroes are liable to such a charge; for your slaves, I believe, work as hard, if not harder, than the horses whereon you ride. These, after they have done their work, are fed and taken proper care of; but many negroes when wearied with labour, in your plantations, have been obliged to grind their corn after their return home: your dogs are caressed and fondled at your table, but your slaves, who are frequently styled dogs or beasts, have not an equal privilege; they are scarce permitted to pick up the crumbs which fall from their master's table: not to mention what numbers have been given up to the inhuman usage of cruel taskmasters, who, by their unrelenting scourges have ploughed their backs and made long furrows, and at length brought them even unto death. When, passing along, I have viewed your plantations cleared and cultivated, many spacious houses built and the owners of them faring sumptuously every day, my blood has frequently almost run cold within me, to consider how many of your slaves had neither convenient food to eat, nor proper raiment to put on, notwithstanding most of the comforts you enjoy were solely owing to their indefatigable labours.
As I traveled through your areas recently on my way here, I was deeply affected by the suffering of poor Black people. Whether it's right for Christians to buy slaves and support the nations that sell them, leading to constant conflict, I can't say for sure. However, I am certain that it's wrong to treat those you’ve purchased as if they were mere animals—actually, even worse than that. Despite any specific exceptions I hope might exist, I worry that many of you who own slaves could be accused of this kind of treatment; I believe your slaves work as hard, if not harder, than the horses you ride. After they finish their chores, those horses are fed and cared for, while many Black individuals, exhausted from working on your plantations, have to grind their own corn when they get home. Your dogs are spoiled and loved at your tables, yet your slaves, often referred to as dogs or beasts, don’t receive the same treatment; they're barely allowed to pick up the scraps that fall from your table. Not to mention the many who have suffered under the cruelty of harsh overseers, who have mercilessly whipped them, leaving deep scars on their backs, ultimately leading to their deaths. As I passed by, seeing your cleared and cultivated plantations, the grand houses built, and the owners enjoying wealth daily, I often felt a chill at the thought of how many of your slaves lacked enough food and clothing, even though most of the comforts you enjoy are entirely because of their relentless work.
The letter, from which this is an extract, produced a desirable effect upon many of those who perused it, but particularly upon such as began to be seriously disposed in these times. And as George Whitfield continued a firm friend to the poor Africans, never losing an opportunity of serving them, he interested, in the course of his useful life, many thousands of his followers in their favour.
The letter, from which this is an extract, had a positive impact on many readers, especially on those who were becoming more serious during this time. And as George Whitfield remained a strong ally to the poor Africans, always looking for ways to help them, he gained the support of thousands of his followers throughout his impactful life.
To this account it may be added, that from the year 1762 ministers, who were in the connection of John Wesley, began to be settled in America, and that as these were friends to the oppressed Africans also, so they contributed in their turnA to promote a softness of feeling towards them among those of their own persuasion.
To this account, it's worth noting that starting in 1762, ministers connected to John Wesley began settling in America. These ministers were also advocates for the oppressed Africans, and in turn, they helped foster a sense of compassion towards them among their own followers.
A: It must not be forgotten, that the example of the Moravians had its influence also in directing men to their duty towards these oppressed people; for though, when they visited this part of the world for their conversion, they never meddled with the political state of things, by recommending it to masters to alter the condition of their slaves, as believing religion could give comfort in the most abject situations in life, yet they uniformly freed those slaves who came into their own possession.
A: It's important to remember that the example of the Moravians also helped guide people in their responsibilities toward these oppressed individuals. Although, when they came to this part of the world to convert others, they didn't interfere with the political situation by urging masters to change the status of their slaves—believing that religion could provide solace even in the direst circumstances—they consistently freed any slaves who became their own.
In consequence then of these and other causes, a considerable number of persons of various religious denominations, had appeared at different times in America, besides the Quakers, who, though they had not distinguished themselves by resolutions and manumissions as religious bodies, were yet highly friendly to the African cause. This friendly disposition began to manifest itself about the year 1770; for when a few Quakers, as individuals, began at that time to form little associations in the middle provinces of North America, to discourage the introduction of slaves among people in their own neighbourhoods, who were not of their own Society, and to encourage the manumission of those already in bondage, they, were joined as colleagues by several persons of this descriptionA, who co-operated with them in the promotion of their design.
As a result of these and other factors, a significant number of people from different religious backgrounds had appeared at various times in America, in addition to the Quakers, who, although they hadn't made a name for themselves through resolutions and emancipation as religious groups, were still very supportive of the African cause. This supportive attitude began to show around 1770; when a few Quakers, as individuals, started to form small groups in the central colonies of North America to discourage the introduction of slaves among people in their own neighborhoods who were not part of their Society, and to promote the emancipation of those already in bondage, they were joined by several individuals of this kindA, who worked alongside them to advance their cause.
A: It then appeared that individuals among those of the Church of England, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others had begun in a few instances to liberate their slaves.
A: It then became evident that some people from the Church of England, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and others had started, in a few cases, to free their slaves.
This disposition, however, became more manifest in the year 1772; for the house of burgesses of Virginia presented a petition to the king, beseeching his majesty to remove all those restraints on his governors of that colony, which inhibited their assent to such laws as might check that inhuman and impolitic commerce, the Slave Trade: and it is remarkable, that the refusal of the British government to permit the Virginians to exclude slaves from among them by law, was enumerated afterwards among the public reasons for separating from the mother country.
This attitude became more evident in 1772 when the Virginia House of Burgesses submitted a petition to the king, asking him to lift all restrictions on the colony's governors that prevented them from agreeing to laws aimed at curbing the inhumane and unwise practice of the Slave Trade. It’s notable that the British government’s refusal to allow Virginians to legally exclude slaves was later listed as one of the official reasons for seeking independence from Britain.
But this friendly disposition was greatly increased in the year 1773, by the literary labours of Dr. Benjamin Rush, of PhiladelphiaB, who, I believe, is a member of the Presbyterian Church: for in this year, at the instigation of Anthony Benezet, he took up the cause of the oppressed Africans in a little work, which he entitled, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements, on the Slavery of the Negroes; and soon afterwards in another, which was a vindication of the first, in answer to an acrimonious attach by a West Indian planter. These publications contained many new observations; they were written in a polished style; and while they exhibited the erudition and talents, they showed the liberality and benevolence of the author. Having had a considerable circulation, they spread conviction among many, and promoted the cause for which they had been so laudably undertaken. Of the great increase of friendly disposition towards the African cause in this very year, we have this remarkable proof: that when the Quakers, living in East and West Jersey, wished to petition the legislature to obtain an act of assembly for the more equitable manumission of slaves in that province, so many others of different persuasions joined them, that the petition was signed by upwards of three thousand persons.
But this friendly attitude grew significantly in 1773, thanks to the literary efforts of Dr. Benjamin Rush from PhiladelphiaB, who I believe is a member of the Presbyterian Church. That year, encouraged by Anthony Benezet, he championed the cause of oppressed Africans in a small work titled, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements, on the Slavery of the Negroes. Soon after, he published another work defending the first, in response to a harsh attack from a West Indian planter. These publications presented many new insights; they were written in a polished style and showcased the author's knowledge and talent while also reflecting his open-mindedness and kindness. Having circulated widely, they convinced many people and advanced the cause they were so commendably aimed at. A notable indication of the growing support for the African cause that year is evident when the Quakers living in East and West Jersey sought to petition the legislature for a law to enable fairer emancipation of slaves in that province. So many people of different backgrounds joined them that the petition was signed by over three thousand individuals.
B: Dr. Rush has been better known since for his other literary works, such as his Medical Dissertations, his Treatises on the Discipline of Schools, Criminal Law, &c.
B: Dr. Rush is now more recognized for his other writings, like his Medical Dissertations, Treatises on the Discipline of Schools, Criminal Law, etc.
But in the next year, or in the year 1774A, the increased good-will towards the Africans became so apparent, but more particularly in Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were more numerous than in any other state, that they, who considered themselves more immediately as the friends of these injured people, thought it right to avail themselves of it: and accordingly James Pemberton, one of the most conspicuous of the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Dr. Rush, one of the most conspicuous of those belonging to the various other religious communities in that province, undertook, in conjunction with others, the important task of bringing those into a society who were friendly to this cause. In this undertaking they succeeded. And hence arose that union of the Quakers with others, to which I have been directing the attention of the reader, and by which the third class of forerunners and coadjutors becomes now complete. This society, which was confined to Pennsylvania, was the first ever formed in America, in which there was an union of persons of different religious denominations in behalf of the African race.
But in the following year, 1774A, the growing goodwill towards Africans became very clear, especially in Pennsylvania, where the Quakers were more numerous than in any other state. They saw themselves as friends of these wronged individuals and believed it was important to take advantage of this goodwill. Thus, James Pemberton, one of the most prominent Quakers in Pennsylvania, along with Dr. Rush, a notable member of various other religious communities in the province, joined forces with others to take on the essential task of bringing together those who supported this cause. They were successful in this effort. This led to the alliance between the Quakers and others that I’ve been pointing out to the reader, completing the third group of pioneers and collaborators. This society, which was limited to Pennsylvania, was the first ever established in America that united people from different religious backgrounds to advocate for the African race.
A: In this year, Elhanan Winchester, a supporter of the doctrine of universal redemption, turned the attention of many of his hearers to this subject, both by private interference, and by preaching expressly upon it.
A: That year, Elhanan Winchester, an advocate for the idea of universal redemption, brought the focus of many of his listeners to this topic, both through personal discussions and by preaching directly about it.
But this society had scarcely begun to act, when the war broke out between England and America, which had the effect of checking its operations. This was considered as a severe blow upon it. But as those things which appear most to our disadvantage, turn out often the most to our benefit, so the war, by giving birth to the independence of America, was ultimately favourable to its progress. For as this contrast had produced during its continuance, so it left, when it was over, a general enthusiasm for liberty. Many talked of little else but of the freedom they had gained. These were naturally led to the consideration of those among them who were groaning in bondage. They began to feel for their hard case. They began to think that they should not deserve the new blessing which they had acquired if they denied it to others. Thus the discussions, which originated in this contest, became the occasion of turning the attention of many, who might not otherwise have thought of it, towards the miserable condition of the slaves.
But this society had barely started to take action when the war broke out between England and America, which ended up halting its efforts. This was seen as a major setback. However, things that seem to be our biggest disadvantages often turn out to be our greatest advantages, and the war, by leading to America's independence, ultimately helped its progress. Just as this contrast sparked a general enthusiasm for liberty during the war, it also lasted after the conflict was over. Many couldn’t stop talking about the freedom they had achieved. This led them to think about those who were still suffering in bondage. They began to empathize with their harsh situation. They started to believe that they wouldn’t truly deserve the new blessing they had obtained if they refused to extend it to others. As a result, the discussions that arose from this struggle became a catalyst, drawing the attention of many who might not have considered it otherwise, towards the dire plight of the slaves.
Nor were writers wanting, who, influenced by considerations on the war, and the independence resulting from it, made their works subservient to the same benevolent end. A work, entitled A Serious Address to the Rulers of America on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery, forming a Contrast between the Encroachments of England on American Liberty and American Injustice in tolerating Slavery; which appeared in 1783, was particularly instrumental in producing this effect. This excited a more than usual attention to the case of these oppressed people, and where most of all it could be useful; for the author compared in two opposite columns the animated speeches and resolutions of the members of congress in behalf of their own liberty with their conduct in continuing slavery to others. Hence the legislature began to feel the inconsistency of the practice; and so far had the sense of this inconsistency spread there, that when the delegates met from each state to consider of a federal union, there was a desire that the abolition of the Slave Trade should be one of the articles in it. This was, however, opposed by the delegates from North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Georgia, the five states which had the greatest concern in slaves. But even these offered to agree to the article, provided a condition was annexed to it, (which was afterwards done,) that the power of such abolition should not commence in the legislature till the 1st of January, 1808.
Writers were also motivated, who, influenced by thoughts on the war and the independence that came from it, made their works serve a similar noble purpose. A piece titled A Serious Address to the Rulers of America on the Inconsistency of their Conduct respecting Slavery, forming a Contrast between the Encroachments of England on American Liberty and American Injustice in tolerating Slavery, published in 1783, played a key role in this. This drew significant attention to the plight of these oppressed individuals, especially where it could make the most impact; the author contrasted the passionate speeches and resolutions of Congress members supporting their own freedom with their actions in maintaining slavery for others. As a result, the legislature began to recognize the inconsistency of this practice; and the awareness of this inconsistency grew so much that when the delegates from each state gathered to discuss forming a federal union, there was a push for the abolition of the Slave Trade to be included as one of the articles. However, this faced resistance from delegates in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Georgia, the five states most heavily invested in slavery. Still, even they agreed to the article, on the condition that the law for its abolition would not take effect until January 1, 1808.
In consequence then of these different circumstances, the Society of Pennsylvania, the object of which was "for promoting the abolition of slavery and the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage," became so popular, that in the year 1787 it was thought desirable to enlarge it. Accordingly several new members were admitted into it. The celebrated Dr. Franklin, who had long warmly espoused the cause of the injured Africans, was appointed president; James Pemberton and Jonathan Penrose were appointed vice-presidents; Dr. Benjamin Rush and Tench Coxe, secretaries; James Star, treasurer; William Lewis, John D. Coxe, Miers Fisher, and William Rawle, counsellors; Thomas Harrison, Nathan Boys, James Whiteall, James Reed, John Todd, Thomas Armatt, Norris Jones, Samuel Richards, Francis Bayley, Andrew Carson, John Warner, and Jacob Shoemaker, junior, an electing committee; and Thomas Shields, Thomas Parker, John Oldden, William Zane, John Warner, and William McElhenny, an acting committee for carrying on the purposes of the institution.
As a result of these various circumstances, the Society of Pennsylvania, which aimed "to promote the abolition of slavery and to help free Black individuals unlawfully held in bondage," became so popular that in 1787 it was decided to expand it. As a result, several new members were added. The renowned Dr. Franklin, who had long supported the cause of the oppressed Africans, was appointed president; James Pemberton and Jonathan Penrose became vice-presidents; Dr. Benjamin Rush and Tench Coxe took on the roles of secretaries; James Star was named treasurer; and William Lewis, John D. Coxe, Miers Fisher, and William Rawle were appointed as counselors. An electing committee was formed with Thomas Harrison, Nathan Boys, James Whiteall, James Reed, John Todd, Thomas Armatt, Norris Jones, Samuel Richards, Francis Bayley, Andrew Carson, John Warner, and Jacob Shoemaker, junior; while an acting committee to further the institution's goals consisted of Thomas Shields, Thomas Parker, John Oldden, William Zane, John Warner, and William McElhenny.
I shall now only observe further upon this subject, that as a society, consisting of an union of the Quakers, with others of other religious denominations, was established for Pennsylvania in behalf of the oppressed Africans; so different societies, consisting each of a similar union of persons, were established in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and other states for the same object, and that these afterwards held a correspondence and personal communion with each other for the promotion of it.
I’ll just add that, as a society made up of Quakers and members of other religious groups was formed in Pennsylvania to support the oppressed Africans, similar societies were also formed in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and other states for the same purpose. These groups later communicated and interacted with one another to further their cause.
CHAPTER VI.
Observations on the three classes already introduced.—Coincidence of extraordinary circumstances.—Individuals in each of these classes, who seem to have had an education as it were to qualify them for promoting the cause of the abolition; Sharp and Ramsay in the first; Dillwyn in the second; Pemberton and Rush in the third.—These, with their respective classes, acted on motives of their own, and independently of each other; and yet, from circumstances neither foreseen nor known by them, they were in the way of being easily united in 1787.—William Dillwyn, the great medium of connexion between them all.
Observations on the three classes already introduced.—Coincidence of extraordinary circumstances.—Individuals in each of these classes appear to have had an education that prepared them to support the cause of abolition: Sharp and Ramsay in the first; Dillwyn in the second; Pemberton and Rush in the third.—These individuals, along with their respective classes, acted on their own motivations and independently of one another; yet, due to circumstances neither anticipated nor known to them, they were poised to easily unite in 1787.—William Dillwyn, the key connection between them all.
If the reader will refer to his recollection, he will find that I have given the history of three of the classes of the forerunners and coadjutors in the great cause of the abolition of the Slave Trade up to the time proposed. He will of course expect that I should proceed with the history of the fourth. But, as I foresee that, by making certain observations upon the classes already introduced in the present, rather than in any future, place, I shall be able to give him clearer views on the subject, I shall postpone the history of the remaining class to the next chapter.
If the reader looks back at what I’ve shared, they’ll see that I covered the history of three groups who were forerunners and allies in the important fight against the Slave Trade up to the point we’ve reached. Naturally, they might expect me to continue with the history of the fourth group. However, I believe that by discussing some points about the groups I've already mentioned now, rather than later, I can provide clearer insights. So, I’ll save the history of the last group for the next chapter.
The account which I shall now give, will exhibit a concurrence of extraordinary and important circumstances. It will show, first, that in each of the three classes now introduced, there were individuals, in the year 1787, who had been educated as it were for the purpose of becoming peculiarly qualified to act together for the promotion of the abolition of the Slave Trade. It will show, secondly, that these, with their respective classes, acted upon their own principles, distinctly and independently of each other. And lastly, that by means of circumstances, which they themselves had neither foreseen nor contrived, a junction between them was rendered easily practicable, and that it was beginning to take place at the period assigned.
The account I'm about to share will highlight a series of extraordinary and significant events. It will first show that within each of the three groups mentioned, there were individuals in 1787 who had been specifically educated to be particularly well-suited to work together toward the goal of ending the Slave Trade. Secondly, it will reveal that these individuals and their groups acted according to their own principles, clearly and independently from one another. Finally, it will demonstrate that due to circumstances they neither anticipated nor planned, a connection between them became easily achievable, and that connection was beginning to form at the designated time.
The first class of forerunners and coadjutors consisted principally, as it has appeared, of persons in England of various descriptions. These, I may observe, had no communication with each other as to any plan for the abolition of the Slave Trade. There were two individuals, however, among them who were more conspicuous than the rest, namely, Granville Sharp, the first labourer, and Mr. Ramsay, the first controversial writer, in the cause.
The first group of pioneers and supporters mainly included various individuals in England. It's worth noting that they did not communicate with each other about any plans to end the Slave Trade. However, there were two individuals among them who stood out more than the others: Granville Sharp, the first activist, and Mr. Ramsay, the first controversial writer on this issue.
That Granville Sharp received an education as if to become qualified to unite with others, in the year 1787, for this important object, must have, appeared from the history of his labours, as detailed in several of the preceding pages. The same may be said of Mr. Ramsay; for it has already appeared that he lived in the island of St. Christopher, where he made his observations, and studied the laws, relative to the treatment of slaves, for nineteen years.
That Granville Sharp got an education that seemed aimed at preparing him to join others in 1787 for this important goal is evident from the history of his efforts, as outlined in several of the previous pages. The same can be said for Mr. Ramsay; it's already noted that he lived on the island of St. Christopher, where he spent nineteen years making observations and studying the laws regarding the treatment of slaves.
That Granville Sharp acted on grounds distinct from those in any of the other classes is certain. For he knew nothing at this time either of the Quakers in England or of those in America, any more than that they existed by name. Had it not been for the case of Jonathan Strong, he might never have attached himself to the cause. A similar account may be given of Mr. Ramsay; for, if it had not been for what he had seen in the island of St. Christopher, he had never embarked in it. It was from scenes, which he had witnessed there, that he began to feel on the subject. These feelings he communicated to others on his return to England, and these urged him into action.
That Granville Sharp was motivated by reasons different from those of any other group is clear. At that time, he knew nothing about the Quakers in England or America, other than that they existed by name. If it hadn't been for the case of Jonathan Strong, he might never have become involved in the cause. The same can be said for Mr. Ramsay; if he hadn't seen what he did on the island of St. Christopher, he wouldn't have gotten involved. It was from the experiences he witnessed there that he started to develop his thoughts on the issue. These feelings were shared with others when he returned to England, and they pushed him into action.
With respect to the second class, the reader will recollect that it consisted of the Quakers in England: first, of George Fox; then of the Quakers as a body; then of individuals belonging to that body, who formed themselves into a committee, independently of it, for the promotion of the object in question. This committee, it may he remembered, consisted of six persons, of whom one was William Dillwyn.
With regard to the second group, the reader might remember that it included the Quakers in England: first, George Fox; then the Quakers as a whole; and finally, individuals from that group who formed their own committee to support the discussed objective, separate from the main organization. This committee, as you may recall, consisted of six people, one of whom was William Dillwyn.
That William Dillwyn became fitted for the station, which he was afterwards to take, will be seen shortly. He was born in America, and was a pupil of the venerable Benezet, who took pains very early to interest his feelings on this great subject. Benezet employed him occasionally, I mean in a friendly manner, as his amanuensis, to copy his manuscripts for publication, as well as several of his letters written in behalf of the cause. This gave his scholar an insight into the subject; who, living besides in the land where both the Slave Trade and slavery were established, obtained an additional knowledge of them, so as to be able to refute many of those objections, to which others, for want of local observation, could never have replied.
That William Dillwyn was prepared for the position he was later to assume will become clear soon. He was born in America and was a student of the respected Benezet, who took great care to engage his interest in this important issue from a young age. Benezet would often ask him, in a friendly manner, to be his assistant by copying his manuscripts for publication as well as several letters he wrote on behalf of the cause. This experience gave his student a deeper understanding of the subject; living in a place where both the Slave Trade and slavery were prevalent, he gained additional insights that allowed him to counter many objections that others, lacking local experience, could never address.
In the year 1772, Anthony Benezet introduced William Dillwyn by letter to several of the principal people of Carolina, with whom he had himself corresponded on the sufferings of the poor Africans, and desired him to have interviews with them on the subject. He charged him also to be very particular in making observations as to what he should see there. This journey was of great use to the latter, in fixing him as the friend of these oppressed people; for he saw so much of their cruel treatment in the course of it, that he felt an anxiety ever afterwards, amounting to a duty, to do every thing in his power for their relief.
In 1772, Anthony Benezet introduced William Dillwyn by letter to several key people in Carolina, with whom he had previously communicated about the suffering of poor Africans, and requested that he meet with them to discuss the issue. He also instructed him to pay close attention and take notes on what he observed during his visit. This trip was very beneficial for Dillwyn, solidifying his role as an advocate for these oppressed people; he witnessed so much of their brutal treatment that he felt a lasting obligation to do everything he could to help them.
In the year 1773, William Dillwyn, in conjunction with Richard Smith and Daniel Wells, two of his own society, wrote a pamphlet in answer to arguments then prevailing, that the manumission of slaves would be injurious. This pamphlet—which was entitled, Brief Considerations on Slavery, and the Expediency of its Abolition; with some Hints on the Means whereby it may be gradually effected,—proved that in lieu of the usual security required, certain sums paid at the several periods of manumission would amply secure the public, as well as the owners of the slaves, from any future burdens. In the same year also, when the society, joined by several hundreds of others in New Jersey, presented a petition to the legislature, (as mentioned in the former chapter,) to obtain an act of assembly for the more equitable manumission of slaves in that province, William Dillwyn was one of a deputation, which was heard at the bar of the assembly for that purpose.
In 1773, William Dillwyn, along with Richard Smith and Daniel Wells, two members of his community, wrote a pamphlet in response to the arguments circulating at the time claiming that freeing slaves would be harmful. This pamphlet, titled Brief Considerations on Slavery, and the Expediency of its Abolition; with some Hints on the Means whereby it may be gradually effected, demonstrated that instead of the usual security required, certain payments made at different stages of manumission would sufficiently protect both the public and the slave owners from any future liabilities. That same year, when the society, along with hundreds of others in New Jersey, submitted a petition to the legislature (as mentioned in the previous chapter) to obtain a law for fairer manumission of slaves in that region, William Dillwyn was part of a delegation that presented their case before the assembly.
In 1774, he came to England, but his attention was still kept alive to the subject; for he was the person by whom Anthony Benezet sent his letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, as before related. He was also the person to whom the same venerable defender of the African race sent his letter, before spoken of, to be forwarded to the Queen.
In 1774, he arrived in England, but he remained focused on the issue; he was the one through whom Anthony Benezet sent his letter to the Countess of Huntingdon, as mentioned earlier. He was also the person to whom the same respected advocate for the African race sent his previously mentioned letter to be forwarded to the Queen.
That William Dillwyn, and those of his own class in England, acted upon motives very distinct from those of the former class, may be said with truth; for they acted upon the constitutional principles of their own society, as incorporated into its discipline: which principles would always have incited them to the subversion of slavery, as far as they themselves were concerned, whether any other person had abolished it or not. To which it may be added, as a further proof of the originality of their motives, that the Quakers have had, ever since their institution as a religious body, but little intercourse with the world.
That William Dillwyn and those in his social class in England acted on very different motives than the previous class is true. They were guided by the constitutional principles of their society, which were embedded in their culture. These principles would always have driven them to oppose slavery, at least as it affected them, regardless of whether anyone else had abolished it or not. Additionally, as further evidence of the uniqueness of their motives, the Quakers have had very little interaction with the outside world since their establishment as a religious group.
The third class, to which I now come, consisted, as we have seen, first of the Quakers in America; and secondly, of an union, of these with others on the same continent. The principal individuals concerned in this union were James Pemberton and Dr. Rush. The former of these, having taken an active part in several of the yearly meetings of his own society relative to the oppressed Africans, and having been in habits of intimacy and friendship with John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, with the result of whose labours he was acquainted, may be supposed to have become qualified to take a leading station in the promotion of their cause. Dr. Rush also had shown himself, as has appeared, an able advocate, and had even sustained a controversy in their favour. That the two last mentioned acted also on motives of their own, or independently of those belonging to the other two classes, when they formed their association in Pennsylvania, will be obvious from these circumstances; first, that most of those of the first class, who contributed to throw the greatest light and odium upon the Slave Trade, had not then made their public appearance in the world. And, with respect to the second class, the little committee belonging to it had neither been formed nor thought of.
The third group, which I’ll discuss now, included, as we’ve seen, first the Quakers in America, and second, a combination of these with others on the same continent. The main people involved in this union were James Pemberton and Dr. Rush. Pemberton was actively engaged in several of the yearly meetings of his own community regarding the oppressed Africans, and he had close relationships with John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, whose work he was familiar with, which likely made him well-suited to take a leading role in advancing their cause. Dr. Rush had also proven himself to be a strong advocate and had even taken part in debates supporting their cause. It’s clear that the last two mentioned were also motivated by their own reasons or acted independently of the other two groups when they formed their association in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by the fact that most of the individuals from the first group who contributed significantly to exposing the horrors of the Slave Trade had not yet made their public appearance. Additionally, regarding the second group, the small committee associated with it had neither been formed nor even conceived.
And as the individuals in each of the three classes, who have now been mentioned, had an education as it were to qualify them for acting together in this great cause, and had moved independently of each other; so it will appear that, by means of circumstances, which they themselves had neither foreseen nor contrived, a junction between them was rendered easily practicable, and that it was beginning to take place at the period assigned.
And as the people in each of the three classes mentioned earlier had an education that prepared them to work together for this important cause and had acted independently, it will be clear that due to circumstances they hadn't anticipated or planned for, a connection between them became easily achievable, and it was starting to happen at the designated time.
To show this, I must first remind the reader, that Anthony Benezet, as soon as he heard of the result of the case of Somerset, opened a correspondence with Granville Sharp, which was kept up to the encouragement of both. In the year 1774, when he learned that William Dillwyn was going to England, he gave him letters to that gentleman. Thus one of the most conspicuous of the second class was introduced, accidentally as it were, to one of the most conspicuous of the first. In the year 1775, William Dillwyn went back to America, but, on his return to England to settle, he renewed his visits to Granville Sharp. Thus the connexion was continued. To these observations I may now add, that Samuel Hoare, of the same class as William Dillwyn, had, in consequence of the Bishop of Chester's sermon, begun a correspondence in 1784, as before mentioned, with Mr. Ramsay, who was of the same class as Mr. Sharp. Thus four individuals of the two first classes were in the way of an union with one another.
To illustrate this, I need to remind the reader that Anthony Benezet, as soon as he learned about the outcome of the Somerset case, started a correspondence with Granville Sharp, which continued to be beneficial for both of them. In 1774, when he found out that William Dillwyn was heading to England, he gave him letters for that gentleman. This way, one of the most notable members of the second class was introduced, almost by chance, to one of the most notable members of the first class. In 1775, William Dillwyn returned to America, but when he came back to England to settle down, he resumed his visits to Granville Sharp. So, their connection continued. Additionally, I can mention that Samuel Hoare, who was in the same class as William Dillwyn, had started a correspondence in 1784, as previously noted, with Mr. Ramsay, who was in the same class as Mr. Sharp. Therefore, four individuals from the first two classes were on the path to coming together.
But circumstances equally natural contributed to render an union between the members of the second and the third classes easily practicable also. For what was more natural than that William Dillwyn, who was born and who had resided long in America, should have connexions there? He had long cultivated a friendship (not then knowing to what it would lead) with James Pemberton. His intimacy with him was like that of a family connexion. They corresponded together; they corresponded also as kindred hearts, relative to the Slave Trade. Thus two members of the second and third classes had opened an intercourse on the subject and thus was William Dillwyn the great medium, through whom the members of the two classes now mentioned, as well as the members of all the three, might be easily united also, if a fit occasion should offer.
But natural circumstances also made it easy for the members of the second and third classes to come together. What could be more expected than that William Dillwyn, who was born and had lived for a long time in America, would have connections there? He had long fostered a friendship (not realizing where it would lead) with James Pemberton. His relationship with him was like that of family. They wrote to each other; they also communicated as empathetic individuals regarding the Slave Trade. Thus, two members from the second and third classes had established a dialogue on the topic, and William Dillwyn became the key link through which the members of these two classes, as well as all three classes, could easily come together if the right opportunity arose.
CHAPTER VII.
Fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to 1787.—Dr. Peckard, vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the first of these; gives out the Slave Trade as the subject for one of the annual prizes.—Author writes and obtains the first of these; reads his Dissertation in the Senate-house in the summer of 1785; his feelings on the subject during his return home; is desirous of aiding the cause of the Africans, but sees great difficulties; determines to publish his prize essay for this purpose; is accidentally thrown into the way of James Phillips, who introduces him to W. Dillwyn, the connecting medium of the three classes before mentioned; and to G. Sharp and Mr. Ramsay, and to R. Phillips.
Fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to 1787.—Dr. Peckard, the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, was the first of these; he announces the Slave Trade as the topic for one of the annual prizes.—The author writes and wins the first of these; he presents his Dissertation in the Senate-house in the summer of 1785; he reflects on his feelings about the topic during his return home; he wants to support the cause of the Africans but recognizes significant challenges; he decides to publish his prize essay for this purpose; he is unexpectedly introduced to James Phillips, who connects him with W. Dillwyn, the link to the three classes mentioned earlier; and to G. Sharp, Mr. Ramsay, and R. Phillips.
I proceed now to the fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to the year 1787 in the great cause of the abolition of the Slave Trade.
I now move on to the fourth category of forerunners and supporters up to the year 1787 in the significant effort to abolish the Slave Trade.
The first of these was Dr. Peckard. This gentleman had distinguished himself in the earlier part of his life by certain publications on the intermediate state of the soul, and by others in favour of civil and religious liberty. To the latter cause he was a warm friend, seldom omitting any opportunity of declaring his sentiments in its favour. In the course of his preferment he was appointed by Sir John Griffin, afterwards Lord Howard of Walden, to the mastership of Magdalen College in the University of Cambridge. In this high office he considered it to be his duty to support those doctrines which he had espoused when in an inferior station; and accordingly, when in the year 1784 it devolved upon him to preach a sermon, before the University of Cambridge, he chose his favourite subject: in the handling of which he took an opportunity of speaking of the Slave Trade in the following nervous manner:—
The first of these was Dr. Peckard. This man had made a name for himself earlier in life with some publications on the soul's intermediate state and others advocating for civil and religious freedom. He was a passionate supporter of the latter cause, rarely missing a chance to express his views in its favor. In the course of his career, he was appointed by Sir John Griffin, who later became Lord Howard of Walden, to be the master of Magdalen College at the University of Cambridge. In this prominent role, he felt it was his responsibility to uphold the beliefs he had championed while in a lower position; thus, when it was his turn to preach a sermon before the University of Cambridge in 1784, he picked his favorite topic, taking the opportunity to address the Slave Trade in a powerful way:—
"Now, whether we consider the crime with respect to the individuals concerned in this most barbarous and cruel traffic, or whether we consider it as patronized and encouraged by the laws of the land, it presents to our view an equal degree of enormity. A crime, founded on a dreadful pre-eminence in wickedness—a crime, which being both of individuals and the nation, must sometime draw down upon us the heaviest judgment of Almighty God, who made of one blood all the sons of men, and who gave to all equally a natural right to liberty; and who, ruling all the kingdoms of the earth with equal providential justice, cannot suffer such deliberate, such monstrous iniquity, to pass long unpunished."
"Whether we examine the crime through the lens of the individuals involved in this brutal and cruel trade, or recognize that it is backed and encouraged by our laws, it reveals an equally horrifying reality. This crime is rooted in extreme evil—a crime that impacts both individuals and the nation, and will eventually bring about severe judgment from Almighty God, who made all people from one blood and bestowed upon everyone the same natural right to freedom; and who, governing all the kingdoms of the earth with equal justice, cannot let such intentional and monstrous wrongdoing go unpunished for long."
But Dr. Peckard did not consider this delivery of his testimony, though it was given before a learned and religious body, as a sufficient discharge of his duty, while any opportunity remained of renewing it with effect. And, as such an one offered in the year 1785, when he was vice-chancellor of the University, he embraced it. In consequence of his office, it devolved upon him to give out two subjects for Latin dissertations, one to the middle bachelors, and the other to the senior bachelors of arts. They who produced the best were to obtain the prizes. To the latter he proposed the following: Anne liceat Invitos in Servitutem dare? or, Is it right to make slaves of others against their will?
But Dr. Peckard didn’t see this presentation of his testimony, even though it was before a knowledgeable and religious group, as fulfilling his obligation as long as there was an opportunity to restate it effectively. In 1785, when he was vice-chancellor of the University, such an opportunity arose, and he took it. Due to his position, it was his responsibility to announce two topics for Latin dissertations, one for the middle bachelors and the other for the senior bachelors of arts. The ones who produced the best works would earn the prizes. For the seniors, he proposed the following: Anne liceat Invitos in Servitutem dare? or, Is it right to make slaves of others against their will?
This circumstance of giving out subjects for the prizes, though only an ordinary measure, became the occasion of my own labours, or of the real honour which I feel in being able to consider myself as the next coadjutor of this class in the cause of the injured Africans. For it happened in this year that, being of the order of senior bachelors, I became qualified to write. I had gained a prize for the best Latin dissertation in the former year, and, therefore, it was expected that I should obtain one in the present, or I should be considered as having lost my reputation both in the eyes of the University and of my own College. It had happened also, that I had been honoured with the first of the prizesA, in that year, and therefore it was expected again, that I should obtain the first on this occasion. The acquisition of the second, however honourable, would have been considered as a falling off, or as a loss of former fame. I felt myself, therefore, particularly called upon to maintain my post. And, with feelings of this kind, I began to prepare myself for the question.
This situation of assigning topics for the prizes, though just a standard practice, became the reason for my own efforts, or the true honor I feel in being able to think of myself as the next supporter of this group in the fight for the oppressed Africans. It turned out that, this year, as a senior bachelor, I was eligible to write. I had won a prize for the best Latin essay in the previous year, and so, it was expected that I should secure another this time, or else I would be seen as having lost my reputation both in the University and in my own College. Additionally, I had been awarded the top prizeA that year, so it was again anticipated that I should earn the first prize on this occasion. Even though winning second place would be an honor, it would still be viewed as a decline or a loss of my previous prestige. I felt, therefore, especially compelled to uphold my position. With these thoughts in mind, I began preparing for the question.
A: There are two prizes on each subject, one for the best and the other for the second-best essays.
A: There are two awards for each topic, one for the best essay and another for the runner-up.
In studying the thesis, I conceived it to point directly to the African Slave Trade, and more particularly as I knew that Dr. Peckard, in the sermon which I have mentioned, had pronounced so warmly against it. At any rate, I determined to give it this construction. But, alas! I was wholly ignorant of this subject; and, what was unfortunate, a few weeks only were allowed for the composition. I was determined, however, to make the best use of my time. I got access to the manuscript papers of a deceased friend, who had been in the trade. I was acquainted also with several officers who had been in the West Indies, and from these I gained something. But I still felt myself at a loss for materials, and I did not know where to get them; when going by accident into a friend's house, I took up a newspaper then lying on his table. One of the articles which attracted my notice, was an advertisement of ANTHONY BENEZET'S Historical Account of Guinea. I soon left my friend and his paper, and, to lose no time, hastened to London to buy it. In this precious book I found almost all I wanted. I obtained, by means of it, a knowledge of, and access to, the great authorities of Adanson, Moore, Barbot, Smith, Bosman, and others. It was of great consequence to know what these persons had said upon this subject. For, having been themselves either long resident in Africa, or very frequently there, their knowledge of it could not be questioned. Having been concerned also in the trade, it was not likely that they would criminate themselves more than they could avoid. Writing too at a time when the abolition was not even thought of, they could not have been biassed with any view to that event. And, lastly, having been dead many years, they could not have been influenced, as living evidences may be supposed to have been, either to conceal or exaggerate, as their own interest might lead them, either by being concerned in the continuance of the trade, or by supporting the opinions of those of their patrons in power, who were on the different sides of this question.
In studying the thesis, I believed it was directly about the African Slave Trade, especially since I knew that Dr. Peckard, in the sermon I mentioned, had spoken out strongly against it. Regardless, I decided to interpret it this way. But, unfortunately, I knew very little about this topic, and I had only a few weeks to write it. Still, I was determined to use my time wisely. I accessed the manuscript papers of a late friend who had been involved in the trade. I also connected with several officers who had served in the West Indies, from whom I learned some information. However, I still felt lost when it came to materials and didn't know where to find them. One day, by chance, I walked into a friend's house and picked up a newspaper lying on his table. One of the ads that caught my eye was for ANTHONY BENEZET'S Historical Account of Guinea. I quickly left my friend and the newspaper, and to not waste any time, rushed to London to buy it. In this valuable book, I found nearly everything I needed. It gave me insight into and access to the important works of Adanson, Moore, Barbot, Smith, Bosman, and others. Understanding what these authors had said was crucial because they had either lived in Africa for a long time or had visited frequently, so their knowledge was reliable. Since they had been involved in the trade, it was unlikely they would incriminate themselves more than necessary. Writing at a time when abolition wasn’t even a consideration, they wouldn’t have had any bias about that future event. Finally, since they had been dead for many years, they couldn't have been swayed like living witnesses might be, either to hide or exaggerate the truth for their own interests or to align with the views of their patrons in power, who were on different sides of this issue.
Furnished then in this manner, I began my work. But no person can tell the severe trial which the writing of it proved to me. I had expected pleasure from the invention of the arguments, from the arrangement of them, from the putting of them together, and from the thought in the interim that I was engaged in an innocent contest for literary honour. But, all my pleasure was damped by the facts which were now continually before me. It was but one gloomy subject from morning to night. In the day-time I was uneasy. In the night I had little rest. I sometimes never closed my eye-lids for grief. It became now not so much a trial for academical reputation, as for the production of a work, which might be useful to injured Africa. And keeping this idea in my mind ever after the perusal of Benezet, I always slept with a candle in my room, that I might rise out of my bed and put down such thoughts as might occur to me in the night, if I judged them valuable, conceiving that no arguments of any moment should be lost in so great a cause. Having at length finished this painful task, I sent my Essay to the vice-chancellor, and soon afterwards found myself honoured as before with the first prize.
Furnished in this way, I began my work. But no one can describe the tough challenge that writing it turned out to be for me. I had expected to enjoy coming up with the arguments, organizing them, putting them together, and thinking all along that I was engaging in a noble effort for literary recognition. But all my enjoyment was overshadowed by the harsh realities that constantly faced me. It was just one dark topic from morning to night. During the day, I was restless. At night, I found little rest. Sometimes I couldn't even close my eyes because of my sorrow. It became less about academic reputation and more about creating a work that could be beneficial to suffering Africa. Keeping this in mind after reading Benezet, I always slept with a candle in my room so I could get up and jot down any thoughts that came to me at night, if I deemed them important, believing that no significant argument should be wasted in such a crucial cause. After finally finishing this difficult task, I sent my Essay to the vice-chancellor, and soon after, I found myself honored once again with the first prize.
As it is usual to read these Essays publicly in the senate-house soon after the prize is adjudged, I was called to Cambridge for this purpose. I went and performed my office. On returning however to London, the subject of it almost wholly engrossed my thoughts. I became at times very seriously affected while upon the road. I stopped my horse occasionally, and dismounted and walked. I frequently tried to persuade myself in these intervals that the contents of my Essay could not be true. The more, however, I reflected upon them, or rather upon the authorities on which they were founded, the more I gave them credit. Coming in sight of Wades Mill, in Hertfordshire, I sat down disconsolate on the turf by the roadside and held my horse. Here a thought came into my mind, that if the contents of the Essay were true, it was time some person should see these calamities to their end. Agitated in this manner, I reached home. This was in the summer of 1785.
As is typical, I was invited to read these Essays publicly in the senate-house shortly after the prize was awarded, so I went to Cambridge for that reason. I did my part there. However, on my way back to London, the topic consumed almost all of my thoughts. I became quite serious at times while traveling. I occasionally stopped my horse, dismounted, and walked for a bit. During these moments, I often tried to convince myself that the ideas in my Essay couldn't be true. Yet, the more I thought about them, or rather about the sources they were based on, the more I began to believe in them. When I reached Wades Mill in Hertfordshire, I sat down sadly on the grass by the roadside and held my horse. At that moment, it struck me that if the ideas in the Essay were true, it was time for someone to bring these issues to light. Feeling shaken by this thought, I finally made it home. This was in the summer of 1785.
In the course of the autumn of the same year I experienced similar impressions. I walked frequently into the woods, that I might think on the subject in solitude, and find relief to my mind there. But there the question still recurred, "Are these things true?" Still the answer followed as instantaneously "They are." Still the result accompanied it, "Then surely some person should interfere." I then began to envy those who had seats in parliament, and who had great riches, and widely extended connexions, which would enable them to take up this cause. Finding scarcely any one at that time who thought of it, I was turned frequently to myself. But here many difficulties arose. It struck me, among others, that a young man of only twenty-four years of age could not have that solid judgment or knowledge of men, manners, and things, which were requisite to qualify him to undertake a task of such magnitude and importance;—and with whom was I to unite? I believed also, that it looked so much like one of the feigned labours of Hercules, that my understanding would be suspected if I proposed it. On ruminating, however, on the subject, I found one thing at least practicable, and that this also was in my power. I could translate my Latin dissertation. I could enlarge it usefully. I could see how the public received it, or how far they were likely to favour any serious measures, which should have a tendency to produce the abolition of the Slave Trade. Upon this then I determined; and in the middle of the month of November 1785, I began my work.
During the autumn of that same year, I had similar thoughts. I often walked into the woods to think in solitude and find some peace of mind. But the question kept coming back, "Are these things true?" And the answer immediately followed, "They are." The conclusion was also clear: "Then surely someone should do something about it." I began to envy those with seats in parliament, those who had great wealth and extensive networks that would allow them to take up this cause. Finding hardly anyone at that time who cared about it, I often turned inward. But here, I faced many challenges. I realized, among other things, that a young man of just twenty-four years couldn't have the solid judgment or understanding of people, manners, and affairs needed for such a significant and important task; and who would I collaborate with? I also thought it would seem so much like one of Hercules' mythical labors that people would doubt my sanity if I suggested it. However, after contemplating the matter, I found at least one thing I could realistically do, and that was within my control. I could translate my Latin dissertation. I could expand it usefully. I could observe how the public responded or how likely they were to support any serious actions aimed at abolishing the Slave Trade. So, I made that decision, and in mid-November 1785, I began my work.
By the middle of January, I had finished half of it, though I had made considerable additions. I now thought of engaging with some bookseller to print it when finished. For this purpose I called upon Mr. Cadell, in the Strand, and consulted him about it. He said that as the original essay had been honoured by the University of Cambridge with the first prize, this circumstance would insure it a respectable circulation among persons of taste. I own I was not much pleased with his opinion. I wished the essay to find its way among useful people, and among such as would act and think with me. Accordingly I left Mr. Cadell, after having thanked him for his civility, and determined, as I thought I had time sufficient before dinner, to call upon a friend in the city. In going past the Royal Exchange, Mr. Joseph Hancock, one of the religious society of the Quakers, and with whose family my own had been long united in friendship, suddenly met me. He first accosted me by saying that I was the person whom he was wishing to see. He then asked me why I had not published my prize essay. I asked him in return what had made him think of that subject in particular. He replied that his own society had long taken it up as a religious body, and individuals among them were wishing to find me out. I asked him who. He answered, James Phillips, a bookseller, in Georgeyard, Lombard-street, and William Dillwyn, of Walthamstow, and others. Having but little time to spare, I desired him to introduce me to one of them. In a few minutes he took me to James Phillips, who was then the only one of them in town; by whose conversation I was so much interested and encouraged, that without any further hesitation I offered him the publication of my work. This accidental introduction of me to James Phillips was, I found afterwards, a most happy circumstance for the promotion of the cause which I had then so deeply at heart, as it led me to the knowledge of several of those, who became afterwards material coadjutors in it. It was also of great importance to me with respect to the work itself: for he possessed an acute penetration, a solid judgment, and a literary knowledge, which he proved by the many alterations and additions he proposed; and which I believe I uniformly adopted, after mature consideration, from a sense of their real value. It was advantageous to me also, inasmuch as it led me to his friendship, which was never interrupted but by his death.
By mid-January, I had completed half of it, although I had made significant additions. I started thinking about hiring a bookseller to publish it once I was done. For this reason, I visited Mr. Cadell in the Strand and discussed it with him. He mentioned that since the original essay had won first prize from the University of Cambridge, this would ensure it had a respectable readership among discerning people. I have to admit I wasn't very pleased with his opinion. I wanted the essay to reach helpful people and those who would think and act like me. So, I thanked Mr. Cadell for his kindness and decided, since I still had some time before dinner, to visit a friend in the city. As I passed the Royal Exchange, I unexpectedly ran into Mr. Joseph Hancock, a member of the Quaker community, whose family has been friends with mine for a long time. He greeted me, saying I was the person he had been hoping to see. He then asked me why I hadn’t published my prize essay. I replied, asking what had made him think of that topic specifically. He answered that his own community had taken an interest in it as a religious group, and individuals among them were eager to connect with me. I inquired who they were, and he mentioned James Phillips, a bookseller in Georgeyard, Lombard Street, and William Dillwyn from Walthamstow, among others. Since I had limited time, I asked him to introduce me to one of them. In a few minutes, he took me to James Phillips, the only one of them currently in town; I found his conversation so engaging and encouraging that without further delay, I offered him the chance to publish my work. This unexpected introduction to James Phillips later turned out to be a significant moment for advancing the cause I was deeply passionate about, as it connected me with several individuals who eventually became key supporters. It was also crucial for the work itself; he had sharp insight, sound judgment, and literary expertise, which he demonstrated through numerous alterations and additions he suggested. I believe I accepted most of his recommendations after careful thought, recognizing their true worth. It was also beneficial for me because it led to his friendship, which remained unbroken until his death.
On my second visit to James Phillips, at which time I brought him about half my manuscript for the press, I desired him to introduce me to William Dillwyn, as he also had mentioned him to me on my first visit, and as I had not seen Mr. Hancock since. Matters were accordingly arranged, and a day appointed before I left him. On this day I had my first interview with my new friend. Two or three others of his own religious society were present, but who they were, I do not now recollect. There seemed to be a great desire among them to know the motive, by which I had been actuated in contending for the prize. I told them frankly that I had no motive but that which, other young men in the University had on such occasions; namely, the wish of being distinguished, or of obtaining literary honour; but that I had felt so deeply on the subject of it, that I had lately interested myself in it from a motive of duty. My conduct seemed to be highly approved by those present, and much conversation ensued, but it was of a general nature.
On my second visit to James Phillips, when I brought him about half of my manuscript for publishing, I asked him to introduce me to William Dillwyn, since he had mentioned him during my first visit and I hadn’t seen Mr. Hancock since then. Arrangements were made, and a day was set before I left him. On that day, I had my first meeting with my new friend. A couple of others from his religious community were there, but I can’t recall who they were now. They seemed very curious about the reason I had been motivated to compete for the prize. I told them honestly that I had no motive other than what other young men at the University typically had in such situations; in other words, the desire to stand out or gain literary recognition. However, I also shared that I had become so passionate about the topic that I recently started engaging with it out of a sense of duty. My actions seemed well received by those present, and a lot of general conversation followed.
As William Dillwyn wished very much to see me at his house at Walthamstow, I appointed the 13th of March to spend the day with them there. We talked for the most part, during my stay, on the subject of my essay. I soon discovered the treasure I had met with in his local knowledge, both of the Slave Trade and of slavery, as they existed in the United States; and I gained from him several facts, which, with his permission, I afterwards inserted in my work. But how surprised was I to hear, in the course of our conversation, of the labours of Granville Sharp, of the writings of Ramsay, and of the controversy in which the latter was engaged, of all which I had hitherto known nothing! How surprised was I to learn that William Dillwyn himself had, two years before, associated himself with five others for the purpose of enlightening the public mind upon this great subject! How astonished was I to find that a society had been formed in America for the same object, with some of the principal members of which he was intimately acquainted! And how still more astonished at the inference which instantly rushed upon my mind, that he was capable of being made the great medium of connexion between them all. These thoughts almost overpowered me. I believe that after this I talked but little more to my friend. My mind was overwhelmed with the thought that I had been providentially directed to his house; that the finger of Providence was beginning to be discernible; that the day-star of African liberty was rising, and that probably I might be permitted to become an humble instrument in promoting it.
As William Dillwyn really wanted to see me at his house in Walthamstow, I scheduled to spend the day with them on March 13th. Most of our conversation centered around my essay. I quickly realized how valuable his local knowledge was regarding the Slave Trade and slavery in the United States, and I learned several facts from him that I later included in my work, with his permission. However, I was shocked to hear about Granville Sharp's efforts, Ramsay's writings, and the controversy he was involved in—information I had been completely unaware of! I was also astonished to learn that William Dillwyn had teamed up with five others two years earlier to help educate the public about this important issue! Even more surprising was discovering that a society had been established in America for the same purpose, and he was closely connected to some of its key members! It struck me how he was positioned to be a vital link between all of them. These thoughts nearly overwhelmed me. I think after this, I spoke very little to my friend. My mind was flooded with the realization that I had been led to his house for a reason, that signs of Providence were becoming clear, that the dawn of African liberty was starting to appear, and that I might be allowed to play a small role in advancing it.
In the course of attending to my work, as now in the press, James Phillips introduced me also to Granville Sharp, with whom I had afterwards many interesting interviews from time to time, and whom I discovered to be a distant relation by my father's side.
In the process of doing my work, as I'm currently busy, James Phillips also introduced me to Granville Sharp. I ended up having many interesting conversations with him over time and found out that he is a distant relative on my father's side.
He introduced me also by letter to a correspondence with Mr. Ramsay, who in a short time afterwards came to London to see me.
He also introduced me via letter to Mr. Ramsay, who shortly after came to London to meet me.
He introduced me also to his cousin, Richard Phillips, of Lincoln's Inn, who was at that time, on the point of joining the religious society of Quakers. In him I found much sympathy, and a willingness to co-operate with me. When dull and disconsolate, he encouraged me. When in spirits, he stimulated me further. Him I am now to mention as a new, but soon afterwards as an active and indefatigable, coadjutor in the cause. But I shall say more concerning him in a future chapter. I shall only now add that my work was at length printed; that it was entitled An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, particularly the African, translated from a Latin Dissertation, which was honoured with the first Prize in the University of Cambridge, for the year 1785; with Additions; and that it was ushered into the world in the month of June, 1786, or in about a year after it had been read in the Senate-house in its first form.
He also introduced me to his cousin, Richard Phillips, from Lincoln's Inn, who was then about to join the Quakers. I felt a strong connection with him, and he was eager to help me. When I was down and discouraged, he lifted my spirits. When I was feeling good, he pushed me to do even more. I will refer to him as a new, but very soon after, a dedicated and tireless ally in my cause. I'll share more about him in a future chapter. For now, I’ll just add that my work was finally published; it was titled An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, particularly the African, translated from a Latin Dissertation, which was awarded the first Prize at the University of Cambridge for the year 1785; with Additions; and it was released to the public in June 1786, about a year after it had been presented in its original form at the Senate-house.
CHAPTER VIII.
Continuation of the fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to 1787; Bennet Langton; Dr. Baker; Lord and Lady Scarsdale.—Author visits Ramsay at Teston.—Lady Middleton and Sir Charles (afterward Lord Barham).—Author declares himself at the house of the latter ready now to devote himself to the cause; reconsiders this declaration or pledge; his reasoning and struggle upon it; persists in it; returns to London; and pursues the work as now a business of his life.
Continuation of the fourth group of forerunners and supporters up to 1787; Bennet Langton; Dr. Baker; Lord and Lady Scarsdale.—Author visits Ramsay at Teston.—Lady Middleton and Sir Charles (later Lord Barham).—Author announces at the home of the latter that he is now ready to commit himself to the cause; rethinks this declaration or promise; his reasoning and struggle with it; remains committed to it; returns to London; and continues the work as now a primary focus of his life.
I had purposed, as I said before, when I determined to publish my essay, to wait to see how the world would receive it, or what disposition there would be in the public to favour my measures for the abolition of the Slave Trade. But the conversation which I had held on the 13th of March with William Dillwyn, continued to make such an impression upon me, that I thought now there could be no occasion for waiting for such a purpose. It seemed now only necessary to go forward. Others I found had already begun the work. I had been thrown suddenly among these, as into a new world of friends. I believed, also, that a way was opening under Providence for support; and I now thought that nothing remained for me but to procure as many coadjutors as I could.
I had intended, as I mentioned before, when I decided to publish my essay, to wait and see how people would respond to it or what the public's attitude would be toward my efforts to end the Slave Trade. But the conversation I had on March 13th with William Dillwyn left such a strong impression on me that I felt there was no need to wait any longer. It now seemed only essential to move forward. I discovered that others had already started the work. I suddenly found myself among these individuals, as if I had entered a new world of friends. I also believed that a path was opening up, guided by Providence, for support; and I thought that all that was left for me to do was to gather as many supporters as I could.
I had long had the honour of the friendship of Mr. Bennet Langton, and I determined to carry him one of my books, and to interest his feelings in it, with a view of procuring his assistance in the cause. Mr. Langton was a gentleman of an ancient family and respectable fortune in Lincolnshire, but resided then in Queen Square, Westminster. He was known as the friend of Dr. Johnson, Jonas Hanway, Edmund Burke, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and others. Among his acquaintance, indeed, were most of the literary, and eminent professional, and public-spirited men of the times. At court, also, he was well known, and had the esteem of his majesty (George III.), with whom he frequently conversed. His friends were numerous also, in both houses of the legislature. As to himself, he was much noted for his learning, but most of all for the great example he gave, with respect to the usefulness and integrity of his life.
I had long enjoyed the friendship of Mr. Bennet Langton, and I decided to bring him one of my books and get him interested in it, hoping to gain his support for the cause. Mr. Langton came from an old family and had a respectable fortune in Lincolnshire, but he was living at Queen Square in Westminster at that time. He was known as a friend of Dr. Johnson, Jonas Hanway, Edmund Burke, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and others. In fact, most of the prominent literary, professional, and civic-minded individuals of the time were among his acquaintances. He was also well-known at court and had the respect of his majesty (George III.), with whom he often chatted. He had many friends in both houses of the legislature. As for Mr. Langton, he was well-regarded for his knowledge but was most noted for the great example he set in terms of the usefulness and integrity of his life.
By introducing my work to the sanction of a friend of such high character and extensive connexions, I thought I should be doing great things. And so the event proved. For when I went to him after he had read it, I found that it had made a deep impression upon his mind. As a friend to humanity, he lamented over the miseries of the oppressed Africans; and over the crimes of their tyrants, as a friend to morality and religion. He cautioned me, however, against being too sanguine in my expectations, as so many thousands were interested in continuing the trade. Justice, however, which he said weighed with him beyond all private or political interest, demanded a public inquiry, and he would assist me to the utmost of his power in my attempts towards it. From this time he became a zealous and active coadjutor in the cause, and continued so to the end of his valuable life.
By introducing my work to a friend of such high character and extensive connections, I thought I would accomplish great things. And that's exactly what happened. When I approached him after he had read it, I found that it had made a strong impact on him. As a friend to humanity, he expressed sorrow over the suffering of the oppressed Africans and the crimes committed by their tyrants, speaking as a supporter of morality and religion. He did, however, warn me not to be too optimistic in my expectations, as so many thousands were invested in keeping the trade going. Justice, he said, which he valued above all private or political interests, called for a public inquiry, and he would do everything in his power to help me pursue it. From that point on, he became a passionate and active supporter of the cause and remained so for the rest of his valuable life.
The next person, to whom I gave my work with a like view, was Dr. Baker, a clergyman of the Establishment, and with whom I had been in habits of intimacy for some time. Dr. Baker was a learned and pious man. He had performed the duties of his profession, from the time of his initiation into the church, in an exemplary manner; not only by paying a proper attention to the customary services, but by the frequent visitation of the sick and the instruction of the poor. This he had done, too, to admiration in a particularly extensive parish. At the time I knew him, he had May-Fair Chapel, of which an unusual portion of the congregation consisted then of persons of rank and fortune. With most of these he had a personal acquaintance. This was of great importance to me in the promotion of my views. Having left him my book for a month, I called upon him. The result was that which I expected from so good a man. He, did not wait for me to ask him for his co-operation, but he offered his services in any way which I might think most eligible; feeling it his duty, as he expressed it, to become an instrument in exposing such a complication of guilt and misery to the world. Dr. Baker became from this time an active coadjutor also, and continued so to his death.
The next person I shared my work with, for a similar reason, was Dr. Baker, a clergyman from the Church of England, and someone I had been close with for a while. Dr. Baker was a knowledgeable and devout man. He had carried out the responsibilities of his profession admirably since he joined the church, not only by properly attending to the usual services but also by frequently visiting the sick and teaching the poor. He did this very well in a particularly large parish. At the time I knew him, he was in charge of May-Fair Chapel, which had a significant number of wealthy and influential attendees. He had personal connections with many of them. This was very important for me in advancing my goals. After leaving him my book for a month, I paid him a visit. The outcome was what I expected from such a good man. He didn’t wait for me to ask for his help; instead, he offered his support in any way I thought best, expressing that he felt it was his duty to help uncover this complex issue of guilt and suffering to the world. From then on, Dr. Baker became an active supporter and remained so until his death.
The person to whom I sent my work next, was the late Lord Scarsdale, whose family I had known for about two years. Both he and his lady read it with attention. They informed me, after the perusal of it, that both of them were desirous of assisting me in promoting the cause of the poor Africans. Lady Scarsdale lamented that she might possibly offend near and dear connexions, who had interests in, the West Indies, by so doing; but that, conscious of no intention to offend these, and considering the duties of religion to be the first to be attended to, she should be pleased to become useful in so good a cause. Lord Scarsdale also assured me, that, if the subject should ever come before the House of Lords, it should have his constant support.
The next person I sent my work to was the late Lord Scarsdale, whose family I had known for about two years. Both he and his wife read it carefully. After reviewing it, they told me that they were eager to help me promote the cause of the poor Africans. Lady Scarsdale expressed concern that she might offend close relatives who had interests in the West Indies, but she felt that her obligation to support what’s right was more important. She was happy to contribute to such a worthy cause. Lord Scarsdale also promised that if the topic ever came up in the House of Lords, he would fully support it.
While attempting to make friends in this manner, I received a letter from Mr. Ramsay, with an invitation to spend a month at his house at Teston, near Maidstone, in Kent. This I accepted, that I might communicate to him the progress I had made, that I might gain more knowledge from him on the subject, and that I might acquire new strength and encouragement to proceed. On hearing my account of my proceedings, which I detailed to him on the first evening of our meeting, he seemed almost overpowered with joy. He said he had been long of opinion that the release of the Africans from the scourges of this cruel trade was within the determined views of Providence, and that by turning the public attention to their misery, we should be the instruments of beginning the good work. He then informed me how long he himself had had their cause at heart; that communicating his feelings to Sir Charles Middleton (afterwards Lord Barham) and his lady, the latter had urged him to undertake a work in their behalf; that her importunities were great respecting it; and that he had on this account, and in obedience also to his own feelings, as has been before mentioned, begun it; but that, foreseeing the censure and abuse which such a subject, treated in any possible manner, must bring upon the author, he had laid it aside for some time. He had, however, resumed it at the solicitation of Dr. Porteus, then Bishop of Chester; after which, in the year 1784, it made its appearance in the world.
While trying to make friends this way, I got a letter from Mr. Ramsay inviting me to spend a month at his home in Teston, near Maidstone, Kent. I accepted so I could share my progress, learn more from him about the subject, and gain new strength and encouragement to move forward. When I shared my experiences with him on our first evening together, he seemed almost overwhelmed with joy. He said he had long believed that freeing Africans from the horrors of this cruel trade was part of a greater plan, and by drawing public attention to their suffering, we could help start this important work. He then told me how long he had cared about their cause, mentioning that he had shared his thoughts with Sir Charles Middleton (later Lord Barham) and his wife, who encouraged him to take action for them; her repeated requests prompted him to begin this work. However, understanding the criticism and backlash that any treatment of this subject would attract, he had set it aside for a while. He later picked it up again at the urging of Dr. Porteus, who was then Bishop of Chester; after that, in 1784, it was published.
I was delighted with this account on the first evening of my arrival; but more particularly, as I collected from it that I might expect in the Bishop of Chester and Sir Charles Middleton two new friends to the cause. This expectation was afterwards fully realized, as the reader will see in its proper place. But I was still more delighted, when I was informed that Sir Charles and Lady Middleton, with Mrs. Bouverie, lived at Teston Hall, in a park which was but a few yards from the house in which I then was. In the morning I desired an introduction to them, which accordingly took place, and I found myself much encouraged and supported by this visit.
I was really happy with this account on my first evening after arriving; especially because I gathered that I could expect to have the Bishop of Chester and Sir Charles Middleton as two new friends in the cause. This expectation was later fully met, as the reader will see in the appropriate section. But I was even more thrilled when I learned that Sir Charles and Lady Middleton, along with Mrs. Bouverie, lived at Teston Hall, in a park just a few yards from the house where I was staying. The next morning, I requested an introduction to them, which happened as planned, and I felt much encouraged and supported by this visit.
It is not necessary, nor indeed is there room, to detail my employments in this village, or the lonely walks I took there, or the meditations of my mind at such seasons. I will therefore come at once to a particular occurrence. When at dinner one day with the family at Teston Hall, I was much pleased with the turn which the conversation had taken on the subject, and in the joy of my heart I exclaimed, that "I was ready to devote myself to the cause." This brought great commendation from those present; and Sir Charles Middleton added, that if I wanted any information in the course of my future inquiries relative to Africa, which he could procure me as comptroller of the navy, such as extracts from the journals of the ships of war to that continent, or from other papers, I should have free access to his office. This offer I received with thankfulness, and it operated as a new encouragement to me to proceed.
It’s not necessary, and there really isn’t space, to go into detail about what I did in this village, the solitary walks I took, or my thoughts during those times. So, I’ll get straight to a specific event. One day at dinner with the family at Teston Hall, I was really pleased with how the conversation was going on the topic, and in my excitement, I declared that "I was ready to commit myself to the cause." This brought a lot of praise from those around me; Sir Charles Middleton even added that if I needed any information for my future inquiries about Africa—anything he could provide as comptroller of the navy, like extracts from the journals of the warships to that continent or other documents—I would have full access to his office. I gratefully accepted this offer, and it motivated me even more to continue forward.
The next morning, when I awoke, one of the first things that struck me was, that I had given a pledge to the company the day before that I would devote myself to the cause of the oppressed Africans. I became a little uneasy at this. I questioned whether I had considered matters sufficiently to be able to go so far with propriety. I determined therefore to give the subject a full consideration, and accordingly I walked to the place of my usual meditations,—the woods.
The next morning, when I woke up, one of the first things that hit me was that I had promised the group the day before that I would commit myself to the cause of the oppressed Africans. This made me a little uneasy. I wondered whether I had thought things through enough to take such a step properly. So, I decided to really think it over, and I walked to my usual spot for reflection—the woods.
Having now reached a place of solitude, I began to balance everything on both sides of the question. I considered first, that I had not yet obtained information sufficient on the subject to qualify me for the undertaking of such a work. But I reflected, on the other hand, that Sir Charles Middleton had just opened to me a new source of knowledge; that I should be backed by the local information of Dillwyn and Ramsay; and that surely, by taking pains, I could acquire more.
Having reached a quiet place, I started to weigh everything on both sides of the issue. I first thought about the fact that I didn't have enough information on the topic to take on such a project. But then I considered that Sir Charles Middleton had just given me a new source of knowledge; I would have the local insights from Dillwyn and Ramsay; and surely, if I put in the effort, I could learn more.
I then considered that I had not yet a sufficient number of friends to support me. This occasioned me to review them. I had now Sir Charles Middleton, who was in the House of Commons. I was sure of Dr. Porteus, who was in the House of Lords. I could count upon Lord Scarsdale, who was a peer also. I had secured Mr. Langton, who had a most extensive acquaintance with members of both houses of the legislature. I had also secured Dr. Baker, who had similar connexions. I could depend upon Granville Sharp, James Phillips, Richard Phillips, Ramsay, Dillwyn, and the little committee to which he belonged, as well as the whole society of the Quakers. I thought, therefore, upon the whole, that, considering the short time I had been at work, I was well off with respect to support. I believed, also, that there were still several of my own acquaintance whom I could interest in the question, and I did not doubt that, by exerting myself diligently, persons, who were then strangers to me, would be raised up in time.
I then realized that I didn't have enough friends to support me. This made me take a closer look at my connections. I had Sir Charles Middleton, who was in the House of Commons. I could count on Dr. Porteus, who was in the House of Lords. I also had Lord Scarsdale, who was a peer. I secured Mr. Langton, who knew a lot of people in both houses of the legislature. I also had Dr. Baker, who had similar connections. I could rely on Granville Sharp, James Phillips, Richard Phillips, Ramsay, Dillwyn, and the little committee he was part of, as well as the entire Quaker society. So, considering that I had only been working for a short time, I thought I was doing pretty well in terms of support. I also believed there were still several people I knew who would be interested in this issue, and I had no doubt that, by working hard, I would eventually meet people who were strangers to me.
I considered next, that it was impossible for a great cause like this to be forwarded without large pecuniary funds. I questioned whether some thousand pounds would not be necessary, and from whence was such a sum to come! In answer to this, I persuaded myself that generous people would be found who would unite with me in contributing their mite towards the undertaking, and I seemed confident that, as the Quakers had taken up the cause as a religious body, they would not be behind-hand in supporting it.
I thought next that it was impossible for a big cause like this to move forward without a lot of financial support. I wondered if a few thousand pounds would be needed, and where such an amount would come from! In response to this, I convinced myself that there would be generous people willing to join me in contributing whatever they could to the effort, and I felt confident that since the Quakers had embraced the cause as a religious group, they wouldn't hesitate to support it.
I considered lastly, that if I took up the question, I must devote myself wholly to it. I was sensible that a little labour now and then would be inadequate to the purpose, or that, where the interests of so many thousand persons were likely to be affected, constant exertion would be necessary. I felt certain that if ever the matter were to be taken up, there could be no hope of success, except it should be taken up by some one who would make it an object or business of his life. I thought too that a man's life might not be more than adequate to the accomplishment of the end. But I knew of no one who could devote such a portion of time to it. Sir Charles Middleton, though he was so warm and zealous, was greatly occupied in the discharge of his office. Mr. Langton spent a great portion of his time in the education of his children. Dr. Baker had a great deal to do in the performance of his parochial duty. The Quakers were almost all of them in trade. I could look therefore to no person but myself; and the question was, whether I was prepared to make the sacrifice. In favour of the undertaking, I urged to myself, that never was any cause, which had been taken up by man in any country or in any age, so great and important; that never was there one in which so much misery was heard to cry for redress; that never was there one in which so much good could be done; never one in which the duty of Christian charity could be so extensively exercised; never one more worthy of the devotion of a whole life towards it; and that, if a man thought properly, he ought to rejoice to have been called into existence, if he were only permitted to become an instrument in forwarding it in any part of its progress. Against these sentiments, on the other hand, I had to urge, that I had been designed for the church; that I had already advanced as far as deacon's orders in it; that my prospects there on account of my connexions were then brilliant, that, by appearing to desert my profession, my family would be dissatisfied, if not unhappy. These thoughts pressed upon me, and rendered the conflict difficult. But the sacrifice of my prospects staggered me, I own, the most. When the other objections, which I have related, occurred to me, my enthusiasm instantly, like a flash of lightning, consumed them; but this stuck to me, and troubled me. I had ambition. I had a thirst after worldly interest and honours, and I could not extinguish it at once. I was more than two hours in solitude under this painful conflict. At length I yielded, not because I saw any reasonable prospect of success in my new undertaking (for all cool-headed and cool-hearted men would have pronounced against it), but in obedience, I believe, to a higher Power. And I can say, that both on the moment of this resolution, and for some time afterwards, I had more sublime and happy feelings than at any former period of my life.
I finally thought that if I took up this issue, I would need to fully commit myself to it. I realized that putting in a little effort here and there wouldn’t be enough since the interests of so many thousands of people were at stake; I would need to be constantly dedicated. I was certain that if this matter were to be addressed, there would be no chance of success unless it was led by someone who made it the focus of their life. I also considered that a person’s life might not be long enough to achieve the goal. But I didn’t know anyone who could dedicate that much time. Sir Charles Middleton, despite his enthusiasm, was heavily occupied with his work. Mr. Langton spent a lot of time educating his kids. Dr. Baker had a lot on his plate with his parish responsibilities. Most of the Quakers were involved in business. So, I realized the only option was me, and I had to determine if I was ready to make that sacrifice. In favor of this undertaking, I reminded myself that no other cause taken up by anyone in any country or age had been as great and important; there was no cause calling for help that involved so much suffering; no effort that could do as much good; no opportunity for Christian charity to be practiced more widely; and none more deserving of a lifetime of dedication. If a man thought about it properly, he should feel grateful just to exist if he could contribute to this cause in any way. On the other hand, I had to consider that I was meant for the church; I had already progressed to the level of deacon; my future prospects there, thanks to my connections, looked bright. By seeming to abandon my career, my family would probably be unhappy, if not outright dissatisfied. These thoughts weighed on me, making the decision difficult. However, the thought of sacrificing my future prospects troubled me the most. When the other objections came to mind, my enthusiasm quickly burned them away like a flash of lightning, but this one stuck with me. I had ambition. I craved worldly success and recognition, and I couldn’t easily let that go. I spent over two hours alone wrestling with this painful dilemma. Eventually, I gave in—not because I saw any reasonable chance of success in my new endeavor (since all logical and unemotional people would have told me I was mistaken), but out of what I believe was obedience to a higher power. I can honestly say that at the moment I made this decision, and for some time afterward, I experienced more uplifting and joyful feelings than I ever had in my life.
Having now made up my mind on the subject, I informed Mr. Ramsay, that in a few days I should be leaving Teston, that I might begin my labours, according to the pledge I had given him.
Having now made up my mind on the subject, I told Mr. Ramsay that in a few days I would be leaving Teston so I could start my work, as I had promised him.
CHAPTER IX.
Continuation of the fourth Class of forerunners and coadjutors Up to 1787.—Author resolves upon the distribution of his book.—Mr. Sheldon; Sir Herbert Mackworth; Lord Newhaven; Lord Balgonie (afterwards Leven); Lord Hawke; Bishop Porteus.—Author visits African vessels in the Thames; and various persons, for further information.—Visits also Members of Parliament; Sir Richard Hill; Mr. Powys (late Lord Lilford); Mr. Wilberforce and others; conduct of the latter on this occasion.
Continuation of the fourth Class of forerunners and coadjutors Up to 1787.—The author decides on how to distribute his book.—Mr. Sheldon; Sir Herbert Mackworth; Lord Newhaven; Lord Balgonie (later Leven); Lord Hawke; Bishop Porteus.—The author visits African ships in the Thames and speaks with various people for more information.—He also visits Members of Parliament; Sir Richard Hill; Mr. Powys (formerly Lord Lilford); Mr. Wilberforce and others; the behavior of the latter during this visit.
On my return to London, I called upon William Dillwyn, to inform him of the resolution I had made at Teston, and found him at his town lodgings in the Poultry. I informed him also, that I had a letter of introduction in my pocket from Sir Charles Middleton to Samuel Hoare, with whom I was to converse on the subject. The latter gentleman had interested himself the year before as one of the committee for the Black poor in London, whom Mr. Sharp was sending under the auspices of government to Sierra Leone. He was also, as the reader may see by looking back, a member of the second class of coadjutors, or of the little committee which had branched out of the Quakers in England as before described. William Dillwyn said he would go with me and introduce me himself. On our arrival in Lombard-street, I saw my new friend, with whom we conversed for some time. From thence I proceeded, accompanied by both, to the house of James Phillips in George-yard, to whom I was desirous of communicating my resolution also. We found him at home, conversing with a friend of the same religious society, whose name was Joseph Gurney Bevan. I then repeated my resolution before them all. We had much friendly and satisfactory conversation together. I received much encouragement on every side, and I fixed to meet them again at the place where we then were in three days.
Upon my return to London, I visited William Dillwyn to share the decision I had made at Teston. He was at his town lodgings in the Poultry. I also mentioned that I had a letter of introduction from Sir Charles Middleton to Samuel Hoare, who I was supposed to discuss the matter with. The previous year, Hoare had been involved as one of the committee members for the Black poor in London, whom Mr. Sharp was sending to Sierra Leone under government support. As you may recall, he was also part of the second class of coadjutors, or the small committee that had emerged from the Quakers in England, as described before. William Dillwyn offered to accompany me and introduce me himself. Once we arrived in Lombard Street, I met my new friend, and we talked for a while. After that, both of them accompanied me to James Phillips' house in George Yard, as I wanted to share my decision with him too. We found him at home, chatting with a friend from the same religious group, named Joseph Gurney Bevan. I then shared my decision with everyone present. We had a friendly and satisfying conversation together. I received a lot of encouragement from all sides, and I planned to meet them again at the same place in three days.
On the evening of the same day, I waited upon Granville Sharp to make the same communication to him. He received it with great pleasure, and he hoped I should have strength to proceed. From thence I went to the Baptist-head coffee-house, in Chancery-lane, and having engaged with the master of the house that I should always have one private room to myself when I wanted it, I took up my abode there, in order to be near my friend Richard Phillips of Lincoln's Inn, from whose advice and assistance I had formed considerable expectations.
On the evening of the same day, I visited Granville Sharp to share the same news with him. He was very pleased to hear it and expressed hope that I would have the strength to move forward. After that, I went to the Baptist-head coffee house in Chancery Lane and made an arrangement with the owner that I would always have a private room for myself whenever I needed it. I settled in there to be close to my friend Richard Phillips from Lincoln's Inn, whose advice and help I was counting on.
The first matter for our deliberation, after we had thus become neighbours, was, what plan I ought to pursue to give effect to the resolution I had taken.
The first thing we needed to discuss, now that we were neighbors, was what plan I should follow to carry out the decision I had made.
After having discussed the matter two or three times at his chambers, it seemed to be our opinion, that, as members of the legislature could do more to the purpose in this question, than any other persons, it would be proper to circulate all the remaining copies of my work among these, in order that they might thus obtain information upon the subject. Secondly, that it would be proper that I should wait personally upon several of these also. And thirdly, that I should be endeavouring in the interim to enlarge my own knowledge, that I might thus be enabled to answer the various objections which might be advanced on the other side of the question, as well as become qualified to be a manager of the cause.
After discussing the matter two or three times at his office, we agreed that members of the legislature could do more about this issue than anyone else, so it would be a good idea to share all the remaining copies of my work with them to provide information on the topic. Secondly, I should personally meet with several of them as well. Lastly, I should focus on expanding my own knowledge in the meantime so that I can address the various objections that might be raised on the other side of the issue and be prepared to manage the case effectively.
On the third day, or at the time appointed, I went with Richard Phillips to George-yard, Lombard-street, where I met all my friends as before. I communicated to them the opinion we had formed at Lincoln's Inn, relative to my future proceedings in the three different branches as now detailed. They approved the plan. On desiring a number of my books to be sent to me at my new lodgings for the purpose of distribution, Joseph Gurney Bevan, who was stated to have been present at the former interview, seemed uneasy, and at length asked me if I was going to distribute these at my own expense. I replied, I was. He appealed immediately to those present whether it ought to be allowed. He asked whether, when a young man was giving up his time from morning till night, they who applauded his pursuit and seemed desirous of co-operating with him, should allow him to make such a sacrifice, or whether they should not at least secure him from loss; and he proposed directly that the remaining part of the edition should be taken off by subscription, and, in order that my feelings might not be hurt from any supposed stain arising from the thought of gaining any thing by such a proposal, they should be paid for only at the prime cost. I felt myself much obliged to him for this tender consideration about me, and particularly for the latter part of it, under which alone I accepted the offer. Samuel Hoare was charged with the management of the subscription, and the books were to be distributed as I had proposed, and in any way which I myself might prescribe.
On the third day, or at the appointed time, I went with Richard Phillips to George-yard, Lombard Street, where I met all my friends again. I shared with them the decision we had made at Lincoln's Inn regarding my future plans in the three areas I had just detailed. They supported the plan. When I requested that a number of my books be sent to my new place for distribution, Joseph Gurney Bevan, who had been present at the earlier meeting, looked uneasy and eventually asked if I intended to cover the distribution costs myself. I said I was. He immediately turned to those present to discuss whether this was acceptable. He questioned whether, when a young man was dedicating his time from morning until night, those who praised his efforts and seemed eager to help should let him take such a financial hit, or if they should at least protect him from losing money; he then suggested that the remaining part of the edition be funded through a subscription. To ensure I wouldn't feel uncomfortable about potentially profiting from this suggestion, he proposed that the books be paid for only at cost price. I was very grateful for his thoughtful concern for me, especially for this latter condition, as it was the only reason I accepted the offer. Samuel Hoare was put in charge of managing the subscription, and the books were to be distributed as I had planned, and in any way I might specify.
This matter having been determined upon, my first care was that the books should be put into proper hands. Accordingly I went round among my friends from day to day, wishing to secure this before I attended to any of the other objects. In this I was much assisted by my friend Richard Phillips. Mr. Langton began the distribution of them. He made a point either of writing to or of calling upon those to whom he sent them. Dr. Baker took the charge of several for the same purpose; Lord and Lady Scarsdale of others; Sir Charles and Lady Middleton of others. Mr. Sheldon, at the request of Richard Phillips, introduced me by letter to several members of parliament, to whom I wished to deliver them myself. Sir Herbert Mackworth, when spoken to by the latter, offered his services also. He seemed to be particularly interested in the cause. He went about to many of his friends in the House of Commons, and this from day to day, to procure their favour towards it. Lord Newhaven was applied to, and distributed some. Lord Balgonie took a similar charge. The late Lord Hawke, who told me that he had long felt for the sufferings of the injured Africans, desired to be permitted to take his share of the distribution among members of the House of Lords, and Dr. Porteus, now Bishop of London, became another coadjutor in the same work.
Once this was settled, my first priority was to make sure the books were given to the right people. So, I went around to my friends day after day, wanting to get this sorted before I focused on anything else. My friend Richard Phillips was a big help with this. Mr. Langton started handing them out. He made it a point to either write to or visit those he sent them to. Dr. Baker took charge of several for this purpose; Lord and Lady Scarsdale handled some; and Sir Charles and Lady Middleton managed others. Mr. Sheldon, at Richard Phillips' request, introduced me by letter to several Members of Parliament to whom I wanted to personally deliver the books. Sir Herbert Mackworth, when approached by Richard, also offered his help. He seemed particularly interested in the cause and checked in with many of his friends in the House of Commons daily to gain their support. Lord Newhaven was contacted and distributed some as well. Lord Balgonie took on a similar responsibility. The late Lord Hawke, who told me he had long empathized with the suffering of the injured Africans, asked to be involved in distributing them among members of the House of Lords, and Dr. Porteus, now the Bishop of London, became another supporter of this effort.
This distribution of my books having been consigned to proper hands, I began to qualify myself, by obtaining further knowledge, for the management of this great cause. As I had obtained the principal part of it from reading, I thought I ought now to see what could be seen, and to know from living persons what could be known on the subject. With respect to the first of these points, the river Thames presented itself as at hand. Ships were going occasionally from the port of London to Africa, and why could I not get on board them and examine for myself? After diligent inquiry, I heard of one which had just arrived. I found her to be a little wood-vessel, called the Lively, Captain Williamson, or one which traded to Africa in the natural productions of the country, such as ivory, bees'-wax, Malaguetta pepper, palm-oil, and dye-woods. I obtained specimens of some of these, so that I now became possessed of some of those things of which I had only read before. On conversing with the mate, he showed me one or two pieces of the cloth made by the natives, and from their own cotton. I prevailed upon him to sell me a piece of each. Here new feelings arose, and particularly when I considered that persons of so much apparent ingenuity, and capable of such beautiful work as the Africans, should be made slaves, and reduced to a level with the brute creation. My reflections here on the better use which might be made of Africa by the substitution of another trade, and on the better use which might be made of her inhabitants, served greatly to animate and to sustain me amidst the labour of my pursuits.
This distribution of my books having been handed over to the right people, I started to prepare myself by gaining more knowledge for the management of this significant cause. Since I had acquired most of it through reading, I thought it was time to see things for myself and learn from real people what could be known about the subject. Regarding the first of these points, the river Thames was right in front of me. Ships were occasionally leaving the port of London for Africa, so why couldn't I board one and investigate for myself? After some thorough searching, I found out about one that had just arrived. It was a small wooden vessel called the Lively, captained by Williamson, which traded in Africa’s natural products like ivory, beeswax, Malaguetta pepper, palm oil, and dye woods. I got samples of a few of these, so now I possessed some of the things I had only read about before. When I talked with the first mate, he showed me a couple of pieces of cloth made by the locals from their own cotton. I managed to convince him to sell me a piece of each. This created new feelings in me, especially when I thought about how people with such apparent skill and talent for beautiful work, like the Africans, could end up as slaves and be treated like animals. My thoughts on how Africa could be better utilized by switching to a different trade and how her people could be treated better fueled and supported me as I worked towards my goals.
The next vessel I boarded was the Fly, Captain Colley. Here I found myself for the first time on the deck of a slave-vessel. The sight of the rooms below and of the gratings above, and of the barricado across the deck, and the explanation of the uses of all these, filled me both with melancholy and horror. I found soon afterwards a fire of indignation kindling within me. I had now scarce patience to talk with those on board. I had not the coolness this first time to go leisurely over the places that were open to me. I got away quickly. But that which I thought I saw horrible in this vessel had the same effect upon me as that which I thought I had seen agreeable in the other, namely, to animate and to invigorate me in my pursuit.
The next ship I boarded was the Fly, under Captain Colley. Here, for the first time, I found myself on the deck of a slave ship. The sight of the rooms below, the grating above, and the barricades across the deck, along with explanations of their functions, filled me with both sadness and horror. Soon after, I felt a fire of anger igniting within me. I hardly had the patience to talk with those on board. I didn’t have the calmness this first time to slowly explore the areas that were accessible to me. I left quickly. But what I saw as horrifying on this ship had the same effect on me as what I had seen as pleasant on the other, which was to inspire and invigorate me in my pursuit.
But I will not trouble the reader with any further account of my water-expeditions, while attempting to perfect my knowledge on this subject. I was equally assiduous in obtaining intelligence wherever it could be had; and being now always on the watch, I was frequently falling in with individuals, from whom I gained something. My object was to see all who had been in Africa, but more particularly those who had never been interested, or who at any rate were not then interested, in the trade. I gained accordingly access very early to General Rooke; to Lieutenant Dalrymple, of the army; to Captain Fiddes, of the engineers; to the reverend Mr. Newton; to Mr. Nisbett, a surgeon in the Minories; to Mr. Devaynes, who was then in parliament, and to many others; and I made it a rule to put down in writing, after every conversation, what had taken place in the course of it. By these means, things began to unfold themselves to me more and more, and I found my stock of knowledge almost daily on the increase.
But I won’t bother the reader with more details about my water expeditions as I tried to expand my knowledge on this subject. I was also diligent in gathering information whenever I could; and, always being alert, I often encountered people from whom I learned something. My aim was to meet everyone who had been to Africa, but especially those who had never shown interest, or who definitely weren’t interested at the time, in the trade. I quickly got in touch with General Rooke, Lieutenant Dalrymple from the army, Captain Fiddes from the engineers, the Reverend Mr. Newton, Mr. Nisbett, a surgeon in the Minories, Mr. Devaynes, who was then in parliament, and many others; and I made it a habit to write down what happened after every conversation. Through these efforts, things started to reveal themselves to me more and more, and I found my knowledge growing almost daily.
While, however, I was forwarding this, I was not inattentive to the other object of my pursuit, which was that of waiting upon members personally. The first I called upon was Sir Richard Hill. At the first interview he espoused the cause. I waited then upon others, and they professed themselves friendly; but they seemed to make this profession more from the emotion of good hearts, revolting at the bare mention of the Slave Trade, than from any knowledge concerning it. One, however, whom I visited, Mr. Powys, (the late Lord Lilford,) with whom I had been before acquainted in Northamptonshire, seemed to doubt some of the facts in my book, from a belief that human nature was not capable of proceeding to such a pitch of wickedness. I asked him to name his facts. He selected the case of the hundred and thirty-two slaves who were thrown alive into the sea to defraud the underwriters. I promised to satisfy him fully upon this point, and went immediately to Granville Sharp, who lent me his account of the trial, as reported at large from the notes of the short-hand writer, whom he had employed on the occasion. Mr. Powys read the account. He became, in consequence of it, convinced, as, indeed, he could not otherwise be, of the truth of what I had asserted, and he declared at the same time that, if this were true, there was nothing so horrible related of this trade, which might not immediately be believed. Mr. Powys had been always friendly to this question, but now he took a part in the distribution of my books.
While I was working on this, I wasn't ignoring my other goal, which was to meet with members face-to-face. The first person I visited was Sir Richard Hill. During our first meeting, he supported the cause. I then spoke to others, and they expressed their support, but it seemed more out of a sense of decency in response to the mere mention of the Slave Trade rather than from any real understanding of it. One person I met, Mr. Powys (the late Lord Lilford), whom I had previously known in Northamptonshire, seemed to doubt some of the facts in my book because he believed that human nature couldn't reach such levels of wickedness. I asked him to specify the facts he was questioning. He pointed to the case of the one hundred and thirty-two slaves who were thrown alive into the sea to scam the insurance companies. I promised to fully address his concerns and immediately went to Granville Sharp, who lent me his detailed account of the trial, as reported by the shorthand writer he had hired. Mr. Powys read the account and, as a result, he became convinced—how could he not?—of the truth of what I had claimed. He also stated that if this was true, then there was nothing so horrific about this trade that couldn't be accepted as believable. Mr. Powys had always been supportive of this issue, but now he took an active role in distributing my books.
Among those whom I visited was Mr. Wilberforce. On my first interview with him, he stated frankly, that the subject had often employed his thoughts, and that it was near his heart. He seemed earnest about it, and also very desirous of taking the trouble of inquiring further into it. Having read my book, which I had delivered to him, in person, he sent, for me. He expressed a wish that I would make him acquainted with some of my authorities for the assertions in it, which I did afterwards to his satisfaction. He asked me if I could support it by any other evidence. I told him I could. I mentioned Mr. Newton, Mr. Nisbett, and several others to him. He took the trouble of sending for all these. He made memorandums of their conversation, and, sending for me afterwards, showed them to me. On learning my intention to devote myself to the cause, he paid me many handsome compliments. He then desired me to call upon him often, and to acquaint him with my progress from time to time. He expressed also his willingness to afford me any assistance in his power in the prosecution of my pursuits.
Among those I visited was Mr. Wilberforce. During our first meeting, he openly mentioned that the topic had often occupied his thoughts and that it was very important to him. He seemed genuinely interested and eager to investigate it further. After reading the book I had personally given him, he asked to see me again. He expressed a desire to understand some of the sources for my claims, which I later provided to his satisfaction. He inquired whether I could back it up with other evidence. I affirmed that I could, naming Mr. Newton, Mr. Nisbett, and several others. He took the initiative to contact all of them and made notes of their conversations, later showing them to me. When he learned of my intention to dedicate myself to the cause, he offered many kind compliments. He then asked me to visit him frequently and keep him updated on my progress. He also expressed his willingness to provide any support he could in pursuit of my goals.
The carrying on of these different objects, together with the writing which was connected with them, proved very laborious, and occupied almost all my time. I was seldom engaged less than sixteen hours in the day. When I left Teston to begin the pursuit as an object of my life, I promised my friend Mr. Ramsay a weekly account of my progress. At the end of the first week my letter to him contained little more than a sheet of paper. At the end of the second it contained three; at the end of the third, six; and at the end of the fourth I found it would be so voluminous, that I was obliged to decline writing it.
Managing these various tasks, along with the writing that went along with them, turned out to be very demanding and took up almost all my time. I was rarely working fewer than sixteen hours a day. When I left Teston to start this pursuit as my life’s goal, I promised my friend Mr. Ramsay that I would give him a weekly update on my progress. By the end of the first week, my letter to him was little more than a single sheet of paper. By the end of the second week, it had grown to three sheets; by the end of the third, six; and by the end of the fourth, it had become so lengthy that I had to stop writing it.
CHAPTER X.
Continuation of the fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to 1787.—Author goes on to enlarge his knowledge in the different departments of the subject; communicates more frequently with Mr. Wilberforce.—Meetings now appointed at the house of the latter.—Dinner at Mr. Langton's.—Mr. Wilberforce pledges himself there to take up the subject in Parliament; remarkable junction, in consequence, of all the four classes of forerunners and coadjutors before-mentioned.—Committee formed out of these on the 22nd of May, 1787, for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
Continuation of the fourth class of forerunners and coadjutors up to 1787.—The author continues to expand his knowledge in various areas of the topic and communicates more frequently with Mr. Wilberforce. Meetings are now scheduled at Mr. Wilberforce's house. There is a dinner at Mr. Langton's where Mr. Wilberforce commits to addressing the subject in Parliament; this leads to a significant collaboration among all four classes of forerunners and coadjutors previously mentioned. A committee is formed from these individuals on May 22, 1787, to advocate for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
The manner in which Mr. Wilberforce had received me, and the pains which he had taken, and was still taking, to satisfy himself of the truth of those enormities which had been charged upon the Slave Trade, tended much to enlarge my hope, that they might become at length the subject of a parliamentary inquiry. Richard Phillips, also, to whom I made a report at his chambers almost every evening of the proceedings of the day, had begun to entertain a similar expectation. Of course we unfolded our thoughts to one another; from hence a desire naturally sprung up in each of us to inquire whether any alteration in consequence of this new prospect should be made in my pursuits. On deliberating upon this point, it seemed proper to both of us that the distribution of the books should be continued; that I should still proceed in enlarging my own knowledge; and that I should still wait upon members of the legislature, but with this difference, that I should never lose sight of Mr. Wilberforce, but, on the other hand, that I should rather omit visiting some others than paying a proper attention to him.
The way Mr. Wilberforce welcomed me and the effort he was making to confirm the truth of the serious accusations against the Slave Trade greatly increased my hope that these issues might eventually be the focus of a parliamentary investigation. Richard Phillips, to whom I reported almost every evening about the day's events, had started to share a similar expectation. Naturally, we shared our thoughts with each other, and this led us both to consider whether we should change my activities in light of this new opportunity. After discussing it, we agreed that I should continue distributing the books, keep expanding my own knowledge, and still meet with members of the legislature. However, we decided that I should always prioritize Mr. Wilberforce and, if necessary, skip visiting some others rather than neglecting him.
One thing however appeared now to be necessary, which had not yet been done. This was to inform our friends in the city, upon whom I had all along occasionally called, that we believed the time was approaching when it would be desirable that we should unite our labours, if they saw no objection to such a measure; for, if the Slave Trade were to become a subject of parliamentary inquiry with a view to the annihilation of it, no individual could perform the work which would be necessary for such a purpose. This work must be a work of many; and who so proper to assist in it as they, who had before so honourably laboured in it? In the case of such an event large funds also would be wanted, and who so proper to procure and manage them as these? A meeting was accordingly called at the house of James Phillips, when these our views were laid open. When I stated that from the very time of my hopes beginning to rise I had always had those present in my eye as one day to be fellow-labourers, William Dillwyn replied, that from the time they had first heard of the Prize Essay, they also had had their eyes upon me, and, from the time they had first seen me, had conceived: a desire of making the same use of me as I had now expressed a wish of making of them, but that matters did not appear ripe at our first interview. Our proposal, however, was approved, and an assurance was given, that an union should take place as soon as it was judged to be seasonable. It was resolved also, that one day in the weekA should be appointed for a meeting at the house of James Phillips, where as many might attend as had leisure, and that I should be there to make a report of my progress, by which we might all judge of the fitness of the time of calling ourselves an united body. Pleased now with the thought that matters were put into such a train, I returned to my former objects.
One thing, however, now seemed necessary that hadn't been done yet. We needed to inform our friends in the city, whom I had occasionally reached out to, that we believed the time was coming when it would be best for us to combine our efforts, if they had no objections to this idea; because if the Slave Trade were to become a topic of parliamentary inquiry aimed at its abolition, no single person could manage the efforts required for such a task. This work needed to be a collective effort, and who better to help than those who had previously worked so honorably on it? In such a case, substantial funds would also be required, and who would be better suited to gather and handle those than they? A meeting was called at James Phillips's house, where we laid out our plans. When I mentioned that from the moment my hopes began to rise, I had always considered those present as potential partners in this work, William Dillwyn responded that since they first heard of the Prize Essay, they had been keeping an eye on me too, and that from the first time they saw me, they had hoped to make the same use of me that I now wished to make of them, but it seemed that the timing wasn't right during our first meeting. Our proposal was approved, and they assured me that a partnership would occur as soon as they deemed it appropriate. It was also decided that one day each weekA would be set aside for a meeting at James Phillips's house, where as many as could attend would gather, and I would be there to report on my progress, allowing us all to assess when it would be the right time to officially call ourselves a united group. Satisfied with the way things were coming together, I returned to my previous tasks.
A: At these weekly meetings I met occasionally Joseph Woods, George Harrison, and John Lloyd, three of the other members, who belonged to the committee of the second class of forerunners and coadjutors as before described. I had seen all of them before, but I do not recollect the time when I first met them.
A: At these weekly meetings, I occasionally ran into Joseph Woods, George Harrison, and John Lloyd, three other members who were part of the committee of second-class forerunners and coadjutors, as previously mentioned. I had seen all of them before, but I can't remember the first time we met.
It is not necessary to say anything more of the first of these objects, which was that of the further distribution of my book, than that it was continued, and chiefly by the same hands.
It’s not necessary to say anything more about the first of these goals, which was to further distribute my book, other than that it continued, mainly by the same people.
With respect to the enlargement of my knowledge, it was promoted likewise. I now gained access to the Custom-House in London, where I picked up much valuable information for my purpose.
Regarding the expansion of my knowledge, it was also encouraged. I gained entry to the Custom House in London, where I gathered a lot of valuable information for my goals.
Having had reason to believe that the Slave Trade was peculiarly fatal to those employed in it, I wished much to get copies of many of the muster-rolls from the Custom-House at Liverpool for a given time. James Phillips wrote to his friend William Rathbone, who was one of his own religious society, and who resided there, to procure them. They were accordingly sent up. The examination of these, which took place at the chambers of Richard Phillips, was long and tedious. We looked over them together. We usually met for this purpose at nine in the evening, and we seldom parted till one, and sometimes not till three in the morning. When our eyes were inflamed by the candle, or tired by fatigue, we used to relieve ourselves by walking out within the precincts of Lincoln's Inn, when all seemed to be fast asleep, and thus, as it were, in solitude and in stillness to converse upon them, as well as upon the best means of the further promotion of our cause. These scenes of our early friendship and exertions I shall never forget. I often think of them both with astonishment and with pleasure. Having recruited ourselves in this manner, we used to return to our work. From these muster-rolls, I may now observe that we gained the most important information: we ascertained, beyond the power of contradiction, that more than half of the seamen who went out with the ships in the Slave Trade did not return with them, and that of these so many perished, as amounted to one-fifth of all employed. As to what became of the remainder, the muster-rolls did not inform us; this, therefore, was left to us as a subject for our future inquiry.
Having reason to believe that the Slave Trade was particularly deadly for those involved in it, I really wanted to get copies of many of the muster-rolls from the Custom-House in Liverpool for a specific period. James Phillips wrote to his friend William Rathbone, who was part of the same religious community and lived there, to get them. They were sent over. The review of these, which happened at Richard Phillips's office, was long and tiring. We went through them together. We usually met for this purpose at 9 PM and rarely left before 1 AM, sometimes staying until 3 AM. When our eyes were strained from the candlelight or exhausted from fatigue, we would take breaks by walking around Lincoln's Inn, where everything seemed to be asleep, and in that quiet moment, we would discuss what we found, as well as the best ways to further our cause. I will never forget these moments from our early friendship and efforts. I often think about them with both amazement and happiness. After refreshing ourselves in this way, we would return to our work. From these muster-rolls, I can now point out that we gained crucial information: we confirmed, beyond argument, that more than half of the seamen who set out with the ships involved in the Slave Trade did not come back, and that among those, so many died that it amounted to one-fifth of everyone employed. As for what happened to the others, the muster-rolls did not tell us; therefore, this became a topic for future investigation.
In endeavouring to enlarge my knowledge, my thoughts were frequently turned to the West Indian part of the question, and in this department my friend Richard Phillips gained me important intelligence. He put into my hands several documents concerning estates in the West Indies, which he had mostly from the proprietors themselves, where the slaves by mild and prudent usage had so increased in population, as to supersede the necessity of the Slave Trade.
In trying to expand my knowledge, I often thought about the West Indian aspect of the issue, and in this area, my friend Richard Phillips provided me with valuable information. He shared several documents with me about estates in the West Indies, mostly sourced from the owners themselves, where the slaves had increased in population due to kind and careful treatment, making the Slave Trade unnecessary.
By attending to these and to various other parts of the subject, I began to see as it were with new eyes; I was enabled to make several necessary discriminations, to reconcile things before seemingly contradictory, and to answer many objections which had hitherto put on a formidable shape. But most of all was I rejoiced at the thought that I should soon be able to prove that which I had never doubted, but which had hitherto been beyond my power in this case, that Providence, in ordaining laws relative to the agency of man, had never made that to be wise which was immoral, and that the Slave Trade would be found as impolitic as it was inhuman and unjust.
By focusing on these and other aspects of the topic, I started to see things in a new way. I could make several important distinctions, reconcile things that previously seemed contradictory, and address many objections that had felt overwhelming until now. But what brought me the most joy was the thought that I would soon be able to prove something I had never doubted, but had been unable to demonstrate until now: that in establishing laws concerning human actions, Providence never deemed what was immoral to be wise, and that the Slave Trade would prove to be as unwise as it was inhumane and unjust.
In keeping up my visits to members of parliament, I was particularly attentive to Mr. Wilberforce, whom I found daily becoming more interested in the fate of Africa. I now made to him a regular report of my progress, of the sentiments of those in parliament whom I had visited, of the disposition of my friends in the city, of whom he had often heard me speak, of my discoveries from the Custom-Houses of London and Liverpool, of my documents concerning West India estates, and of all, indeed, that had occurred to me worth mentioning. He had himself also been making his inquiries, which he communicated to me in return. Our intercourse had now become frequent, no one week elapsing without an interview: at one of these, I suggested to him the propriety of having occasional meetings at his own house, consisting of a few friends in parliament, who might converse on the subject: of this he approved. The persons present at the first meeting were Mr. Wilberforce, the Honourable John Villiers, Mr. Powys, Sir Charles Middleton, Sir Richard Hill, Mr. Granville Sharp, Mr. Ramsay, Dr. Gregory, (who had written on the subject, as before mentioned,) and myself. At this meeting I read a paper, giving an account of the light I had collected in the course of my inquiries, with observations as well on the impolicy as on the wickedness of the trade. Many questions arose out of the reading of this little essay; many answers followed. Objections were started and canvassed. In short, this measure was found so useful, that certain other evenings as well as mornings were fixed upon for the same purpose.
While continuing my visits to members of parliament, I paid special attention to Mr. Wilberforce, who I noticed was increasingly interested in Africa's situation. I made it a point to give him regular updates on my progress, the opinions of the parliamentarians I had met, the feelings of my friends in the city, whom he had heard me talk about, my findings from the Custom Houses in London and Liverpool, my documents regarding West India estates, and everything else I thought was worth sharing. He had also been conducting his own inquiries, which he shared with me in return. Our meetings became frequent, with at least one every week. During one of these meetings, I suggested that we occasionally gather at his house with a few friends from parliament to discuss this topic. He liked the idea. The attendees at the first meeting included Mr. Wilberforce, the Honourable John Villiers, Mr. Powys, Sir Charles Middleton, Sir Richard Hill, Mr. Granville Sharp, Mr. Ramsay, Dr. Gregory (who had previously written on the subject), and myself. At this meeting, I presented a paper summarizing the insights I had gathered during my inquiries, discussing both the unwise and immoral aspects of the trade. Many questions arose after reading this short essay, and responses followed. Objections were raised and explored. Ultimately, this approach proved so valuable that we scheduled additional evenings and mornings for the same purpose.
On reporting my progress to my friends in the city, several of whom now assembled once in the week, as I mentioned before to have been agreed upon, and particularly on reporting the different meetings which had taken place at the house of Mr. Wilberforce on the subject, they were of opinion that the time was approaching when we might unite, and that this union might prudently commence as soon as ever Mr. Wilberforce would give his word that he would take up the question in Parliament. Upon this I desired to observe, that though the latter gentleman had pursued the subject with much earnestness, he had never yet dropped the least hint that he would proceed so far in the matter, but I would take care that the question should be put to him, and I would bring them his answer.
When I updated my friends in the city about my progress, several of them gathered once a week, as we had agreed. I specifically reported on the various meetings that had taken place at Mr. Wilberforce's house regarding the topic, and they believed that the time was coming when we could come together. They thought it would be wise to start this union as soon as Mr. Wilberforce promised to bring the issue up in Parliament. I pointed out that while Mr. Wilberforce had approached the subject with great seriousness, he hadn't ever hinted that he would go that far. However, I would make sure to ask him about it and would share his response with them.
In consequence of the promise I had now made, I went to Mr. Wilberforce. But when I saw him, I seemed unable to inform him of the object of my visit. Whether this inability arose from any sudden fear that his answer might not be favourable, or from a fear that I might possibly involve him in a long and arduous contest upon this subject, or whether it arose from an awful sense of the importance of the mission, as it related to the happiness of hundreds of thousands then alive, and of millions then unborn, I cannot say. But I had a feeling within me for which I could not account, and which seemed to hinder me from proceeding; and I actually went away without informing him of my errand.
As a result of the promise I had just made, I went to see Mr. Wilberforce. But when I met him, I found it hard to explain the purpose of my visit. Whether this struggle came from a sudden fear that his response might not be positive, or from the worry that I could drag him into a long and difficult debate on this topic, or whether it stemmed from a heavy sense of the mission's significance—impacting the happiness of countless people alive at that moment and millions yet to be born—I can’t say. I just felt something inside me that I couldn't explain, and it stopped me from going forward; I actually left without telling him why I was there.
In this situation I began to consider what to do, when I thought I would call upon Mr. Langton, tell him what had happened, and ask his advice. I found him at home. We consulted together. The result was, that he was to invite Mr. Wilberforce and some others to meet me at a dinner at his own house in two or three days, when he said he had no doubt of being able to procure an answer, by some means or other, to the question which I wished to have resolved.
In this situation, I started to think about what to do and decided to reach out to Mr. Langton. I wanted to tell him what had happened and ask for his advice. I found him at home, and we talked it over. In the end, he agreed to invite Mr. Wilberforce and a few others to have dinner at his place in two or three days. He was confident that he could find out the answer to the question I needed resolved.
On receiving a card from Mr. Langton, I went to dine with him. I found the party consist of Sir Charles Middleton, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Windham, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Mr. Boswell. The latter was then known as the friend of Dr. Johnson, and afterwards as the writer of his Tour to the Hebrides. After dinner the subject of the Slave Trade was purposely introduced. Many questions were put to me, and I dilated upon each in my answers, that I might inform and interest those present as much as I could. They seemed to be greatly impressed with my account of the loss of seamen in the trade, and with the little samples of African cloth which I had procured for their inspection. Sir Joshua Reynolds gave his unqualified approbation of the abolition of this cruel traffic. Mr. Hawkins Browne joined heartily with him in sentiment; he spoke with much feeling upon it, and pronounced it to be barbarous, and contrary to every principle of morality and religion. Mr. Boswell, after saying the planters would urge that the Africans were made happier by being carried from their own country to the West Indies, observed, "Be it so. But we have no right to make people happy against their will." Mr. Windham, when it was suggested that the great importance of our West Indian islands, and the grandeur of Liverpool, would be brought against those who should propose the abolition of the Slave Trade, replied, "We have nothing to do with the policy of the measure. Rather let Liverpool and the islands be swallowed up in the sea, than this monstrous system of iniquity be carried on.A" While such conversation was passing, and when all appeared to be interested in the cause, Mr. Langton put the question, about the proposal of which I had been so diffident, to Mr. Wilberforce, in the shape of a delicate compliment. The latter replied, that he had no objection to bring forward the measure in parliament when he was better prepared for it, and provided no person more proper could be found. Upon this, Mr. Hawkins Browne and Mr. Windham both said they would support him there. Before I left the company, I took Mr. Wilberforce aside, and asked him if I might mention this his resolution to those of my friends in the city, of whom he had often heard me speak, as desirous of aiding him by becoming a committee for the purpose. He replied, I might. I then asked Mr. Langton, privately, if he had any objection to belong to a society of which there might be a committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He said he should be pleased to become a member of it. Having received these satisfactory answers, I returned home.
After getting a card from Mr. Langton, I went to dinner with him. The guests included Sir Charles Middleton, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Windham, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Mr. Boswell. At that time, Boswell was known as Dr. Johnson’s friend and later became famous for writing his Tour to the Hebrides. After dinner, the topic of the Slave Trade was intentionally brought up. I was asked many questions, and I elaborated on each one in my responses to inform and engage those present as much as possible. They seemed quite moved by my account of the losses suffered by sailors in the trade and by the small samples of African cloth I had brought for them to see. Sir Joshua Reynolds fully supported ending this cruel trade. Mr. Hawkins Browne echoed his sentiment passionately, calling it barbaric and against all principles of morality and religion. Mr. Boswell, after noting that plantation owners would argue that Africans were happier being taken from their home to the West Indies, remarked, "That may be true. But we have no right to make people happy against their will." Mr. Windham, when it was suggested that the significant importance of our West Indian islands and the prosperity of Liverpool would be argued against those proposing the abolition of the Slave Trade, responded, "We don’t care about the politics of the matter. Better let Liverpool and the islands disappear into the sea than continue this monstrous system of injustice.A" While this discussion was happening, and with everyone showing interest in the cause, Mr. Langton asked Mr. Wilberforce about the proposal I had hesitated to mention, framing it as a gentle compliment. Mr. Wilberforce replied that he wouldn't mind bringing the matter forward in parliament when he felt more prepared, as long as no one more suited could be found. In response, Mr. Hawkins Browne and Mr. Windham both expressed their willingness to support him there. Before leaving, I took Mr. Wilberforce aside and asked if I could mention this resolution to my friends in the city, who he had often heard me refer to as eager to help him by forming a committee for this cause. He said that was fine. I then privately asked Mr. Langton if he would mind being part of a society that might create a committee to abolish the Slave Trade. He said he would be happy to join. With these positive responses, I returned home.
A: I do not know upon what grounds, after such strong expressions, Mr. Boswell, in the next year, and Mr. Windham, after having supported the cause for three or four years, became inimical to it.
A: I’m not sure why, after such strong statements, Mr. Boswell, the following year, and Mr. Windham, after supporting the cause for three or four years, turned against it.
The next day, having previously taken down the substance of the conversation at the dinner, I went to James Phillips, and desired that our friends might be called together as soon as they conveniently could to hear my report. In the interim I wrote to Dr. Peckard, and waited upon Lord Scarsdale, Dr. Baker, and others, to know (supposing a society were formed for the abolition of the Slave Trade) if I might say they would belong to it. All of them replied in the affirmative, and desired me to represent them, if there should be any meeting for this purpose.
The next day, after taking notes on the conversation from dinner, I went to James Phillips and requested that our friends be gathered together as soon as they could to hear my report. In the meantime, I wrote to Dr. Peckard and visited Lord Scarsdale, Dr. Baker, and others to find out if I could say they would join a society formed to abolish the Slave Trade. All of them agreed and asked me to represent them if there was a meeting for this purpose.
At the time appointed I met my friends. I read over the substance of the conversation which had taken place at Mr. Langton's. No difficulty occurred. All were unanimous for the formation of a committee. On the next day we met by agreement for this purpose. It was then resolved unanimously, among other things,—That the Slave Trade was both impolitic and unjust. It was resolved, also,—That the following persons be a committee for procuring such information and evidence, and publishing the same, as may tend to the abolition of the Slave Trade, and for directing the application of such moneys as have been already, and may hereafter be collected for the above purpose:—
At the scheduled time, I met up with my friends. I went over the main points of the discussion that had happened at Mr. Langton's. There were no issues. Everyone agreed on forming a committee. The next day, we gathered as planned for this purpose. It was then unanimously decided, among other things, that the Slave Trade was both unwise and unfair. It was also decided that the following people would be a committee to gather information and evidence, publish it, and direct the use of any funds that have already been collected or may be collected in the future for this purpose:—
- Granville Sharp
- Thomas Clarkson
- Richard Phillips
- William Dillwyn
- Samual Hoare
- John Barton
- George Harrison
- Joseph Hooper
- John Lloyd
- James Phillips
- Joseph Woods
- Philip Sansom
All these were present. Granville Sharp, who stands at the head of the list, and who, as the father of the cause in England, was called to the chair, maybe considered as representing the first class of forerunners and coadjutors, as it has been before described. The five next, of whom Samuel Hoare was chosen as the treasurer, were they who had been the committee of the second class, or of the Quakers in England, with the exception of Dr. Knowles, who was then dying, but who, having heard of our meeting, sent a message to us to exhort us to proceed. The third class, or that of the Quakers in America, may be considered as represented by William Dillwyn, by whom they were afterwards joined to us in correspondence. The two who stand next, and in which I am included, may be considered as representing the fourth, most of the members of which we had been the means of raising. Thus, on the 22nd of May, 1787, the representatives of all the four classes, of which I have been giving a history from the year 1516, met together, and were united in that committee, to which I have been all along directing the attention of the reader; a committee, which, labouring afterwards with Mr. Wilberforce as a parliamentary head, did, under Providence, in the space of twenty years, contribute to put an end to a trade, which, measuring its magnitude by its crimes and sufferings, was the greatest practical evil that ever afflicted the human race.
All of these individuals were present. Granville Sharp, who tops the list and is considered the father of the movement in England, was called to chair the meeting. He can be seen as representing the first group of pioneers and supporters, as previously described. The next five attendees, including Samuel Hoare, who was elected as the treasurer, were part of the committee representing the second group, or the Quakers in England, except for Dr. Knowles, who was then dying but had sent a message urging us to move forward upon hearing of our gathering. The third group, representing the Quakers in America, was represented by William Dillwyn, who later joined us in correspondence. The next two attendees, myself included, represent the fourth group, most of whose members we had helped to bring together. Therefore, on May 22, 1787, representatives from all four groups, which I have been detailing since 1516, gathered and formed the committee that I have been directing your attention to; a committee that, working alongside Mr. Wilberforce as the parliamentary leader, ultimately contributed, with divine guidance, to ending a trade that, measured by its crimes and suffering, was the greatest practical evil to ever afflict humanity over the course of twenty years.
After the formation of the committeeA, notice was sent to Mr. Wilberforce of the event, and a friendship began, which has continued uninterruptedly between them, from that to the present day.
After the committee was formedA, Mr. Wilberforce was informed about the event, and a friendship started that has continued steadily between them from then until now.
A: All the members were of the society of the Quakers, except Mr. Sharp, Sansom, and myself. Joseph Gurney Bevan was present on the day before this meeting. He desired to belong to the society, but to be excused from belonging to the committee.
A: Everyone in the group was part of the Quakers, except for Mr. Sharp, Sansom, and me. Joseph Gurney Bevan was there the day before this meeting. He wanted to join the group but asked to be excused from being part of the committee.
CHAPTER XI.
The preceding history of the different classes of the forerunners and coadjutors, to the time of the formation of the committee, collected into one view by means of a map.—Explanation of this map, and observations upon it.
The earlier history of the various groups of forerunners and helpers, leading up to the creation of the committee, gathered into a single view using a map.—An explanation of this map and comments on it.
As the preceding history of the different classes of the forerunners and coadjutors, to the time of their junction, or to the formation of the committee, as just explained, may be thought interesting by many, I have endeavoured, by means of the annexed map, so to bring it before the reader, that he may comprehend the whole of it at a single view.
As the earlier history of the various groups of forerunners and supporters, leading up to their coming together or the formation of the committee, as just explained, may be seen as interesting by many, I've tried, through the attached map, to present it in a way that allows the reader to understand it all at a glance.
The figure beginning at A and reaching down to X represents the first class of forerunners and coadjutors up to the year 1787, as consisting of so many springs or rivulets, which assisted in making and swelling the torrent which swept away the Slave Trade.
The figure starting at A and going down to X represents the first group of pioneers and supporters up to the year 1787, consisting of various streams or small flows that contributed to forming and increasing the surge that eliminated the Slave Trade.
The figure from B to C and from C to X represents the second class, or that of the Quakers in England, up to the same time. The stream on the right-hand represents them as a body, and that on the left the six individuals belonging to them, who formed the committee in 1783.
The figure from B to C and from C to X represents the second class, or that of the Quakers in England, up to the same time. The stream on the right represents them as a group, and the stream on the left represents the six individuals from that group who formed the committee in 1783.
The figure from B to D represents the third class, or that of the Quakers in America when joined with others in 1774. The stream passing from D through E to X shows how this class was conveyed down, as it were, so as to unite with the second. That passing from D to Y shows its course in its own country, to its enlargement in 1787. And here I may observe, that as the different streams which formed a junction at X, were instrumental in producing the abolition of the Slave Trade in England, in the month of March, 1807, so those, whose effects are found united at Y, contributed to produce the same event in America, in the same month of the same year.
The line from B to D represents the third class, which is the Quakers in America when they came together with others in 1774. The flow from D through E to X shows how this class was brought together, so as to connect with the second. The flow from D to Y shows its path in its own country, leading to its growth in 1787. Here, I should note that just as the different groups that merged at X played a key role in the abolition of the Slave Trade in England in March 1807, those whose effects are seen combined at Y also helped to achieve the same result in America during the same month and year.
The figure from F to X represents the fourth class up to 1787.
The figure from F to X represents the fourth class up to 1787.






X represents the junction of all the four classes in the committee instituted in London on the twenty-second day of May, 1787.
X represents the meeting point of all four groups in the committee established in London on May 22, 1787.
The parallel lines G, H, I, K, represent different periods of time, showing when the forerunners and coadjutors lived. The space between G and H includes the space of fifty years, in which we find but few labourers in this cause. That between H and I includes the same portion of time, in which we find them considerably increased, or nearly doubled. That between I and K represents the next thirty-seven years; but here we find their increase beyond all expectation, for we find four times more labourers in this short term, than in the whole of the preceding century.
The parallel lines G, H, I, K represent different time periods, showing when the early proponents and supporters lived. The gap between G and H covers fifty years, during which we see only a few people working on this cause. The gap between H and I covers the same amount of time, but we see the number of workers nearly double. The gap between I and K represents the next thirty-seven years; here, we see an unexpected surge, with four times as many workers in this short time frame compared to the entire previous century.
In looking over the map, as thus explained, a number of thoughts suggested themselves, some of which it may not be improper to detail. And first, in looking between the first and second parallel, we perceive, that Morgan Godwyn, Richard Baxter, and George Fox, the first a clergyman of the established church, the second a divine at the head of the nonconformists, and the third the founder of the religious society of the Quakers, appeared each of them the first in his own class, and all of them, about the same time, in behalf of the oppressed Africans. We see then this great truth first apparent, that the abolition of the Slave Trade took its rise, not from persons who set up a cry for liberty, when they were oppressors themselves, nor from persons who were led to it by ambition, or a love of reputation among men, but where it was most desirable, namely, from the teachers of Christianity in those times.
While looking at the map, as just explained, several thoughts came to mind, some of which seem worth sharing. First, when we look between the first and second parallels, we notice that Morgan Godwyn, Richard Baxter, and George Fox—Morgan Godwyn being a clergyman from the established church, Richard Baxter a leader among the nonconformists, and George Fox the founder of the Quakers—each emerged as prominent figures in their own right, all advocating for the oppressed Africans around the same time. This makes it clear that the movement to abolish the Slave Trade arose not from those who claimed to seek liberty while being oppressors themselves, nor from individuals motivated by ambition or a desire for social status, but rather from the Christian teachers of that era, where the need was most pressing.
This account of its rise will furnish us with some important lessons. And first, it shows us the great value of religion. We see, when moral disorders become known, that the virtuous are they who rise up for the removal of them. Thus Providence seems to have appointed those who devote themselves most to his service, to the honourable office of becoming so many agents, under his influence, for the correction of the evils of life. And as this account of the rise of the abolition of the Slave Trade teaches us the necessity of a due cultivation of religion; so it should teach us to have a brotherly affection for those, who, though they may differ from us in speculative opinions concerning it, do yet show by their conduct that they have a high reward for it. For though Godwyn, and Baxter, and Fox, differed as to the articles of their faith, we find them impelled by the spirit of Christianity, which is of infinitely more importance than a mere agreement in creeds, to the same good end.
This account of its rise will provide us with some important lessons. First, it highlights the great value of religion. We see that when moral issues come to light, it is the virtuous who step up to help fix them. Thus, it seems that Providence has appointed those who devote themselves to His service to take on the honorable role of being agents, under His influence, to correct the evils of life. Just as this account of the rise of the abolition of the Slave Trade teaches us the importance of fostering religion, it should also inspire us to have a brotherly affection for those who, although they may have different beliefs about it, demonstrate through their actions that they highly value it. For although Godwyn, Baxter, and Fox had different views on certain aspects of their faith, we see they were driven by the spirit of Christianity, which is far more significant than simply agreeing on doctrines, toward the same good end.
In looking over the different streams in the map, as they are discoverable both in Europe and America, we are impressed with another truth on the same subject, which is, that the Christian religion is capable of producing the same good fruit in all lands. However men may differ on account of climate, or language, or government, or laws, or however they may be situated in different quarters of the globe, it will produce in them the same virtuous disposition, and make them instruments for the promotion of happiness in the world.
As we examine the various rivers on the map, found in both Europe and America, we're struck by another truth about the same topic: the Christian faith can yield positive results in every corner of the earth. Regardless of how people may vary due to climate, language, governance, or laws, or however they are positioned in different parts of the world, it fosters the same virtuous character in them and empowers them to contribute to the happiness of humanity.
In looking between the two first parallels, where we see so few labourers, and in contemplating the great increase of these between the others, we are taught the consoling lesson, that however small the beginning and slow the progress may appear in any good work which we may undertake, we need not be discouraged as to the ultimate result of our labours; for though our cause may appear stationary, it may only become so, in order that it may take a deeper root, and thus be enabled to stand better against the storms which may afterwards beat about it.
In looking between the first two parallels, where we see so few workers, and considering the significant increase of them in the others, we learn the reassuring lesson that no matter how small the start and slow the progress may seem in any good work we undertake, we shouldn't be discouraged about the final outcome of our efforts. Even if our cause seems to be standing still, it may just be in that state to establish deeper roots, enabling it to withstand the challenges that may come later.
In taking the same view again, we discover the manner in which light and information proceed under a free government in a good cause. An individual, for example, begins; he communicates his sentiments to others. Thus, while alive, he enlightens; when dead, he leaves his works, behind him. Thus, though departed, he yet speaks, and his influence is not lost. Of those enlightened by him, some become authors, and others actors in their turn. While living, they instruct, like their predecessors; when dead, they speak also. Thus a number of dead persons are encouraging us in libraries, and a number of living are conversing and diffusing zeal among us at the same time. This, however, is not true in any free and enlightened country, with respect to the propagation of evil. The living find no permanent encouragement, and the dead speak to no purpose in such a case.
By looking at the situation again, we see how light and information flow in a free government for a good cause. For example, an individual starts sharing his thoughts with others. While he's alive, he spreads knowledge; when he's gone, he leaves behind his works. Even in death, he continues to speak, and his impact remains. Some of those he inspired become authors, while others take action themselves. While they're alive, they teach like their predecessors; when they pass, they continue to be heard. So, a number of deceased individuals are encouraging us through their writings, while many living ones are engaging with us and inspiring enthusiasm at the same time. However, this isn't the case in any free and enlightened country when it comes to spreading evil. The living find no lasting support, and the dead have nothing meaningful to say in such cases.
This account of the manner in which light and information proceed in a free country, furnishes us with some valuable knowledge. It shows us, first, the great importance of education; for all they who can read may become enlightened. They may gain as much from the dead as from the living. They may see the sentiments of former ages. Thus they may contract, by degrees, habits of virtuous inclination, and become fitted to join with others in the removal of any of the evils of life.
This description of how light and information flow in a free country gives us valuable insights. It highlights the crucial role of education; everyone who can read can become enlightened. They can learn as much from the dead as from the living. They can understand the thoughts of earlier times. In this way, they can gradually develop virtuous habits and become ready to work with others to eliminate any of life's challenges.
It shows us, secondly, how that encouraging maxim may become true, That no good effort is ever lost. For if he, who makes the virtuous attempt, should be prevented by death from succeeding in it, can he not speak, though in the tomb? Will not his works still breathe his sentiments upon it? May not the opinions, and the facts, which he has recorded, meet the approbation of ten thousand readers, of whom it is probable, in the common course of things, that some will branch out of him as authors, and others as actors or labourers, in the same cause?
It shows us, secondly, how that encouraging saying can be true: no good effort is ever wasted. For if someone who makes a noble attempt is stopped by death before they can achieve it, can they not still communicate, even from the grave? Will their works not continue to express their ideas? Could the views and facts they've recorded still resonate with thousands of readers, and isn't it likely that some of these readers will become authors themselves, while others will become active participants in the same cause?
And, lastly, it will show us the difficulty (if any attempt should be made) of reversing permanently the late noble act of the legislature for the abolition of the Slave Trade. For let us consider how many, both of the living and the dead, could be, made to animate us. Let us consider, too, that this is the cause of mercy, justice, and religion; that as such, it will always afford renewed means of rallying; and that the dead will always be heard with interest, and the living with enthusiasm upon it.
And finally, it will highlight the challenge (if any effort should be made) of permanently overturning the recent noble act of the legislature that abolished the Slave Trade. Let’s think about how many, both alive and deceased, could inspire us. Let's also remember that this is a cause of mercy, justice, and faith; as such, it will consistently provide new opportunities for us to come together, and the voices of the dead will always resonate with us, while the living will engage with passion about it.
CHAPTER XII.
Author devotes this chapter to considerations relative to himself; fears that by the frequent introduction of himself to the notice of the reader he may incur the charge of ostentation.—Observations on such a charge.
Author dedicates this chapter to thoughts about himself; worries that by often bringing himself to the reader’s attention he might be accused of showiness.—Reflections on such an accusation.
Having brought my history of the abolition of the Slave Trade up to the month of May 1787, I purpose taking the liberty, before I proceed with it, to devote this chapter to considerations relative to myself. This, indeed, seems to be now necessary; for I have been fearful for some pages past, and, indeed, from the time when I began to introduce myself to the notice of the reader, as one of the forerunners and coadjutors in this great cause, that I might appear to have put myself into a situation too prominent, so as even to have incurred the charge of ostentation. But if there should be some who, in consequence of what they have already read of this history, should think thus unfavourably of me, what must their opinion ultimately be, when, unfortunately, I must become still more prominent in it! Nor do I know in what manner I shall escape their censure: for if, to avoid egotism, I should write, as many have done, in the third person, what would this profit me? The delicate situation, therefore, in which I feel myself to be placed, makes me desirous of saying a few words to the reader on this subject.
Having brought my history of the abolition of the Slave Trade up to May 1787, I want to take a moment, before I continue, to focus this chapter on my own thoughts. This seems necessary now; I’ve been worried for several pages, and from the time I first introduced myself as one of the pioneers and helpers in this important cause, that I might come off as too prominent and possibly even seen as showing off. But if there are some who, because of what they’ve read so far, have a negative opinion of me, what will they think when I inevitably become even more central to this story? I’m not sure how I’ll avoid their criticism: if I try to come across as humble by writing in the third person like many have done, what would that achieve for me? So, given this uncomfortable situation, I feel the need to say a few words to the reader about this.
And first, I may observe, that several of my friends urged me from time to time, and this long before the abolition of the Slave Trade had been effected, to give a history of the rise and progress of the attempt, as far as it had been then made; but I uniformly resisted their application.
And first, I should point out that several of my friends suggested to me over time, and this was long before the Slave Trade was abolished, to write a history of the rise and progress of the movement, as far as it had gone then; but I consistently turned down their requests.
When the question was decided last year, they renewed their request. They represented to me, that no person knew the beginning and progress of this great work so well as myself; that it was a pity that such knowledge should die with me; that such a history would be useful; that it would promote good feelings among men; that it would urge them to benevolent exertions; that it would supply them with hope in the midst of these; that it would teach them many valuable lessons;—these and other things were said to me. But, encouraging as they were, I never lost sight of the objection; which is the subject of this chapter; nor did I ever fail to declare, that though, considering the part I had taken in this great cause, I might be qualified better than some others, yet it was a task too delicate for me to perform. I always foresaw that I could not avoid making myself too prominent an object in such a history, and that I should be liable, on that account, to the suspicion of writing it for the purpose of sounding my own praise.
When the question was settled last year, they renewed their request. They told me that no one understood the beginning and progress of this major project better than I did; that it would be a shame for such knowledge to be lost with me; that this history would be valuable; that it would encourage positive feelings among people; that it would motivate them to do good; that it would give them hope during difficult times; that it would teach them many important lessons;—these and other points were made to me. But, as encouraging as they were, I never lost sight of the concern, which is the focus of this chapter; nor did I ever fail to say that although I might be more qualified than some others to take on this important task given my involvement, it was still too delicate for me to handle. I always anticipated that I could not help but become too much of a focal point in such a history and that, because of that, I would be suspected of writing it to seek my own praise.
With this objection my friends were not satisfied. They answered, that I might treat the History of the Abolition of the Slave Trade as a species of biography, or as the history of a part of my own life: that people, who had much less weighty matters to communicate, wrote their own histories; and that no one charged them with vanity for so doing.
With this objection, my friends weren’t convinced. They replied that I could treat the history of the abolition of the slave trade as a kind of biography or as part of my own life story: that people who had much less significant things to share wrote their own histories, and no one accused them of being vain for doing so.
I own I was not convinced by this answer. I determined, however, in compliance with their wishes, to examine the objection more minutely, and to see if I could overcome it more satisfactorily to my own mind. With this view, I endeavoured to anticipate the course which such a history would take. I saw clearly, in the first place, that there were times, for months together, when the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade was labouring without me, and when I myself for an equal space of time was labouring in distant parts of the kingdom without them. Hence I perceived that, if my own exertions were left out, there would be repeated chasms in this history; and, indeed, that it could not be completed without the frequent mention of myself. And I was willing to hope that this would be so obvious to the good sense of the reader, that if he should think me vain-glorious in the early part of it, he would afterwards, when he advanced in the perusal of it, acquit me of such a charge. This consideration was the first which removed my objection on this head. That there can be no ground for any charge of ostentation, as far as the origin of this history is concerned, so I hope to convince him there, can be none, by showing him in what light I have always viewed myself in connexion with the committee, to which I have had the honour to belong.
I admit I wasn't convinced by this answer. However, to respect their wishes, I decided to look into the objection more closely and see if I could resolve it in a way that made sense to me. With that in mind, I tried to anticipate how such a history would unfold. I clearly saw, first of all, that there were long periods—sometimes months—when the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade was working without me, and I was working in far-off parts of the country without them. So, I realized that if my contributions were excluded, there would be gaps in this history; in fact, it couldn't be fully told without frequently mentioning me. I hoped this would be obvious enough to the reader that if they thought I was being self-important in the beginning, they would later, as they continued reading, realize that was not the case. This thought was what first helped me set aside my objection about that point. I believe there can be no grounds for any claim of arrogance regarding the origin of this history, and I hope to show this by explaining how I have always viewed my role in connection with the committee that I have had the honor to be a part of.
I have uniformly considered our committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade; as we usually consider the human body, that is, as made up of a head and of various members which had different offices to perform. Thus, if one man was an eye, another was an ear, another an arm, and another a foot. And here I may say, with great truth, that I believe no committee was ever made up of persons, whose varied talents were better adapted to the work before them. Viewing then the committee in this light, and myself as in connexion with it, I may deduce those truths, with which the analogy will furnish me. And first, it will follow, that if every member has performed his office faithfully, though one may have done something more than another, yet no one of them in particular has any reason to boast. With what propriety could the foot, though in the execution of its duty it had become weary, say to the finger, "Thou hast done less than I;" when the finger could reply with truth, "I have done all that has been given me to do?". It will follow, also, that as every limb is essentially necessary for the completion of a perfect work; so in the case before us, every one was as necessary in his own office, or department, as another. For what, for example, could I myself have done if I had not derived so much assistance from the committee? What could Mr. Wilberforce have done in Parliament, if I, on the other hand, had not collected that great body of evidence, to which there was such a constant appeal? And what could the committee have done without the parliamentary aid of Mr. Wilberforce? And in mentioning this necessity of distinct offices and talents for the accomplishment of the great work, in which we have been all of us engaged, I feel myself bound by the feelings of justice to deliver it as my opinion in this place, (for, perhaps, I may have no other opportunity,) that knowing, as I have done, so many members of both houses of our legislature, for many of whom I have had a sincere respect, there was never yet one, who appeared to me to be so properly qualified, in all respects, for the management of the great cause of the abolition of the Slave Trade, as he, whose name I have just mentioned. His connexions, but more particularly his acquaintance with the first minister of state, were of more service in the promotion of it, than they, who are but little acquainted with political movements, can well appreciate. His habits also of diligent and persevering inquiry made him master of all the knowledge that was requisite for conducting it. His talents both in and out of parliament made him a powerful advocate in its favour. His character, free from the usual spots of human imperfection, gave an appropriate lustre to the cause, making it look yet more lovely, and enticing others to its support. But most of all the motive, on which he undertook it, insured its progress. For this did not originate in views of selfishness, or of party or of popular applause, but in an awful sense of his duty as a Christian. It was this which gave him alacrity and courage in his pursuit. It was this which made him continue in his elevated situation of a legislator, though it was unfavourable, if not to his health, at least to his ease and comfort. It was this which made him incorporate this great object among the pursuits of his life, so that it was daily in his thoughts. It was this which when year after year of unsuccessful exertion returned, occasioned him to be yet fresh and vigorous in spirit, and to persevere till the day of triumph.
I have consistently viewed our committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade as we typically see the human body, in that it’s made up of a head and various members, each with different roles to play. So, if one person is an eye, another is an ear, another is an arm, and another is a foot. I truly believe that no committee has ever been made up of individuals whose diverse skills were better suited to the task at hand. Seeing the committee in this way, along with myself in relation to it, allows me to draw certain conclusions from this analogy. Firstly, if every member has fulfilled their role diligently, even if one has accomplished more than another, none has any reason to brag. How could the foot, even if it became weary from its duties, say to the finger, “You’ve done less than I," when the finger could truthfully respond, “I have done everything assigned to me”? It also follows that just as every limb is essential for the perfection of a completed work, in our case, each person was as crucial in their own role as another. For instance, what could I have done without the substantial support from the committee? What could Mr. Wilberforce have achieved in Parliament if I hadn’t gathered the extensive evidence to which there was constant reference? And what could the committee have done without Mr. Wilberforce's parliamentary support? In pointing out this need for distinct roles and talents to accomplish the significant work we have all engaged in, I feel it is only fair to express my opinion here (since I may not get another chance) that, having known many members of both houses of our legislature, whom I have respected, there has never been anyone more suitably qualified in every way to lead the abolition of the Slave Trade than the person I've just mentioned. His connections, particularly his familiarity with the prime minister, were more valuable in promoting the cause than those who are less acquainted with political dynamics can fully grasp. His diligent and persistent inquiry equipped him with all the knowledge needed to lead this effort. His abilities both inside and outside Parliament made him a strong advocate for it. His character, free from the usual imperfections of humanity, added a certain brightness to the cause, making it even more appealing and encouraging others to support it. Above all, the motivation behind his commitment ensured its advancement. This motivation didn’t stem from selfish interests, party politics, or seeking popularity, but from a profound sense of his duty as a Christian. This sense is what gave him enthusiasm and courage in his efforts. It kept him in his prominent role as a legislator, despite it being taxing, if not on his health, at least on his comfort and ease. This commitment led him to make this important goal a part of his life’s work, keeping it in his thoughts every day. It was this dedication that allowed him to remain enthusiastic and driven, even after years of challenges, persevering until the day of victory.
But to return:—There is yet another consideration, which I shall offer to the reader on this subject, and with which I shall conclude it. It is this; that no one ought to be accused of vanity until he has been found to assume to himself some extraordinary merit. This being admitted, I shall now freely disclose the views which I have always been desirous of taking of my own conduct on this occasion, in the following words:—
But to get back to the point: there’s one more thing I want to share with the reader about this topic, and then I’ll wrap it up. It’s this: no one should be labeled as vain until they’ve actually claimed some exceptional quality for themselves. With that in mind, I’ll now openly share the thoughts I’ve always wanted to express about my actions in this situation, in the following words:—
As Robert Barclay, the apologist for the Quakers, when he dedicated his work to Charles the Second, intimated to this prince, that any merit which the work might have, would not be derived from his patronage of it, but from the Author of all spiritual good; so I say to the reader, with respect to myself, that I disclaim all praise on account of any part I may have taken in the promotion of this great cause, for that I am desirious above all things to attribute my best endeavours in it to the influence of a superior Power; of Him, I mean, who gave me a heart to feel—who gave me courage to begin—and perseverance to proceed—and that I am thankful to Him, and this with the deepest feeling of gratitude and humility, for having permitted me to become useful, in any degree, to my fellow-creatures.
As Robert Barclay, the defender of the Quakers, expressed when he dedicated his work to Charles the Second, any value this work may hold comes not from his support but from the Creator of all spiritual goodness. Similarly, I want to tell the reader that I reject any praise for my involvement in advancing this important cause. I sincerely want to credit my best efforts to the guidance of a higher Power—specifically, the one who gave me a heart to feel, the courage to start, and the perseverance to continue. I am truly grateful to Him, with deep humility and thankfulness, for allowing me to be of any help to my fellow human beings.
CHAPTER XIII
Author returns to his History.—Committee formed as before-mentioned; its proceedings.—Author produces a summary view of the Slave Trade, and of the probable consequences of its abolition.—Wrongs of Africa, by Mr. Roscoe, generously presented to the committee.—Important discussion as to the object of the committee.—Emancipation declared to be no part of it.—Committee decides on its public title.—Author requested to go to Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster, to collect further information on the subject of the trade.
The author goes back to his History. A committee is formed as mentioned earlier; its activities take place. The author presents a summary of the Slave Trade and the potential outcomes of its abolition. Mr. Roscoe generously gives 'Wrongs of Africa' to the committee. An important discussion occurs about the committee's purpose. Emancipation is stated to be not part of it. The committee decides on its public title. The author is asked to visit Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster to gather more information on the trade.
I return now, after this long digression, to the continuation of my history.
I’m back now, after this long side note, to continue my story.
It was shown in the latter part of the tenth chapter, that twelve individuals, all of whom were then named, met together by means which no one could have foreseen, on the 22d of May, 1787; and that, after having voted the Slave Trade to be both unjust and impolitic, they formed themselves into a committee for procuring such information and evidence, and for publishing the same, as might tend to the abolition of it, and for directing the application of such money as had been already, and might hereafter be collected for that purpose. At this meeting it was resolved also, that no less than three members should form a quorum; that Samuel Hoare should be the treasurer; that the treasurer should pay no money but by order of the committee; and that copies of these resolutions should be printed and circulated, in which it should be inserted that the subscriptions of all such as were willing to forward the plans of the committee should be received by the treasurer or any member of it.
It was shown in the latter part of the tenth chapter that twelve individuals, all named at that time, came together in a way that no one could have predicted, on May 22, 1787. After deciding that the Slave Trade was both unjust and unwise, they formed a committee to gather information and evidence to support its abolition, as well as to manage any funds that had already been or would be collected for that purpose. During this meeting, they also agreed that at least three members would be needed for a quorum, that Samuel Hoare would serve as the treasurer, that the treasurer could only spend money with the committee's approval, and that copies of these decisions would be printed and distributed. These copies would state that contributions from anyone willing to support the committee's plans could be made to the treasurer or any committee member.
On the 24th of May the committee met again to promote the object of its institution.
On May 24th, the committee met again to advance the purpose of its establishment.
The treasurer reported at this meeting, that the subscriptions already received amounted to one hundred and thirty-six pounds.
The treasurer reported at this meeting that the subscriptions received so far totaled one hundred and thirty-six pounds.
As I had foreseen long before this time that my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species was too large for general circulation, and yet that a general circulation of knowledge on this subject was absolutely necessary, I determined directly after the formation of the committee to write a short pamphlet consisting only of eight or ten pages for this purpose. I called it A Summary View of the Slave Trade, and of the probable consequences of its Abolition. It began by exhibiting to the reader the various unjustifiable ways in which persons living on the coast of Africa became slaves. It then explained the treatment which these experienced on their passage, the number dying in the course of it, and the treatment of the survivors in the colonies of those nations to which they were carried. It then announced the speedy publication of a work on the impolicy of the trade, the contents of which, as far as I could then see, I gave generally under the following heads:—Part the first, it was said, would show that Africa was capable of offering to us a trade in its own natural productions as well as in the persons of men; that the trade in the persons of men was profitable but to a few; that its value was diminished from many commercial considerations; that it was also highly destructive to our seamen; and that the branch of it, by which we supplied the island of St. Domingo with slaves, was peculiarly impolitic on that account. Part the second, it was said, would show that if the slaves were kindly treated in our colonies, they would increase; that the abolition of the trade would necessarily secure such a treatment to them, and that it would produce many other advantages which would be then detailed.
Since I knew long before this time that my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species was too lengthy for a general audience, and that widespread knowledge on this topic was essential, I decided, right after the committee was formed, to write a short pamphlet consisting of only eight to ten pages for that purpose. I titled it A Summary View of the Slave Trade, and of the Probable Consequences of Its Abolition. It started by showing readers the various unjustifiable ways in which people living on the coast of Africa became slaves. It then explained the treatment these individuals faced during their journey, the number who died along the way, and the treatment of the survivors in the colonies of the nations they were taken to. It also announced the upcoming publication of a work discussing the imprudence of the trade, the contents of which, as far as I could see at the time, I summarized under the following headings:—Part one would demonstrate that Africa could offer us trade in its own natural products as well as in human lives; that the trade in human lives only benefited a few; that its value was diminished by many commercial factors; that it was also extremely harmful to our sailors; and that the segment of it supplying the island of St. Domingo with slaves was particularly unwise for that reason. Part two would illustrate that if the slaves were treated well in our colonies, their population would grow; that abolishing the trade would ensure they received such treatment, and that it would lead to many other benefits which would be detailed later.
This little piece I presented to the committee at this their second meeting. It was then duly read and examined; and the result was, that after some little correction it was approved, and that two thousand copies of it were ordered to be printed, with lists of the subscribers and of the committee, and to be sent to various parts of the kingdom.
This short document I shared with the committee at their second meeting. It was read and reviewed, and after a few corrections, it was approved. They ordered two thousand copies to be printed, along with lists of the subscribers and the committee, to be distributed to various parts of the country.
On June the 7th, the committee met again for the despatch of business, when, among other things, they voted their thanks to Dr. Baker, of Lower Grosvenor-street, who had been one of my first assistants, for his services to the cause.
On June 7th, the committee met again to take care of business, and among other things, they expressed their gratitude to Dr. Baker of Lower Grosvenor Street, who had been one of my first assistants, for his contributions to the cause.
At this committee John Barton, one of the members of it, stated that he was commissioned by the author of a poem, entitled The Wrongs of Africa, to offer the profits which might arise from the sale of that work, to the committee, for the purpose of enabling them to pursue the object of their institution. This circumstance was not only agreeable, inasmuch as it showed us that there were others who felt with us for the injured Africans, and who were willing to aid us in our designs, but it was rendered still more so when we were given to understand that the poem was written by Mr. Roscoe, of Liverpool, and the preface to it by the late Dr. Currie, who then lived in the same place. To find friends to our cause rising up from a quarter where we expected scarcely anything but opposition, was very consolatory and encouraging. As this poem was well written, but cannot now be had, I shall give the introductory part of it, which is particularly beautiful, to the perusal of the reader. It begins thus:—
At this committee, John Barton, one of its members, mentioned that he was asked by the author of a poem titled The Wrongs of Africa to donate any profits from the sale of that work to the committee. This would help them continue their mission. This was not only pleasing because it showed that others shared our concern for the suffering Africans and were willing to support our efforts, but it was even more encouraging when we learned that the poem was written by Mr. Roscoe from Liverpool, with a preface by the late Dr. Currie, who also lived in the same area. It was very comforting and inspiring to find allies for our cause coming from a place where we expected mostly opposition. Since this poem is beautifully written but not currently available, I will share the introductory part, which is especially lovely, for the reader's enjoyment. It begins like this:—
To whom, his eldest born, th' Eternal gave
Dominion o'er the heart; and taught to touch
Its varied stops in sweetest unison;
And strike the string that from a kindred breast
Responsive vibrates! from the noisy haunts
Of mercantile confusion, where thy voice
Is heard not; from the meretricious glare
Of crowded theatres, where in thy place
Sits Sensibility, with wat'ry eye,
Dropping o'er fancied woes her useless tear;
Come thou, and weep with me substantial ills;
And execrate the wrongs that Afric's sons,
Torn from their natal shore, and doom'd to bear
The yoke of servitude in foreign climes,
Sustain. Nor vainly let our sorrows flow,
Nor let the strong emotion rise in vain;
But may the land contagion widely spread,
Till in its flame the unrelenting heart
Of avarice melt in softest sympathy—
And one bright blaze of universal love
In grateful incense rises up to Heaven!
The same desire of pleasure and of ease,
Why feels not man for man! When nature shrinks
From the slight puncture of an insect's sting,
Faints, if not screen'd from sultry suns, und pines
Beneath the hardship of an hour's delay
Of needful nutriment;—when liberty
Is priz'd so dearly, that the slightest breath
That ruffles but her mantle, can awake
To arms unwarlike nations, and can rouse
Confed'rate states to vindicate her claims:—
How shall the suff'rer man his fellow doom
To ills he mourns and spurns at; tear with stripes
His quiv'ring flesh; with hunger and with thirst
Waste his emaciate frame; in ceaseless toils
Exhaust his vital powers; and bind his limbs
In galling chains? Shall he, whose fragile form
Demands continual blessings to support
Its complicated texture, air, and food,
Raiment, alternate rest, and kindly skies,
And healthful seasons, dare with impious voice
To ask those mercies, whilst his selfish aim
Arrests the general freedom of their course;
And, gratified beyond his utmost wish,
Debars another from the bounteous store?
In this manner was the subject of this beautiful poem introduced to the notice of the public. But I have no room for any further extracts, nor time to make any further comment upon it. I can only add, that the committee were duly sensible as well of its merits, as of the virtuous and generous disposition of the author, and that they requested John Barton to thank him in an appropriate manner for his offer, which he was to say they accepted gratefully.
In this way, the topic of this beautiful poem was brought to the public's attention. However, I have no space for any more excerpts, nor time to make additional comments on it. I can only add that the committee recognized both its merits and the virtuous and generous nature of the author. They asked John Barton to thank him appropriately for his offer, which he was to say they accepted with gratitude.
At this sitting, at which ten members were present out of the twelve, a discussion unexpectedly arose on a most important subject. The committee, finding that their meetings began to be approved by many, and that the cause under their care was likely to spread, and foreseeing, also, the necessity there would soon be of making themselves known as a public body throughout the kingdom, thought it right that they should assume some title, which should be a permanent one, and which should be expressive of their future views. This gave occasion to them to reconsider the object for which they had associated, and to fix and define it in such a manner that there should be no misunderstanding about it in the public mind. In looking into the subject, it appeared to them that there were two evils quite distinct from each other, which it might become their duty to endeavour to remove. The first was the evil of the Slave Trade, in consequence of which many thousand persons were every year fraudulently and forcibly taken from their country, their relations and friends, and from all that they esteemed valuable in life. The second was the evil of slavery itself, in consequence of which the same persons were forced into a situation where they were deprived of the rights of men, where they were obliged to linger out their days subject to excessive labour and cruel punishments, and where their children were to inherit the same hard lot. Now the question was, which of the two evils the committee should select as that to which they should direct their attention with a view of the removal of it; or whether, with the same view, it should direct its attention to both of them.
During this meeting, with ten out of the twelve members present, an unexpected discussion emerged on a very important topic. The committee noticed that their meetings were increasingly gaining approval from many people and that the cause they were supporting was likely to grow. They also foresaw the need to establish themselves as a recognized public body throughout the kingdom, so they felt it was necessary to adopt a permanent title that reflected their future goals. This prompted them to rethink the purpose for which they had come together and to articulate it clearly, ensuring that there would be no confusion in the public's mind about it. Upon reviewing the issue, they identified two distinct evils that they might need to address. The first was the evil of the Slave Trade, whereby thousands were fraudulently and forcibly taken from their homes, families, and everything they valued in life each year. The second was the evil of slavery itself, where those same individuals were forced into a life devoid of human rights, condemned to endure harsh labor and cruel punishments, and where their children would inherit the same grim fate. The question now was whether the committee should focus on one of these two evils to work towards its removal or if they should direct their efforts at both issues simultaneously.
It appeared soon to be the sense of the committee, that to aim at the removal of both, would be to aim at too much, and that by doing this we might lose all.
It quickly became clear to the committee that trying to get rid of both would be aiming too high, and that in doing so, we might end up losing everything.
The question then was, which of the two they were to take as their object? Now, in considering this question, it appeared that it did not matter where they began, or which of them they took, as far as the end to be produced was the thing desired. For first, if the Slave Trade should be really abolished, the bad usage of the slaves in the colonies, that is, the hard part of their slavery, if not the slavery itself, would fall. For the planters and others being unable to procure more slaves from the coast of Africa, it would follow directly, whenever this great event should take place, that they must treat those better whom they might then have. They must render marriage honourable among them. They must establish the union of one man with one wife. They must give the pregnant women more indulgences. They must pay more attention to the rearing of their offspring. They must work and punish the adults with less rigour. Now it was to be apprehended that they could not do these things, without seeing the political advantages which would arise to themselves from so doing; and that, reasoning upon this, they might be induced to go on to give them greater indulgences, rights, and privileges, in time. But how would every such successive improvement of their condition operate, but to bring them nearer to the state of freemen? In the same manner it was contended, that the better treatment of the slaves in the colonies, or that the emancipation of them there, when fit for it, would of itself lay the foundation for the abolition of the Slave Trade. For if the slaves were kindly treated, that is, if marriage were encouraged among them; if the infants who should be born were brought up with care; if the sick were properly attended to; if the young and the adult were well fed and properly clothed, and not over-worked, and not worn down by the weight of severe punishments, they would necessarily increase, and this on an extensive scale. But if the planters were thus to get their labourers from the births on their own estates, then the Slave Trade would in time be no longer necessary to them, and it would die away as an useless and a noxious plant. Thus it was of no consequence, which of the two evils the committee were to select as the object for their labours; for, as far as the end in view only was concerned, that the same end would be produced in either case.
The question was, which of the two options they should choose as their focus? In thinking about this, it seemed that it didn't matter where they started or which option they picked, as long as the desired outcome was achieved. First, if the Slave Trade were actually abolished, the mistreatment of slaves in the colonies, meaning the harsh aspects of their slavery—if not slavery itself—would decrease. Since planters and others wouldn't be able to get more slaves from Africa, once this significant change occurred, they would have to treat the slaves they already had better. They would need to make marriage respectable among them. They would need to establish a union of one man and one woman. They would need to offer pregnant women more leniency. They would need to focus more on raising their children. They would need to work and punish the adults less harshly. Now, it was likely that they couldn't do these things without recognizing the political benefits that would follow, and thinking along those lines, they might be encouraged to gradually give them more leniency, rights, and privileges over time. But how would each of these improvements in their treatment not lead them closer to being free? Similarly, it was argued that better treatment of slaves in the colonies, or freeing them when appropriate, would itself lay the groundwork for ending the Slave Trade. If the slaves were treated well, meaning if marriage was supported among them; if the infants born were raised with care; if the sick received proper care; if the young and adults were well-fed, appropriately clothed, not overworked, and not burdened by severe punishments, they would naturally increase, and on a large scale. But if the planters sourced their laborers from births on their own estates, then over time, the Slave Trade would become unnecessary and would fade away as a harmful and useless practice. Therefore, it didn't really matter which of the two issues the committee chose to focus on for their efforts; as far as the desired outcome was concerned, the same result would occur in either case.
But in looking further into this question, it seemed to make a material difference which of the two they selected, as far as they had in view the due execution of any laws, which might be made respecting them, and their own prospect of success in the undertaking. For, by aiming at the abolition of the Slave Trade, they were laying the axe at the very root. By doing this, and this only, they would not incur the objection, that they were meddling with the property of the planters, and letting loose an irritated race of beings, who, in consequence of all the vices and infirmities which a state of slavery entails upon those who undergo it, were unfit for their freedom. By asking the government of the country to do this, and this only, they were asking for that which it had an indisputable right to do; namely, to regulate or abolish any of its branches of commerce: whereas it was doubtful, whether it could interfere with the management of the internal affairs of the colonies, or whether this was not wholly the province of the legislatures established there. By asking the government, again, to do this, and this only, they were asking what it could really enforce. It could station its ships of war, and command its custom-houses, so as to carry any act of this kind into effect. But it could not insure that an act to be observed in the heart of the islands should be enforcedA. To this it was added, that if the committee were to fix upon the annihilation of slavery as the object for their labours, the Slave Trade would not fall so speedily as it would by a positive law for the abolition; because, though the increase from the births might soon supply all the estates now in cultivation with labourers, yet new plantations might be opened from time to time in different islands, so that no period could be fixed upon, when it could be said that it would cease.
But upon further examination of this question, it became clear that the choice between the two options made a significant difference regarding the proper execution of any potential laws concerning them, as well as their own chances of success in the effort. By targeting the abolition of the Slave Trade, they were addressing the core issue. By doing this and only this, they avoided the criticism that they were interfering with the planters' property and unleashing an agitated population who, due to the vices and drawbacks that come with slavery, were unprepared for freedom. By requesting that the government take this single action, they were asking for something that it had a clear right to do: regulate or abolish any part of its commerce. However, it was unclear if the government could intervene in the internal affairs of the colonies or if that authority lay solely with their legislatures. Again, by asking the government to take this action, they were requesting something it could genuinely enforce. It could deploy its warships and manage its customs to implement such a law. But it could not guarantee that a law meant to be followed within the islands would actually be enforcedA. Additionally, it was pointed out that if the committee chose to focus on the complete elimination of slavery as their goal, the Slave Trade would not be abolished as swiftly as with a clear law for its abolition; because, while births could soon replenish the labor force for existing cultivated estates, new plantations might continually open on different islands, making it impossible to determine when it would truly end.
A: The late correspondence of the governors of our colonies with Lord Camden in his official situation, but particularly the statements made by Lord Seaforth and General Prevost, have shown the wisdom of this remark, and that no dependence was to be had for the better usage of the slaves but upon the total abolition of the trade.
A: The recent communications from the governors of our colonies to Lord Camden in his official capacity, especially the comments from Lord Seaforth and General Prevost, have highlighted the truth of this observation: that the only way to improve the treatment of slaves is through a complete end to the trade.
Impressed by these arguments, the committee were clearly of opinion, that they should define their object to be the abolition of the Slave Trade, and not of the slavery which sprung from it. Hence from this time, and in allusion to the month when this discussion took place, they styled themselves in their different advertisements, and reports, though they were first associated in the month of May, The Committee instituted in June, 1787, for effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Thus, at the very outset, they took a ground which was for ever tenable. Thus they were enabled also to answer the objection, which was afterwards so constantly and so industriously circulated against them, that they were going to emancipate the slaves. And I have no doubt that this wise decision contributed greatly to their success; for I am persuaded that, if they had adopted the other object, they could not for years to come, if ever, have succeeded in their attempt.
Impressed by these arguments, the committee clearly believed that their goal should be to abolish the Slave Trade, rather than the slavery that resulted from it. From that point on, and referencing the month when this discussion occurred, they referred to themselves in their various advertisements and reports as The Committee instituted in June, 1787, for effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade, even though they initially came together in May. This decision gave them a strong, lasting position. It also allowed them to respond to the common and persistent claim against them that they were aiming to free the slaves. I believe this wise choice significantly contributed to their success; I’m convinced that if they had chosen the other aim, they would not have succeeded in their efforts for many years, if ever.
Before the committee broke up, I represented to them the necessity there was of obtaining further knowledge on all those individual points which might be said to belong to the great subject of the abolition of the Slave Trade. In the first place, this knowledge was necessary for me, if I were to complete my work on The Impolicy of this Trade, which work, the Summary View, just printed, had announced to the world. It would be necessary, also, in case the Slave Trade should become a subject of parliamentary inquiry; for this inquiry could not proceed without evidence. And if any time was peculiarly fit for the procuring of such information or evidence, it was the present. At this time the passions of men had not been heated by any public agitation of the question, nor had interest felt itself biassed to conceal the truth. But as soon as ever it should be publicly understood, that a parliamentary inquiry was certain, (which we ourselves believed would be the case, but which interested men did not then know,) we should find many of the avenues to information closed against us. I proposed, therefore, that some one of the committee should undertake a journey to Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster, where he should reside for a time to collect further light upon this subject; and that if others should feel their occupations or engagements to be such as would make such a journey unsuitable, I would undertake it myself. I begged, therefore, the favour of the different members of the committee, to turn the matter over in their minds by the next meeting, that we might then talk over and decide upon the propriety of the measure.
Before the committee disbanded, I expressed to them how important it was to gather more information on all the specific issues related to the broader topic of abolishing the Slave Trade. First and foremost, I needed this information to finish my work on The Impolicy of this Trade, which the Summary View had just announced to the public. It was also essential in case the Slave Trade became a topic of parliamentary investigation; such an inquiry couldn’t happen without evidence. If there was ever a time that was especially right for gathering this kind of information or evidence, it was now. At this moment, people's emotions hadn't been stirred up by any public debate on the issue, and there was no interest trying to hide the truth. But as soon as it became clear that a parliamentary inquiry was certain, which we believed would happen but interested parties didn’t yet know, we would find many paths to information blocked. I suggested that someone from the committee take a trip to Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster, where they could stay for a while to gather more insights on this topic; and if others felt their work or commitments made the journey impractical, I would gladly take it on myself. I requested, therefore, that the committee members think about this matter before our next meeting, so we could discuss and decide on the appropriateness of the plan.
The committee held its fourth meeting on the 12th of June. Among the subjects which were then brought forward, was that of the journey before mentioned. The propriety, and indeed, even the necessity, of it was so apparent, that I was requested by all present to undertake it, and a minute for that purpose was entered upon our records. Of this journey, as gradually unfolding light on the subject, and as peculiarly connected with the promotion of our object, I shall now give an account; after which I shall return to the proceedings of the committee.
The committee had its fourth meeting on June 12th. Among the topics discussed was the previously mentioned journey. The appropriateness, and indeed the necessity, of it was so clear that everyone asked me to take it on, and we recorded a note for that purpose. Now, I will provide a report on this journey, as it gradually reveals insights on the subject and is particularly linked to advancing our goals. After that, I will return to the committee's proceedings.
CHAPTER XIV.
Author arrives at Bristol; introduction to Quaker families there.—Objects of his inquiry.—Ill usage of seamen on board the ship Brothers.—Obtains a knowledge of several articles of African produce.—Dr. Caniplin; Dean Tucker; Mr. Henry Sulgar.—Procures an authenticated account of the treacherous massacre at Calabar.—Ill usage of the seamen of the ship Alfred.—Painful feelings of the author on this occasion.
The author arrives in Bristol and meets Quaker families there. — Goals of his research. — Poor treatment of sailors on the ship Brothers. — Learns about various African goods. — Dr. Caniplin; Dean Tucker; Mr. Henry Sulgar. — Gets a verified account of the deceitful massacre at Calabar. — Poor treatment of the sailors on the ship Alfred. — The author feels deeply troubled by this situation.
Having made preparations for my journey, I took my leave of the different individuals of the committee. I called upon Mr. Wilberforce, also, with the same design. He was then very ill, and in bed; Sir Richard Hill and others were sitting by his bedside. After conversing as much as he well could in his weak state, he held out his hand to me and wished me success. When I left him I felt much dejected; it appeared to me as if it would be in this case, as it is often in that of other earthly things, that we scarcely possess what we repute a treasure when it is taken from us.
Having prepared for my journey, I said goodbye to the various members of the committee. I also visited Mr. Wilberforce for the same reason. He was very ill and in bed; Sir Richard Hill and others were sitting by his bedside. After talking as much as he could in his weakened state, he reached out his hand to me and wished me success. When I left him, I felt quite down; it seemed to me that, just like with many other worldly things, we hardly appreciate what we consider a treasure until it's taken away from us.
I determined to take this journey on horseback, not only on account of the relaxed state in which I found myself, after such close and constant application, but because I wished to have all my time to myself upon the road, in order the better to reflect upon the proper means of promoting this great cause. The first place I resolved to visit was Bristol; accordingly I directed my course thither. On turning a corner, within about a mile of that city, at about eight in the evening, I came within sight of it. The weather was rather hazy, which occasioned it to look of unusual dimensions. The bells of some of the churches were then ringing; the sound of them did not strike me till I had turned the corner before mentioned, when it came upon me at once; it filled me, almost directly, with a melancholy for which I could not account. I began now to tremble, for the first time, at the arduous task I had undertaken, of attempting to subvert one of the branches of the commerce of the great place which was then before me. I began to think of the host of people I should have to encounter in it; I anticipated much persecution in it also; and I questioned whether I should even get out of it alive. But in journeying on I became more calm and composed; my spirits began to return. In these latter moments I considered my first feelings as useful, inasmuch as they impressed upon me the necessity of extraordinary courage, and activity, and perseverance, and of watchfulness, also, over my own conduct, that I might not throw any stain upon the cause I had undertaken. When, therefore, I entered the city, I entered it with an undaunted spirit, determining that no labour should make me shrink, nor danger, nor even persecution, deter me from my pursuit.
I decided to take this journey on horseback, not only because I was feeling relaxed after being so focused for a long time, but also because I wanted to have all my time to think on the road about how to best promote this important cause. The first place I planned to visit was Bristol; so I headed that way. As I turned a corner, about a mile from the city, around eight in the evening, I caught sight of it. The weather was a bit hazy, making the city look unusually large. Some church bells were ringing; I didn't notice them until I turned that corner, and when I did, the sound suddenly hit me. It filled me with a sadness I couldn't explain. I started to feel anxious for the first time about the difficult task I had taken on, trying to disrupt one of the major commerce branches of the big city in front of me. I thought about all the people I would have to face there; I expected a lot of opposition, and I wondered if I would even make it out alive. But as I continued on, I became calmer. My spirits began to lift. In those last moments, I saw my initial feelings as useful because they reminded me of the need for extraordinary courage, energy, perseverance, and vigilance over my own behavior, so I wouldn’t tarnish the cause I had taken on. So when I entered the city, I did so with a fearless spirit, determined that no effort would make me back down, nor would danger or even persecution stop me from my mission.
My first introduction was by means of a letter to Harry Gandy, who had then become one of the religious society of the Quakers. This introduction to him was particularly useful to me; for he had been a seafaring man. In his early youth he had been of a roving disposition; and, in order to see the world, had been two voyages in the Slave Trade, so that he had known the nature and practices of it. This enabled him to give me much useful information on the subject; and as he had frequently felt, as he grew up, deep affliction of mind for having been concerned in it, he was impelled to forward my views as much as possible, under an idea that he should be thus making some reparation for the indiscreet and profane occupations of his youth.
My first introduction was through a letter to Harry Gandy, who had by then become a member of the Quaker religious community. This connection was especially valuable to me because he had experience as a sailor. In his youth, he had a restless spirit and, to see the world, he had taken two trips involved in the Slave Trade, which meant he understood its nature and practices. This allowed him to provide me with a lot of helpful information on the topic. Additionally, as he grew older, he often felt deep regret for his involvement in it, which motivated him to support my efforts as much as he could, believing that by doing so, he was making amends for the reckless and immoral activities of his earlier years.
I was also introduced to the families of James Harford, John Lury, Matthew Wright, Philip, Debell Tucket, Thomas Bonville, and John Waring; all of whom were of the same religious society. I gained an introduction, also, soon afterwards, to George Fisher. These were my first and only acquaintance at Bristol for some time; I derived assistance in the promotion of my object from all of them; and it is a matter of pleasing reflection, that the friendships then formed have been kept alive to the present time.
I was also introduced to the families of James Harford, John Lury, Matthew Wright, Philip, Debell Tucket, Thomas Bonville, and John Waring; all of whom were part of the same religious community. I also met George Fisher soon after. These were my first and only acquaintances in Bristol for a while; I received help in promoting my goals from all of them, and it's nice to reflect that the friendships I formed back then have lasted to this day.
The objects I had marked down as those to be attended to, were—to ascertain what were the natural productions of Africa, and, if possible, to obtain specimens of them, with the view of forming a cabinet or collection—to procure as much information as I could relative to the manner of obtaining slaves on continent of Africa, of transporting them to the West Indies, and of treating them there—to prevail upon persons, having a knowledge of any or all of these circumstances, to come forward to be examined as evidences before parliament, if such an examination should take place—to make myself still better acquainted with the loss of seamen in the Slave Trade—also with the loss of those who were employed in the other trades from the same port—to know the nature, and quantity, and value of the imports and exports of goods in the former case:—there were some other objects which I classed under the head of miscellaneous.
The tasks I had noted to focus on were to identify the natural resources of Africa and, if possible, collect samples to create a cabinet or collection. I aimed to gather as much information as I could about how slaves were obtained on the African continent, how they were transported to the West Indies, and how they were treated there. I wanted to encourage people with knowledge of any or all of these issues to come forward to be interviewed as witnesses before Parliament, if such an inquiry happened. I also aimed to better understand the loss of sailors in the Slave Trade, as well as the loss of those involved in the other trades from the same port. I wanted to know the nature, quantity, and value of the imports and exports of goods in that context. Additionally, there were some other objectives I categorized as miscellaneous.
In my first movements about this city, I found that people talked very openly on the subject of the Slave Trade. They seemed to be well acquainted with the various circumstances belonging to it. There were facts, in short, in every body's mouth concerning it; and every body seemed to execrate it, though no one thought of its abolition. In this state of things I perceived that my course was obvious; for I had little else to do, in pursuing two or three of my objects, than to trace the foundation of those reports which were in circulation.
In my initial explorations around this city, I discovered that people spoke very openly about the Slave Trade. They seemed familiar with the various aspects surrounding it. In short, there were facts on everyone’s lips regarding it; and everyone appeared to condemn it, although no one considered abolishing it. Given this situation, it became clear to me what I needed to do; I had little else to focus on, in pursuing two or three of my goals, than to investigate the origins of the reports that were circulating.
On the third of July I heard that the ship BrothersA, then lying in King's Road for Africa, could not get her seamen, and that a party which had been put on board, becoming terrified by the prospect of their situation, had left her on Sunday morning. On inquiring further, I found that those who had navigated her on her last voyage, thirty-two of whom had died, had been so dreadfully used by the captain, that he could not get hands in the present. It was added, that the treatment of seamen was a crying evil in this trade, and that consequently few would enter into it, so that there was at all times a great difficulty in procuring them, though they were ready enough to enter into other trades.
On July 3rd, I heard that the ship BrothersA, which was docked in King's Road preparing for Africa, couldn't find enough crew members. A group that had been put on board got so scared about their situation that they abandoned the ship on Sunday morning. When I asked for more details, I learned that the crew from the last voyage, of whom thirty-two had died, had been treated so badly by the captain that he was unable to recruit anyone this time. It was mentioned that the mistreatment of sailors in this trade was a serious problem, which is why few wanted to join; they were much more willing to take jobs in other industries.
A: I abstain from mentioning the names of the captain of this or of other vessels, lest the recording of them should give pain to relatives who can have had no share in their guilt.
A: I won't mention the names of the captain or other crew members, so I don't cause any distress to the relatives who are not responsible for their actions.
The relation of these circumstances made me acquainted with two things, of which I had not before heard; namely, the aversion of seamen to engage, and the bad usage of them when engaged in this cruel trade; into both which I determined immediately to inquire.
The connection of these circumstances made me aware of two things I hadn’t heard of before: the reluctance of sailors to get involved and the mistreatment they faced when they were involved in this brutal trade. I immediately decided to investigate both.
I conceived that it became me to be very cautious about giving ear too readily to reports; and therefore, as I could easily learn the truth of one of the assertions which had been made to me, I thought it prudent to ascertain this, and to judge, by the discovery I should make concerning it, what degree of credit might be due to the rest. Accordingly, by means of my late friend, Truman Harford, the eldest son of the respectable family of that name, to which I have already mentioned myself to have been introduced, I gained access to the muster-roll of the ship Brothers. On looking over the names of her last crew, I found the melancholy truth confirmed, that thirty-two of them had been placed among the dead.
I realized that I needed to be very careful about believing reports too quickly; therefore, since I could easily find out the truth of one of the claims made to me, I thought it wise to verify this and to judge, based on what I discovered, how much trust I should place in the others. So, with the help of my late friend, Truman Harford, the eldest son of the well-respected family of that name, to which I had already mentioned being introduced, I gained access to the muster-roll of the ship Brothers. When I looked over the names of her last crew, I found the heartbreaking truth confirmed that thirty-two of them had been listed among the dead.
Having ascertained this circumstance, I became eager to inquire into the truth of the others, but more particularly of the treatment of one of the seamen, which, as it was reported to me, exceeded all belief. His name was John Dean; he was a black man, but free. The report was, that for a trifling circumstance, for which he was in no-wise to blame, the captain had fastened him with his belly to the deck, and that, in this situation, he had poured hot pitch upon his back, and made incisions in it with hot tongs.
After learning this, I was eager to find out the truth about the others, especially the treatment of one of the sailors, which, as I was told, was beyond belief. His name was John Dean; he was a black man, but he was free. The report said that for a minor issue, one he wasn’t responsible for at all, the captain had strapped him down with his stomach on the deck, and in that position, he had poured hot pitch on his back and made cuts in it with hot tongs.
Before however I attempted to learn the truth of this barbarous proceeding, I thought I would look into the ship's muster-roll, to see if I could find the name of such a man. On examination I found it to be the last on the list. John Dean, it appeared, had been one of the original crew, having gone on board, from Bristol, on the twenty-second day of July, 1785.
Before I tried to uncover the truth about this brutal event, I decided to check the ship's muster-roll to see if I could find the name of that man. Upon looking it over, I found it at the very end of the list. John Dean was one of the original crew members; he had boarded the ship from Bristol on July 22, 1785.
On inquiring where Dean was to be found, my informant told me that he had lately left Bristol for London. I was shown, however, to the house where he had lodged. The name of his landlord was Donovan. On talking with him on the subject, he assured me that the report I had heard was true; for that while he resided with him he had heard an account of his usage from some of his ship-mates, and that he had often looked at his scarred and mutilated back.
When I asked where I could find Dean, my source told me he had recently left Bristol for London. However, I was directed to the house where he had stayed. His landlord’s name was Donovan. After speaking with him about Dean, he confirmed that what I had heard was true; while Dean was living there, he had heard stories about his treatment from some of his shipmates, and he had frequently seen Dean’s scarred and mutilated back.
On inquiring of Donovan if any other person in Bristol could corroborate this account, he referred me to a reputable tradesman living, in the Market-place. Having been introduced to him, he told me that he had long known John Dean to be a sober and industrious man; that he had seen the terrible indentures on his back; and that they were said to have been made by the captain, in the manner related, during his last voyage.
When I asked Donovan if anyone else in Bristol could confirm this story, he directed me to a trustworthy businessman in the Market-place. After I met him, he told me he had known John Dean for a long time as a sober and hardworking man; that he had seen the awful scars on his back; and that they were said to have been made by the captain, as described, during his last voyage.
While I was investigating this matter further, I was introduced to Mr. Sydenham Teast, a respectable ship-builder in Bristol, and the owner of vessels trading to Africa in the natural productions of that country. I mentioned to him by accident what I had heard relative to the treatment of John Dean. He said it was true. An attorneyA in London had then taken up his cause, in consequence of which the captain had been prevented from sailing till he could find persons who would be answerable for the damages which might be awarded against him in a court of law. Mr. Teast further said, that, not knowing at that time the cruelty of the transaction to its full extent, he himself had been one of the securities for the captain at the request of the purserB of the ship. Finding, however, afterwards, that it was as the public had stated, he was sorry that he had ever interfered, in such a barbarous case.
While I was looking into this issue further, I met Mr. Sydenham Teast, a respected shipbuilder in Bristol and the owner of ships that traded with Africa for its natural resources. I casually mentioned what I had heard about the treatment of John Dean, and he confirmed it was true. An attorneyA in London had taken on his case, which meant that the captain couldn’t set sail until he found people who would cover the potential damages awarded against him in court. Mr. Teast also mentioned that, not fully aware of how cruel the situation was at the time, he had acted as a guarantor for the captain at the request of the ship's purserB. However, once he learned the truth, he regretted getting involved in such a horrific case.
A: I afterwards found out this attorney. He described the transaction to me, as, by report, it had taken place, and informed me that he had made the captain of the Brothers pay for his barbarity.
A: I later discovered this lawyer. He explained the transaction to me as it reportedly happened and told me that he made the captain of the Brothers pay for his cruel actions.
B: The purser of a ship, at Bristol, is the person who manages the outfit, as well as the trade, and who is often in part owner of her.
B: The purser of a ship in Bristol is the one who handles the supplies and the business operations, and they often have a share in ownership of the ship.
This transaction, which I now believed to be true, had the effect of preparing me for crediting whatever I might hear concerning the barbarities said to be practised in this trade. It kindled also a fire of indignation within me, and produced in me both anxiety and spirit, to proceed. But that which excited these feelings the most, was the consideration that the purser of this ship, knowing, as he did, of this act of cruelty, should have sent out this monster again. This, I own, made me think that there was a system of bad usage to be deliberately practised upon the seamen in this employment, for some purpose or other which I could then neither comprehend nor ascertain.
This transaction, which I now believed to be true, prepared me to accept whatever I might hear about the barbarities said to occur in this trade. It also ignited a fire of anger within me and stirred both anxiety and determination to move forward. But what fueled these feelings the most was the thought that the purser of this ship, who knew about this cruel act, still sent this monster out again. I have to admit, this made me think that there was a deliberate system of mistreatment being enforced on the seamen in this job, for some reason I couldn’t yet understand or pinpoint.
But while I was in pursuit of this one object, I was not unmindful of the others which I had marked out for myself. I had already procured an interview, as I have mentioned, with Mr. Sydenham Teast. I had done this with a view of learning from him what were the different productions of the continent of Africa, as far as he had been able to ascertain from the imports by his own vessels. He was very open and communicative. He had imported ivory, red-wood, cam-wood, and gum-copal. He purposed to import palm-oil. He observed that bees'-wax might be collected, also, upon the coast. Of his gum-copal he gave me a specimen. He furnished me, also, with two different specimens of unknown woods, which had the appearance of being useful. One of his captains, he informed me, had been told by the natives, that cotton, pink in the pod, grew in their country. He was of opinion, that many valuable productions might be found upon this continent.
But while I was focused on this one goal, I wasn’t ignoring the other objectives I had set for myself. I had already arranged a meeting, as I mentioned, with Mr. Sydenham Teast. I did this to find out what different products came from the continent of Africa, based on what he had learned from the imports brought in by his own ships. He was very open and talkative. He had imported ivory, redwood, camwood, and gum copal. He planned to import palm oil as well. He noted that beeswax could also be collected along the coast. He gave me a sample of his gum copal. He also provided me with two different samples of unknown woods that seemed like they could be useful. One of his captains told him that the locals mentioned cotton, pink in the pod, grew in their country. He believed that many valuable products could be found on this continent.
Mr. Biggs, to whom I gained an introduction also, was in a similar trade with Mr. Teast; that is, he had one or two vessels which skimmed, as it were, the coast and rivers for what they could get of the produce of Africa, without having any concern in the trade for slaves. Mr. Biggs gave me a specimen of gum Senegal, of yellow-wood, and of Malaguetta and Cayenne pepper. He gave me, also, small pieces of cloth made and dyed by the natives, the colours of which they could only have obtained from materials in their own country. Mr. Biggs seemed to be assured that, if proper persons were sent to Africa on discovery, they would fine a rich mine of wealth in the natural productions of it, and in none more advantageous to this as a manufacturing nation, than in the many beautiful dyes which it might furnish.
Mr. Biggs, who I also got introduced to, was in a similar business as Mr. Teast; he had one or two ships that traveled along the coast and rivers looking for whatever they could find from Africa's resources, without being involved in the slave trade. Mr. Biggs showed me some gum Senegal, yellowwood, and Malaguetta and Cayenne pepper. He also gave me small pieces of cloth made and dyed by the locals, with colors that could only come from materials found in their own country. Mr. Biggs seemed confident that if the right people were sent to Africa to explore, they would discover a wealth of valuable resources, especially beautiful dyes that would be beneficial for us as a manufacturing nation.
From Thomas Bonville I collected two specimens of cloth made by the natives; and from others a beautiful piece of tulipwood, a small piece of wood similar to mahogany, and a sample of fine rice, all of which had been brought from the same continent.
From Thomas Bonville, I got two samples of fabric made by the locals; and from others, a lovely piece of tulipwood, a small piece of wood similar to mahogany, and a sample of fine rice, all of which had come from the same continent.
Among the persons whom I found out at Bristol, and from whom I derived assistance, were Dr. Camplin and the celebrated Dean Tucker. The former was my warm defender; for the West Indian and African merchants, as soon as they discovered my errand, began to calumniate me. The dean, though in a very advanced age, felt himself much interested in my pursuit. He had long moved in the political world himself, and was desirous of hearing of what was going forward that was new in it, but particularly about so desirable a measure as that of the abolition of the Slave TradeA. He introduced me to the Custom House at Bristol. He used to call upon me at the Merchants' Hall, while I was transcribing the muster-rolls of the seamen there. In short, he seemed to be interested in all my movements. He became, also, a warm supporter both of me and of my cause.
Among the people I met in Bristol who helped me were Dr. Camplin and the famous Dean Tucker. Dr. Camplin was a strong supporter of mine; as soon as the West Indian and African merchants found out what I was doing, they started spreading lies about me. The dean, despite being quite old, was very interested in my efforts. He had a long history in politics and wanted to hear about what was new, especially about the important issue of abolishing the Slave TradeA. He introduced me to the Custom House in Bristol, and he would often visit me at the Merchants' Hall while I was copying the muster-rolls of the sailors there. In short, he seemed genuinely interested in everything I was doing. He also became a strong supporter of both me and my cause.
A: Dean Tucker, in his Reflections on the Disputes between Great Britain and Ireland, published in 1785, had passed a severe censure on the British planters for the inhuman treatment of their slaves.
A: Dean Tucker, in his Reflections on the Disputes between Great Britain and Ireland, published in 1785, strongly criticized the British planters for the cruel treatment of their slaves.
Among others who were useful to me in my pursuit, was Mr. Henry Sulgar, an amiable minister of the gospel, belonging to the religious society of the Moravians in the same city. From him I first procured authentic documents relative to the treacherous massacre at Calabar. This cruel transaction had been frequently mentioned to me; but as it had taken place twenty years before, I could not find one person who had been engaged in it, nor could I come, in a satisfactory manner, at the various particulars belonging to it. My friend, however, put me in possession of copies of the real depositions which had been taken in the case of the king against Lippincott and others relative to this event; namely, of Captain Floyd, of the city of Bristol, who had been a witness to the scene, and of Ephraim Robin John, and of Ancona Robin Robin John, two African chiefs, who had been sufferers by it. These depositions had been taken before Jacob Kirby and Thomas Symons, esquires, commissioners at Bristol for taking affidavits in the Court of King's Bench. The tragedy, of which they gave a circumstantial account, I shall present to the reader in as concise a manner as I can.
Among the people who helped me in my quest was Mr. Henry Sulgar, a kind minister of the gospel from the Moravian community in the same city. He was the first to provide me with authentic documents related to the treacherous massacre at Calabar. I had heard about this brutal event many times, but since it happened twenty years ago, I couldn’t find anyone who was involved, nor could I get satisfactory details about it. My friend, however, gave me copies of the actual testimonies related to the case of the king against Lippincott and others connected to this incident; specifically, from Captain Floyd of Bristol, who witnessed the event, and from Ephraim Robin John and Ancona Robin Robin John, two African chiefs who were affected by it. These testimonies were taken before Jacob Kirby and Thomas Symons, esquires, who were commissioners in Bristol for recording affidavits in the Court of King's Bench. I will now present the account of this tragedy to the reader as clearly and concisely as possible.
In the year, 1767, the ships Indian Queen, Duke of York, Nancy, and Concord, of Bristol; the Edgar, of Liverpool; and the Canterbury, of London; lay in Old Calabar river.
In 1767, the ships Indian Queen, Duke of York, Nancy, and Concord from Bristol; the Edgar from Liverpool; and the Canterbury from London were anchored in the Old Calabar river.
It happened, at this time, that a quarrel subsisted between the principal inhabitants of Old Town and those of New Town, Old Calabar, which had originated in a jealousy respecting slaves. The captains of the vessels now mentioned, joined in sending several letters to the inhabitants of Old Town, but particularly to Ephraim Robin John, who was at that time a grandee, or principal inhabitant of the place. The tenor of these letters was, that they were sorry that any jealousy or quarrel should subsist between the two parties; that if the inhabitants of Old Town would come on board, they would afford them security and protection; adding, at the same time, that their intention in inviting them was, that they might become mediators, and thus heal their disputes.
At that time, there was a conflict between the main residents of Old Town and those of New Town in Old Calabar, which stemmed from jealousy over slaves. The captains of the ships mentioned earlier took the initiative to send several letters to the people of Old Town, especially to Ephraim Robin John, who was a prominent figure in the community at that moment. The content of these letters expressed their regret that any jealousy or conflict existed between the two groups. They offered security and protection if the residents of Old Town would come on board, stating that their aim in inviting them was to serve as mediators and help resolve their differences.
The inhabitants of Old Town, happy to find that their differences were likely to be accommodated, joyfully accepted the invitation. The three brothers of the grandee just mentioned, the eldest of whom was Amboe Robin John, first entered their canoe, attended by twenty-seven others, and, being followed by nine canoes, directed their course to the Indian Queen. They were despatched from thence the next morning to the Edgar, and afterwards to the Duke of York, on board of which they went, leaving their canoe and attendants by the side of the same vessel. In the mean time, the people on board the other canoes were either distributed on board, or lying close to, the other ships.
The people of Old Town, pleased to discover that their differences could be embraced, happily accepted the invitation. The three brothers of the grandee just mentioned, the eldest being Amboe Robin John, were the first to board their canoe, joined by twenty-seven others, and followed by nine canoes, set their course towards the Indian Queen. They were sent from there the next morning to the Edgar, and later to the Duke of York, where they boarded, leaving their canoe and crew alongside that vessel. Meanwhile, the individuals in the other canoes were either getting on board or staying close to the other ships.
This being the situation of the three brothers, and of the principal inhabitants of the place, the treachery now began to appear. The crew of the Duke of York, aided by the captain and mates, and armed with pistols and cutlasses, rushed into the cabin, with an intent to seize the persons of their three innocent and unsuspicious guests. The unhappy men, alarmed at this violation of the rights of hospitality, and struck with astonishment at the behaviour of their supposed friends, attempted to escape through the cabin windows; but, being wounded, were obliged to desist, and to submit to be put in irons.
This was the situation of the three brothers and the main residents of the area when the betrayal started to unfold. The crew of the Duke of York, supported by the captain and officers, and armed with pistols and cutlasses, stormed into the cabin, intending to capture their three innocent and unsuspecting guests. The unfortunate men, alarmed by this breach of hospitality and shocked by the actions of their supposed friends, tried to escape through the cabin windows; however, after being injured, they had to give up and allow themselves to be shackled.
In the same moment in which this atrocious attempt had been made, an order had been given to fire upon the canoe, which was then lying by the side of the Duke of York. The canoe soon filled and sunk, and the wretched attendants were either seized, killed, or drowned. Most of the other ships followed the example. Great numbers were additionally killed and drowned on the occasion, and others were swimming to the shore.
In that same moment when this horrific attempt happened, an order was given to open fire on the canoe, which was then beside the Duke of York. The canoe quickly filled with water and sank, and the unfortunate attendants were either captured, killed, or drowned. Most of the other ships followed suit. Many others were killed or drowned during this event, while some were attempting to swim to shore.
At this juncture, the inhabitants of New Town, who had concealed themselves in the bushes by the water-side, and between whom and the commanders of the vessels the plan had been previously concerted, came out from their hiding-places, and, embarking in their canoes, made for such as were swimming from the fire of the ships. The ships' boats, also, were manned, and joined in the pursuit. They butchered the greatest part of those whom they caught. Many dead bodies were soon seen upon the sands, and others were floating upon the water; and including those who were seized and carried off, and those who were drowned and killed, either by the firing of the ships or by the people of New Town, three hundred were lost to the inhabitants of Old Town on that day.
At this point, the people of New Town, who had been hiding in the bushes by the water, and who had made a plan with the ship commanders beforehand, came out from their hiding spots and climbed into their canoes, heading towards those who were trying to escape the fire from the ships. The ships' boats were also manned and joined in the chase. They slaughtered most of those they caught. Many dead bodies were soon spotted on the sands, and others were floating in the water; including those who were captured and taken away, and those who drowned or were killed, either by the gunfire from the ships or by the people of New Town, three hundred were lost to the residents of Old Town that day.
The carnage which I have been now describing was scarcely over, when a canoe, full of the principal people of New Town, who had been the promoters of the scheme, dropped along-side of the Duke of York. They demanded the person of Amboe Robin John, the brother of the grandee of Old Town, and the eldest of the three on board. The unfortunate man put the palms of his hands together, and beseeched the commander of the vessel that he would not violate the rights of hospitality, by giving up an unoffending stranger to his enemies. But no entreaties could avail. The commander received from the New Town people a slave of the name of Econg in his stead, and then forced him into the canoe, where his head was immediately struck off in the sight of the crew, and of his afflicted and disconsolate brothers. As for them, they escaped his fate; but they were carried off with their attendants to the West Indies, and sold for slaves.
The violence I just described was barely over when a canoe, filled with the main people from New Town who had pushed for the plan, pulled up next to the Duke of York. They demanded Amboe Robin John, the brother of the bigwig from Old Town, and the oldest of the three on board. The unfortunate man pressed his palms together and begged the captain of the ship not to violate the rules of hospitality by turning over an innocent stranger to his enemies. But no amount of pleading worked. The captain took a slave named Econg from the New Town people instead and forcefully put him into the canoe, where his head was immediately chopped off in front of the crew and his heartbroken and grieving brothers. As for them, they escaped his fate but were taken along with their attendants to the West Indies and sold into slavery.
The knowledge of this tragical event now fully confirmed me in the sentiment, that the hearts of those who were concerned in this traffic became unusually hardened, and that I might readily believe any atrocities, however great, which might be related of them. It made also my blood boil, as it were, within me: it gave anew spring to my exertions; and I rejoiced, sorrowful as I otherwise was, that I had visited Bristol, if it had been only to gain an accurate statement of this one fact.
The knowledge of this tragic event now fully convinced me that the hearts of those involved in this trade became unusually hardened, and I could easily believe any atrocities, no matter how great, that might be reported about them. It also made my blood boil, so to speak; it renewed my determination, and I felt a strange joy, despite my sadness, that I had visited Bristol, if only to get an accurate account of this one fact.
In pursuing my objects, I found that reports were current, that the crew of the Alfred slave-vessel, which had just returned, had been barbarously used, but particularly a young man of the name of Thomas, who had served as the surgeon's mate on board her. The report was, that he had been repeatedly knocked down by the captain; that he had become in consequence of his ill usage so weary of his life, that he had three times jumped over board to destroy it; that on being taken up the last time he had been chained to the deck of the ship, in which situation he had remained night and day for some time; that in consequence of this his health had been greatly impaired; and that it was supposed he could not long survive this treatment.
While pursuing my goals, I came across reports that the crew of the Alfred slave ship, which had just returned, had been treated terribly, especially a young man named Thomas who had served as the surgeon's assistant on board. The reports indicated that he had been repeatedly knocked down by the captain, and as a result of this mistreatment, he became so desperate that he jumped overboard three times in an attempt to end his life. After being rescued the last time, he was chained to the deck of the ship, where he remained day and night for a while. This treatment seriously harmed his health, and it was believed that he couldn't survive much longer under these conditions.
It was with great difficulty, notwithstanding all my inquiries, that I could trace this person. I discovered him, however, at last. He was confined to his bed when I saw him, and appeared to me to be delirious. I could collect nothing from himself relative to the particulars of his treatment. In his intervals of sense, he exclaimed against the cruelty both of the captain and of the chief mate, and pointing to his legs, thighs, and body, which were all wrapped up in flannel, he endeavoured to convince me how much he had suffered there. At one time he said he forgave them. At another, he asked if I came to befriend him. At another, he looked wildly, and asked if I meant to take the captain's part, and to kill him.
It was really tough, despite all my questions, for me to find this person. But I finally did. When I saw him, he was stuck in bed and seemed to be out of it. I couldn't get any details from him about how he was being treated. During moments of clarity, he shouted out against the cruelty of both the captain and the chief mate, pointing to his legs, thighs, and body, all wrapped in flannel, trying to show me how much he had suffered. At one point, he said he forgave them. Then he asked if I was there to help him. At another moment, he looked around frantically and asked if I was planning to side with the captain and kill him.
I was greatly affected by the situation of this poor man, whose image haunted me both night and day, and I was meditating how most effectually to assist him, when I heard that he was dead.
I was deeply troubled by the plight of this poor man, whose image haunted me day and night, and I was thinking about how best to help him when I heard that he had died.
I was very desirous of tracing something further on this subject, when Walter Chandler, of the society of the Quakers, who had been daily looking out for intelligence for me, brought a young man to me of the name of Dixon. He had been one of the crew of the same ship. He told me the particulars of the treatment of Thomas, with very little variation from those contained in the public report. After cross-examining him in the best manner I was able, I could find no inconsistency in his account.
I was eager to dig deeper into this topic when Walter Chandler, a member of the Quakers, who had been keeping an eye out for news on my behalf, brought a young man named Dixon to me. He had been part of the crew of the same ship. He shared with me the details of Thomas's treatment, which matched closely with what was in the public report. After questioning him as thoroughly as I could, I found no inconsistencies in his story.
I asked Dixon how the captain came to treat the surgeon's mate in particular so ill. He said he had treated them all much alike. A person of the name of Bulpin, he believed, was the only one who had escaped bad usage in the ship. With respect to himself, he had been cruelly used so early as in the outward bound passage, which had occasioned him to jump overboard. When taken up, he was put into irons, and kept in these for a considerable time. He was afterwards ill used at different times, and even so late as within three or four days of his return to port. For just before the Alfred made the island of Lundy, he was struck by the captain, who cut his under lip into two. He said that it had bled so much, that the captain expressed himself as if much alarmed; and having the expectation of arriving soon at Bristol, he had promised to make him amends, if he would hold his peace. This he said he had hitherto done, but he had received no recompense. In confirmation of his own usage, he desired me to examine his lip, which I had no occasion to do, having already perceived it, for the wound was apparently almost fresh.
I asked Dixon why the captain treated the surgeon's mate so poorly. He said he treated all of them pretty much the same. A guy named Bulpin, he thought, was the only one who hadn’t experienced bad treatment on the ship. As for himself, he had been badly treated as early as the outward journey, which led him to jump overboard. When he was rescued, he was put in shackles and kept in them for a long time. He was later mistreated at various times, even just three or four days before returning to port. Just before the Alfred reached the island of Lundy, the captain hit him, cutting his lower lip in two. He mentioned that it bled so much that the captain seemed quite worried, and with the expectation of arriving soon in Bristol, he promised to make it up to him if he would stay quiet. He said he had kept his word so far, but he hadn’t received any compensation. To prove his mistreatment, he asked me to look at his lip, which I didn’t need to since I had already noticed it; the wound looked almost fresh.
I asked Dixon if there was any person in Bristol beside himself, who could confirm to me this his own treatment, as well as that of the other unfortunate man who was now dead. He referred me to a seaman of the name of Matthew Pyke. This person, when brought to me, not only related readily the particulars of the usage in both cases, as I have now stated them, but that which he received himself. He said that his own arm had been broken by the chief mate in Black River, Jamaica, and that he had also by the captain's orders, though contrary to the practice in merchant-vessels, been severely flogged. His arm appeared to be then in pain; and I had a proof of the punishment by an inspection of his back.
I asked Dixon if there was anyone in Bristol besides him who could confirm his treatment, as well as that of the other unfortunate man who was now dead. He referred me to a sailor named Matthew Pyke. When this person was brought to me, he not only readily shared the details of the treatment in both cases, as I have now stated, but also what he experienced himself. He said that his own arm had been broken by the chief mate in Black River, Jamaica, and that he had also been severely flogged by the captain's orders, even though it went against the usual practices on merchant ships. His arm seemed to be in pain at that moment, and I verified the punishment by inspecting his back.
I asked Matthew Pyke if the crew in general had been treated in a cruel manner. He replied they had, except James Bulpin. I then asked where James Bulpin was to be found. He told me where he had lodged; but feared he had gone home to his friends in Somersetshire, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bridgewater.
I asked Matthew Pyke if the crew had been treated badly. He said they had, except for James Bulpin. Then I asked where I could find James Bulpin. He told me where he had stayed, but thought he had gone home to his friends in Somerset, probably near Bridgewater.
I thought it prudent to institute an inquiry into the characters of Thomas, Dixon, and Matthew Pyke, before I went further. The two former I found were strangers in Bristol, and I could collect nothing about them. The latter was a native of the place, had served his time as a seaman from the port, and was reputed of fair character.
I thought it wise to look into the backgrounds of Thomas, Dixon, and Matthew Pyke before proceeding. The first two were strangers in Bristol, and I couldn’t find out anything about them. The last one was a local, had worked as a seaman from the port, and was known to have a good reputation.
My next business was to see James Bulpin. I found him just setting off for the country. He stopped, however, to converse with me. He was a young man of very respectable appearance, and of mild manners. His appearance, indeed, gave me reason to hope that I might depend upon his statements; but I was most of all influenced by the consideration that, never having been ill-used himself, he could have no inducement to go beyond the bounds of truth on this occasion. He gave me a melancholy confirmation of all the three cases. He told me, also, that one Joseph Cunningham had been a severe sufferer, and that there was reason to fear that Charles Horseler, another of the crew, had been so severely beaten over the breast with a knotted end of a rope, (which end was of the size of a large ball, and had been made on purpose,) that he died of it. To this he added, that it was now a notorious fact, that the captain of the Alfred, when mate of a slave-ship, had been tried at Barbados for the murder of one of the crew with whom he had sailed, but that he escaped by bribing the principal witness to disappearA.
My next task was to see James Bulpin. I found him just about to head out to the countryside. However, he paused to chat with me. He was a young man with a very respectable look and gentle manner. His appearance gave me hope that I could trust what he said; but more than that, I thought that since he had never been mistreated himself, he had no reason to stray from the truth this time. He gave me a sad confirmation of all three cases. He also mentioned that a man named Joseph Cunningham had suffered greatly, and there was reason to worry that Charles Horseler, another member of the crew, had been hit so hard on the chest with a knotted end of a rope (made specifically to be the size of a large ball) that he died from it. He added that it was now well-known that the captain of the Alfred, when he was first mate on a slave ship, had been tried in Barbados for murdering one of the crew members he had sailed with, but he got off by bribing the main witness to vanish.A
A: Mr. Sampson, who was surgeon's mate of the ship in which the captain had thus served as a mate, confirmed to me afterwards this assertion, having often heard him boast in the cabin, "how he had tricked the law on that occasion."
A: Mr. Sampson, who was the ship's surgeon's assistant where the captain had worked as a mate, later confirmed this claim to me, as he had often heard the captain brag in the cabin about "how he had outsmarted the law that time."
The reader will see, the further I went into the history of this voyage, the more dismal it became. One miserable account, when examined, only brought up another. I saw no end to inquiry. The great question was, what was I to do? I thought the best thing would be to get the captain apprehended, and make him stand his trial either for the murder of Thomas or of Charles Horseler. I communicated with the late Mr. Burges, an eminent attorney, and the deputy town-clerk, on this occasion. He had shown an attachment to me on account of the cause I had undertaken, and had given me privately assistance in it. I say privately; because, knowing the sentiments of many of the corporate body at Bristol, under whom he acted, he was fearful of coming forward in an open manner. His advice to me was, to take notes of the case for my own private conviction, but to take no public cognizance of it. He said that seamen, as soon as their wages were expended, must be off to sea again. They could not generally, as landsmen do, maintain themselves on shore. Hence I should be obliged to keep the whole crew at my own expense till the day of trial, which might not be for months to come. He doubted not that, in the interim, the merchants and others would inveigle many of them away by making them boatswains and other inferior officers in some of their ships; so that, when the day of trial should come, I should find my witnesses dispersed and gone. He observed, moreover, that if any of the officers of the ship had any notion of going out again under the same ownersA, I should have all these against me. To which he added, that if I were to make a point of taking up the cause of those whom I found complaining of hard usage in this trade, I must take up that of nearly all who sailed in it; for that he only knew of one captain from the port in the Slave Trade, who did not deserve long ago to be hanged. Hence I should get into a labyrinth of expense, and difficulty, and uneasiness of mind, from whence I should not easily find a clew to guide me.
The reader will notice that the deeper I delved into the history of this voyage, the gloomier it became. One sad account, upon examination, only led to another. I saw no end to the questions. The main issue was, what was I supposed to do? I thought the best course of action would be to have the captain arrested and put on trial either for the murder of Thomas or Charles Horseler. I reached out to the late Mr. Burges, a well-known attorney and the deputy town clerk, about this matter. He had been supportive of me because of the case I had taken on and had given me private help with it. I say private because, knowing the views of many people in the corporate body in Bristol, under whom he worked, he was afraid to step forward publicly. His advice to me was to take notes on the case for my own understanding, but to avoid making it a public issue. He mentioned that sailors, once their wages ran out, had to return to sea. Unlike land-based workers, they generally couldn't survive on land. Thus, I would have to cover the expenses of the entire crew until the day of the trial, which might be months away. He was certain that, in the meantime, merchants and others would lure many of them away by offering them positions like boatswain or other lower-ranking jobs on their ships, meaning that by the time the trial came around, I would find my witnesses scattered and absent. He also pointed out that if any of the ship's officers had any plans to go out again under the same ownersA, I would have all of them against me. He added that if I chose to advocate for those who were complaining about mistreatment in this trade, I would essentially be taking up the cause of almost everyone involved in it; because he only knew of one captain from the port involved in the Slave Trade who didn't deserve to have been hanged long ago. Therefore, I would end up in a tangle of expenses, difficulties, and mental distress, from which I wouldn't easily find a way out.
A: The seamen of the Alfred informed the purser of their ill usage, Matthew Pyke not only showed him his arm and his back, but acquainted him with the murder of Charles Horseler, stating that he had the instrument of his death in his possession. The purser seemed more alive to this than to any other circumstance, and wished to get it from him. Pyke, however, had given it to me. Now what will the reader think, when he is informed that the purser, after all this knowledge of the captain's cruelty, sent him out again, and that he was the same person who was purser of the Brothers, and who had also sent out the captain of that ship a second time, as has been related, notwithstanding his barbarities in former voyages!
A: The crew of the Alfred told the purser about how they had been mistreated. Matthew Pyke not only showed him his arm and back but also mentioned the murder of Charles Horseler, saying he had the weapon used to kill him. The purser seemed more concerned about this than anything else and wanted to get it from him. However, Pyke had already given it to me. Now, what will the reader think when they learn that the purser, knowing all this about the captain's brutality, sent him out again? He was the same purser from the Brothers, who had also allowed that ship's captain to go out a second time despite his history of cruelty on previous voyages!
This advice, though it was judicious, and founded on a knowledge of law proceedings, I found it very difficult to adopt. My own disposition was naturally such, that whatever I engaged in I followed with more than ordinary warmth. I could not be supposed, therefore, affected and interested as I then was, to be cool and tranquil on this occasion. And yet what would my worthy friend have said, if in this first instance I had opposed him? I had a very severe struggle in my own feelings on this account. At length, though reluctantly, I obeyed; but as the passions which agitate the human mind, when it is greatly inflamed, must have a vent somewhere, or must work off, as it were, or in working together must produce some new passion or effect, so I found the rage which had been kindling within me subsiding into the most determined resolutions of future increased activity and perseverance. I began now to think that the day was not long enough for me to labour in. I regretted often the approach of night, which suspended my work, and I often welcomed that of the morning, which restored me to it. When I felt myself weary, I became refreshed by the thought of what I was doing; when disconsolate, I was comforted by it. I lived in hope that every day's labour would furnish me with that knowledge which would bring this evil nearer to its end; and I worked on under these feelings, regarding neither trouble nor danger in the pursuit.
This advice, while wise and based on a solid understanding of legal processes, was hard for me to accept. My natural inclination was to pursue whatever I was involved in with intense passion. So, given how affected and invested I was at that moment, it was impossible for me to stay calm and composed. Yet, what would my dear friend have thought if I had challenged him right from the start? I faced a significant internal struggle because of this. Eventually, though unwillingly, I complied; but as the intense emotions that stir within a person need an outlet, or else they create some new feeling or effect, I found that the anger building up inside me transformed into strong resolutions for increased activity and determination in the future. I began to feel that there wasn't enough time in the day to accomplish my work. I often regretted the coming of night that interrupted my efforts and eagerly anticipated the morning that would return me to it. When I felt exhausted, I found renewal in the thought of my tasks; when I felt down, I found comfort in them. I lived with the hope that each day's work would bring me closer to overcoming this challenge, and I pressed on, undeterred by trouble or danger in my pursuit.
CHAPTER XV.
Author confers with the inhabitants of Bridgewater relative to a petition to parliament in behalf of the abolition; returns to Bristol; discovers a scandalous mode of procuring seamen for the Slave Trade, and of paying them; makes a comparative view of their loss in this and in other trades; procures imports and exports.—Examines the construction and admeasurement of slave ships; of the Fly and Neptune.—Difficulty of procuring evidence.—Case of Gardiner, of the Pilgrim; of Arnold, of the Ruby; some particulars of the latter in his former voyages.
Author meets with the people of Bridgewater about a petition to parliament for the abolition; goes back to Bristol; finds out about a disgraceful way of hiring sailors for the Slave Trade and how they get paid; compares their losses in this trade with others; collects information on imports and exports.—Looks into the design and measurements of slave ships; specifically the Fly and Neptune.—Faces challenges in gathering evidence.—Case of Gardiner from the Pilgrim; of Arnold from the Ruby; some details about the latter in his previous voyages.
Having heard by accident that the inhabitants of the town of Bridgewater had sent a petition to the House of Commons, in the year 1785, for the abolition of the Slave Trade, as has been related in a former part of the work, I determined, while my feelings were warm, to go there, and to try to find out those who had been concerned in it, and to confer with them as the tried friends of the cause. The time seemed to me to be approaching when the public voice should be raised against this enormous evil. I was sure that it was only necessary for the inhabitants of this favoured island to know it to feel a just indignation against it. Accordingly I set off. My friend George Fisher, who was before mentioned to have been of the religious Society of the Quakers, gave me an introduction to the respectable family of Ball, which was of the same religious persuasion. I called upon Mr. Sealey, Anstice, Crandon, Chubb, and others. I laid open to those whom I saw, the discoveries I had made relative to the loss and ill treatment of seamen; at which they seemed to be much moved; and it was agreed that if it should be thought a proper measure, (of which I would inform them when I had consulted the committee,) a second petition should be sent to Parliament from the inhabitants, praying for the abolition of the Slave Trade. With this view I left them several of my Summary View, before mentioned, to distribute, that the inhabitants might know more particularly the nature of the evil, against which they were going to complain. On my return to Bristol, I determined to inquire into the truth of the reports that seamen had an aversion to enter, and that they were inveigled, if not often forced, into this hateful employment. For this purpose I was introduced to a landlord of the name of Thompson, who kept a public-house called the Seven Stars. He was a very intelligent man, was accustomed to receive sailors when discharged at the end of their voyages, and to board them till their vessels went out again, or to find them births in others. He avoided, however, all connexion with the Slave Trade, declaring that the credit of his house would be ruined if he were known to send those, who put themselves under his care, into it.
Having accidentally heard that the people of Bridgewater had sent a petition to the House of Commons in 1785 for the abolition of the Slave Trade, as mentioned earlier in this work, I decided, while my emotions were running high, to go there and try to find those involved in it and talk to them as trusted allies of the cause. It felt like the time was coming for the public to speak out against this terrible injustice. I was confident that it was only necessary for the people of this blessed island to know about it to feel a righteous anger against it. So, I set off. My friend George Fisher, previously mentioned as a member of the Quaker community, introduced me to the respected Ball family, who shared the same faith. I visited Mr. Sealey, Anstice, Crandon, Chubb, and others. I shared with them the findings I had made regarding the loss and mistreatment of sailors, which deeply affected them. We agreed that if deemed appropriate (I would inform them after consulting the committee), a second petition should be sent to Parliament from the townsfolk, asking for the abolition of the Slave Trade. With this goal in mind, I left them several copies of my Summary View, mentioned earlier, to distribute so that the residents could learn more about the specific nature of the evil they were about to protest. Upon my return to Bristol, I decided to investigate the truth behind the claims that sailors were reluctant to join this trade and that they were often tricked or even forced into this despicable work. To do this, I was introduced to Thompson, a landlord who ran a pub called the Seven Stars. He was a very knowledgeable man, accustomed to hosting sailors when they returned from their voyages, boarding them until their ships set sail again, or helping them find work on other vessels. However, he avoided any connection to the Slave Trade, stating that his establishment's reputation would be ruined if it became known that he sent those under his care into it.
From him I collected the truth of all that had been stated to me on this subject. But I told him I should not be satisfied until I had beheld those scenes myself which he had described to me; and I entreated him to take me into them, saying that I would reward him for all his time and trouble, and that I would never forget him while I lived. To this he consented; and as three or four slave-vessels at this time were preparing for their voyages, it was time that we should begin our rounds. At about twelve at night we generally set out, and were employed till two and sometimes three in the morning. He led me from one of these public-houses to another which the mates of the slave-vessels used to frequent to pick up their hands. These houses were in Marsh-street, and most of them were then kept by Irishmen. The scenes witnessed in these houses were truly distressing to me; and yet, if I wished to know practically what I had purposed, I could not avoid them. Music, dancing, rioting, drunkenness, and profane swearing, were kept up from night to night. The young mariner, if a stranger to the port, and unacquainted with the nature of the Slave Trade, was sure to be picked up. The novelty of the voyages, the superiority of the wages in this over any other trades, and the privileges of various kinds, were set before him. Gulled in this manner, he was frequently enticed to the boat, which was waiting to carry him away. If these prospects did not attract him, he was plied with liquor till he became intoxicated, when a bargain was made over him between the landlord and the mate. After this his senses were kept in such a constant state of stupefaction by the liquor, that in time the former might do with him what he pleased. Seamen, also, were boarded in these houses, who, when the slave-ships were going out, but at no other time, were encouraged to spend more than they had money to pay for; and to these, when they had thus exceeded, but one alternative was given, namely, a slave-vessel or a gaol. These distressing scenes I found myself obliged frequently to witness, for I was no less than nineteen times occupied in making these hateful rounds; and I can say from my own experience, and all the information I could collect from Thompson and others, that no such practices were in use to obtain seamen for other trades.
From him, I learned the truth about everything that had been said to me on this topic. But I told him I wouldn’t be satisfied until I had seen those scenes myself that he had described to me; I begged him to take me into those places, saying that I would reward him for all his time and effort and that I would never forget him as long as I lived. He agreed to this, and since three or four slave ships were preparing for their voyages at that time, it was essential that we begin our rounds. We usually set out around midnight and were busy until two or even three in the morning. He took me from one of these taverns to another frequented by the crews of the slave ships looking to recruit. These places were on Marsh Street, and most of them were run by Irishmen. The scenes I witnessed in these establishments were truly distressing to me; however, if I wanted to know practically what I intended, I couldn’t avoid them. Music, dancing, partying, drunkenness, and profanity went on night after night. A young sailor, if he was new to the port and unaware of what the Slave Trade entailed, was guaranteed to be picked up. The excitement of the voyages, the higher wages compared to other trades, and various privileges were presented to him. Deceived this way, he was often lured onto the boat waiting to take him away. If these prospects didn’t appeal to him, he was plied with alcohol until he became drunk, at which point a deal was made over him between the landlord and the crew member. After that, he was kept in such a constant state of stupor by the liquor that eventually the landlord could do whatever he wanted with him. Seamen were also taken in at these places, who, when the slave ships were about to leave, but not at any other time, were encouraged to spend more than they had the money to pay for; and once they had overspent, they were left with just one option—either join a slave ship or end up in jail. I found myself forced to witness these distressing scenes far too often, as I was made to go on these horrible rounds nineteen times; and I can say from my own experience, along with all the information I gathered from Thompson and others, that there were no such practices used to recruit seamen for other trades.
The treatment of the seamen employed in the Slave Trade had so deeply interested me, and now the manner of procuring them, that I was determined to make myself acquainted with their whole history; for I found by report that they were not only personally ill-treated, as I have already painfully described, but that they were robbed by artifice of those wages, which had been held up to them as so superior in this service. All persons were obliged to sign articles that, in case they should die or be discharged during the voyage, the wages then due to them should be paid in the currency where the vessel carried her slaves, and that half of the wages due to them on their arrival there should be paid in the same manner, and that they were never permitted to read over the articles they had signed. By means of this iniquitous practice the wages in the Slave Trade, though nominally higher in order to induce seamen to engage in it, were actually lower than in other trades. All these usages I ascertained in such a manner, that no person could doubt the truth of them. I actually obtained possession of articles of agreement belonging to these vessels, which had been signed and executed in former voyages. I made the merchants themselves, by sending those seamen who had claims upon them to ask for their accounts current with their respective ships, furnish me with such documents as would have been evidence against them in any court of law. On whatever branch of the system I turned my eyes, I found it equally barbarous. The trade was, in short, one mass of iniquity from the beginning to the end.
The treatment of the sailors involved in the Slave Trade had interested me deeply, and now the way they were obtained did too. I was determined to learn their entire history; I had heard that they were not only mistreated, as I’ve already described painfully, but that they were also tricked out of the wages that were presented to them as so much better in this line of work. Everyone was required to sign agreements stating that if they died or were dismissed during the voyage, the wages owed to them would be paid in the currency used where the ship carried its slaves, and that half of their wages due upon arrival would also be paid that way. They were never allowed to read the agreements they signed. Through this unfair practice, the wages in the Slave Trade, although seemingly higher to attract sailors, were actually lower than in other jobs. I confirmed all of this in a way that left no doubt about its truth. I even obtained copies of agreements from these ships, signed and carried out on previous voyages. I had the merchants themselves, by sending those sailors who had claims against them to request their latest account balances with their respective ships, provide me with documentation that would serve as evidence against them in any legal setting. No matter which aspect of the system I looked at, I found it equally harsh. The trade was, in short, a complete mess of wrongdoing from start to finish.
I employed myself occasionally in the Merchant's-hall, in making copies of the muster-rolls of ships sailing to different parts of the world, that I might make a comparative view of the loss of seamen in the Slave Trade, with that of those in the other trades from the same port. The result of this employment showed me the importance of it: for, when I considered how partial the inhabitants of this country were to their fellow-citizens, the seamen belonging to it, and in what estimation the members of the legislature held them, by enforcing the Navigation Act, which they considered to be the bulwark of the nation, and by giving bounties to certain trades, that these might become so many nurseries for the marine, I thought it of great importance, to be able to prove, as I was then capable of doing, that more persons would be found dead in three slave-vessels from Bristol, in a given time, than in all the other vessels put together, numerous as they were, belonging to the same port.
I sometimes worked in the Merchant's hall, creating copies of the lists of ships sailing to various parts of the world. I wanted to compare the loss of seamen in the Slave Trade with that of those in other trades from the same port. This job made me realize its significance. When I considered how biased the people in this country were toward their fellow citizens, the local seamen, and how the lawmakers valued them by enforcing the Navigation Act—something they saw as the nation's defense—and by offering incentives to specific trades to support the maritime industry, I thought it was very important to demonstrate, as I was then able to, that more people would be found dead in three slave ships from Bristol over a certain period than in all the other ships combined, no matter how many there were, also from the same port.
I procured also an account of the exports and imports for the year 1786, by means of which I was enabled to judge of the comparative value of this and the other trades.
I also got a record of the exports and imports for the year 1786, which allowed me to assess the relative value of this and other trades.
In pursuing another object, which was that of going on board the slave-ships, and learning their construction and dimensions, I was greatly struck, and indeed affected, by the appearance of two little sloops, which were fitting out for Africa, the one of only twenty-five tons, which was said to be destined to carry seventy and the other of only eleven, which was said to be destined to carry thirty slaves. I was told also that which was more affecting, namely, that these were not to act as tenders on the coast, by going up and down the rivers, and receiving three or four slaves at a time, and then carrying them to a large ship, which was to take them to the West Indies; but that it was actually intended, that they should transport their own slaves themselves; that one if not both of them were, on their arrival in the West Indies, to be sold as pleasure-vessels, and that the seamen belonging to them were to be permitted to come home by what is usually called the run.
In pursuing another goal, which was to board the slave ships and learn about their construction and size, I was deeply moved and indeed affected by the sight of two little sloops being prepared for Africa. One was only twenty-five tons and was said to be meant to carry seventy slaves, while the other was just eleven tons, said to be meant to carry thirty slaves. I was told something even more shocking: these vessels weren’t just going to be used as tenders along the coast, going back and forth up the rivers to pick up three or four slaves at a time and then taking them to a larger ship bound for the West Indies. Instead, they were actually intended to transport their own slaves directly. One, if not both, of them were to be sold as pleasure boats upon their arrival in the West Indies, and the crew members were going to be allowed to return home by what is usually called the run.
This account of the destination of these little vessels, though it was distressing at first, appeared to me afterwards, on cool reasoning, to be incredible. I thought that my informants wished to impose upon me, in order that I might make statements which would carry their own refutation with them, and that thus I might injure the great cause which I had undertaken. And I was much inclined to be of this opinion, when I looked again at the least of the two; for any person, who was tall, standing upon dry ground by the side of her, might have overlooked every thing upon her deck. I knew also that she had been built as a pleasure-boat for the accommodation of only six persons upon the Severn. I determined, therefore, to suspend my belief till I could take the admeasurement of each vessel. This I did; but lest, in the agitation of my mind on this occasion, I should have made any mistake, I desired my friend George Fisher to apply to the builder for his admeasurement also. With this he kindly complied. When he obtained it he brought it me. This account, which nearly corresponded with my own, was as follows:—In the vessel of twenty-five tons, the length of the upper part of the hold, or roof of the room, where the seventy slaves were to be stowed, was but little better than ten yards, or thirty-one feet. The greatest breadth of the bottom, or floor, was ten feet four inches; and the least five. Hence, a grown person must sit down all the voyage, and contract his limbs within the narrow limits of three square feet. In the vessel of eleven tons, the length of the room for the thirty slaves was twenty-two feet. The greatest breadth of the floor was eight, and the least four. The whole height from the keel to the beam was but five feet eight inches, three feet of which were occupied by ballast, cargo, and provisions, so that two feet eight inches remained only as the height between the decks. Hence, each slave would have only four square feet to sit in, and, when in this posture, his head, if he were a full-grown person, would touch the ceiling, or upper deck.
This account of where these small vessels were headed, though upsetting at first, eventually seemed unbelievable to me after some calm reflection. I suspected that my sources wanted to deceive me so that I would make claims that could be easily disproven, potentially damaging the important cause I was advocating for. I was quite inclined to think this when I looked again at the smaller of the two ships; anyone tall standing on dry land next to it could have seen everything on its deck. I also knew it had been built as a pleasure boat meant for only six people on the Severn. Therefore, I decided to reserve my judgment until I could measure each vessel. I did that, but to avoid any mistakes in my calculations due to my distress at the time, I asked my friend George Fisher to get the measurements from the builder as well. He kindly agreed and when he got the information, he brought it to me. This account, which closely matched my own, was as follows:—In the twenty-five-ton vessel, the length of the upper part of the hold, or the roof over the area where the seventy slaves were to be kept, was just a little over ten yards, or thirty-one feet. The greatest width of the bottom, or floor, was ten feet four inches, and the narrowest was five. As a result, an adult would have to sit the entire journey and squeeze their body into a space of just three square feet. In the eleven-ton vessel, the length of the area for the thirty slaves was twenty-two feet. The widest part of the floor was eight feet, and the narrowest was four. The total height from the keel to the beam was only five feet eight inches, with three feet taken up by ballast, cargo, and provisions, leaving just two feet eight inches as the height between the decks. Thus, each slave would have only four square feet to sit in, and in that position, if he were an adult, his head would touch the ceiling, or upper deck.
Having now received this admeasurement from the builder, which was rather more favourable than my own, I looked upon the destination of these little vessels as yet more incredible than before. Still the different persons, whom I occasionally saw on board them, persisted in it that they were going to Africa for slaves, and also for the numbers mentioned, which they were afterwards to carry to the West Indies themselves. I desired, however, my friends, George Fisher, Truman Harford, Harry Gandy, Walter Chandler, and others, each to make a separate inquiry for me on this subject; and they all agreed that, improbable as the account both of their destination, and of the number they were to take, might appear, they had found it to be too true. I had soon afterwards the sorrow to learn from official documents from the Custom-house, that these little vessels actually cleared out for Africa, and that now nothing could be related so barbarous of this traffic, which might not instantly be believed.
Having received this measurement from the builder, which was actually slightly better than my own, I found the purpose of these small ships even more unbelievable than before. Yet, the various people I occasionally saw on board continued to insist that they were heading to Africa for slaves, as well as for the numbers mentioned, which they were supposed to take to the West Indies themselves. I asked my friends George Fisher, Truman Harford, Harry Gandy, Walter Chandler, and others to each look into this issue for me. They all agreed that, despite how unlikely both their destination and the number they were supposed to bring back seemed, they discovered it to be alarmingly true. Soon after, I sadly learned from official documents from the Customs office that these small vessels had indeed set sail for Africa, and that there was now no act related to this trade that could not be instantly believed as barbaric.
In pursuing my different objects there was one, which, to my great vexation, I found it extremely difficult to attain. This was the procuring of any assurance from those who had been personally acquainted with the horrors of this trade, that they would appear, if called upon, as evidence against it. My friend Harry Gandy, to whom I had been first introduced, had been two voyages, as I before mentioned; and he was willing, though at an advanced age, to go to London, to state publicly all he knew concerning them. But with respect to the many others in Bristol, who had been to the coast of Africa, I had not yet found one who would come forward for this purpose. There were several old Slave Captains living there, who had a great knowledge of the subject. I thought it not unreasonable that I might gain one or two good evidences out of these, as they had probably long ago left the concern, and were not now interested in the continuance of it; but all my endeavours were fruitless. I sent messages to them by different persons. I met them in all ways. I stated to them, that if there was nothing objectionable in the trade, seeing it laboured under such a stigma, they had an opportunity of coming forward and of wiping away the stain. If, on the other hand, it was as bad as represented, then they had it in their power, by detailing the crimes which attached to it, of making some reparation or atonement, for the part they had taken in it. But no representations would do. All intercourse was positively forbidden between us; and whenever they met me in the street, they shunned me as if I had been a mad dog. I could not for some time account, for the strange disposition which they thus manifested towards me; but my friends helped me to unravel it, for I was assured that one or two of them, though they went no longer to Africa as captains, were in part owners of vessels trading there; and, with respect to all of them, it might be generally said, that they had been guilty of such enormities, that they would be afraid of coming forward in the way I proposed, lest any thing should come out by which they might criminate themselves. I was obliged then to give up all hope of getting any evidence from this quarter, and I saw but little prospect of getting it from those, who were then actually deriving their livelihood from the trade: and yet I was determined to persevere; for I thought that some might be found in it who were not yet so hardened as to be incapable of being awakened on this subject. I thought that others might be found in it who wished to leave it upon principle, and that these would unbosom themselves to me: and I thought it not improbable that I might fall in with others, who had come unexpectedly into a state of independence, and that these might be induced, as their livelihood would be no longer affected by giving me information, to speak the truth.
In pursuing my various goals, I found one, to my great frustration, extremely hard to achieve. I was trying to get any assurance from those who had experienced the horrors of this trade that they would testify against it if needed. My friend Harry Gandy, whom I had first met, had been on two voyages, as I mentioned earlier; he was willing, even at an older age, to go to London and publicly share everything he knew about them. However, regarding the many others in Bristol who had been to the coast of Africa, I hadn’t found a single one willing to come forward for this purpose. There were several retired Slave Captains living there who had extensive knowledge on the subject. I thought it wasn’t unreasonable to expect that I could persuade one or two good witnesses from among them, as they had likely distanced themselves from this issue and were no longer invested in its continuation; but all my efforts were in vain. I sent messages through different people. I approached them in every possible way. I explained to them that if there was nothing wrong with the trade, given its negative reputation, they had a chance to step forward and help clear the stigma. Conversely, if it was as terrible as claimed, they had the opportunity, by recounting the crimes associated with it, to make some reparation for their involvement. But no amount of persuasion worked. They completely avoided any interaction with me, and whenever they saw me on the street, they treated me as if I were a rabid dog. For some time, I couldn’t understand the strange behavior they showed towards me; but my friends helped me figure it out, as I learned that one or two of them, even though they no longer went to Africa as captains, were part-owners of ships involved in the trade; and for all of them, it could generally be said that they had committed such serious wrongs that they feared coming forward in the way I suggested, worried that something might be revealed that would incriminate them. I then had to give up all hope of getting any evidence from that group, and I saw little chance of obtaining it from those currently making a living from the trade. Still, I was determined to keep trying; I believed that there might be some individuals in it who hadn’t yet become so hardened as to be incapable of being shaken on this issue. I thought there could be others who wanted to leave the trade on principle, and that these individuals might confide in me; and it didn’t seem too far-fetched to think I might encounter others who unexpectedly found themselves independent, and that these might feel free to speak the truth since their livelihood wouldn’t be affected by providing me with information.
I persevered for weeks together under this hope, but could find no one of all those, who had been applied to, who would have any thing to say to me. At length, Walter Chandler had prevailed upon a young gentleman, of the name of Gardiner, who was going out as surgeon of the Pilgrim, to meet me. The condition was, that we were to meet at the house of the former, but that we were to enter in and go out at different times, that is, we were not to be seen together.
I held on to this hope for weeks, but I couldn’t find anyone among those I had approached who would talk to me. Eventually, Walter Chandler convinced a young man named Gardiner, who was heading out as the surgeon on the Pilgrim, to meet with me. The condition was that we would meet at Walter's house, but we would go in and out at different times, meaning we wouldn’t be seen together.
Gardiner, on being introduced to me, said at once, that he had often wished to see me on the subject of my errand, but that the owner of the Pilgrim had pointed me out to him as a person whom he would wish him to avoid. He then laid open to me the different methods of obtaining slaves in Africa, as he had learned from those on board his own vessel in his first, or former, voyage. He unfolded also the manner of their treatment in the Middle passage, with the various distressing scenes which had occurred in it. He stated the barbarous usuage of the seamen as he had witnessed it, and concluded by saying, that there never was a subject which demanded so loudly the interference of the legislature as that of the Slave Trade.
Gardiner, when he was introduced to me, immediately said that he had often wanted to discuss my mission with me, but the owner of the Pilgrim had warned him to stay away from me. He then explained the different ways of acquiring slaves in Africa, based on what he had learned from the crew during his first voyage. He also described how they were treated during the Middle Passage, including the various distressing scenes that took place. He recounted the brutal treatment of the sailors as he had seen it, and concluded by stating that there has never been a topic that needed the government’s intervention as urgently as the Slave Trade.
When he had finished his narrative, and answered the different questions which I had proposed to him concerning it, I asked him, in as delicate a manner as I could, how it happened, that, seeing the trade in this horrible light, he had consented to follow it again? He told me frankly, that he had received a regular medical education, but that his relations, being poor, had not been able to set him up in his profession. He had saved a little money in his last voyage. In that, which he was now to perform, he hoped to save a little more. With the profits of both voyages together, he expected he should be able to furnish a shop in the line of his profession, when he would wipe his hands of this detestable trade.
When he finished his story and answered the various questions I had about it, I asked him, as gently as I could, why he had agreed to go back to this terrible trade, especially after seeing it in such a negative light. He admitted that he had received a proper medical education, but since his family was poor, they couldn't support him in his profession. He had saved a bit of money from his last voyage and hoped to save a little more on this upcoming trip. With the profits from both voyages combined, he planned to open a shop in his field and finally leave this horrible trade behind.
I then asked him, whether, upon the whole, he thought he had judged prudently, or whether the prospect of thus enabling himself to become independent, would counterbalance the uneasiness which might arise in future? He replied, that he had not so much to fear upon this account. The trade, while it continued, must have surgeons. But it made a great difference both to the crew and to the slaves, whether these discharged their duty towards them in a feeling manner, or not. With respect to himself, he was sure that he should pay every attention to the wants of each. This thought made his continuance in the trade for one voyage longer more reconcilable. But he added, as if not quite satisfied, "Cruel necessity!" and he fetched a deep sigh.
I then asked him if he thought, overall, he had made a wise decision, or if the possibility of becoming independent would outweigh any discomfort that might come up later. He answered that he didn't have much to worry about in that regard. The trade, as long as it lasted, would always need surgeons. However, it really mattered to both the crew and the slaves whether these surgeons treated them with care or not. As for himself, he was certain he would pay close attention to each person's needs. This thought made it easier for him to continue in the trade for one more voyage. But he added, as if he wasn't fully convinced, "Cruel necessity!" and let out a deep sigh.
We took our leave, and departed, the one a few minutes after the other. The conversation of this young man was very interesting. I was much impressed both by the nature and the manner of it. I wished to secure him, if possible, as an evidence for parliament, and thus save him from his approaching voyage: but I knew not what to do. At first, I thought it would be easy to raise a subscription to set him up. But then, I was aware that this might be considered as bribery, and make his testimony worth nothing. I then thought that the committee might detain him as an evidence, and pay him, in a reasonable manner, for his sustenance, till his testimony should be called for. But I did not know how long it would be before his examination might take place. It might be a year or two. I foresaw other difficulties also and I was obliged to relinquish what otherwise I should have deemed a prize.
We said our goodbyes and left, one of us a few minutes after the other. This young man's conversation was really engaging. I was impressed by both the content and the way he spoke. I wanted to make sure he could serve as a witness for parliament to keep him from his upcoming journey, but I didn’t know how to make that happen. At first, I thought it would be easy to raise funds to support him. But then I realized that might be seen as bribery, which would make his testimony unreliable. I considered that the committee could hold him as a witness and pay him reasonably for his living expenses until he was needed for his testimony. But I had no idea how long it would take for that to happen. It could be a year or two. I anticipated other challenges too, and I had to give up what I otherwise would have seen as a valuable opportunity.
On reviewing the conversation which had passed between us after my return home, I thought, considering the friendly disposition of Gardiner towards us, I had not done all I could for the cause; and, communicating my feelings to Walter Chandler, he procured me another interview. At this, I asked him, if he would become an evidence if he lived to return. He replied, very heartily, that he would. I then asked him, if he would keep a journal of facts during his voyage, as it would enable him to speak more correctly, in case he should be called upon for his testimony. He assured me he would, and that he would make up a little book for that purpose. I asked him, lastly, when he meant to sail. He said, as soon as the ship could get all her hands. It was their intention to sail to-morrow, but that seven men, whom the mates had brought drunk out of Marsh-street the evening before, were so terrified when they found they were going to Africa, that they had seized the boat that morning, and had put themselves on shore. I took my leave of him, entreating him to follow his resolutions of kindness both to the sailors and the slaves, and wished him a speedy and a safe return.
After thinking about our conversation once I got home, I realized that considering Gardiner's friendly attitude toward us, I hadn’t done everything I could for the cause. I shared my thoughts with Walter Chandler, and he arranged another meeting for me. During this meeting, I asked him if he would be willing to testify if he made it back. He enthusiastically agreed. Then I asked if he would keep a journal of events during his voyage, as it would help him speak more accurately if he needed to give his testimony. He promised he would and said he would create a little book for that purpose. Finally, I asked him when he planned to set sail. He replied that they would leave as soon as the ship had all its crew. They intended to depart tomorrow, but seven men, brought drunk from Marsh Street the night before, were so scared when they realized they were going to Africa that they took the boat that morning and got themselves off the ship. I said goodbye, urging him to stick to his plans of kindness toward both the sailors and the slaves, and wished him a quick and safe return.
On going one day by the Exchange, after this interview with Gardiner, I overheard a young gentleman say to another, "that it happened on the coast, last year, and that he saw it." I wished to know who he was, and to get at him if I could. I watched him at a distance for more than half an hour, when I saw him leave his companion. I followed him till he entered a house. I then considered whether it would be proper, and in what manner, to address him when he should come out of it. But I waited three hours, and I never saw him. I then concluded that he either lodged where I saw him enter, or that he had gone to dine with some friend. I therefore took notice of the house, and, showing it afterwards to several of my friends, desired them to make him out for me. In a day or two I had an interview with him. His name was James Arnold. He had been two voyages to the coast of Africa for slaves; one as a surgeon's mate in the Alexander, in the year 1785, and the other as surgeon in the Little Pearl, in the year 1786, from which he had not then very long returned.
One day, while passing by the Exchange after my meeting with Gardiner, I overheard a young man telling another, "it happened on the coast last year, and I saw it." I wanted to find out who he was and connect with him if possible. I watched him from a distance for over half an hour until he left his friend. I followed him until he entered a house. After that, I thought about whether it would be appropriate and how to approach him when he came out. However, I waited three hours, and I never saw him again. I then figured he either lived in that house or had gone out to dinner with a friend. So, I took note of the place and later showed it to several friends, asking them to help me figure out who he was. A day or two later, I met with him. His name was James Arnold. He had made two trips to the coast of Africa for slaves: one as a surgeon's mate on the Alexander in 1785, and the other as the surgeon on the Little Pearl in 1786, from which he had just returned not long before.
I asked him if he was willing to give me any account of these voyages, for that I was making an inquiry into the nature of the Slave Trade. He replied, he knew that I was. He had been cautioned about falling in with me; he had, however, taken no pains to avoid me. It was a bad trade, and ought to be exposed.
I asked him if he would share any details about these voyages because I was researching the nature of the Slave Trade. He replied that he was aware of that. He had been warned about getting involved with me; however, he hadn’t made any effort to steer clear of me. It was a terrible trade, and it needed to be revealed.
I went over the same ground as I had gone with Gardiner relative to the first of these voyages; or that in the Alexander. It is not necessary to detail the particulars. It is impossible, however, not to mention, that the treatment of the seamen on board this vessel was worse than I had ever before heard of. No less than eleven of them; unable to bear their lives; had deserted at Bonny, on the coast of Africa,—which is a most unusual thing,—choosing all that could be endured, though in a most inhospitable climate, and in the power of the natives, rather than to continue in their own ship. Nine others also, in addition to the loss of these, had died in the same voyage. As to the rest; he believed, without any exception, that they had been badly used.
I covered the same topics as I did with Gardiner regarding the first of these voyages, specifically the one on the Alexander. I won't go into all the details, but I have to mention that the treatment of the crew on this ship was worse than anything I'd ever heard of before. A total of eleven sailors, unable to endure their situation, deserted at Bonny on the coast of Africa—this is extremely rare. They preferred to face all sorts of hardships, even in a very harsh climate and at the mercy of the locals, rather than stay on their ship. Additionally, nine others died during the same voyage. As for the rest of the crew, he believed that, without exception, they had all been mistreated.
In examining him with respect to his second voyage, or that in the Little Pearl, two circumstances came out with respect to the slaves, which I shall relate in few words.
In looking at him regarding his second voyage, or that on the Little Pearl, two important points came up about the slaves, which I will explain briefly.
The chief mate used to beat the men-slaves on very trifling occasions. About eleven one evening, the ship then lying off the coast, he heard a noise in their room. He jumped down among them with the lanthorn in his hand. Two of those who had been ill-used by him, forced themselves out of their irons, and, seizing him, struck him with the bolt of them, and it was with some difficulty that he was extricated from them by the crew.
The chief mate used to hit the men on very minor occasions. Around eleven one evening, while the ship was anchored off the coast, he heard a commotion in their quarters. He jumped down among them with the lantern in his hand. Two of the men he had mistreated broke free from their shackles and, grabbing him, struck him with one of the shackles, and it took some effort for the crew to pull him away from them.
The men-slaves, unable now to punish him, and finding they had created an alarm, began to proceed to extremities. They endeavoured to force themselves up the gratings, and to pull down a partition which had been made for a sick-birth; when they were fired upon and repressed. The next morning they were brought up one by one; when it appeared that a boy had been killed, who was afterwards thrown into the sea.
The enslaved men, now unable to punish him and realizing they had raised an alarm, started to take drastic actions. They tried to push through the grating and tear down a partition that had been set up for a sick person; however, they were shot at and stopped. The next morning, they were brought up one by one, and it became clear that a boy had been killed, who was later thrown into the sea.
The two men, however, who had forced themselves out of irons, did not come up with the rest, but found their way into the hold, and armed themselves with knives from a cask, which had been opened for trade. One of them being called to in the African tongue by a black trader, who was then on board, came up, but with a knife in each hand; when one of the crew, supposing him yet hostile, shot him in the right side and killed him on the spot.
The two men, however, who had managed to free themselves from their restraints, didn't join the others but made their way to the hold, where they grabbed knives from a cask that had been opened for trading. One of them was called by a black trader on board in the African language, so he came up, but with a knife in each hand; when one of the crew members saw him, thinking he was still a threat, shot him in the right side and killed him instantly.
The other remained in the hold for twelve hours. Scalding water mixed with fat was poured down upon him, to make him come up. Though his flesh was painfully blistered by these means, he kept below. A promise was then made to him in the African tongue by the same trader, that no injury should be done him if he would come among them. To this at length he consented; but on observing, when he was about half way up, that a sailor was armed between decks, he flew to him, and clasped him, and threw him down. The sailor fired his pistol in the scuffle, but without effect; he contrived, however, to fracture his skull with the butt end of it, so that the slave died on the third day.
The other stayed in the hold for twelve hours. Scalding water mixed with fat was poured down on him to force him to come up. Even though his skin was painfully blistered from this, he remained below. A promise was made to him in African by the same trader that he wouldn't be harmed if he came out. Eventually, he agreed; but when he was about halfway up and saw a sailor armed between the decks, he rushed at him, grabbed him, and pushed him down. The sailor fired his pistol during the struggle, but it didn't hit anything; however, he managed to fracture the slave's skull with the butt of the gun, causing the slave to die three days later.
The second circumstance took place after the arrival of the same vessel at St. Vincent's. There was a boy-slave on board, who was very ill and emaciated. The mate, who, by his cruelty, had been the author of the former mischief, did not choose to expose him to sale with the rest, lest the small sum he would fetch in that situation should lower the average price, and thus bring downA the value of the privileges of the officers of the ship. This boy was kept on board, and no provisions allowed him.
The second situation happened after the same ship arrived at St. Vincent's. There was a sick and frail boy-slave on board. The mate, who had caused the previous trouble with his cruelty, didn't want to put him up for sale with the others because the low price he would get in that condition might reduce the average price and, in turn, affect the value of the officers' privileges on the ship. This boy was kept on board without any provisions given to him.
A: Officers are said to be allowed the privilege of one or more slaves, according to their rank. When the cargo is sold, the sum total fetched is put down, and this being divided by the number of slaves sold, gives the average price of each. Such officers, then, receive this average price for one or more slaves, according to their privileges, but never the slaves themselves.
A: Officers are reported to have the right to one or more slaves, depending on their rank. When the cargo is sold, the total amount earned is recorded, and this total divided by the number of slaves sold gives the average price for each. These officers, therefore, receive this average price for one or more slaves based on their privileges, but never actually receive the slaves themselves.
The mate had suggested the propriety of throwing him overboard, but no one would do it. On the ninth day he expired, having never been allowed any sustenance during that time.
The crew had suggested that it would be appropriate to throw him overboard, but no one was willing to do it. On the ninth day, he passed away, having never been given any food during that period.
I asked Mr. Arnold if he was willing to give evidence of these facts in both cases. He said he had only one objection, which was, that in two or three days he was to go in the Ruby on his third voyage: but on leaving me, he said, that he would take an affidavit before the mayor of the truth of any of those things which he had related to me, if that would do; but, from motives of safety, he should not choose to do this till within a few hours before he sailed.
I asked Mr. Arnold if he was willing to provide evidence of these facts in both cases. He said he had only one concern, which was that in two or three days he would be leaving on the Ruby for his third voyage. However, before leaving me, he mentioned that he would take an affidavit before the mayor to confirm the truth of anything he had shared with me, if that would help. But, for safety reasons, he preferred to wait until a few hours before his departure to do this.
In two or three days after this he sent for me; he said the Ruby would leave King-road the next day, and that he was ready to do as he had promised. Depositions were accordingly made out from his own words. I went with him to the residence of George Daubeny, Esq., who was then chief magistrate of the city, and they were sworn to in his presence, and witnessed as the law requires.
In a couple of days after that, he asked to see me; he said the Ruby would be leaving King-road the next day and that he was ready to keep his promise. Statements were then prepared based on his own words. I accompanied him to the home of George Daubeny, Esq., who was the main magistrate of the city at the time, and they were sworn in his presence and signed as the law demands.
On taking my leave of him, I asked him how he could go a third time in such a barbarous employ; he said he had been distressed. In his voyage in the Alexander he had made nothing; for he had been so ill-used, that he had solicited his discharge in Grenada, where, being paid in currency, he had but little to receive. When he arrived in Bristol from that island, he was quite penniless; and finding the Little Pearl going out, he was glad to get on board her as her surgeon, which he then did entirely for the sake of bread. He said, moreover, that she was but a small vessel, and that his savings had been but small in her. This occasioned him to apply for the Ruby, his present ship; but if he survived this voyage he would never go another. I then put the same question to him as to Gardiner, and he promised to keep a journal of facts, and to give his evidence, if called upon, on his return.
When I said goodbye to him, I asked how he could take on such a dangerous job for a third time. He told me he was in a tough situation. During his trip on the Alexander, he hadn’t made any money; he had been treated so poorly that he requested to leave while in Grenada, where he was paid in local currency and ended up with very little. When he got back to Bristol from that island, he was completely broke. He was happy to board the Little Pearl as her surgeon, which he did just to have something to eat. He added that the ship was small and that he hadn’t saved much money while working on her. This led him to apply for the Ruby, his current ship; but he said if he survived this voyage, he wouldn’t go on another. I then asked him the same question I had asked Gardiner, and he promised to keep a journal of events and give his testimony if needed when he returned.
The reader will see, from this account, the difficulty I had in procuring evidence from this port. The owners of vessels employed in the trade there forbade all intercourse with me; the old captains, who had made their fortunes in it, would not see me; the young, who were making them, could not be supposed to espouse my cause, to the detriment of their own interest. Of those whose necessities made them go into it for a livelihood, I could not get one to come forward, without doing so much for him as would have amounted to bribery. Thus, when I got one of these into my possession, I was obliged to let him go again. I was, however, greatly consoled by the consideration, that I had procured two sentinels to be stationed in the enemy's camp, who keeping a journal of different facts, would bring me some important intelligence at a future period.
The reader will see from this account the challenges I faced in gathering evidence from this port. The shipowners involved in the trade there prohibited any interaction with me; the older captains, who had made their fortunes from it, refused to meet with me; the younger ones, who were still making their fortunes, had no reason to support my cause at the expense of their own interests. Among those who were forced to participate for a living, I couldn't find anyone willing to step forward unless I did so much for them that it would basically be bribery. So, when I finally managed to get one of them, I had to let him go again. However, I took great comfort in knowing that I had managed to place two informants in the enemy's camp, who were keeping a journal of various facts and would provide me with crucial information in the future.
CHAPTER XVI.
Author goes to Monmouth; confers relative to a petition from that place; returns to Bristol; is introduced to Alexander Falconbridge; takes one of the mates of the Africa out of that ship; visits disabled seamen from the ship Thomas; puts a chief mate into prison for the murder of William Lines.—Ill-usage of seamen in various other slave-vessels; secures Crutwell's Bath paper in favour of the abolition; lays the foundation of a committee at Bristol; and of a petition from thence also; takes his leave of that city.
Author travels to Monmouth to discuss a petition from there; returns to Bristol; meets Alexander Falconbridge; removes one of the mates from the Africa ship; visits injured sailors from the ship Thomas; puts a chief mate in jail for the murder of William Lines. —Mistreatment of sailors on various other slave ships; obtains Crutwell's Bath paper supporting abolition; starts a committee in Bristol and initiates a petition from there as well; bids farewell to the city.
By this time I began to feel the effect of my labours upon my constitution. It had been my practice to go home in the evening to my lodgings, about twelve o'clock, and then to put down the occurrences of the day. This usually kept me up till one, and sometimes till nearly two in the morning. When I went my rounds in Marsh-street, I seldom got home till two, and into bed till three. My clothes, also, were frequently wet through with the rains. The cruel accounts I was daily in the habit of hearing, both with respect to the slaves, and to the seamen employed in this wicked trade, from which, indeed, my mind had no respite, often broke my sleep in the night, and occasioned me to awake in an agitated state. All these circumstances concurred in affecting my health; I looked thin; my countenance became yellow; I had also rheumatic feelings. My friends, seeing this, prevailed upon me to give myself two or three days' relaxation; and as a gentleman, of whom I had some knowledge, was going into Carmarthenshire, I accompanied him as far as Monmouth.
By this time, I started to feel the impact of my work on my health. I usually went home to my place around midnight and then wrote down what had happened during the day. This often kept me up until one, and sometimes almost two in the morning. When I did my rounds in Marsh Street, I rarely got home before two and into bed until three. My clothes were often soaked from the rain. The heartbreaking stories I heard daily about the slaves and the sailors involved in this terrible trade haunted me and often disrupted my sleep, leaving me restless and agitated. All of these factors affected my health; I appeared thin, my complexion turned yellow, and I experienced rheumatic pain. My friends noticed this and convinced me to take two or three days off to relax; since a gentleman I knew was heading to Carmarthenshire, I decided to accompany him as far as Monmouth.
After our parting at this place, I became restless and uneasy, and longed to get back to my work. I thought, however, my journey ought not to be wholly useless to the cause; and hearing that Dr. Davis, a clergyman at Monmouth, was a man of considerable weight among the inhabitants, I took the liberty of writing him a letter, in which I stated who I was and the way in which I had lately employed myself, and the great wish I had to be favoured with an interview with him; and I did not conceal that it would be very desirable, if the inhabitants of the place could have that information on the subject which would warrant them in so doing, that they should petition the legislature for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Dr. Davis returned me an answer, and received me. The questions which he put to me were judicious. He asked me, first, whether, if the slaves were emancipated, there would not be much confusion in the islands? I told him that the emancipation of them was no part of our plan; we solicited nothing but the stopping of all future importations of them into the islands. He then asked what the planters would do for labourers? I replied, they would find sufficient from an increase of the native population, if they were obliged to pay attention to the latter means. We discoursed a long time upon this last topic. I have not room to give the many other questions he proposed to me: no one was ever more judiciously questioned. In my turn, I put him into possession of all the discoveries I had made. He acknowledged the injustice of the trade; he confessed, also, that my conversation had enlightened him as to the impolicy of it; and, taking some of my Summary View to distribute, he said he hoped that the inhabitants would, after the perusal of them, accede to my request.
After we said goodbye at this spot, I became restless and uneasy, and really wanted to get back to my work. I thought, though, that my trip shouldn’t be completely pointless for the cause. I heard that Dr. Davis, a clergyman in Monmouth, was an important figure among the locals, so I took the initiative to write him a letter. In it, I introduced myself, explained what I had been doing lately, and expressed my strong desire to meet with him. I also mentioned that it would be very beneficial if the town’s residents could be informed on the subject well enough to petition the legislature for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Dr. Davis replied to me and agreed to meet. He asked me some thoughtful questions. First, he wanted to know if there would be chaos in the islands if the slaves were freed. I explained that emancipation wasn't part of our plan; we were only asking for a halt to all future importations of slaves into the islands. Then he asked what the planters would do for laborers. I answered that they would have enough from an increase in the native population if they focused on that option. We talked for quite a while about this last point. I don't have space to cover all the other questions he asked me, but he was certainly very thoughtful in his inquiries. In return, I shared with him all the discoveries I had made. He acknowledged that the trade was unjust and admitted that our conversation had opened his eyes to its unwise nature. Taking some of my Summary View to share, he expressed hope that the locals would agree to my request after reading them.
On my return to Bristol, my friends had procured for me an interview with Mr. Alexander Falconbridge, who had been to the coast of Africa, as a surgeon, for four voyages; one in the Tartar, another in the Alexander, and two in the Emilia slave-vessels.
On my return to Bristol, my friends had arranged an interview for me with Mr. Alexander Falconbridge, who had traveled to the coast of Africa as a surgeon on four voyages; one in the Tartar, another in the Alexander, and two in the Emilia slave ships.
On my introduction to him, I asked him if he had any objection to give me an account of the cruelties which were said to be connected with the Slave Trade; he answered, without any reserve, that he had not; for that he had now done with it. Never were any words more welcome to my ears than these: "Yes—I have done with the trade;"—and he said, also, that he was free to give me information concerning it. Was he not then one of the very persons, whom I had so long been seeking, but in vain?
On my first meeting with him, I asked if he had any objections to sharing his experiences of the cruelties associated with the Slave Trade. He replied openly that he didn’t, as he was now done with it. I had never heard more welcome words than, "Yes—I am done with the trade;"—and he also mentioned that he was free to provide me with information about it. Was he not exactly the kind of person I had been looking for all this time, but had not found?
To detail the accounts which he gave me at this and at subsequent interviews, relative to the different branches of this trade, would fill no ordinary volume. Suffice it to say, in general terms, as far as relates to the slaves, that he confirmed the various violent and treacherous methods of procuring them in their own country; their wretched condition, in consequence of being crowded together in the passage; their attempts to rise in defence of their own freedom, and, when this was impracticable, to destroy themselves by the refusal of sustenance, by jumping overboard into the sea, and in other ways; the effect also of their situation upon their minds, by producing insanity and various diseases; and the cruel manner of disposing of them in the West Indies, and of separating relatives and friends.
To outline the information he shared with me during this and later talks about the different aspects of this trade would require more than just a regular volume. It’s enough to say, in general terms, that regarding the slaves, he confirmed the various brutal and deceitful ways they were captured in their homeland; their miserable condition due to being crammed together during the journey; their attempts to fight for their freedom, and when that wasn’t possible, to starve themselves, jump overboard into the sea, or find other ways to end their lives; the impact of their situation on their mental health, leading to madness and other illnesses; and the inhumane ways they were treated in the West Indies, including the separation of families and friends.
With respect to the seamen employed in this trade, he commended Captain Frazer for his kind usage to them, under whom he had so long served. The handsome way in which he spoke of the latter pleased me much, because I was willing to deduce from it his own impartiality, and because I thought I might infer from it, also, his regard to truth as to other parts of his narrative. Indeed I had been before acquainted with this circumstance. Thompson, of the Seven Stars, had informed me that Frazer was the only man sailing out of that port for slaves who had not been guilty of cruelty to his seamen: and Mr. Burges alluded to it, when he gave me advice not to proceed against the captain of the Alfred; for he then said, as I mentioned in a former chapter, "that he knew but one captain in the trade, who did not deserve long ago to be hanged." Mr. Falconbridge, however, stated, that though he had been thus fortunate in the Tartar and Emilia, he had been as unfortunate in the Alexander; for he believed there were no instances upon naval record, taken altogether, of greater barbarity, than of that which had been exercised towards the seamen in this voyage. In running over these, it struck me that I had heard of the same from some other quarter, or at least that these were so like the others, that I was surprised at their coincidence. On taking out my notes, I looked for the names of those whom I recollected to have been used in this manner; and on desiring Mr. Falconbridge to mention the names of those, also, to whom he alluded, they turned out to be the same. The mystery, however, was soon cleared up, when I told him from whom I had received my intelligence: for Mr. Arnold, the last-mentioned person in the last chapter, had been surgeon's mate under Mr. Falconbridge in the same vessel.
Regarding the sailors working in this trade, he praised Captain Frazer for his kind treatment of them, under whom he had served for such a long time. I was really pleased with the way he spoke about Frazer because it showed me his impartiality, and I felt I could also infer his commitment to truth in other parts of his account. I was already aware of this fact. Thompson, from the Seven Stars, had told me that Frazer was the only captain sailing from that port for slaves who hadn’t been cruel to his crew. Mr. Burges also mentioned this when he advised me not to take action against the captain of the Alfred; he said, as I mentioned in a previous chapter, "that he knew only one captain in the trade who didn’t deserve to be hanged a long time ago." However, Mr. Falconbridge pointed out that even though he had been fortunate with the Tartar and Emilia, he had experienced terrible luck with the Alexander; he believed there were no recorded naval examples of worse cruelty than what the sailors faced on that voyage. As I reviewed these accounts, it struck me that I had heard similar stories from another source, or at least that these were so similar to others that I was taken aback by their similarity. When I took out my notes, I looked for the names of those I remembered being treated this way; and when I asked Mr. Falconbridge for the names he referred to, they turned out to be the same. The mystery was quickly solved when I revealed the source of my information: Mr. Arnold, the last person mentioned in the previous chapter, had been the surgeon's mate under Mr. Falconbridge on the same ship.
There was one circumstance of peculiar importance, but quite new to me, which I collected from the information which Mr. Falconbridge had given me. This was, that many of the seamen, who left the slave-ships in the West Indies, were in such a weak, ulcerated, and otherwise diseased state, that they perished there. Several, also, of those who came home with the vessels were in the same deplorable condition. This was the case, Mr. Falconbridge said, with some who returned in the Alexander. It was the case, also, with many others; for he had been a pupil for twelve months in the Bristol Infirmary, and had had ample means of knowing the fact. The greatest number of seamen, at almost all times, who were there, were from the slave-vessels. These, too, were usually there on account of disease, whereas those from other ships were usually there on account of accidents. The health of some of the former was so far destroyed, that they were never wholly to be restored. This information was of great importance; for it showed that they who were reported dead upon the muster-rolls, were not all that were lost to the country by the prosecution of this wicked trade. Indeed, it was of so much importance, that in all my future interviews with others, which were for the purpose of collecting evidence, I never forgot to make it a subject of inquiry.
There was one very important fact, but completely new to me, that I learned from the information Mr. Falconbridge shared with me. This was that many of the sailors who left the slave ships in the West Indies were in such a weak, ulcerated, and otherwise unhealthy state that they died there. Several of those who returned home with the ships were in the same terrible condition. This was the case, Mr. Falconbridge said, with some who came back on the Alexander. It was also true for many others; he had spent twelve months as a student at the Bristol Infirmary, which gave him plenty of opportunities to know this. The greatest number of sailors there, at almost any time, were from slave vessels. These sailors were typically there due to disease, while those from other ships were usually there because of accidents. The health of some of the former was so severely damaged that they could never fully recover. This information was very important; it showed that those who were reported dead on the muster rolls were not the only ones lost to the country due to this wicked trade. In fact, it was so significant that in all my future meetings with others for the purpose of gathering evidence, I always remembered to ask about it.
I can hardly say how precious I considered the facts with which Mr. Falconbridge had furnished me from his own experience, relative to the different branches of this commerce. They were so precious, that I began now to be troubled lest I should lose them. For, though he had thus privately unbosomed himself to me, it did not follow that he would come forward as a public evidence. I was not a little uneasy on this account. I was fearful lest, when I should put this question to him, his future plan of life, or some little narrow consideration of future interest, would prevent him from giving his testimony, and I delayed asking him for many days. During this time, however, I frequently visited him; and at length, when I thought I was better acquainted, and probably in some little estimation, with him, I ventured to open my wishes on this subject. He answered me boldly, and at once, that he had left the trade upon principle, and that he would state all he knew concerning it, either publicly or privately, and at any time when he should be called upon to do it. This answer produced such an effect upon me, after all my former disappointments, that I felt it all over my frame. It operated like a sudden shock, which often disables the impressed person for a time. So the joy I felt rendered me quite useless, as to business, for the remainder of the day.
I can barely express how valuable I found the information Mr. Falconbridge had shared with me from his own experiences about the various aspects of this trade. It was so valuable that I started to worry I might lose it. Even though he had confided in me privately, it didn’t mean he would be willing to testify publicly. I felt quite anxious about this. I was afraid that when I asked him about it, his future plans or some minor self-interest might stop him from sharing his testimony, so I hesitated to bring it up for several days. During this time, I often visited him, and eventually, when I thought we were better acquainted and perhaps had some mutual respect, I decided to express my wishes on the matter. He responded boldly and immediately, saying that he had left the trade on principle and would share everything he knew about it, whether publicly or privately, anytime he was asked. This response had such a profound effect on me, especially after all my previous disappointments, that I felt it resonate throughout my entire body. It was like a sudden shock, which often leaves a person momentarily incapacitated. The joy I felt made me completely unproductive for the rest of the day.
I began to perceive in a little time the advantage of having cultivated an acquaintance with Thompson of the Seven Stars. For nothing could now pass in Bristol, relative to the seamen employed in this trade, but it was soon brought to me. If there was anything amiss, I had so arranged matters that I was sure to hear of it. He sent for me one day to inform me that several of the seamen, who had been sent out of Marsh Street into the Prince, which was then at Kingroad, and on the point of sailing to Africa for slaves, had, through fear of ill usage on the voyage, taken the boat and put themselves on shore. He informed me, at the same time, that the seamen of the Africa, which was lying there also, and ready to sail on a like voyage, were not satisfied, for that they had been made to sign their articles of agreement without being permitted to see them. To this he added, that Mr. Sheriff, one of the mates of the latter vessel, was unhappy, also, on this account. Sheriff had been a mate in the West India trade, and was a respectable man in his line. He had been enticed by the captain of the Africa, under the promise of peculiar advantages, to change his voyage. Having a wife and family at Bristol, he was willing to make a sacrifice on their account: but when he himself was not permitted to read the articles, he began to suspect bad work, and that there would be nothing but misery in the approaching voyage. Thompson entreated me to extricate him if I could. He was sure, he said, if he went to the coast with that man, meaning the captain, that he would never return alive.
I quickly realized the benefits of getting to know Thompson from the Seven Stars. Anything happening in Bristol related to the sailors in this trade was brought to my attention. If something was wrong, I had arranged everything so that I would definitely hear about it. One day, he called me to let me know that several sailors, who had been sent from Marsh Street to the Prince, which was then in Kingroad and about to sail to Africa for slaves, abandoned the boat out of fear of mistreatment on the journey and got themselves to shore. He also mentioned that the sailors of the Africa, which was also docked there and preparing for a similar voyage, were unhappy because they had been made to sign their contracts without being allowed to see them. Additionally, he told me that Mr. Sheriff, one of the mates on that ship, was also upset for this reason. Sheriff, who had worked in the West India trade, was a respected man in his field. The captain of the Africa had persuaded him to switch voyages with the promise of special benefits. With a wife and family in Bristol, he was willing to sacrifice for them, but when he realized he couldn't read the contract himself, he started to worry that things would go badly and that the upcoming journey would be full of trouble. Thompson urged me to help him if I could. He was certain that if he went to the coast with that captain, he would never return alive.
I was very unwilling to refuse anything to Thompson. I was deeply bound to him in gratitude for the many services he had rendered me, but I scarcely saw how I could serve him on this occasion. I promised, however, to speak to him in an hour's time. I consulted my friend Truman Harford in the interim; and the result was, that he and I should proceed to Kingroad in a boat, go on board the Africa, and charge the captain in person with what he had done, and desire him to discharge Sheriff, as no agreement, where fraud or force was used in the signatures, could be deemed valid. If we were not able to extricate Sheriff by these means, we thought that at least we should know, by inquiring of those whom we should see on board, whether the measure of hindering the men from seeing their articles on signing them had been adopted. It would be useful to ascertain this because such a measure had been long reported to be usual in this, but was said to be unknown in any other trade.
I really didn't want to say no to Thompson. I felt deeply grateful for all the help he had given me, but I honestly didn't see how I could help him this time. I promised to talk to him in an hour. In the meantime, I consulted my friend Truman Harford, and we decided to take a boat to Kingroad, go on board the Africa, confront the captain about what he had done, and ask him to let Sheriff go, since any agreement signed under fraud or coercion couldn’t be considered valid. If we couldn't get Sheriff released this way, at least we could find out from the people we met on board whether they were preventing the men from seeing what they were signing. It would be useful to know, as there had been long-standing reports of that practice being common here, but claimed to be nonexistent in other trades.
Having passed the river's mouth, and rowed towards the sea, we came near the Prince first, but pursued our destination to the Africa. Mr. Sheriff was the person who received us on board. I did not know him till I asked his name. I then told him my errand, with which he seemed to be much pleased. On asking him to tell the captain that I wished to speak with him, he replied that he was on shore. This put me to great difficulty, as I did not know then what to do. I consulted with Truman Harford, and it was our opinion that we should inquire of the seamen, but in a very quiet manner, by going individually to each, if they had ever demanded to see the articles on signing them, and if they had been refused. We proposed this question to them. They replied, that the captain had refused them in a savage manner, making use of threats and oaths. There was not one contradictory voice on this occasion. We then asked Mr. Sheriff what we were to do. He entreated us by all means to take him on shore. He was sure that under such a man as the captain, and particularly after the circumstance of our coming on board should be made known to him, he would never come from the coast of Africa alive. Upon this, Truman Harford called me aside, and told me the danger of taking an officer from the ship; for that, if any accident should happen to her, the damage might all fall upon me. I then inquired of Mr. Sheriff if there was any officer on board who could manage the ship. He pointed one out to me, and I spoke to him in the cabin. This person told me I need be under no apprehension about the vessel, but that every one would be sorry to lose Mr. Sheriff. Upon this ground, Truman Harford, who had felt more for me than for himself, became now easy. We had before concluded, that the obtaining any signature by fraud or force would render the agreement illegal. We therefore joined in opinion, that we might take away the man. His chest was accordingly put into our boat. We jumped into it with our rowers, and he followed us, surrounded by the seamen, all of whom took an affectionate leave of him, and expressed their regret at parting. Soon after this there was a general cry of "Will you take me, too?" from the deck; and such a sudden movement appeared there, that we were obliged to push off directly from the side, fearing that many would jump into our boat and go with us.
Having passed the river's mouth and rowed toward the sea, we got close to the Prince first, but continued our journey to Africa. Mr. Sheriff was the person who welcomed us on board. I didn't recognize him until I asked for his name. I then told him why I was there, which seemed to make him quite happy. When I asked him to inform the captain that I wanted to speak with him, he replied that the captain was on shore. This left me in a tough spot, as I didn't know what to do next. I talked it over with Truman Harford, and we decided it would be best to quietly ask the sailors, one by one, if they had ever asked to see the articles when they signed them, and if they had been refused. We posed the question to them. They answered that the captain had denied them in a brutal manner, using threats and swearing. There was not a single dissenting voice in this situation. We then turned to Mr. Sheriff for guidance. He insisted that we had to take him ashore. He was certain that, with a captain like that, and especially after he found out we had come on board, he would never leave the coast of Africa alive. After that, Truman Harford pulled me aside and warned me about the danger of taking an officer from the ship; if anything happened to her, all the responsibility could fall on me. I then asked Mr. Sheriff if there was anyone on board who could take over the ship. He pointed someone out to me, and I spoke to him in the cabin. This person reassured me that I shouldn’t worry about the vessel, but that everyone would be upset to lose Mr. Sheriff. With that assurance, Truman Harford, who had been more concerned about me than himself, felt relieved. We had previously agreed that getting any signature through deceit or force would make the contract void. So we all agreed we could take the man away. His chest was loaded into our boat. We jumped in with our rowers, and he followed us, surrounded by the sailors, all of whom said their heartfelt goodbyes and expressed their sadness at parting. Shortly after, there was a loud cry of “Will you take me, too?” from the deck; and with such a sudden rush of movement shown there, we had to push off immediately from the side, fearing that many would jump into our boat and come with us.
After having left the ship, Sheriff corroborated the desertion of the seamen from the Prince, as before related to me by Thompson. He spoke also of the savage disposition of his late captain, which he had even dared to manifest through lying in an English port. I was impressed by this account of his rough manners; and the wind having risen before and the surf now rolling heavily, I began to think what an escape I might have had; how easy it would have been for the savage captain, if he had been on board, or for any one at his instigation, to have pushed me over the ship's side. This was the first time I had ever considered the peril of the undertaking. But we arrived safe; and though on the same evening I left my name at the captain's house, as that of the person who had taken away his mate, I never heard more about it.
After leaving the ship, Sheriff confirmed that the crew had deserted the Prince, just as Thompson had told me before. He also talked about the violent nature of his former captain, which he even had the nerve to show while in an English port. I was struck by his description of the captain's rough behavior; and with the wind picking up and the surf crashing heavily, I started to think about how lucky I was to have escaped. It would have been so easy for the brutal captain, if he had been on board, or for anyone acting on his orders, to push me over the side of the ship. This was the first time I realized the danger of what I was doing. But we made it safely; and even though that same evening I left my name at the captain's house as the person who had taken his mate, I never heard anything more about it.
In pursuing my inquiries into the new topic suggested by Mr. Falconbridge, I learnt that two or three of the seamen of the ship Thomas, which had arrived now nearly a year from the Coast, were in a very crippled and deplorable state; I accordingly went to see them. One of them had been attacked by a fever, arising from circumstances connected with these voyages. The inflammation, which had proceeded from it, had reached his eyes; it could not be dispersed; and the consequence was, that he was then blind. The second was lame; he had badly ulcerated legs, and appeared to be very weak. The third was a mere spectre; I think he was the most pitiable object I ever saw. I considered him as irrecoverably gone. They all complained to me of their bad usage on board the Thomas. They said they had heard, of my being in Bristol, and they hoped I would not leave it without inquiring into the murder of William Lines.
In my investigation into the new topic suggested by Mr. Falconbridge, I found that two or three of the sailors from the ship Thomas, which had arrived nearly a year ago from the Coast, were in very bad shape. I decided to visit them. One had suffered from a fever due to issues related to the voyages. The resulting inflammation had affected his eyes; it couldn't be treated, and as a result, he was now blind. The second sailor was lame; he had severely ulcerated legs and seemed very weak. The third was just a shadow of his former self; I think he was the most tragic sight I ever saw. I thought he was beyond recovery. They all told me about the mistreatment they endured on board the Thomas. They mentioned they had heard I was in Bristol and hoped I wouldn’t leave without looking into the murder of William Lines.
On inquiring who William Lines was, they informed me that he had been one of the crew of the same ship, and that all on board believed that he had been killed by the chief mate; but they themselves had not been present when the blows were given him; they had not seen him till afterwards; but their shipmates had told them of his cruel treatment, and they knew that soon afterwards he had died.
When I asked who William Lines was, they told me that he had been part of the crew of the same ship, and everyone on board thought he had been killed by the chief mate; however, they hadn’t been there when the blows were dealt to him and hadn’t seen him until later. Their shipmates had told them about his brutal treatment, and they knew that shortly after, he had died.
In the course of the next day, the mother of Lines, who lived in Bristol, came to me and related the case. I told her there was no evidence as to the fact, for that I had seen three seamen, who could not speak to it from their own knowledge. She said, there were four others then in Bristol who could; I desired her to fetch them. When they arrived I examined each separately, and cross-examined them in the best manner I was able; I could find no variation in their account, and I was quite convinced that the murder had taken place. The mother was then importunate that I should take up the case. I was too much affected by the narration I had heard to refuse her wholly, and yet I did not promise that I would; I begged a little time to consider of it. During this I thought of consulting my friend Burges, but I feared he would throw cold water upon it, as he had done in the case of the captain of the Alfred. I remembered well what he had then said to me, and yet I felt a strong disposition to proceed, for the trade was still going on. Every day, perhaps, some new act of barbarity was taking place; and one example, if made, might counteract the evil for a time. I seemed therefore to incline to stir in this matter, and thought, if I should get into any difficulty about it, it would be better to do it without consulting Mr. Burges, than, after having done it, to fly as it were in his face. I then sent for the woman, and told her that she might appear with the witnesses at the Common Hall, where the magistrates usually sat on a certain day.
The next day, the mother of Lines, who lived in Bristol, came to see me and told me about the case. I informed her that there was no solid evidence because I had spoken to three seamen who couldn’t testify based on their own knowledge. She mentioned that there were four others in Bristol who could, so I asked her to bring them in. When they arrived, I interviewed each one separately and cross-examined them as best as I could; I found no discrepancies in their stories and was convinced that the murder had occurred. The mother was very persistent in asking me to take on the case. I was so moved by her story that I couldn’t completely refuse, but I didn’t promise anything either; I asked for some time to think it over. During this time, I considered consulting my friend Burges, but I worried he would discourage me like he did with the captain of the Alfred. I remembered well what he had said back then, but I felt a strong urge to move forward since the trade was still ongoing. Every day, it seemed, there was another act of cruelty happening; setting one example could help mitigate the problem for a while. I found myself leaning toward taking action on this issue and thought that if I encountered any trouble, it would be better to proceed without consulting Mr. Burges than to confront him after the fact. I then called for the woman and informed her that she could bring the witnesses to the Common Hall, where the magistrates usually held court on a specific day.
We all met at the time appointed, and I determined to sit as near to the mayor as I could get. The hall was unusually crowded. One or two slave-merchants, and two or three others, who were largely concerned in the West India trade, were upon the bench; for I had informed the mayor the day before of my intention, and he, it appeared, had informed them. I shall never forget the savage looks which these people gave me; which indeed were so remarkable, as to occasion the eyes of the whole court to be turned upon me. They looked as if they were going to speak to me, and the people looked as if they expected me to say something in return. They then got round the mayor, and began to whisper to him, as I supposed, on the business before it should come on. One of them, however, said aloud to the former, but fixing his eyes upon me, and wishing me to overhear him, "Scandalous reports had lately been spread, but sailors were not used worse in Guineamen than in other vessels." This brought the people's eyes upon me again; I was very much irritated, but I thought it improper to say anything. Another, looking savagely at me, said to the mayor, "that he had known Captain Vicars a long time; that he was an honourable manA, and would not allow such usage in his ship. There were always vagabonds to hatch up things;" and he made a dead point at me, by putting himself into a posture which attracted the notice of those present, and by staring me in the face. I could now no longer restrain myself, and I said aloud, in as modest manner as I could, "You, sir, may know many things which I do not; but this I know, that if you do not do your duty, you are amenable to a higher court." The mayor upon this looked at me, and directly my friend Mr. Burges, who was sitting as the clerk to the magistrates, went to him and whispered something in his ear; after which all private conversation between the mayor and others ceased, and the hearing was ordered to come on.
We all gathered at the agreed time, and I decided to sit as close to the mayor as possible. The hall was unusually packed. A couple of slave traders and a few others involved in the West India trade were on the bench; I had informed the mayor the day before about my plans, and it seemed he had told them. I will never forget the hostile looks these people gave me, which were so intense that they drew the attention of the entire court. They appeared as if they were about to address me, while the spectators seemed to expect me to respond. They then huddled around the mayor and started whispering to him, presumably about the case before it began. One of them, however, loudly commented to the earlier speaker while glaring at me, wanting me to overhear, “There have been scandalous rumors lately, but sailors are treated no worse on slave ships than on other vessels.” This drew the attention of the crowd back to me; I was quite annoyed, but I felt it would be inappropriate to say anything. Another one, glaring at me, told the mayor that he had known Captain Vicars for a long time and that he was an honorable manA who would never permit such treatment on his ship. There are always troublemakers trying to stir things up, he said, aimed directly at me, putting himself in a position that caught the attention of those present and staring me down. I could no longer hold back and said, as calmly as I could, “You may know many things I don’t, but I know this: if you neglect your duty, you will answer to a higher authority.” At this, the mayor glanced at me, and immediately Mr. Burges, who was sitting as the clerk to the magistrates, approached him and whispered something in his ear. After that, all private conversations between the mayor and the others stopped, and the hearing was set to begin.
A: We may well imagine what this person's notion of another man's honour was; for he was the purser of the Brothers and of the Alfred, who, as before mentioned, sent the captains of those ships out a second voyage; after knowing their barbarities in the former; and he was also the purser of this very ship Thomas, where the murder had been committed. I by no means, however, wish by these observations to detract from the character of Captain Vicars, as he had no concern in the cruel deed.
A: We can easily picture what this person's idea of another man’s honor was; he was the purser of the Brothers and the Alfred, which, as mentioned before, sent the captains of those ships out on a second voyage after being aware of their atrocities on the first. He was also the purser of this very ship, the Thomas, where the murder took place. However, I don't want to undermine Captain Vicars's reputation with these remarks, as he had no involvement in the horrific act.
I shall not detain the reader by giving an account of the evidence which then transpired. The four witnesses were examined, and the case was so far clear; Captain Vicars, however, was sent for. On being questioned, he did not deny that there had been bad usage, but said that the young man had died of the flux. But this assertion went for nothing when balanced against the facts which had come out; and this was so evident, that an order was made out for the apprehension of the chief mate. He was accordingly taken up. The next day, however, there was a rehearing of the case, when he was returned to the gaol, where he was to lie till the Lords of the Admiralty should order a sessions to be held for the trial of offences committed on the high seas.
I won’t keep the reader waiting by detailing the evidence that came to light. The four witnesses were questioned, and the case seemed clear so far; however, Captain Vicars was called in. When asked, he didn’t deny that there had been mistreatment, but he claimed that the young man had died from dysentery. However, this claim held little weight against the evidence that had emerged; it was so clear that an order was issued to arrest the chief mate. He was subsequently taken into custody. The next day, though, there was a rehearing of the case, and he was sent back to jail, where he would remain until the Lords of the Admiralty arranged a session for the trial of offenses committed on the high seas.
This public examination of the case of William Lines, and the way in which it ended, produced an extraordinary result; for after this time the slave-captains and mates who used to meet me suddenly, used as suddenly to start from me, indeed to the other side of the pavement, as if I had been a wolf, or tiger, or some dangerous beast of prey. Such of them as saw me beforehand used to run up the cross streets or lanes, which were nearest to them, to get away. Seamen, too, came from various quarters to apply to me for redress. One came to me who had been treated ill in the Alexander, when Mr. Falconbridge had been the surgeon of her. Three came to me who had been ill-used in the voyage which followed, though she had then sailed under a new captain. Two applied to me from the Africa, who had been of her crew in the last voyage. Two from the Fly. Two from the Wasp. One from the Little Pearl, and three from the Pilgrim or Princess, when she was last upon the coast.
This public examination of the William Lines case and its outcome had an incredible effect; from that point on, the slave captains and mates who used to encounter me would suddenly pull away, even crossing to the other side of the street, as if I were a wolf, tiger, or some other dangerous predator. Those who spotted me ahead of time would rush down the nearest side streets or alleys to escape. Sailors also came from different places to ask me for help. One approached me, having been mistreated on the Alexander when Mr. Falconbridge was its surgeon. Three came to me, having suffered on the voyage that followed, even though she was now under a new captain. Two reached out from the Africa, having been part of her crew on the last voyage. Two from the Fly. Two from the Wasp. One from the Little Pearl, and three from the Pilgrim or Princess, when she was last along the coast.
The different scenes of barbarity which these represented to me, greatly added to the affliction of my mind. My feelings became now almost insupportable. I was agonized to think that this trade should last another day. I was in a state of agitation from morning till night. I determined I would soon leave Bristol. I saw nothing but misery in the place. I had collected now, I believed, all the evidence it would afford; and to stay in it a day longer than was necessary, would be only an interruption for so much time both of my happiness and of my health. I determined therefore to do only two or three things, which I thought to be proper, and to depart in a few days.
The various scenes of cruelty I witnessed really weighed heavily on my mind. My emotions became almost unbearable. I felt tormented at the thought that this trade could continue for even another day. I was on edge from morning until night. I decided that I would leave Bristol soon. All I saw there was misery. I believed I had gathered all the evidence I could; staying one more day would only disrupt my happiness and health. So, I resolved to take care of just two or three things I deemed necessary and leave in a few days.
And first I went to Bath, where I endeavoured to secure the respectable paper belonging to that city in favour of the abolition of the Slave Trade. This I did entirely to my satisfaction, by relating to the worthy editor all the discoveries I had made, and by impressing his mind in a forcible manner on the subject. And it is highly to the honour of Mr. Crutwell, that from that day he never ceased to defend our cause; that he never made a charge for insertions of any kind; but that he considered all he did upon this occasion in the light of a duty, or as his mite given in charity to a poor and oppressed people.
And first, I went to Bath, where I tried to get the local newspaper to support the abolition of the Slave Trade. I was completely satisfied with my efforts, as I shared all my findings with the dedicated editor and strongly impressed upon him the importance of the issue. It’s a credit to Mr. Crutwell that from that day on, he never stopped advocating for our cause; he never charged for any published pieces; he viewed everything he did in this instance as a duty or a small contribution to help a poor and oppressed community.
The next attempt was to lay the foundation of a committee in Bristol, and of a petition to Parliament from it for the abolition of the Slave Trade. I had now made many friends. A gentleman of the name of Paynter had felt himself much interested in my labours. Mr. Joseph Harford, a man of fortune, of great respectability of character, and of considerable influence, had attached himself to the cause. Dr. Fox had assisted me in it. Mr. Hughes, a clergyman of the baptist church, was anxious and ready to serve it. Dr. Camplin, of the establishment, with several of his friends, continued steady. Matthew Wright, James Harford, Truman Harford, and all the Quakers to a man, were strenuous, and this on the best of principles, in its support. To all these I spoke, and I had the pleasure of seeing that my wishes were likely in a short time to be gratified in both these cases.
The next step was to establish a committee in Bristol and create a petition to Parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade. By now, I had made many friends. A gentleman named Paynter had taken a strong interest in my efforts. Mr. Joseph Harford, a wealthy and highly respected man with significant influence, had committed himself to the cause. Dr. Fox had provided me with support. Mr. Hughes, a Baptist minister, was eager and ready to help. Dr. Camplin, from the established church, along with several of his friends, remained dedicated. Matthew Wright, James Harford, Truman Harford, and all the Quakers were passionately supportive, and this was based on the best of principles. I communicated with all of them, and I was pleased to see that my goals were likely to be accomplished in both these matters soon.
It was now necessary that I should write to the committee in London. I had written to them only two letters during my absence; for I had devoted myself so much to the great object I had undertaken, that I could think of little else. Hence some of my friends among them were obliged to write to different persons at Bristol, to inquire if I was alive, I gave up a day or two therefore, to this purpose. I informed the committee of all my discoveries in the various branches to which my attention had been directed, and desired them in return to procure me various official documents for the port of London, which I then specified. Having done this, I conferred with Mr. Falconbridge, relative to being with me at Liverpool. I thought it right to make him no other offer than that his expenses should be paid. He acceded to my request on these disinterested terms; and I took my departure from Bristol, leaving him to follow me in a few days.
I needed to write to the committee in London. During my time away, I had only sent them two letters because I was so focused on my main goal that I could hardly think of anything else. As a result, some of my friends had to reach out to different people in Bristol to check if I was still alive. So, I dedicated a day or two to this. I updated the committee on all my discoveries in the various areas I had been exploring and asked them to get me some official documents for the port of London, which I listed. After that, I talked with Mr. Falconbridge about joining me in Liverpool. I thought it was fair to offer to cover his expenses only. He agreed to help me on those terms, and I left Bristol, planning for him to catch up with me in a few days.
CHAPTER XVII.
Author secures the Gloucester paper, and lays the foundation of a petition from that city; does the same at Worcester, and at Chester.—Arrives at Liverpool.—Collects specimens of African produce; also imports and exports, and muster-rolls, and accounts of dock duties, and iron instruments used in the Slave Trade.—His introduction to Mr. Norris, and others.—Author and his errand become known.—People visit him out of curiosity.—Frequent controversies on the subject of the Slave Trade.
Author gets the Gloucester paper and starts a petition from that city; does the same in Worcester and Chester. Arrives in Liverpool. Collects samples of African products; also imports and exports, along with muster rolls and accounts of dock fees, as well as iron tools used in the Slave Trade. His introduction to Mr. Norris and others. Author and his mission become known. People come to see him out of curiosity. Lots of debates about the Slave Trade.
On my arrival at Gloucester, I waited upon my friend Dean Tucker. He was pleased to hear of the great progress I had made since he left me. On communicating to him my intention of making interest with the editors of some provincial papers, to enlighten the public mind, and with the inhabitants of some respectable places, for petitions to Parliament, relative to the abolition of the Slave Trade, he approved of it, and introduced me to Mr. Raikes, the proprietor of the respectable paper belonging to that city. Mr. Raikes acknowledged, without any hesitation, the pleasure he should have in serving such a noble cause; and he promised to grant me, from time to time, a corner in his paper, for such things as I might point out to him for insertion. This promise he performed afterwards, without any pecuniary consideration, and solely on the ground of benevolence. He promised also his assistance as to the other object, for the promotion of which I left him several of my Summary View to distribute.
Upon my arrival in Gloucester, I visited my friend Dean Tucker. He was happy to hear about the significant progress I had made since he last saw me. When I shared my plan to connect with the editors of some local newspapers to raise public awareness and with residents of some reputable places for petitions to Parliament regarding the abolition of the Slave Trade, he supported my efforts and introduced me to Mr. Raikes, the owner of the leading newspaper in the city. Mr. Raikes readily expressed his enthusiasm for supporting such a noble cause and promised to give me space in his paper from time to time for the content I suggested for publication. He later followed through on this promise without expecting any payment, purely out of goodwill. He also offered his help for my other goal, for which I left him several copies of my Summary View to distribute.
At Worcester I trod over the same ground, and with the same success. Timothy Bevington, of the religious society of the Quakers, was the only person to whom I had an introduction there: he accompanied me to the mayor, to the editor of the Worcester paper, and to several others, before each of whom I pleaded the cause of the oppressed Africans in the best manner I was able. I dilated both on the inhumanity and on the impolicy of the trade, which I supported by the various facts recently obtained at Bristol. I desired, however, as far as petitions were concerned, (and this desire I expressed on all other similar occasions,) that no attempt should be made to obtain these, till such information had been circulated on the subject, that every one, when called upon, might judge, from his knowledge of it, how far he would feel it right to join in it. For this purpose I left also here several of my Summary View for distribution.
At Worcester, I walked the same path and had the same success. Timothy Bevington, a member of the Quaker community, was the only person I knew there. He took me to meet the mayor, the editor of the Worcester paper, and several others, where I advocated for the oppressed Africans as best as I could. I spoke at length about the cruelty and folly of the slave trade, supporting my points with various facts I had recently gathered in Bristol. However, I insisted, as I did on all similar occasions, that no efforts be made to gather petitions until adequate information on the issue had been spread, so that everyone could understand it and decide for themselves whether they wanted to participate. To encourage this, I also left several copies of my Summary View for distribution.
After my arrival at Chester, I went to the bishop's residence, but I found he was not there. Knowing no other person in the place, I wrote a note to Mr. Cowdroy, whom I understood to be the editor of the Chester paper, soliciting an interview with him, I explained my wishes to him on both subjects. He seemed to be greatly rejoiced, when we met, that such a measure as that of the abolition of the Slave Trade was in contemplation. Living at so short a distance from Liverpool, and in a country from which so many persons were constantly going to Africa, he was by no means ignorant, as some were, of the nature of this cruel traffic; but yet he had no notion that I had probed it so deeply, or that I had brought to light such important circumstances concerning it, as he found by my conversation. He made me a hearty offer of his services on this occasion, and this expressly without fee or reward. I accepted them most joyfully and gratefully. It was, indeed, a most important thing, to have a station so near the enemy's camp, where we could watch their motions, and meet any attack which might be made from it. And this office of a sentinel Mr. Cowdroy performed with great vigilance; and when he afterwards left Chester for Manchester, to establish a paper there, he carried with him the same friendly disposition towards our cause.
After I arrived in Chester, I went to the bishop's house, but he wasn’t there. Not knowing anyone else in town, I wrote a note to Mr. Cowdroy, whom I understood was the editor of the Chester paper, asking for a meeting with him. I explained my goals regarding both topics. When we met, he was really glad that the idea of abolishing the Slave Trade was being considered. Living so close to Liverpool and in a place where many people often traveled to Africa, he was certainly aware of the nature of this brutal trade; however, he had no idea that I had researched it so thoroughly or that I had uncovered such significant details about it, as he discovered in our conversation. He generously offered his help on this matter, and he did so without expecting any payment. I happily and gratefully accepted his offer. It was indeed very important to have a base so near the enemy's territory, where we could keep an eye on their movements and respond to any attacks. Mr. Cowdroy took on this role of a lookout with great care; and when he later left Chester for Manchester to start a paper there, he carried the same supportive attitude toward our cause.
My first introduction at Liverpool was to William Rathbone, a member of the religious society of the Quakers. He was the same person who, before the formation of our committee, had procured me copies of several of the muster-rolls of the slave-vessels belonging to that port, so that, though we were not personally known, yet we were not strangers to each other. Isaac Hadwen, a respectable member of the same society, was the person whom I saw next. I had been introduced to him, previously to my journey, when he was at London, at the yearly meeting of the Quakers, so that no letter to him was necessary. As Mr. Roscoe had generally given the profits of The Wrongs of Africa to our committee, I made no scruple of calling upon him. His reception of me was very friendly, and he introduced me afterwards to Dr. Currie, who had written the preface to that poem. There was also a fourth upon whom I called, though I did not know him. His name was Edward Rushton: he had been an officer in a slave-ship, but had lost his sight, and had become an enemy to that trade. On passing through Chester, I had heard, for the first time, that he had published a poem called West Indian Eclogues, with a view of making the public better acquainted with the evil of the Slave Trade, and of exciting their indignation against it. Of the three last it may be observed, that, having come forward thus early, as labourers, they deserve to be put down, as I have placed them in the map, among the forerunners and coadjutors in this great cause, for each published his work before any efforts were made publicly, or without knowing that any were intended. Rushton, also, had the boldness, though then living in Liverpool, to affix his name to his work. These were the only persons whom I knew for some time after my arrival in that place.
My first introduction in Liverpool was to William Rathbone, a member of the Quaker religious society. He was the same person who, before our committee was formed, had gotten me copies of several muster-rolls of the slave ships based in that port. So, even though we weren't personally acquainted, we weren't strangers to each other. The next person I met was Isaac Hadwen, a respected member of the same society. I had been introduced to him before my trip when he was in London at the annual Quaker meeting, so I didn't need to send him a letter. Since Mr. Roscoe usually donated the profits from The Wrongs of Africa to our committee, I felt comfortable reaching out to him. He welcomed me warmly and later introduced me to Dr. Currie, who had written the preface to that poem. There was also a fourth person I visited, although I didn't know him. His name was Edward Rushton; he had been an officer on a slave ship but lost his sight and became an opponent of that trade. While passing through Chester, I heard for the first time that he had published a poem called West Indian Eclogues, aiming to raise public awareness about the evils of the Slave Trade and stir their outrage against it. Regarding the last three, it's worth noting that they stepped up early as advocates, deserving recognition as I’ve marked them on the map, as pioneers and partners in this significant cause, since each published their work before any public efforts were made or without knowing they were planned. Rushton even had the courage, while living in Liverpool, to put his name on his work. These were the only individuals I knew for some time after I got to that place.
It may not, perhaps, be necessary to enter so largely into my proceedings at Liverpool as at Bristol. The following account, therefore, may suffice:—
It might not be necessary to go into as much detail about my time in Liverpool as I did for Bristol. So, the following summary should be enough:—
In my attempts to add to my collection of specimens of African produce, I was favoured with a sample of gum ruber astringents, of cotton from the Gambia, of indigo and musk, of long pepper, of black pepper from Whidàh, of mahogany from Calabar, and of cloths of different colours, made by the natives, which, while they gave other proofs of the quality of their own cotton, gave proofs, also, of the variety of their dyes.
In my efforts to expand my collection of African products, I received a sample of rubber astringents, cotton from Gambia, indigo and musk, long pepper, black pepper from Whidàh, mahogany from Calabar, and various colorful cloths made by the locals. These not only showcased the quality of their cotton but also demonstrated the diversity of their dyes.
I made interest at the Custom-house for various exports and imports, and for copies of the muster-rolls of several slave-vessels, besides those of vessels employed in other trades.
I made inquiries at the Customs House about various exports and imports, and for copies of the muster rolls of several slave ships, as well as those of vessels involved in other trades.
By looking out constantly for information on this great subject, I was led to the examination of a printed card or table of the dock duties of Liverpool, which was published annually. The town of Liverpool had so risen in opulence and importance from only a fishing-village, that the corporation seemed to have a pride in giving a public view of this increase. Hence they published and circulated this card. Now the card contained one, among other facts, which was almost as precious, in a political point of view, as any I had yet obtained. It stated that in the year 1772, when I knew that a hundred vessels sailed out of Liverpool for the coast of Africa, the dock-duties amounted to 4552l., and that in 1779, when I knew that, in consequence of the war, only eleven went from thence to the same coast, they amounted to 4957l. From these facts put together, two conclusions were obvious. The first was, that the opulence of Liverpool, as far as the entry of vessels into its ports, and the dock-duties arising from thence, were concerned, was not indebted to the Slave Trade; for these duties were highest when it had only eleven ships in that employ. The second was, that there had been almost a practical experiment with respect to the abolition of it; for the vessels in it had been gradually reduced from one hundred to eleven, and yet the West Indians had not complained of their ruin, nor had the merchants or manufacturers suffered, nor had Liverpool been affected by the change.
By constantly looking for information on this important topic, I came across a printed card or table displaying the dock duties of Liverpool, which was published every year. Liverpool had grown so much in wealth and significance from just being a fishing village that the local government seemed proud to showcase this growth. That's why they published and distributed this card. Among the various facts on the card, there was one that was almost as valuable politically as any I had discovered so far. It indicated that in 1772, when I knew a hundred vessels sailed out of Liverpool to the coast of Africa, the dock duties totaled £4,552. In contrast, by 1779, when only eleven vessels were making the same journey due to the war, those duties had increased to £4,957. From these facts taken together, two conclusions emerged clearly. The first was that Liverpool’s wealth, in terms of ship entries and the resulting dock duties, was not reliant on the slave trade; these duties were highest when there were only eleven ships involved in that trade. The second was that there had been a kind of practical test regarding its abolition; the number of vessels had gradually decreased from one hundred to eleven, and yet the West Indians hadn’t complained about being ruined, nor had the merchants or manufacturers suffered, and Liverpool had not been negatively impacted by the change.
There were specimens of articles in Liverpool, which I entirely overlooked at Bristol, and which I believed I should have overlooked here also, had it not been for seeing them at a window in a shop; I mean those of different iron instruments used in this cruel traffic. I bought a pair of the iron hand-cuffs with which the men-slaves are confined. The right-hand wrist of one, and the left of another, are almost brought into contact by these, and fastened together, as the figure A in the annexed plate represents, by a little bolt with a small padlock at the end of it.
There were some items in Liverpool that I completely missed in Bristol, and I thought I would’ve missed them here too if I hadn’t seen them in a shop window. I’m talking about various iron tools used in this brutal trade. I ended up buying a pair of iron handcuffs used to restrain the male slaves. The right wrist of one and the left wrist of another are nearly touching because of these cuffs, and they are locked together, as shown in figure A in the attached illustration.


Figure 5. HANDCUFFS
Figure 5. Handcuffs
I bought also a pair of shackles for the legs. These are represented by the figure B.
I also bought a pair of leg shackles. These are shown in figure B.
The right ancle of one man is fastened to the left of another, as the reader will observe, by similar means. I bought these, not because it was difficult to conceive how the unhappy victims of this execrable trade were confined, but to show the fact that they were so. For what was the inference from it, but that they did not leave their own country willingly; that, when they were in the holds of the slave-vessels, they were not in the Elysium which had been represented; and that there was a fear either that they would make their escape, or punish their oppressors?
The right ankle of one man is fastened to the left of another, as you can see, by similar means. I bought these not because it was hard to imagine how the unfortunate victims of this terrible trade were trapped, but to demonstrate that they were indeed trapped. What can we conclude from this, except that they did not leave their own country willingly; that when they were in the holds of the slave ships, they were not in the paradise that had been promised; and that there was a fear either that they would escape or take revenge on their oppressors?


Figure 6. SHACKLES FOR THE LEGS
Figure 6. Leg Shackles
I bought also a thumb-screw at this shop. The thumbs are put into this instrument through the two circular holes at the top of it. By turning a key, a bar rises up by means of a screw from C to D, and the pressure upon them becomes painful. By turning it further you may make the blood start from the ends of them. By taking the key away, as at E, you leave the tortured person in agony, without any means of extricating himself, or of being extricated by others. This screw, as I was then informed, was applied by way of punishment, in case of obstinacy in the slaves, or for any other reputed offence, at the discretion of the captain.
I also bought a thumb screw at this shop. The thumbs go into this device through the two circular holes at the top. By turning a key, a bar rolls up through a screw from C to D, and the pressure on them becomes painful. If you turn it more, you can make blood ooze from the tips of them. By taking the key away, as shown at E, you leave the person in agony with no way to get out or be helped by others. I was told that this screw was used as a punishment for stubbornness in slaves or for any other perceived offense, at the captain's discretion.
At the same place I bought another instrument which I saw. It was called a speculum oris. The dotted lines in the figure on the right hand of the screw represent it when shut, the black lines when open. It is opened, as at G H, by a screw below with a nob at the end of it. This instrument is known among surgeons, having been invented to assist them in wrenching open the mouth as in the case of a locked jaw; but it had got into use in this trade.
At the same place, I picked up another tool that caught my eye. It was called a speculum oris. The dotted lines in the figure on the right side of the screw show it when closed, and the solid lines show it when open. It opens, like at G H, using a screw below with a knob at the end. This tool is recognized by surgeons and was invented to help them pry open the mouth, such as in cases of locked jaw; however, it has also found its way into this trade.


Figure 7. THUMB SCREW
Figure 7. Thumb Screw


Figure 8. SPECULUM ORIS
Figure 8. Oral Speculum
On asking the seller of the instruments on what occasion it was used there, he replied that the slaves were frequently so sulky as to shut their mouths against all sustenance, and this with a determination to die; and that it was necessary their mouths should be forced open to throw in nutriment, that they who had purchased them might incur no loss by their death.
On asking the seller of the instruments when they were used, he replied that the slaves often got so down that they would refuse to eat, completely resolved to die. He said it was necessary to force their mouths open to give them food, so those who bought them wouldn't suffer any loss from their death.
The town-talk of Liverpool was much of the same nature as that at Bristol on the subject of this trade. Horrible facts concerning it were in everybody's mouth; but they were more numerous, as was likely to be the case where eighty vessels were employed from one port, and only eighteen from the other. The people, too, at Liverpool seemed to be more hardened, or they related them with more coldness or less feeling. This may be accounted for from the greater number of those facts, as just related, the mention of which, as it was of course more frequent, occasioned them to lose their power of exciting surprise. All this I thought in my favour, as I should more easily, or with less obnoxiousness, come to the knowledge of what I wanted to obtain.
The gossip in Liverpool about this trade was pretty much the same as in Bristol. Shocking stories about it were on everyone’s lips, but there were a lot more in Liverpool, which made sense since eighty ships were operating from that port compared to just eighteen from Bristol. The people in Liverpool also seemed a bit more callous, or they shared these stories with less emotion. This might be due to the sheer number of stories, as hearing them more often made them lose their shock value. I thought this would work to my advantage since it would be easier—and less awkward—to find out what I needed to know.
My friend William Rathbone, who had been looking out to supply me with intelligence, but who was desirous that I should not be imposed upon, and that I should get it from the fountainhead, introduced me to Mr. Norris for this purpose. Norris had been formerly a slave-captain, but had quitted the trade, and settled as a merchant in a different line of business. He was a man of quick penetration, and of good talents, which he had cultivated to advantage, and he had a pleasing address both as to speech and manners. He received me with great politeness, and offered me all the information I desired. I was with him five or six times at his own house for this purpose. The substance of his communications on these occasions I shall now put down, and I beg the reader's particular attention to it, as he will be referred to it in other parts of this work.
My friend William Rathbone, who had been keeping an eye out to help me gather information but wanted to make sure I didn’t get taken advantage of and that I talked to the source directly, introduced me to Mr. Norris for that reason. Norris had previously been a slave captain but left that trade and became a merchant in a different business. He was quick-witted and had good skills, which he had developed positively, and he had a pleasant way of speaking and interacting. He welcomed me very politely and offered me all the information I needed. I visited him at his home five or six times for this purpose. I will now summarize the main points from our conversations, and I ask the readers to pay close attention, as they will be referenced in other sections of this work.
With respect to the produce of Africa, Mr. Norris enumerated many articles in which a new and valuable trade might be opened, of which he gave me one, namely, the black pepper from Whidàh before mentioned. This he gave me, to use his own expressions, as one argument among many others of the impolicy of the Slave Trade, which, by turning the attention of the inhabitants to the persons of one another for sale, hindered foreigners from discovering, and themselves from cultivating, many of the valuable productions of their own soil.
With regard to Africa's produce, Mr. Norris listed several items where a new and valuable trade could be established, including black pepper from Whidàh, as mentioned earlier. He presented this as one of many reasons against the Slave Trade, which distracted the locals from exploring and developing the valuable products of their own land by focusing their attention on buying and selling each other.
On the subject of procuring slaves, he gave it as his decided opinion that many of the inhabitants of Africa were kidnapped by each other, as they were travelling on the roads, or fishing in the creeks, or cultivating their little spots. Having learned their language, he had collected the fact from various quarters, but more particularly from the accounts of slaves whom he had transported in his own vessels. With respect, however, to Whidàh, many came from thence who were reduced to slavery in a different manner. The king of Dahomey, whose life (with the wars and customs of the Dahomans) he said he was then writing, and who was a very despotic prince, made no scruple of seizing his own subjects, and of selling them, if he was in want of any of the articles which the slave-vessels would afford him. The history of this prince's life he lent me afterwards to read, while it was yet in manuscript, in which I observed that he had recorded all the facts now mentioned. Indeed he made no hesitation to state them, either when we were by ourselves, or when others were in company with us. He repeated them at one time in the presence both of Mr. Cruden and Mr. Coupland. The latter was then a slave-merchant at Liverpool. He seemed to be fired at the relation of these circumstances. Unable to restrain himself longer, he entered into a defence of the trade, both as to the humanity and the policy of it; but Mr. Norris took up his arguments in both these cases, and answered them in a solid manner.
On the topic of obtaining slaves, he strongly believed that many people in Africa were kidnapped by one another while traveling on roads, fishing in creeks, or farming their small plots of land. Having learned their language, he gathered this information from various sources, particularly from the accounts of slaves he had transported in his own ships. However, regarding Whidàh, many individuals were brought into slavery in a different way. The king of Dahomey, whose life (along with the wars and customs of the Dahomans) he said he was then writing about, was a very authoritarian ruler who had no qualms about capturing his own subjects and selling them if he needed something that slave ships could provide. He later lent me the manuscript of this king's history, where I noticed he had documented all the facts mentioned above. In fact, he was quite open about these claims, whether we were alone or in the company of others. He even repeated them in front of Mr. Cruden and Mr. Coupland, the latter being a slave trader in Liverpool at the time. He seemed quite agitated by this account. Unable to contain himself any longer, he defended the trade, arguing both its humanity and its economic benefits; however, Mr. Norris countered his points on both fronts, responding in a convincing manner.
With respect to the Slave Trade as it affected the health of our seamen, Mr. Norris admitted it to be destructive; but I did not stand in need of this information, as I knew this part of the subject, in consequence of my familiarity with the muster-rolls, better than himself.
With regard to the Slave Trade and its impact on the health of our sailors, Mr. Norris acknowledged that it was harmful; however, I didn't need this information because I was already more familiar with this aspect of the topic due to my experience with the muster-rolls than he was.
He admitted it also to be true, that they were too frequently ill-treated in this trade. A day or two after our conversation on this latter subject he brought me the manuscript journal of a voyage to Africa, which had been kept by a mate, with whom he was then acquainted. He brought it to me to read, as it might throw some light upon the subject on which we had talked last. In this manuscript various instances of cruel usage towards seamen were put down, from which it appeared that the mate, who wrote it, had not escaped himself.
He also acknowledged that they were often mistreated in this line of work. A day or two after our discussion on this topic, he gave me the manuscript journal of a voyage to Africa, kept by a mate he knew at the time. He wanted me to read it because it might provide some insight into the subject we had just discussed. In this manuscript, there were several instances of cruel treatment towards seamen noted, showing that the mate who wrote it had experienced it firsthand as well.
At the last interview we had, he seemed to be so satisfied of the inhumanity, injustice, and impolicy of the trade, that he made me a voluntary offer of certain clauses, which he had been thinking of, and which, he believed, if put into an Act of Parliament, would judiciously effect its abolition. The offer of these clauses I embraced eagerly. He dictated them, and I wrote. I wrote them in a small book which I had then in my pocket. They were these:—
At our last interview, he appeared to be very aware of the cruelty, unfairness, and foolishness of the trade. He even made a voluntary proposal for some clauses he had been considering, which he thought could effectively lead to its abolition if included in an Act of Parliament. I jumped at the chance to accept his offer. He dictated them, and I wrote them down in a small notebook I had in my pocket. They were these:—
No vessel, under a heavy penalty, to supply foreigners with slaves.
No ship, under a severe penalty, is allowed to provide foreigners with slaves.
Every vessel to pay to government a tax for a register on clearing out to supply our own islands with slaves.
Every ship must pay a tax to the government for registration when clearing out to supply our islands with slaves.
Every such vessel to be prohibited from purchasing or bringing home any of the productions of Africa.
Every such ship is prohibited from buying or bringing back any products from Africa.
Every such vessel to be prohibited from bringing home a passenger, or any article of produce, from the West Indies.
Every such ship is not allowed to bring back a passenger or any goods from the West Indies.
A bounty to be given to every vessel trading in the natural productions of Africa. This bounty to be paid in part out of the tax arising from the registers of the slave-vessels.
A reward will be given to every ship trading in the natural resources of Africa. This reward will be partially funded by the tax collected from the registrations of slave vessels.
Certain establishments to be made by government in Africa, in the Bananas, in the Isles de Los, on the banks of the Camaranca, and in other places, for the encouragement and support of the new trade to be substituted there.
Certain establishments will be created by the government in Africa, in the Bananas, in the Isles de Los, on the banks of the Camaranca, and in other locations, to promote and support the new trade that will be introduced there.
Such then were the services, which Mr. Norris, at the request of William Rathbone, rendered me at Liverpool, during my stay there; and I have been very particular in detailing them, because I shall be obliged to allude to them, as I have before observed, on some important occasions in a future part of the work.
Such were the services that Mr. Norris, at the request of William Rathbone, provided for me in Liverpool during my time there. I have gone into detail about these because I will need to reference them, as I mentioned before, on some important occasions later in the work.
On going my rounds one day, I met accidentally with Captain Chaffers. This gentleman either was or had been in the West India employ. His heart had beaten in sympathy with mine, and he had greatly favoured our cause. He had seen me at Mr. Norris's, and learned my errand there. He told me he could introduce me in a few minutes, as we were then near at hand, to Captain Lace, if I chose it. Captain Lace, he said, had been long in the Slave Trade, and could give me very accurate information about it. I accepted his offer. On talking to Captain Lace, relative to the productions of Africa, he told me that mahogany grew at Calabar. He began to describe a tree of that kind, which he had seen there. This tree was from about eighteen inches to two feet in diameter, and about sixty feet high, or, as he expressed it, of the height of a tall chimney. As soon as he mentioned Calabar, a kind of horror came over me. His name became directly associated in my mind with the place. It almost instantly occurred to me, that he commanded the Edgar out of Liverpool, when the dreadful massacre there, as has been related, took place. Indeed I seemed to be so confident of it, that, attending more to my feelings than to my reason at this moment, I accused him with being concerned in it. This produced great confusion among us. For he looked incensed at Captain Chaffers, as if he had introduced me to him for this purpose. Captain Chaffers again seemed to be all astonishment that I should have known of this circumstance, and to be vexed that I should have mentioned it in such a manner. I was also in a state of trembling myself. Captain Lace could only say it was a bad business. But he never defended himself, nor those concerned in it. And we soon parted, to the great joy of us all.
While doing my rounds one day, I bumped into Captain Chaffers. This guy either was or had been involved in the West Indies. He had sympathized with my situation and had supported our cause. He recognized me from Mr. Norris's place and knew why I was there. He told me he could introduce me to Captain Lace in a few minutes since we were close by. Captain Lace had been in the Slave Trade for a long time and could give me accurate information about it. I accepted his offer. When I talked to Captain Lace about the resources from Africa, he mentioned that mahogany grew in Calabar. He started to describe a specific tree he had seen there. It was about eighteen inches to two feet in diameter and around sixty feet tall, or as he put it, about the height of a tall chimney. As soon as he said Calabar, I felt a wave of horror wash over me. His name immediately connected in my mind with the place. I suddenly recalled that he commanded the Edgar out of Liverpool during the terrible massacre that occurred there. I was so convinced of this that, focusing more on my feelings than on logic at that moment, I accused him of being involved in it. This created great confusion among us. He looked furious at Captain Chaffers, as if he had introduced me for that reason. Captain Chaffers seemed completely shocked that I knew about this and was annoyed that I had brought it up like that. I was trembling too. Captain Lace could only say it was a bad situation. But he never defended himself or anyone else involved. We quickly parted ways, and everyone was relieved.
Soon after this interview, I began to perceive that I was known in Liverpool, as well as the object for which I came. Mr. Coupland, the slave-merchant, with whom I had disputed at Mr. Norris's house, had given the alarm to those who were concerned in the trade, and Captain Lace, as may be now easily imagined, had spread it. This knowledge of me and of my errand was almost immediately productive of two effects, the first of which I shall now mention.
Soon after that meeting, I started to realize that I was recognized in Liverpool, along with the reason I had come. Mr. Coupland, the slave trader I had argued with at Mr. Norris's house, had raised the alarm to those involved in the trade, and Captain Lace, as you can easily guess, had spread the news. This awareness of who I was and my purpose quickly led to two outcomes, the first of which I will mention now.
I had a private room at the King's Arms tavern, besides my bed-room, where I used to meditate and to write; but I generally dined in public. The company at dinner had hitherto varied but little as to number, and consisted of those, both from the town and country, who had been accustomed to keep up a connexion with the house. But now things were altered, and many people came to dine there daily with a view of seeing me, as if I had been some curious creature imported from foreign parts. They thought, also, they could thus have an opportunity of conversing with me. Slave-merchants and slave-captains came in among others for this purpose. I had observed this difference in the number of our company for two or three days. Dale, the master of the tavern, had observed it also, and told me in a good-natured manner, that many of these were my visitors, and that I was likely to bring him a great deal of custom. In a little time, however, things became serious; for they, who came to see me, always started the abolition of the Slave Trade as the subject for conversation. Many entered into the justification of this trade with great warmth, as if to ruffle my temper, or at any rate to provoke me to talk. Others threw out, with the same view, that men were going about to abolish it, who would have done much better if they had stayed at home. Others said they had heard of a person turned mad, who had conceived the thought of destroying Liverpool, and all its glory. Some gave as a toast, Success to the trade, and then laughed immoderately, and watched me when I took my glass to see if I would drink it. I saw the way in which things were now going, and I believed it would be proper that I should come to some fixed resolutions; such as, whether I should change my lodgings, and whether I should dine in private; and if not, what line of conduct it would become me to pursue on such occasions. With respect to changing my lodgings and dining in private, I conceived, if I were to do either of these things, that I should be showing an unmanly fear of my visiters, which they would turn to their own advantage. I conceived too, that, if I chose to go on as before, and to enter into conversation with them on the subject of the abolition of the Slave Trade, I might be able, by having such an assemblage of persons daily, to gather all the arguments which they could collect on the other side of our question, an advantage which I should one day feel in the future management of the cause. With respect to the line, which I should pursue in the case of remaining in the place of my abode and in my former habits, I determined never to start the subject of the abolition myself—never to abandon it when started—never to defend it but in a serious and dignified manner—and never to discover any signs of irritation, whatever provocation might be given me. By this determination I abided rigidly. The King's Arms became now daily the place for discussion on this subject. Many tried to insult me, but to no purpose. In all these discussions I found the great advantage of having brought Mr. Falconbridge with me from Bristol; for he was always at the table; and when my opponents, with a disdainful look, tried to ridicule my knowledge, among those present, by asking me if I had ever been on the coast of Africa myself, he used generally to reply, "But I have. I know all your proceedings there, and that his statements are true." These and other words put in by him, who was an athletic and resolute-looking man, were of great service to me. All disinterested persons, of whom there were four or five daily in the room, were uniformly convinced by our arguments, and took our part, and some of them very warmly. Day after day we beat our opponents out of the field, as many of the company acknowledged, to their no small notification, in their presence. Thus, while we served the cause by discovering all that could be said against it, we served it by giving numerous individuals proper ideas concerning it, and of interesting them in our favour.
I had a private room at the King's Arms tavern, in addition to my bedroom, where I would meditate and write; but I usually dined in public. The dinner crowd had mostly stayed the same in terms of numbers and included those from both town and country who had maintained a connection with the place. But now things had changed, and many people came to dine daily just to see me, as if I were some exotic creature from a far-off land. They also thought they could use the opportunity to chat with me. Among others, slave traders and slave ship captains came for this reason. I noticed this increase in our dinner crowd for a couple of days. Dale, the tavern owner, noticed it too and mentioned in a friendly way that many of these guests were there to see me and that I was likely to bring him a lot of business. However, soon things got serious; those who came to see me always brought up the topic of abolishing the Slave Trade. Many defended the trade passionately, perhaps trying to get a rise out of me or provoke me into talking. Others suggested that people trying to abolish it would have done better to just stay home. Some mentioned hearing about someone who had gone insane and wanted to destroy Liverpool and all its glory. Others toasted to the success of the trade, laughing excessively and watching me to see if I would join in. I recognized how things were escalating and thought it wise to make some solid decisions, like whether to change my accommodations or dine in private; if not, I needed to figure out how to respond in these situations. Regarding the idea of changing my lodgings or dining in private, I believed that doing so would show an unmanly fear of my visitors, which they would exploit. I also thought that if I continued as I had been, engaging in conversations about the abolition of the Slave Trade, I could collect all the arguments they had against our stance, which I would find useful for the future of our cause. As for my approach if I stayed in my current surroundings and kept my previous habits, I decided never to bring up the abolition topic myself—never to back down if it was brought up—never to defend it except in a serious and dignified manner—and never to show any signs of irritation, regardless of what provocation I faced. I stuck rigidly to this resolve. The King's Arms became a daily forum for discussions on this topic. Many tried to insult me, but it didn’t work. I found great support in having Mr. Falconbridge with me from Bristol; he was always at the table, and when my opponents scoffed and asked if I had ever been to the coast of Africa myself, he would usually respond, "But I have. I know all your actions there, and what he says is true." His words, spoken by an imposing and determined-looking man, were very helpful to me. All the neutral people, of whom there were four or five present at the table daily, were consistently convinced by our arguments and sided with us, some quite passionately. Day after day, we bested our opponents, as many in the crowd acknowledged, much to their embarrassment, while we were all present. Thus, while we furthered our cause by revealing all the arguments against it, we also helped many individuals gain a better understanding and become more interested in supporting us.
The second effect which I experienced was, that from this time I could never get any one to come forward as an evidence to serve the cause. There were, I believe, hundreds of persons in Liverpool, and in the neighbourhood of it, who had been concerned in this traffic, and who had left it, all of whom could have given such testimony concerning it as would have insured its abolition. But none of them would now speak out. Of these, indeed, there were some, who were alive to the horrors of it, and who lamented that it should still continue. But yet even these were backward in supporting me. All that they did was just privately to see me, to tell me that I was right, and to exhort me to persevere: but as to coming forward to be examined publicly, my object was so unpopular, and would become so much more so when brought into parliament, that they would have their houses pulled down, if they should then appear as public instruments in the annihilation of the trade. With this account I was obliged to rest satisfied; nor could I deny, when I considered the spirit, which had manifested itself, and the extraordinary number of interested persons in the place, that they had some reason for their fears; and that these fears were not groundless, appeared afterwards; for Dr. Binns, a respectable physician belonging to the religious society of the Quakers, and to whom Isaac Hadwen had introduced me, was near falling into a mischievous plot, which had been laid against him, because he was one of the subscribers to the institution for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and because he was suspected of having aided me in promoting that object.
The second effect I experienced was that from then on, I could never get anyone to come forward as a witness to support the cause. I believe there were hundreds of people in Liverpool and the surrounding area who had been involved in this trade and had left it, all of whom could have provided testimony that would have helped end it. But none of them were willing to speak out. Some of them were aware of the atrocities and regretted that it continued. However, even they were hesitant to support me. All they did was privately meet with me to say I was right and encourage me to keep going; when it came to speaking out publicly, my cause was so unpopular—and would become even more so in Parliament—that they feared their homes would be destroyed if they were seen as public supporters of abolishing the trade. I had to accept this; and I couldn’t deny, when I thought about the spirit that had shown itself and the remarkable number of people with a stake in the situation, that they had some justification for their fears. The fact that these fears were not unfounded became clear later on when Dr. Binns, a respectable physician who was part of the Quaker community and whom Isaac Hadwen had introduced me to, nearly fell victim to a malicious plot against him because he was one of the supporters of the abolition of the Slave Trade and was suspected of having helped me promote that goal.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Hostile disposition towards the author increases, on account of his known patronage of the seamen employed in the Slave Trade; manner of procuring and paying them at Liverpool; their treatment and mortality.—Account of the murder of Peter Green; trouble taken by the author to trace it; his narrow escape.—Goes to Lancaster, but returns to Liverpool; leaves the latter place.
Hostility towards the author rises because of his known support for the sailors involved in the Slave Trade; how he hires and pays them in Liverpool; their treatment and death rates.—Details about the murder of Peter Green; the effort the author made to investigate it; his close call.—He goes to Lancaster but then returns to Liverpool; leaves that place afterward.
It has appeared that a number of persons used to come and see me, out of curiosity, at the King's Arms tavern; and that these manifested a bad disposition towards me, which was near breaking out into open insult. Now the cause of all this was, as I have observed, the knowledge which people had obtained relative to my errand at this place. But this hostile disposition was increased by another circumstance, which I am now to mention. I had been so shocked at the treatment of the seamen belonging to the slave-vessels at Bristol, that I determined, on my arrival at Liverpool, to institute an inquiry concerning it there also. I had made considerable progress in it, so that few seamen were landed from such vessels, but I had some communication with them; and though no one else would come near me, to give me any information about the trade, these were always forward to speak to me, and to tell me their grievances, if it were only with the hope of being able to get redress. The consequence of this was, that they used to come to the King's Arms tavern to see me. Hence, one, two, and three, were almost daily to be found about the door; and this happened quite as frequently after the hostility just mentioned had shown itself, as before. They, therefore, who came to visit me out of curiosity, could not help seeing my sailor visiters; and on inquiring into their errand, they became more than ever incensed against me.
It seems that a lot of people would come and see me, out of curiosity, at the King's Arms tavern, and they showed a negative attitude towards me, which was almost turning into open insults. The reason for this, as I've noticed, was the information people had about why I was there. But this hostile attitude was heightened by another thing I need to mention. I had been so disturbed by how the seamen working on the slave ships were treated in Bristol that I decided, when I got to Liverpool, to investigate the situation there too. I had made significant progress, so that few seamen were brought ashore from those vessels without me communicating with them; and even though no one else wanted to talk to me about the trade, they were always eager to speak to me about their issues, hoping for some kind of justice. As a result, they would come to the King's Arms tavern to see me. So, one, two, and three of them could be found almost daily at the door; this happened just as often after the previously mentioned hostility had surfaced as it did before. Therefore, those who came to visit me out of curiosity couldn't help but notice my sailor visitors; and when they asked about their purpose, they became even more enraged with me.
The first result of this increased hostility towards me was an application from some of them to the master of the tavern, that he would not harbour me. This he communicated to me in a friendly manner, but he was by no means desirous that I should leave him. On the other hand, he hoped I would stay long enough to accomplish my object. I thought it right, however, to take the matter into consideration; and having canvassed it, I resolved to remain with him, for the reasons mentioned in the former chapter. But, that I might avoid doing anything that would be injurious to his interest, as well as in some measure avoid giving unnecessary offence to others, I took lodgings in Williamson Square, where I retired to write, and occasionally to sleep, and to which place all seamen, desirous of seeing me, were referred. Hence I continued to get the same information as before, but in a less obnoxious and injurious manner.
The first result of this growing hostility towards me was a request from some of them to the tavern master, asking him not to let me stay. He shared this with me in a friendly way, but he definitely didn’t want me to leave. On the contrary, he hoped I would stay long enough to achieve my goal. I thought it was best to consider the situation; after thinking it over, I decided to stay with him for the reasons mentioned in the previous chapter. However, to avoid doing anything that could harm his business and to minimize offending others, I rented a place in Williamson Square, where I went to write and occasionally sleep, and to which all seamen wanting to see me were directed. From there, I continued to receive the same information as before, but in a less unwanted and harmful way.
The history of the seamen employed in the slave-vessels belonging to the port of Liverpool, I found to be similar to that of those from Bristol.
The history of the sailors working on the slave ships from the port of Liverpool was similar to that of those from Bristol.
They who went into this trade were of two classes. The first consisted of those who were ignorant of it, and to whom generally improper representations of advantage had been made, for the purpose of enticing them into it. The second consisted of those who, by means of a regular system, kept up by the mates and captains, had been purposely brought by their landlords into distress, from which they could only be extricated by going into this hateful employ. How many have I seen, with tears in their eyes, put into boats, and conveyed to vessels, which were then lying at the Black Rock, and which were only waiting to receive them to sail away!
The people who entered this trade fell into two categories. The first group included those who knew nothing about it and had been misled by unrealistic promises of benefits to lure them in. The second group comprised those who had been deliberately put in difficult situations by their landlords, with the help of mates and captains, and could only escape their troubles by taking on this loathsome job. I've seen so many of them, tears in their eyes, being loaded into boats and taken to ships that were docked at Black Rock, just waiting to set sail with them!
The manner of paying them in the currency of the islands was the same as at Bristol. But this practice was not concealed at Liverpool, as it was at the former place. The articles of agreement were printed, so that all who chose to buy might read them. At the same time it must be observed, that seamen were never paid in this manner in any other employ; and that the African wages, though nominally higher for the sake of procuring hands, were thus made to be actually lower than in other trades.
The way they were paid in the local currency was the same as in Bristol. However, this practice wasn't hidden in Liverpool like it was in Bristol. The terms of the agreement were printed out, so anyone interested in buying could read them. It's important to note that sailors were never paid this way in any other job, and although the wages for working in Africa were supposedly higher to attract workers, they actually ended up being lower than in other industries.
The loss by death was so similar, that it did not signify whether the calculation on a given number was made either at this or the other port. I had, however, a better opportunity at this than I had at the other, of knowing the loss, as it related to those whose constitutions had been ruined, or who had been rendered incapable by disease, of continuing their occupation at sea. For the slave-vessels which returned to Liverpool, sailed immediately into the docks, so that I saw at once their sickly and ulcerated crews. The number of vessels, too, was so much greater from this, than from any other port, that their sick made a more conspicuous figure in the infirmary; and they were seen also more frequently in the streets.
The loss from death was so similar that it didn’t matter whether the calculations for a given number were done at this port or the other. However, I had a better chance here than at the other port to understand the loss, especially concerning those whose health had been ruined or who were unable to continue their work at sea due to illness. The slave ships that returned to Liverpool went straight into the docks, so I immediately saw their sick and ulcerated crews. There were also way more vessels from this port than any other, so their sick stood out more in the infirmary, and they were often seen in the streets.
With respect to their treatment, nothing could be worse. It seemed to me to be but one barbarous system from the beginning to the end. I do not say barbarous, as if premeditated, but it became so in consequence of the savage habits gradually formed by a familiarity with miserable sights, and with a course of action inseparable from the trade. Men in their first voyages usually disliked the traffic; and if they were happy enough then to abandon it, they usually escaped the disease of a hardened heart. But if they went a second and a third time, their disposition became gradually changed. It was impossible for them to be accustomed to carry away men and women by force, to keep them in chains, to see their tears, to hear their mournful lamentations, to behold the dead and the dying, to be obliged to keep up a system of severity amidst all this affliction,—in short, it was impossible for them to be witnesses, and this for successive voyages, to the complicated mass of misery passing in a slave-ship, without losing their finer feelings, or without contracting those habits of moroseness and cruelty which would brutalize their nature. Now, if we consider that persons could not easily become captains (and to these the barbarities were generally chargeable by actual perpetration, or by consent) till they had been two or three voyages in this employ, we shall see the reason why it would be almost a miracle, if they, who were thus employed in it, were not rather to become monsters, than to continue to be men.
Regarding their treatment, nothing could be worse. It felt like one brutal system from start to finish. I don’t mean brutal in a premeditated way, but it turned into that because of the savage habits formed by constantly being exposed to terrible sights and by an unavoidable routine tied to the trade. When men went on their first voyages, they typically disliked the trade; if they were fortunate enough to leave it behind, they often avoided developing a hardened heart. But if they went a second or third time, their attitude changed little by little. It was impossible for them to get used to forcibly taking men and women, to keeping them in chains, to witnessing their tears and hearing their sad cries, to seeing the dead and dying, and to having to maintain a strict system amid all this suffering. In short, it was impossible for them to witness the complex mass of misery aboard a slave ship, time and again, without losing their sensitivity or without developing habits of gloom and cruelty that would dehumanize them. Now, if we consider that individuals couldn’t easily become captains—which was where the brutalities typically occurred through either direct action or consent—until they had made two or three voyages, we can understand why it would be almost miraculous if those involved did not become monsters rather than remain human.
While I was at Bristol, I heard from an officer of the Alfred, who gave me the intelligence privately, that the steward of a Liverpool ship, whose name was Green, had been murdered in that ship. The Alfred was in Bonny river at the same time, and his own captain, (so infamous for his cruelty, as has been before shown,) was on board when it happened. The circumstances, he said, belonging to this murder, were, if report were true, of a most atrocious nature, and deserved to be made the subject of inquiry. As to the murder itself, he observed, it had passed as a notorious and uncontradicted fact.
While I was in Bristol, I heard from an officer of the Alfred, who secretly informed me that the steward of a Liverpool ship named Green had been murdered on that ship. At the same time, the Alfred was in Bonny River, and his own captain, infamous for his cruelty as mentioned before, was on board when it happened. He noted that the details surrounding this murder, if the reports were true, were extremely shocking and warranted an investigation. Regarding the murder itself, he remarked that it was widely recognized as a well-known and undisputed fact.
This account was given me just as I had made an acquaintance with Mr. Falconbridge, and I informed him of it; he said he had no doubt of its truth; for in his last voyage he went to Bonny himself, where the ship was then lying, in which the transaction happened: the king and several of the black traders told him of it. The report then current was simply this, that the steward had been barbarously beaten one evening; that after this he was let down with chains upon him into a boat, which was alongside of the ship, and that the next morning he was found dead.
This story was told to me right when I had just met Mr. Falconbridge, and I shared it with him; he said he believed it was true because during his last trip, he went to Bonny himself, where the ship involved in the incident was docked. The king and several local traders mentioned it to him. The rumor at the time was straightforward: the steward had been violently beaten one evening; afterward, he was lowered into a boat alongside the ship with chains on him, and the next morning, he was found dead.
On my arrival at Liverpool, I resolved to inquire into the truth of this report. On looking into one of the wet docks, I saw the name of the vessel alluded to; I walked over the decks of several others, and got on board her. Two people were walking up and down her, and one was leaning upon a rail by the side. I asked the latter how many slaves this ship had carried in her last voyage; he replied he could not tell; but one of the two persons walking about could answer me, as he had sailed out and returned in her. This man came up to us, and joined in conversation. He answered my questions and many others, and would have shown me the ship, but on asking him how many seamen had died on the voyage, he changed his manner, and said, with apparent hesitation, that he could not tell. I asked him next, what had become, of the steward Green. He said he believed he was dead. I asked how the seamen had been used. He said, not worse than others. I then asked whether Green had been used worse than others. He replied, he did not then recollect. I found that he was now quite upon his guard, and as I could get no satisfactory answer from him I left the ship.
Upon arriving in Liverpool, I decided to check out the truth behind the report. Looking into one of the wet docks, I saw the name of the ship mentioned; I walked over the decks of several others and boarded her. Two people were walking back and forth, and one was leaning on a railing. I asked the latter how many slaves this ship had carried on her last voyage; he replied that he didn’t know, but one of the two walking around could answer me since he had sailed on her and returned. This man came over, joined our conversation, and answered my questions along with many others. He would have shown me the ship, but when I asked how many seamen had died on the voyage, he changed his demeanor and, with some hesitation, said he couldn’t tell. I then asked what had happened to the steward Green. He said he believed Green was dead. I inquired about how the seamen had been treated. He stated they weren’t treated worse than others. I then asked if Green had been treated worse than the rest. He replied that he didn’t recall. I realized he was now very cautious, and since I couldn’t get any satisfying answers from him, I left the ship.
On the next day I looked over the muster-roll of this vessel; on examining it, I found that sixteen of the crew had died; I found also the name of Peter Green; I found, again, that the latter had been put down among the dead. I observed, also, that the ship had left Liverpool on the 5th of June, 1786, and had returned on the 5th of June, 1787, and that Peter Green was put down as having died on the 19th of September; from all which circumstances it was evident that he must, as my Bristol informant asserted, have died upon the Coast.
The next day, I checked the crew list of this ship. As I went through it, I noticed that sixteen crew members had died; I also saw the name Peter Green. Again, I found that he had been recorded among the deceased. I also noted that the ship had left Liverpool on June 5, 1786, and returned on June 5, 1787, and that Peter Green was listed as having died on September 19. From all of this, it became clear that, as my contact from Bristol said, he must have died along the coast.
Notwithstanding this extraordinary coincidence of name, mortality, time, and place, I could gain no further intelligence about the affair till within about ten days before I left Liverpool; when among the seamen, who came to apply to me in Williamson Square was George Ormond. He came to inform me of his own ill-usage; from which circumstance I found that he had sailed in the same ship with Peter Green. This led me to inquire into the transaction in question, and I received from him the following account.
Not counting this unusual coincidence of name, death, time, and location, I couldn't get any more information about the situation until about ten days before I left Liverpool. Among the sailors who came to talk to me in Williamson Square was George Ormond. He came to tell me about his own mistreatment; from this, I discovered that he had sailed on the same ship as Peter Green. This prompted me to ask about the incident in question, and he gave me the following account.
Peter Green had been shipped as steward. A black woman, of the name of Rodney, went out in the same vessel; she belonged to the owners of it, and was to be an interpretess to the slaves who should be purchased. About five in the evening, some time in the month of September, the vessel then lying in Bonny river, the captain, as was his custom, went on shore. In his absence, Rodney, the black woman, asked Green for the keys of the pantry, which he refused her, alleging that the captain had already beaten him for having given them to her on a former occasion, when she drank the wine. The woman, being passionate, struck him, and a scuffle ensued, out of which Green extricated himself as well as he could.
Peter Green had been assigned as a steward. A Black woman named Rodney was on the same ship; she was one of the owners and was meant to interpret for the slaves who would be purchased. Around five in the evening, sometime in September, while the ship was docked in Bonny River, the captain, as usual, went ashore. During his absence, Rodney, the Black woman, asked Green for the keys to the pantry, which he refused, claiming that the captain had already punished him for giving them to her before when she drank the wine. The woman, getting angry, hit him, and a struggle broke out, but Green managed to free himself as best as he could.
When the scuffle was over the woman retired to the cabin, and appeared pensive. Between eight and nine in the evening, the captain, who was attended by the captain of the Alfred, came on board; Rodney immediately ran to him, and informed him that Green had made an assault upon her. The captain, without any inquiry, beat him severely, and ordered his hands to be made fast to some bolts on the starboard side of the ship and under the half deck, and then flogged him himself, using the lashes of the cat-of-nine-tails upon his back at one time, and the double walled knot at the end of it upon his head at another; and stopping to rest at intervals, and using each hand alternately, that he might strike with the greater severity.
When the fight was over, the woman went back to the cabin and seemed deep in thought. Between eight and nine in the evening, the captain, accompanied by the captain of the Alfred, came on board. Rodney immediately ran up to him and told him that Green had attacked her. Without asking any questions, the captain beat him severely and ordered his hands to be tied to some bolts on the starboard side of the ship and under the half deck, then flogged him himself. He used the lashes of the cat-o'-nine-tails on his back at one moment and the double-walled knot at the end of it on his head at another, pausing to rest at intervals and alternating hands to strike with greater force.
The pain had now become so very severe, that Green cried out, and entreated the captain of the Alfred, who was standing by, to pity his hard case, and to intercede for him. But the latter replied, that he would have served me in the same manner. Unable to find a friend here, he called upon the chief mate; but this only made matters worse, for the captain then ordered the latter to flog him also; which he did for some time, using however only the lashes of the instrument. Green then called in his distress upon the second mate to speak for him; but the second mate was immediately ordered to perform the same cruel office, and was made to persevere in it till the lashes were all worn into threads. But the barbarity did not close here; for the captain, on seeing the instrument now become useless, ordered another, with which he flogged him as before, beating him at times over the head with the double-walled knot, and changing his hands, and cursing his own left hand for not being able to strike so severe a blow as his right.
The pain had become so severe that Green shouted out and begged the captain of the Alfred, who was nearby, to feel sorry for his tough situation and help him. But the captain responded that he would have treated me the same way. Unable to find anyone to help him, he called on the chief mate; but this only made things worse, as the captain then ordered the mate to whip him too, which he did for a while, although he only used the lashes of the instrument. In his desperation, Green then asked the second mate to advocate for him; but the second mate was immediately told to do the same cruel task and was forced to continue until the lashes were all frayed. But the cruelty didn't stop there; seeing that the instrument had become useless, the captain ordered another one and whipped him again, hitting him occasionally on the head with the heavy knot, switching hands, and cursing his left hand for not being able to deliver a blow as hard as his right.
The punishment, as inflicted by all parties, had now lasted two hours and a half, when George Ormond was ordered to cut down one of the arms, and the boatswain the other, from the places of their confinement; this being done, Green lay motionless on the deck. He attempted to utter something, Ormond understood it to be the word water; but no water was allowed him. The captain, on the other hand, said he had not yet done with him, and ordered him to be confined with his arms across, his right hand to his left foot, and his left hand to his right foot. For this purpose the carpenter brought shackles, and George Ormond was compelled to put them on. The captain then ordered some tackle to be made fast to the limbs of the said Peter Green, in which situation he was then hoisted up, and afterwards let down into a boat, which was lying alongside the ship. Michael Cunningham was then sent to loose the tackle, and to leave him there.
The punishment, as carried out by everyone involved, had now gone on for two and a half hours when George Ormond was told to cut down one of the arms, and the boatswain the other, from where they were tied up; once that was done, Green lay still on the deck. He tried to say something, and Ormond thought it was the word water; but he wasn’t given any water. The captain, however, said he wasn’t done with him yet, and ordered him to be restrained with his arms crossed—his right hand tied to his left foot and his left hand to his right foot. For this, the carpenter brought over some shackles, and George Ormond had to put them on. The captain then ordered some tackle to be secured to Peter Green's limbs, and in that position, he was lifted up and then lowered into a boat that was alongside the ship. Michael Cunningham was then sent to untie the tackle and to leave him there.
In the middle watch, or between one and two next morning, George Ormond looked out of one of the port-holes, and called to Green, but received no answer. Between two and three, Paul Berry, a seaman, was sent down into the boat, and found him dead. He made his report to one of the officers of the ship. About five in the morning the body was brought up, and laid on the waist near the half-deck door. The captain on seeing the body when he rose, expressed no concern, but ordered it to be knocked out of irons, and to be buried at the usual place of interment for seamen, or Bonny Point. I may now observe, that the deceased was in good health before the punishment took place, and in high spirits; for he played upon the flute only a short time before Rodney asked him for the keys, while those seamen, who were in health, danced.
In the middle of the night, between one and two in the morning, George Ormond looked out of one of the port-holes and called for Green, but he got no response. Between two and three, Paul Berry, a sailor, was sent down into the boat and found him dead. He reported this to one of the ship's officers. Around five in the morning, the body was brought up and laid on the deck near the half-deck door. When the captain saw the body after he got up, he showed no concern but ordered it to be freed from its shackles and buried in the usual place for sailors, at Bonny Point. I should mention that the deceased had been in good health before the punishment was carried out and was in high spirits; he had played the flute just a short time before Rodney asked him for the keys, while the healthy sailors danced.
On hearing this cruel relation from George Ormond, who was throughout a material witness to the scene, I had no doubt in my own mind of the truth of it; but I thought it right to tell him at once that I had seen a person, about four weeks ago, who had been the same voyage with him and Peter Green, but yet who had no recollection of these circumstances. Upon this he looked quite astonished, and began to grow angry; he maintained he had seen the whole; he had also held the candle himself during the whole punishment. He asserted that one candle and half of another were burnt out while it lasted. He said also that, while the body lay in the waist, he had handled the abused parts, and had put three of his fingers into a hole, made by the double walled knot, in the head, from whence a quantity of blood and, he believed, brains issued. He then challenged me to bring the man, before him; I desired him upon this to be cool, and to come to me the next day, and I would then talk with him again upon the subject.
Upon hearing this harsh story from George Ormond, who was a key witness to the scene, I had no doubt in my mind about its truth. However, I thought it was important to tell him right away that about four weeks ago I had seen someone who had been on the same trip as him and Peter Green, but this person had no memory of these events. At this, he looked completely shocked and started to get angry; he insisted he had seen everything and that he had also held the candle throughout the entire punishment. He claimed that one candle and half of another had burned down during that time. He added that while the body was lying in the waist, he had touched the injured areas and had put three of his fingers into a hole made by the double-walled knot in the head, from which a lot of blood and, as he believed, brains had come out. He then challenged me to bring the man to him; I asked him to stay calm and to come back to me the next day, and I would discuss the matter with him again.
In the interim I consulted the muster-roll of the vessel again; I found the name of George Ormond; he had sailed in her out of Liverpool, and had been discharged at the latter end of January in the West Indies, as he had told me. I found also the names of Michael Cunningham and of Paul Berry, whom he had mentioned. It was obvious also that Ormond's account of the captain of the Alfred being on board at the time of the punishment tallied with that given me at Bristol by an officer of that vessel, and that his account of letting down Peter Green into the boat tallied with that which Mr. Falconbridge, as I mentioned before, had heard from the king and the black traders in Bonny river.
In the meantime, I checked the ship's muster roll again; I found George Ormond's name. He had sailed on her from Liverpool and was discharged at the end of January in the West Indies, just as he had told me. I also found the names of Michael Cunningham and Paul Berry, whom he mentioned. It was clear that Ormond's story about the captain of the Alfred being on board during the punishment matched what an officer of that ship told me in Bristol, and his account of lowering Peter Green into the boat was consistent with what Mr. Falconbridge, as I mentioned earlier, had heard from the king and the black traders in Bonny River.
When he came to me next day, he came in high spirits. He said he had found out the man whom I had seen. The man, however, when he talked to him about the murder of Peter Green, acknowledged every thing concerning it. Ormond intimated that this man was to sail again in the same ship under the promise of being an officer, and that he had been kept on board, and had been enticed to a second voyage, for no other purpose than that he might be prevented from divulging the matter. I then asked Ormond, whether he thought the man would acknowledge the murder in my hearing. He replied, "that, if I were present, he thought he would not say much about it, as he was soon to be under the same captain, but that he would not deny it. If, however, I were out of sight, though I might be in hearing, he believed he would acknowledge the facts."
When he came to me the next day, he was in great spirits. He said he had found the man I had seen. However, when he talked to this man about the murder of Peter Green, the man confessed everything. Ormond hinted that this man was going to sail again on the same ship under the pretense of being an officer, and that he had been kept on board and coaxed into a second voyage just to prevent him from talking about it. I then asked Ormond if he thought the man would admit to the murder if I were present. He replied that, if I was there, he probably wouldn’t say much since he would soon be under the same captain, but he wouldn’t deny it. However, if I was out of sight, even if I could still hear, he believed the man would confess the truth.
By the assistance of Mr. Falconbridge, I found a public-house, which had two rooms in it: nearly at the top of the partition between them was a small window, which a person might look through by standing upon a chair. I desired Ormond, one evening, to invite the man into the larger room, in which he was to have a candle, and, to talk with him on the subject. I proposed to station myself in the smallest in the dark, so that by looking through the window I could both see and hear him, and yet be unperceived myself. The room, in which I was to be, was one where the dead were frequently carried to be owned. We were all in our places at the time appointed. I directly discovered that it was the same man with whom I had conversed on board the ship in the wet docks. I heard him distinctly relate many of the particulars of the murder, and acknowledge them all. Ormond, after having talked with him some time, said, "Well, then, you believe Peter Green was actually murdered?" He replied, "If Peter Green was not murdered, no man ever was." What followed I do not know. I had heard quite enough; and the room was so disagreeable in smell, that I did not choose to stay in it longer than was absolutely necessary.
With Mr. Falconbridge's help, I found a pub that had two rooms. Near the top of the wall between them was a small window that someone could look through by standing on a chair. One evening, I asked Ormond to invite the man into the larger room, where he would have a candle, so they could talk. I planned to hide in the smaller room in the dark, allowing me to see and hear him without being noticed. The room where I would be was often used for bringing in the dead for identification. We were all in our places at the scheduled time. I quickly realized it was the same man I had talked to on the ship in the wet docks. I distinctly heard him recount many details of the murder, and he admitted to all of them. After some conversation, Ormond asked, "So, do you believe Peter Green was actually murdered?" He answered, "If Peter Green wasn't murdered, then no man ever was." What happened next, I don't know. I had heard more than enough, and the smell in the room was so unpleasant that I didn't want to stay any longer than necessary.
I own I was now quite satisfied that the murder had taken place, and my first thought was to bring the matter before the mayor, and to take up three of the officers of the ship. But, in mentioning my intention to my friends, I was dissuaded from it. They had no doubt but that in Liverpool, as there was now a notion that the Slave Trade would become a subject of parliamentary inquiry, every, effort would be made to overthrow me. They were of opinion also that such of the magistrates, as were interested in the trade, when applied to for warrants of apprehension, would contrive to give notice to the officers to escape. In addition to this they believed, that so many in the town were already incensed against me, that I should be torn to pieces, and the house where I lodged burnt down, if I were to make the attempt. I thought it right therefore to do nothing for the present; but I sent Ormond to London, to keep him out of the way of corruption, till I should make up my mind as to further proceedings on the subject.
I admit I was now completely convinced that the murder had happened, and my first thought was to report it to the mayor and to arrest three of the ship's officers. However, when I mentioned my plan to my friends, they talked me out of it. They strongly believed that in Liverpool, with the growing idea that the Slave Trade would be investigated by Parliament, there would be every attempt to undermine me. They also felt that any magistrates who had a stake in the trade would alert the officers to escape if I asked for warrants for their arrest. Furthermore, they believed that many people in town were already angry with me, and I would likely be attacked, and my place of lodging would be burned down if I tried to act. So, I thought it best to do nothing for now; instead, I sent Ormond to London to keep him away from corruption until I could decide on my next steps regarding the situation.
It is impossible, if I observe the bounds I have prescribed myself, and I believe the reader will be glad of it on account of his own feelings, that I should lay open the numerous cases, which came before me at Liverpool, relative to the ill-treatment of the seamen in this wicked trade. It may be sufficient to say, that they harassed my constitution, and affected my spirits daily. They were in my thoughts on my pillow after I retired to rest, and I found them before my eyes when I awoke. Afflicting, however, as they were, they were of great use in the promotion of our cause: for they served, whatever else failed, as a stimulus to perpetual energy: they made me think light of former labours, and they urged me imperiously to new. And here I may observe, that among the many circumstances which ought to excite our joy on considering the great event of the abolition of the Slave Trade, which has now happily taken place, there are few for which we ought to be more grateful, than that from this time our commerce ceases to breed such abandoned wretches: while those, who have thus been bred in it, and who may yet find employment in other trades, will, in the common course of nature, be taken off in a given time, so that our marine will at length be purified from a race of monsters, which have helped to cripple its strength, and to disgrace its character.
It’s impossible, given the limits I’ve set for myself, and I think the reader will appreciate this for their own sake, that I should reveal the many cases I encountered in Liverpool regarding the mistreatment of seamen in this terrible trade. It’s enough to say that they troubled my health and affected my mood every day. They occupied my thoughts at night when I tried to sleep, and I found them waiting for me when I woke up. Although they were distressing, they played an important role in advancing our cause: they acted as a constant motivator, making me view past efforts lightly, while pushing me firmly toward new ones. And I want to point out that among the many reasons to celebrate the significant achievement of the abolition of the Slave Trade, which has thankfully happened, one of the greatest reasons to be grateful is that, from now on, our commerce will no longer produce such despicable people. Those who were raised in it and might still find jobs in other trades will, as is natural, pass away in time, allowing our maritime industry to eventually be cleansed of a group of individuals that have weakened its strength and tarnished its reputation.
The temper of many of the interested people of Liverpool had now become still more irritable, and their hostility more apparent than before. I received anonymous letters, entreating me to leave it, or I should otherwise never leave it alive. The only effect which this advice had upon me, was to make me more vigilant when I went out at night. I never stirred out at this time without Mr. Falconbridge; and he never accompanied me without being well armed. Of this, however, I knew nothing until we had left the place. There was certainly a time when I had reason to believe that I had a narrow escape. I was one day on the pier-head with many others looking at some little boats below at the time of a heavy gale. Several persons, probably out of curiosity, were hastening thither. I had seen all I intended to see, and was departing, when I noticed eight or nine persons making towards me. I was then only about eight or nine yards from the precipice of the pier, but going from it. I expected that they would have divided to let me through them; instead of which they closed upon me and bore me back. I was borne within a yard of the precipice, when I discovered my danger; and perceiving among them the murderer of Peter Green, and two others who had insulted me at the King's Arms, it instantly struck me that they had a design to throw me over the pier-head; which they might have done at this time, and yet have pleaded that I had been killed by accident. There was not a moment to lose. Vigorous on account of the danger, I darted forward. One of them, against whom I pushed myself, fell down: their ranks were broken; and I escaped, not without blows, amidst their imprecations and abuse.
The mood of many people in Liverpool had become even more tense, and their hostility was more obvious than before. I received anonymous letters urging me to leave, or I risked not leaving alive. This advice only made me more cautious when I went out at night. I never went out during this time without Mr. Falconbridge; and he never accompanied me without being well-armed. I didn’t know this until after we had left the place. There was definitely a moment when I realized I had a narrow escape. One day, I was on the pier with many others, watching some small boats during a heavy storm. Several people, probably curious, were rushing over. I had seen all I wanted to see and was leaving when I noticed eight or nine people approaching me. I was only about eight or nine yards from the edge of the pier, but moving away from it. I expected them to split to let me pass; instead, they surrounded me and pushed me back. I found myself within a yard of the edge when I recognized my danger; spotting the murderer of Peter Green among them, along with two others who had insulted me at the King's Arms, it suddenly hit me that they intended to throw me over the pier. They could’ve done it and claimed it was an accident. There was no time to waste. Driven by the danger, I pushed forward. One of them, whom I shoved, fell down; their formation broke, and I escaped, not without being hit, amidst their curses and insults.
I determined now to go to Lancaster, to make some inquiries about the Slave Trade there. I had a letter of introduction to William Jepson, one of the religious society of the Quakers, for this purpose. I found from him, that, though there were slave-merchants at Lancaster, they made their outfits at Liverpool, as a more convenient port. I learnt too from others, that the captain of the last vessel, which had sailed out of Lancaster to the coast of Africa for slaves, had taken off so many of the natives treacherously, that any other vessel known to come from it would be cut off. There were only now one or two superannuated captains living in the place. Finding I could get no oral testimony, I was introduced into the Custom-house. Here I just looked over the muster-rolls of such slave-vessels as had formerly sailed from this port; and having found that the loss of seamen was precisely in the same proportion as elsewhere, I gave myself no further trouble, but left the place.
I decided to go to Lancaster to gather some information about the Slave Trade there. I had a letter of introduction to William Jepson, a member of the Quaker community, for this purpose. He informed me that, although there were slave merchants in Lancaster, they prepared their ships in Liverpool, which was a more convenient port. I also learned from others that the captain of the last ship that had left Lancaster for the coast of Africa to pick up slaves had taken so many locals in a treacherous manner that any other ship known to have come from there would be attacked. There were only a couple of retired captains living in the area. Since I couldn't get any firsthand accounts, I was taken to the Custom-house. There, I simply looked over the records of slave ships that had previously sailed from this port. After finding that the loss of sailors was about the same as in other places, I didn’t bother further and left.
On my return to Liverpool, I was informed by Mr. Falconbridge, that a ship-mate of Ormond, of the name of Patrick Murray, who had been discharged in the West Indies, had arrived there. This man, he said, had been to call upon me in my absence, to seek redress for his own bad usage; but in the course of conversation he had confirmed all the particulars as stated by Ormond, relative to the murder of Peter Green. On consulting the muster-roll of the ship, I found his name, and that he had been discharged in the West Indies on the 2nd of February. I determined, therefore, to see him. I cross-examined him in the best manner I could. I could neither make him contradict himself, nor say anything that militated against the testimony of Ormond. I was convinced, therefore, of the truth of the transaction; and, having obtained his consent, I sent him to London to stay with the latter, till he should hear further from me. I learnt also from Mr. Falconbridge, that visitors had continued to come to the King's Arms during my absence; that they had been very liberal of their abuse of me; and that one of them did not hesitate to say (which is remarkable) that "I deserved to be thrown over the pierhead."
When I got back to Liverpool, Mr. Falconbridge told me that a shipmate of Ormond named Patrick Murray, who had been let go in the West Indies, had arrived there. He mentioned that this man had come by to see me while I was away to seek justice for his own mistreatment; during their conversation, he confirmed everything Ormond had said about the murder of Peter Green. After checking the ship's muster-roll, I found his name and saw that he had been discharged in the West Indies on February 2nd. I decided I needed to meet him. I questioned him as thoroughly as I could. I couldn't get him to contradict himself or say anything that went against Ormond's testimony. I was convinced, therefore, that the incident was true; and after getting his consent, I sent him to London to stay with Ormond until he heard more from me. I also learned from Mr. Falconbridge that visitors had kept coming to the King's Arms while I was gone; they had been quite vocal in their criticism of me, and one even went so far as to say (which is interesting) that "I deserved to be thrown over the pierhead."
Finding now that I could get no further evidence; that the information which I had already obtained was considerableA; and that the committee had expressed an earnest desire, in a letter which I had received, that I would take into consideration the propriety of writing my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade as soon as possible, I determined upon leaving Liverpool.
Finding that I couldn’t get any more evidence; that the information I had already gathered was significantA; and that the committee had shown a genuine interest, in a letter I received, for me to consider the appropriateness of writing my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade as soon as possible, I decided to leave Liverpool.
A: In London, Bristol, and Liverpool, I had already obtained the names of more than 20,000 seamen, in different voyages, knowing what had become of each.
A: In London, Bristol, and Liverpool, I had already gathered the names of over 20,000 sailors from various voyages, knowing what had happened to each of them.
I went round accordingly and took leave of my friends. The last of these was William Rathbone, and I have to regret, that it was also the last time I ever saw him. Independently of the gratitude I owed him for assisting me in this great cause, I respected him highly as a man: he possessed a fine understanding with a solid judgment: he was a person of extraordinary simplicity of manners. Though he lived in a state of pecuniary independence, he gave an example of great temperance, as well as of great humility of mind: but however humble he appeared, he had always the courage to dare to do that which was right, however it might resist the customs or the prejudices of men. In his own line of trade, which was that of a timber-merchant on an extensive scale, he would not allow any article to be sold for the use of a slave-ship, and he always refused those, who applied to him for materials for such purposes. But it is evident that it was his intention, if he had lived, to bear his testimony still more publicly upon this subject; for an advertisement, stating the ground of his refusal to furnish anything for this traffic upon Christian principles, with a memorandum for two advertisements in the Liverpool papers, was found among his papers at his decease.
I went around and said goodbye to my friends. The last of them was William Rathbone, and I regret to say it was also the last time I ever saw him. Besides the gratitude I felt for his help in this important cause, I held him in high regard as a person: he had a great mind with sound judgment and was extraordinarily straightforward in his behavior. Although he lived independently with his finances, he set an example of both great self-control and humility. But no matter how humble he seemed, he always had the courage to do what was right, regardless of societal customs or prejudices. In his line of work as a large-scale timber merchant, he refused to sell any materials for use in slave ships, turning away anyone who asked for supplies for that purpose. It’s clear that if he had lived longer, he intended to speak out even more publicly on this issue; a notice explaining his refusal to supply materials for this trade on Christian principles, along with a note for two advertisements in the Liverpool papers, was found among his papers after he passed away.
CHAPTER XIX
Author proceeds to Manchester; finds a spirit rising among the people there for the abolition of the Slave Trade; is requested to deliver a discourse on the subject of the Slave Trade; heads of it, and extracts.—Proceeds to Keddleston, and Birmingham; finds a similar spirit at the latter place.—Revisits Bristol; new and difficult situation there.—Author crosses the Severn at night; unsuccessful termination of his journey; returns to London.
Author goes to Manchester; discovers a growing movement among the people for the abolition of the Slave Trade; is asked to give a talk on the topic of the Slave Trade; outlines it and shares excerpts.—Continues to Keddleston and Birmingham; sees a similar movement in Birmingham.—Visits Bristol again; faces a new and challenging situation there.—Author crosses the Severn at night; has an unsuccessful end to his journey; returns to London.
I now took my departure from Liverpool, and proceeded to Manchester, where I arrived on the Friday evening. On the Saturday morning, Mr. Thomas Walker, attended by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Bayley of Hope, called upon me. They were then strangers to me. They came, they said, having heard of my arrival, to congratulate me on the spirit which was then beginning to show itself among the people of Manchester, and of other places, on the subject of the Slave Trade, and which would unquestionably manifest itself further by breaking out into petitions to parliament for its abolition. I was much surprised at this information. I had devoted myself so entirely to my object, that I had never had time to read a newspaper since I left London. I never knew, therefore, till now, that the attention of the public had been drawn to the subject in such a manner. And as to petitions, though I myself had suggested the idea at Bridgewater, Bristol, Gloucester, and two, or three other places, I had only done it provisionally, and this without either the knowledge or the consent of the committee. The news, however, as it astonished, so it almost overpowered me with joy. I rejoiced in it, because it was a proof of the general good disposition of my countrymen; because it showed me that the cause was such as needed only to be known, to be patronized; and because the manifestation of this spirit seemed to me to be an earnest, that success would ultimately follow.
I left Liverpool and headed to Manchester, arriving on Friday evening. On Saturday morning, Mr. Thomas Walker, along with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Bayley of Hope, came to see me. They were strangers to me at the time. They said they had heard about my arrival and wanted to congratulate me on the growing enthusiasm among the people of Manchester and elsewhere regarding the Slave Trade, which would definitely lead to petitions to Parliament for its abolition. I was quite surprised by this news. I had been so focused on my mission that I hadn’t had a chance to read a newspaper since leaving London. Therefore, I had no idea that the public's attention had been drawn to this topic in such a significant way. As for the petitions, although I had suggested the idea in Bridgewater, Bristol, Gloucester, and a couple of other places, I had only done so tentatively and without the committee's knowledge or approval. However, the news, while surprising, filled me with joy. I was happy about it because it showed the goodwill of my fellow countrymen; it indicated that the cause needed only to be recognized in order to gain support, and the emergence of this spirit seemed to be a promising sign that success would ultimately follow.
The gentleman now mentioned took me away with them, and introduced me to Mr. Thomas Phillips. We conversed, at first, upon the discoveries made in my journey; but in a little time, understanding that I had been educated as a clergyman, they came upon me with one voice, as if it had been before agreed upon, to deliver a discourse the next day, which was Sunday, on the subject of the Slave Trade. I was always aware that it was my duty to do all that I could with propriety to serve the cause I had undertaken, and yet I found myself embarrassed at their request. Foreseeing, as I have before related, that this cause might demand my attention to it for the greatest part of my life, I had given up all thoughts of my profession. I had hitherto but seldom exercised it, and then only to oblige some friend. I doubted, too, at the first view of the thing, whether the pulpit ought to be made an engine for political purposes, though I could not but consider the Slave Trade as a mass of crimes, and therefore the effort to get rid of it as a Christian duty. I had an idea, too, that sacred matters should not be entered upon without due consideration, nor prosecuted in a hasty, but in a decorous and solemn manner. I saw besides that, as it was then two o'clock in the afternoon, and this sermon was to be forthcoming the next day, there was not sufficient time to compose it properly. All these difficulties I suggested to my new friends without any reserve. But nothing that I could urge would satisfy them. They would not hear of a refusal, and I was obliged to give my consent, though I was not reconciled to the measure.
The gentleman I just mentioned took me along with them and introduced me to Mr. Thomas Phillips. We started chatting about the discoveries I made on my journey, but soon after they learned I had been trained as a clergyman, they all seemed to come to a consensus that I should give a talk the next day, which was Sunday, about the Slave Trade. I always knew it was my duty to do everything proper to support the cause I had taken on, but I found myself feeling uneasy about their request. As I mentioned before, I had anticipated that this cause would require much of my attention for the rest of my life, so I had set aside any thoughts of returning to my profession. I had hardly practiced it at all, and then only to help out a friend. I also initially questioned whether the pulpit should be used for political purposes, even though I viewed the Slave Trade as a series of crimes, making the effort to eliminate it a Christian obligation. I believed that discussing sacred matters should require careful thought and should be approached in a respectful and solemn way. On top of that, since it was already two o'clock in the afternoon and the sermon was due the next day, I realized I didn’t have enough time to write it properly. I shared all these concerns with my new friends openly. But nothing I said would convince them. They wouldn’t accept a refusal, and I had to agree, even though I wasn’t comfortable with it.
When I went into the church it was so full that I could scarcely get to my place; for notice had been publicly given, though I knew nothing of it, that such a discourse would be delivered. I was surprised, also, to find a great crowd of black people standing round the pulpit. There might be forty or fifty of them. The text that I took, as the best to be found in such a hurry, was the following:—"Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
When I walked into the church, it was so crowded that I could barely make it to my seat; an announcement had been made that I had no idea about, saying there would be a message delivered. I was also surprised to see a large group of Black people gathered around the pulpit. There were probably forty or fifty of them. The passage I picked, as the best option in such a hurry, was this:—"You must not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, since you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
I took an opportunity of showing, from these words, that Moses, in endeavouring to promote among the children of Israel a tender disposition towards those unfortunate strangers who had come under their dominion, reminded them of their own state when strangers in Egypt, as one of the most forcible arguments which could be used on such an occasion. For they could not have forgotten that the Egyptians "had made them serve with rigour; that they had made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; and that all the service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour." The argument, therefore, of Moses was simply this:—"Ye knew well, when ye were strangers in Egypt, the nature of your own feelings. Were you not made miserable by your debased situation there? But if so, you must be sensible that the stranger, who has the same heart, or the same feelings with yourselves, must experience similar suffering, if treated in a similar manner. I charge you, then, knowing this, to stand clear of the crime of his oppression."
I took the chance to show, based on these words, that Moses, in trying to encourage the children of Israel to feel compassion for the unfortunate strangers under their control, reminded them of their own situation when they were strangers in Egypt. This was one of the most powerful arguments he could use in such a situation. They couldn't have forgotten that the Egyptians had "forced them to serve with harshness; that they had made their lives bitter with hard labor, in mixing mortar, making bricks, and all kinds of work in the fields; and that all the work they were made to do was with rigor." Therefore, Moses's argument was simply this: "You know well, when you were strangers in Egypt, how you felt. Were you not made miserable by your degrading condition there? If so, you must realize that the stranger, who shares the same feelings as you, will suffer in the same way if treated in a similar fashion. I urge you, then, knowing this, to avoid the sin of oppressing him."
The law, then, by which Moses commanded the children of Israel to regulate their conduct with respect to the usage of the stranger, I showed to be a law of universal and eternal obligation, and for this, among other reasons, that it was neither more nor less than the Christian law, which appeared afterwards, that we should not do that to others which we should be unwilling to have done unto ourselves.
The law that Moses commanded the Israelites to follow regarding how to treat strangers is a law of universal and eternal obligation. This is for several reasons, one of which is that it is essentially the same as the Christian law that came later: we should not do to others what we wouldn't want done to us.
Having gone into these statements at some length, I made an application of them in the following words:—
Having discussed these statements in detail, I applied them in the following words:—
"This being the case, and this law of Moses being afterwards established into a fundamental precept of Christianity, I must apply it to facts of the present day, and I am sorry that I must apply it to—ourselves.
"This being the case, and this law of Moses being later established as a fundamental principle of Christianity, I have to apply it to the current situation, and I regret that I must apply it to—ourselves."
"And first,—Are there no strangers whom we oppress? I fear the wretched African will say, that he drinks the cup of sorrow, and that he drinks it at our hands. Torn from his Native soil, and from his family and friends, he is immediately forced into a situation, of all others the most degrading, where he and his progeny are considered as cattle, as possessions, and as the possessions of a man to whom he never gave offence.
"And first—are there no outsiders we oppress? I worry the unfortunate African will say that he drinks from the cup of sorrow, and that it is filled by us. Torn away from his homeland, and from his family and friends, he is instantly thrust into the most degrading situation, where he and his descendants are seen as cattle, as property, and as belongings of a man to whom he never did any harm."
"It is a melancholy fact, but it can be abundantly proved, that great numbers of the unfortunate strangers, who are carried from Africa to our colonies, are fraudulently and forcibly taken from their native soil. To descant but upon a single instance of the kind must be productive of pain to the ear of sensibility and freedom. Consider the sensations of the person, who is thus carried off by the ruffians, who have been lurking to intercept him. Separated from everything which he esteems in life, without the possibility even of bidding his friends adieu, beheld him overwhelmed in tears—wringing his hands in despair—looking backwards upon the spot where all his hopes and wishes lay;—while his family at home are waiting for him with anxiety and suspense—are waiting, perhaps, for sustenance—are agitated between hope and fear—till length of absence confirms the latter, and they are immediately plunged into inconceivable misery and distress.
"It’s a sad truth, but it can be clearly shown that many unfortunate people taken from Africa to our colonies are illegally and violently snatched from their homeland. Just discussing one example of this is painful for anyone who values sensitivity and freedom. Imagine the feelings of a person who is taken away by thugs waiting to capture him. He is torn away from everything he values in life, unable even to say goodbye to his friends, overwhelmed with tears—wringing his hands in despair—looking back at the place where all his hopes and dreams lie; while his family at home waits for him with worry and uncertainty—waiting, perhaps, for food—torn between hope and fear—until the length of his absence confirms the fear, and they are plunged into unimaginable sadness and distress."
"If this instance, then, is sufficiently melancholy of itself, and is at all an act of oppression, how complicated will our guilt appear who are the means of snatching away thousands annually in the same manner, and who force them and their families into the same unhappy situation, without either remorse or shame!"
"If this situation is already quite sad on its own, and is even an act of oppression, how complicated will our guilt seem when we are the ones who take away thousands each year in the same way, pushing them and their families into the same unfortunate circumstances, without any remorse or shame!"
Having proceeded to show, in a more particular manner than I can detail here, how, by means of the Slave Trade, we oppressed the stranger, I made an inquiry into the other branch of the subject, or how far we had a knowledge of his heart.
Having gone into more detail than I can explain here about how the Slave Trade allowed us to oppress others, I then looked into the other aspect of the topic, which is how well we understood the feelings of those we oppressed.
To elucidate this point, I mentioned several specific instances out of those which I had collected in my journey, and which I could depend upon as authentic, of honour—gratitude—fidelity—filial, fraternal, and conjugal affection—and of the finest sensibility on the part of those who had been brought into our colonies from Africa in the character of slaves; and then I proceeded for a while in the following words:—
To clarify this point, I referenced several specific examples from my travels that I could rely on as genuine, showcasing honor, gratitude, loyalty, parental, sibling, and marital love, as well as the deepest sensitivity shown by those who had been brought to our colonies from Africa as slaves; and then I continued for a while with the following words:—
"If, then, we oppress the stranger, as I have shown, and if, by a knowledge of his heart, we find that he is a person of the same passions and feelings as ourselves, we are certainly breaking, by means of the prosecution of the Slave Trade, that fundamental principle of Christianity, which says, that we shall not do that unto another which we wish should not be done unto ourselves, and, I fear, cutting ourselves off from all expectation of the Divine blessing. For how inconsistent is our conduct! We come into the temple of God; we fall prostrate before Him; we pray to Him, that He will have mercy upon us. But how shall He have mercy upon us, who have had no mercy upon others! We pray to Him, again, that He will deliver us from evil. But how shall He deliver us from evil, who are daily invading the rights of the injured African, and heaping misery on his head!"
"If we oppress the stranger, as I’ve shown, and if through understanding his heart we realize he shares the same passions and feelings as we do, we are definitely violating the fundamental principle of Christianity, which teaches us not to do to others what we wouldn’t want done to ourselves. I fear we are also cutting ourselves off from any hope of Divine blessing. How inconsistent is our behavior! We enter the house of God; we kneel before Him; we ask for His mercy. But how can He have mercy on us when we show no mercy to others? We ask Him to deliver us from evil. But how can He rescue us from evil when we are constantly trampling on the rights of the injured African and piling misery upon him!"
I attempted, lastly, to show, that, though the sin of the Slave Trade had been hitherto a sin of ignorance, and might, therefore, have so far been winked at, yet as the crimes and miseries belonging to it became known, it would attach even to those who had no concern in it, if they suffered it to continue either without notice or reproach, or if they did not exert themselves in a reasonable manner for its suppression. I noticed particularly, the case of Tyre and Sidon, which were the Bristol and the Liverpool of those times. A direct judgment had been pronounced by the prophet Joel against these cities, and, what is remarkable, for the prosecution of this same barbarous traffic. Thus, "And what have ye to do with me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? Ye have cast lots for my people. Ye have sold a girl for wine. The children of Judah, and the children of Jerusalem, have ye sold unto the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their own border. Behold! I will raise them out of the place whither ye have sold them, and will recompense your wickedness on your own heads." Such was the language of the prophet; and Tyre and Sidon fell, as he had pointed out, when the inhabitants were either cut off, or carried into slavery.
I lastly tried to show that, although the sin of the Slave Trade had mostly been a sin of ignorance and might have been overlooked until now, the crimes and suffering it caused would also fall on those who were not directly involved if they allowed it to continue without notice or criticism, or if they didn’t make reasonable efforts to stop it. I specifically mentioned Tyre and Sidon, which were like the Bristol and Liverpool of those times. A direct judgment was declared by the prophet Joel against these cities, notably for being involved in this same cruel trade. So, "And what do you have to do with me, O Tyre and Sidon, and all the coasts of Palestine? You have cast lots for my people. You have sold a girl for wine. The children of Judah and the children of Jerusalem, you have sold to the Grecians, to remove them far from their own border. Behold! I will bring them out of the place where you sold them, and will repay your wickedness on your own heads." Such was the prophet’s message; and Tyre and Sidon fell, as he foretold, when the inhabitants were either killed or taken into slavery.
Having thrown out these ideas to the notice of the audience, I concluded in the following words:—
Having shared these ideas with the audience, I concluded with the following words:—
"If, then, we wish to avert the heavy national judgment which is hanging over our heads, (for must we not believe that our crimes towards the innocent Africans lie recorded against us in heaven?) let us endeavour to assert their cause. Let us nobly withstand the torrent of the evil, however inveterately it may be fixed among the customs of the times; not, however, using our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness against those, who, perhaps, without due consideration, have the misfortune to be concerned in it, but upon proper motives, and in a proper spirit, as the servants of God; so that if the sun should be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, and the very heaven should fall upon us, we may fall in the general convulsion without dismay, conscious that we have done our duty in endeavouring to succour the distressed, and that the stain of the blood of Africa is not upon us."
"If we want to avoid the serious consequences that are looming over us, (since we must believe that our wrongdoing towards innocent Africans is recorded in heaven), let's strive to support their cause. Let's courageously resist the tide of evil, no matter how deeply embedded it may be in the customs of our time; but we should not use our freedom as a cover for any wrongdoing against those who might be involved in it without fully understanding the situation. Instead, we should act from a place of genuine intention and spirit, as servants of God, so that if the sun turns to darkness, the moon turns to blood, and the very heavens collapse on us, we can face the chaos without fear, knowing that we did our duty in trying to help those in distress and that the shame of Africa's blood does not rest on us."
From Manchester I proceeded to Keddleston in Derbyshire, to spend a day with Lord Scarsdale, and to show him my little collection of African productions, and to inform him of my progress since I last saw him. Here a letter was forwarded to me from the Reverend John Toogood, of Keington Magna in Dorsetshire, though I was then unknown to him. He informed me that he had addressed several letters to the inhabitants of his own county, through their provincial paper, on the subject of the Slave Trade, which letters had produced a considerable effect. It appeared, however, that, when he began them, he did not know of the formation of our committee, or that he had a single coadjutor in the cause.
From Manchester, I went to Keddleston in Derbyshire to spend a day with Lord Scarsdale and show him my small collection of African artifacts, as well as update him on my progress since we last met. While I was there, I received a letter forwarded to me from Reverend John Toogood of Keington Magna in Dorsetshire, even though I was previously unknown to him. He informed me that he had written several letters to the residents of his county through their local newspaper regarding the Slave Trade, and these letters had a significant impact. However, it seemed that when he started writing them, he was unaware of the formation of our committee or that he had a single supporter in this cause.
From Keddleston I turned off to Birmingham, being desirous of visiting Bristol in my way to London, to see if anything new had occurred since I was there. I was introduced by letter, at Birmingham, to Sampson and Charles Lloyd, the brothers of John Lloyd, belonging to our committee, and members of the religious society of the Quakers. I was highly gratified in finding that these, in conjunction with Mr. Russell, had been attempting to awaken the attention of the inhabitants to this great subject, and that in consequence of their laudable efforts, a spirit was beginning to show itself there, as at Manchester, in favour of the abolition of the Slave Trade. The kind manner in which these received me, and the deep interest which they appeared to take in our cause, led me to an esteem for them, which, by means of subsequent visits, grew into a solid friendship.
From Keddleston, I headed to Birmingham because I wanted to stop by Bristol on my way to London to see if anything new had happened since my last visit. In Birmingham, I was introduced by letter to Sampson and Charles Lloyd, brothers of John Lloyd from our committee, who are members of the Quaker community. I was really pleased to discover that they, along with Mr. Russell, had been working to get the locals interested in this important issue. Thanks to their admirable efforts, a movement was starting to form there, similar to what was happening in Manchester, in support of ending the Slave Trade. The warm way they welcomed me and their genuine interest in our cause led me to respect them, which, through later visits, blossomed into a strong friendship.
At length I arrived at Bristol about ten o'clock on Friday morning. But what was my surprise, when almost the first thing I heard from my friend Harry Gandy was, that a letter had been despatched to me to Liverpool, nearly a week ago, requesting me immediately to repair to this place; for that in consequence of notice from the lords of the Admiralty, advertised in the public papers, the trial of the chief mate, whom I had occasioned to be taken up at Bristol, for the murder of William Lines, was coming on at the Old Bailey, and that not an evidence was to be found. This intelligence almost paralyzed me. I cannot describe my feelings on receiving it. I reproached myself with my own obstinacy for having resisted the advice of Mr. Burges, as has been before explained. All his words now came fresh into my mind. I was terrified, too, with the apprehension that my own reputation was now at stake. I foresaw all the calumnies which would be spread, if the evidences were not forthcoming on this occasion. I anticipated, also, the injury which the cause itself might sustain, if, at our outset, as it were, I should not be able to substantiate what I had publicly advanced; and yet the mayor of Bristol had heard and determined the case,—he had not only examined, but re-examined, the evidences,—he had not only committed, but re-committed, the accused: this was the only consolation I had. I was sensible, however, amidst all these workings of my mind, that not a moment was to be lost, and I began, therefore, to set on foot an inquiry as to the absent persons.
At last, I arrived in Bristol around ten o'clock on Friday morning. But I was shocked when the first thing I heard from my friend Harry Gandy was that a letter had been sent to me in Liverpool nearly a week ago, asking me to come here immediately. Due to a notice from the lords of the Admiralty, which was published in the newspapers, the trial of the chief mate—who I had caused to be arrested in Bristol for the murder of William Lines—was happening at the Old Bailey, and there was no evidence to be found. This news nearly paralyzed me. I can’t describe how I felt receiving it. I blamed myself for my stubbornness in ignoring Mr. Burges’s advice, as I mentioned before. All his words came back to me vividly. I was also terrified at the thought that my reputation was now on the line. I could see all the rumors that would spread if the evidence didn’t show up this time. I also worried about how the case itself might suffer if, right at the beginning, I couldn’t back up what I had publicly claimed; yet the mayor of Bristol had heard and decided the case—he had not only examined but re-examined the evidence—he had not just committed but re-committed the accused. This was my only comfort. However, I knew that I couldn’t waste a moment, so I began to investigate the whereabouts of the missing persons.
On waiting upon the mother of William Lines, I learnt from her, that two out of four of the witnesses had been bribed by the slave-merchants, and sent to sea, that they might not be forthcoming at the time of the trial; that the two others had been tempted also, but that they had been enabled to resist the temptation; that, desirous of giving their testimony in this cause, they had gone into some coal-mine between Neath and Swansea, where they might support themselves till they should be called for; and that she had addressed a letter to them, at the request of Mr. Gandy, above a week ago, in which she had desired them to come to Bristol immediately, but that she had received no answer from them. She then concluded, either that her letter had miscarried, or that they had left the place.
While visiting William Lines' mother, I found out from her that two of the four witnesses had been bribed by the slave traders and sent out to sea so they wouldn't be available during the trial. The other two witnesses were tempted as well, but managed to resist. Wanting to provide their testimony, they had gone into a coal mine between Neath and Swansea to support themselves until they were called. She mentioned that she sent them a letter over a week ago at Mr. Gandy's request, asking them to come to Bristol right away, but she hadn't heard back. She concluded that either her letter didn't reach them or they had left the area.
I determined to lose no time, after the receipt of this intelligence; and I prevailed upon a young man, whom my friend Harry Gandy had recommended to me, to set off directly, and to go in search of them. He was to travel all night, and to bring them, or, if weary himself with his journey, to send them up, without ever sleeping on the road. It was now between twelve and one in the afternoon. I saw him depart. In the interim I went to Thompson's, and other places, to inquire if any other of the seamen, belonging to the Thomas, were to be found; but, though I hunted diligently till four o'clock, I could learn nothing satisfactory. I then went to dinner, but I grew uneasy. I was fearful that my messenger might be at a loss, or that he might want assistance on some occasion or other. I now judged that it would have been more prudent if two persons had been sent, who might have conferred with each other, and who might have divided, when they had reached Neath, and gone to different mines, to inquire for the witnesses. These thoughts disturbed me. Those, also, which had occurred when I first heard of the vexatious way in which things were situated, renewed themselves painfully to my mind. My own obstinacy in resisting the advice of Mr. Burges, and the fear of injury to my own reputation, and to that of the cause I had undertaken, were again before my eyes. I became still more uneasy: and I had no way of relieving my feelings, but by resolving to follow the young man, and to give him all the aid in my power.
I decided not to waste any time after hearing this news; I asked a young man, recommended to me by my friend Harry Gandy, to leave immediately and search for them. He was supposed to travel all night and bring them back, or if he was too tired, to send them up without stopping for sleep. It was between twelve and one in the afternoon when I saw him off. Meanwhile, I went to Thompson's and other places to see if any other sailors from the Thomas were around, but despite searching diligently until four o'clock, I couldn't find anything useful. I then had dinner, but I felt uneasy. I was worried that my messenger might get lost or need help at some point. I thought it might have been smarter to send two people who could discuss things together and split up once they reached Neath to check different mines for the witnesses. These thoughts were troubling me. The worries I had when I first learned about the frustrating situation came back to haunt me. My stubbornness in ignoring Mr. Burges's advice, along with the fear of damaging my reputation and the integrity of the cause I had taken on, were fresh in my mind. I grew increasingly anxious, and the only way I could calm my feelings was by deciding to follow the young man and offer him all the support I could.
It was now near six o'clock. The night was cold and rainy and almost dark. I got down, however, safe to the passage-house, and desired to be conveyed across the Severn. The people in the house tried to dissuade me from my design. They said no one would accompany me, for it was quite a tempest. I replied that I would pay those handsomely who would go with me. A person present asked me if I would give him three guineas for a boat. I replied I would. He could not for shame retract. He went out, and in about half an hour brought a person with him. We were obliged to have a lanthorn as far as the boat. We got on board, and went off. But such a passage I had never before witnessed. The wind was furious. The waves ran high. I could see nothing but white foam. The boat, also, was tossed up and down in such a manner that it was with great difficulty I could keep my seat. The rain, too, poured down in such torrents that we were all of us presently wet through. We had been, I apprehend, more than an hour in this situation, when the boatmen began to complain of cold and weariness. I saw, also, that they began to be uneasy, for they did not know where they were. They had no way of forming any judgment about their course, but by knowing the point from whence the wind blew, and by keeping the boat in a relative position towards it. I encouraged them as well as I could, though I was beginning to be uneasy myself, and also sick. In about a quarter of an hour they began to complain again. They said they could pull no longer. They acknowledged, however, that they were getting nearer to the shore, though on what part of it they could not tell. I could do nothing but bid them hope. They then began to reproach themselves for having come out with me. I told them I had not forced them, but that it was a matter of their own choice. In the midst of this conversation I informed them that I thought I saw either a star or a light straight forward. They both looked at it and pronounced it to be a light, and added with great joy that it must be a light in the Passage-house; and so we found it; for in about ten minutes afterwards we landed, and, on reaching the house, learnt that a servant maid had been accidentally talking to some other person on the stair-case, near a window, with a candle in her hand, and that the light had appeared to us from that circumstance.
It was almost six o'clock. The night was cold, rainy, and nearly dark. I got down to the passage house safely and asked to be taken across the Severn. The people in the house tried to talk me out of it. They said no one would go with me because it was quite a storm. I said I would pay anyone handsomely who would come with me. Someone there asked if I would give him three guineas for a boat. I agreed. He couldn’t back out in shame. He went out and returned in about half an hour with someone else. We needed a lantern to get to the boat. We boarded the boat and headed off. But I had never experienced such a crossing before. The wind was fierce, and the waves were high. All I could see was white foam. The boat was tossed up and down so much that it was really hard to stay seated. The rain poured down in such torrents that we were all soaked through. We had been in this situation for I think more than an hour when the boatmen started complaining about the cold and exhaustion. I noticed they were feeling uneasy because they didn’t know where they were. They had no way to judge their course except by knowing the direction of the wind and keeping the boat aligned with it. I encouraged them as best as I could, even though I was starting to feel uneasy and nauseous myself. About fifteen minutes later, they complained again, saying they couldn’t row any longer. They admitted they were getting closer to the shore, but they couldn’t tell which part. All I could do was tell them to hold on to hope. They started blaming themselves for coming out with me. I told them I hadn’t forced them, it was their choice. In the middle of this conversation, I thought I saw either a star or a light straight ahead. They both looked and agreed it was a light, adding with great joy that it must be from the passage house. And so it was; about ten minutes later we landed, and when we got to the house, we learned that a maid had been talking to someone on the staircase near a window, holding a candle, and that was the light we had seen.
It was now near eleven o'clock. My messenger, it appeared, had arrived safe about five in the evening, and had proceeded on his route. I was very cold on my arrival, and sick also. There seemed to be a chilliness all over me, both within and without. Indeed I had not a dry thread about me. I took some hot brandy and water, and went to bed; but desired, as soon as my clothes were thoroughly dried, to be called up, that I might go forward. This happened at about two in the morning, when I got up. I took my breakfast by the fire-side. I then desired the post-boy, if he should meet any persons on the road, to stop and inform me, as I did not know whether the witnesses might not be coming up by themselves, and whether they might not have passed my messenger without knowing his errand. Having taken these precautions, I departed. I travelled on, but we met no one. I traced, however, my messenger through Newport, Cardiff, and Cowbridge. I was assured, also, that he had not passed me on his return; nor had any of those passed me whom he was seeking. At length, when I was within about two miles of Neath I met him. He had both the witnesses under his care. This was a matter of great joy to me. I determined to return with them. It was now nearly two in the afternoon. I accordingly went back, but we did not reach the Passage-house again till nearly two the next morning.
It was almost eleven o'clock. My messenger had arrived safely around five in the evening and continued on his way. I felt really cold when I got there, and I was also feeling sick. There was a chill all over me, both inside and out. In fact, I was completely soaked. I had some hot brandy and water and went to bed, but I asked to be woken up as soon as my clothes were all dry so I could continue on my journey. This happened around two in the morning when I got up. I had my breakfast by the fire. I then asked the post-boy to stop and give me a heads-up if he saw anyone on the road, as I wasn't sure if the witnesses were coming on their own and whether they might have passed my messenger without realizing what he was doing. After taking these precautions, I left. I traveled on, but we didn't encounter anyone. However, I tracked my messenger through Newport, Cardiff, and Cowbridge. I was also assured that he hadn’t passed me on his way back, nor had any of the people he was looking for. Finally, when I was about two miles from Neath, I met him. He had both witnesses with him. This was a great relief for me. I decided to return with them. It was nearly two in the afternoon. I went back, but we didn’t reach the Passage-house again until almost two the next morning.
During our journey, neither the wind nor the rain had much abated. It was quite dark on our arrival. We found only one person, and he had been sitting up in expectation of us. It was in vain that I asked him for a boat to put us across the water. He said all the boatmen were in bed; and, if they were up, he was sure that none of them would venture out. It was thought a mercy by all of them that we were not lost last night. Difficulties were also started about horses to take us another way. Unable, therefore, to proceed, we took refreshment and went to bed.
During our journey, neither the wind nor the rain had let up much. It was quite dark by the time we arrived. We found only one person, and he had been waiting for us. I asked him for a boat to take us across the water, but he said all the boatmen were asleep; and even if they were awake, he was sure none of them would risk going out. Everyone considered it a blessing that we hadn't gotten lost the previous night. There were also issues raised about horses to take us another way. Unable to move forward, we had something to eat and then went to bed.
We arrived at Bristol between nine and ten the next morning; but I was so ill that I could go no further; I had been cold and shivering ever since my first passage across the Severn; and I had now a violent sore throat and a fever with it. All I could do was to see the witnesses off for London, and to assign them to the care of an attorney, who should conduct them to the trial. For this purpose I gave them a letter to a friend of the name of Langdale. I saw them depart. The mother of William Lines accompanied them. By a letter received on Tuesday, I learnt that they had not arrived in town till Monday morning at three o'clock; that at about nine or ten they found out the office of Mr. Langdale; that, on inquiring for him, they heard he was in the country, but that he would be home at noon; that, finding he had not then arrived, they acquainted his clerk with the nature of their business, and opened my letter to show him the contents of it; that the clerk went with them to consult some other person on the subject, when he conveyed them to the Old Bailey; but that, on inquiring at the proper place about the introduction of the witnesses, he learnt that the chief mate had been brought to the bar in the morning, and, no person then appearing against him, that he had been discharged by proclamation. Such was the end of all my anxiety and labour in this affair. I was very ill when I received the letter; but I saw the necessity of bearing up against the disappointment, and I endeavoured to discharge the subject from my mind with the following wish, that the narrow escape which the chief mate had experienced, and which was entirely owing to the accidental circumstances now explained, might have the effect, under Providence, of producing in him a deep contrition for his offence, and of awakening him to a serious attention to his future lifeA.
We got to Bristol between nine and ten the next morning; but I felt so sick that I couldn’t go any further. I had been cold and shivering since my first trip across the Severn, and now I had a terrible sore throat and a fever. All I could do was send the witnesses off to London and hand them over to a lawyer who would take them to the trial. For this reason, I gave them a letter to a friend named Langdale. I saw them leave. William Lines' mother went with them. From a letter I got on Tuesday, I learned that they didn’t reach the city until Monday morning at three o'clock; that around nine or ten they found Mr. Langdale’s office; that when they asked for him, they were told he was out of town but would be back by noon; that when he hadn’t arrived yet, they informed his clerk about their business and opened my letter to show him its contents; that the clerk went with them to consult someone else on the matter and took them to the Old Bailey; but upon checking in the right place about the introduction of the witnesses, he found out the chief mate had been brought to the bar that morning and, since no one appeared against him, he had been released by proclamation. That was the end of all my worries and efforts in this matter. I felt very ill when I got the letter; but I knew I had to hold up against the disappointment, and I tried to push the issue from my mind with this hope: that the narrow escape the chief mate had experienced, which was entirely due to the random circumstances just explained, would lead him to truly regret his actions and make him seriously consider his future life.A
A: He had undoubtedly a narrow escape; for Mr. Langdale's clerk had learnt that he had no evidence to produce in his favour. The slave-merchants, it seems, had counted most upon bribing those who were to come against him, to disappear.
A: He definitely had a close call; because Mr. Langdale's clerk had found out that he had no evidence to support his case. The slave traders, it turns out, relied heavily on bribing those who were meant to testify against him to vanish.
I was obliged to remain in Bristol a few days longer in consequence of my illness; but as soon as I was able I reached London, when I attended a sitting of the committee after an absence of more than five months. At this committee it was strongly recommended to me to publish a second edition of my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and to insert such of the facts in it in their proper places, out of those collected in my late travels, as I might judge to be productive of an interesting effect. There appeared, also, an earnest desire in the committee, that, directly after this, I should begin my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade.
I had to stay in Bristol a few days longer because I was ill; but as soon as I was feeling better, I made my way to London, where I attended a committee meeting after being away for over five months. At this meeting, they strongly encouraged me to publish a second edition of my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and to include relevant facts from my recent travels in the appropriate sections that I thought would be interesting. The committee also expressed a strong desire for me to start working on my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade right after that.
In compliance with their wishes, I determined upon both these works; but I resolved to retire into the country, that, by being subject to less interruption there, I might the sooner finish them. It was proper, however, that I should settle many things in London before I took my departure from it; and, among these, that I should find out George Ormond and Patrick Murray, whom I had sent from Liverpool on account of the information they had given me relative to the murder of Peter Green. I saw no better way than to take them before Sir Sampson Wright, who was then at the head of the police of the metropolis. He examined and cross-examined them several times, and apart from each other. He then desired their evidence to be drawn up in the form of depositions, copies of which he gave to me. He had no doubt that the murder would be proved. The circumstances of the deceased being in good health at nine o'clock in the evening, and of his severe sufferings till eleven, and of the nature of the wounds discovered to have been made on his person, and of his death by one in the morning, could never, he said, be done away by any evidence who should state that he had been subject to other disorders which might have occasioned his decease. He found himself, therefore, compelled to apply to the magistrates of Liverpool, for the apprehension of three of the principal officers of the ship; but the answer was that the ship had sailed, and that they whose names had been specified were then, none of them, to be found in Liverpool.
Following their wishes, I decided to work on both projects; however, I planned to head out to the countryside where I could focus better and finish them sooner. Before leaving London, though, I needed to take care of several things, including locating George Ormond and Patrick Murray, who I had sent from Liverpool due to the information they provided about the murder of Peter Green. I thought the best option was to bring them in front of Sir Sampson Wright, who was then leading the city's police. He interviewed and cross-examined them multiple times, separately. Afterward, he requested their testimonies to be written up as depositions, of which he gave me copies. He was confident that the murder would be proven. He pointed out that the fact the victim was healthy at nine o'clock in the evening, suffered intensely until eleven, had distinct wounds on his body, and died by one in the morning could not be dismissed by any evidence suggesting he had other illnesses that might have led to his death. As a result, he felt compelled to ask the magistrates in Liverpool to arrest three of the ship's main officers, but the response was that the ship had already left, and none of the named individuals could be found in Liverpool at that time.
It was now for me to consider whether I would keep the two witnesses, Ormond and Murray, for a year, or perhaps longer, at my own expense, and run the hazard of the death of the officers in the interim, and of other calculable events. I had felt so deeply for the usage of the seamen in this cruel traffic, which indeed had embittered all my journey, that I had no less than nine prosecutions at law upon my hands on their account, and nineteen witnesses detained at my own cost. The committee in London could give me no assistance in these cases. They were the managers of the public purse for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and any expenses of this kind were neither within the limits of their object, nor within the pale of their duty. From the individuals belonging to it, I picked up a few guineas by way of private subscription, and this was all. But a vast load still remained upon me, and such as had occasioned uneasiness to my mind. I thought it, therefore, imprudent to detain the evidences for this purpose for so long a time, and I sent them back to Liverpool. I commenced, however, a prosecution against the captain at common law for his barbarous usage of them, and desired that it might be pushed on as vigorously as possible; and the result was, that his attorney was so alarmed, particularly after knowing what had been done by Sir Sampson Wright, that he entered into a compromise to pay all the expenses of the suit hitherto incurred, and to give Ormond and Murray a sum of money as damages for the injury which they themselves had sustained. This compromise was acceded to. The men received the money, and signed the release, (of which I insisted upon a copy,) and went to sea again in another trade, thanking me for my interference in their behalf. But by this copy, which I have now in my possession, it appears that care was taken by the captain's attorney to render their future evidence in the case of Peter Green almost impracticable; for it was there wickedly stated, "that George Ormond and Patrick Murray did then and there bind themselves in certain penalties that they would neither encourage nor support any action at law against the said captain, by or at the suit or prosecution of any other of the seamen now or late on board the said ship, and that they released the said captain also from all manner of actions, suits, and cause and causes of action, informations, prosecutions, and other proceedings which they then had, or ever had, or could or might have, by reason of the said assaults upon their own persons, or other wrongs or injuries done by the said captain heretofore and to the date of this releaseA."
It was now for me to think about whether I should keep the two witnesses, Ormond and Murray, for a year, or maybe even longer, at my own expense, risking the potential death of the officers in the meantime and other foreseeable events. I had felt so strongly about the treatment of the sailors in this brutal trade, which had indeed soured my entire journey, that I had a total of nine legal cases on my hands for their benefit, and I was covering the costs for nineteen witnesses. The committee in London couldn’t help me with these cases. They were tasked with managing the public funds for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and any expenses like these weren't part of their mission or responsibilities. From the individuals involved, I managed to collect a few guineas through private donations, and that was it. However, a significant burden still weighed on me, which had caused me distress. Therefore, I deemed it impractical to hold onto the testimonies for so long and sent them back to Liverpool. However, I initiated a common law lawsuit against the captain for his brutal treatment of them and asked for it to be pursued with the utmost urgency; the outcome was that his attorney was so concerned, especially after learning about what Sir Sampson Wright had done, that he agreed to pay all the legal costs incurred up to that point and to compensate Ormond and Murray with money for the harm they had suffered. This settlement was accepted. The men received the money and signed the release, (of which I insisted on having a copy), and returned to sea in another trade, thanking me for my efforts on their behalf. But by this copy, which I now have, it’s clear that the captain's attorney took measures to make their future testimony in the case of Peter Green virtually impossible; it was stated there, in a malicious manner, "that George Ormond and Patrick Murray did then and there bind themselves in certain penalties that they would neither encourage nor support any legal action against the said captain, by or at the suit or prosecution of any other of the seamen currently or formerly on board the said ship, and that they released the said captain from all types of actions, suits, and causes of action, information, prosecutions, and other legal proceedings that they then had, or ever had, or could or might have, due to the assaults on their own persons, or other wrongs or injuries done by the said captain up to the date of this releaseA."
A: None of the nine actions before mentioned ever came to a trial; but they were all compromised by paying sums to the injured parties.
A: None of the nine actions mentioned earlier ever went to trial; instead, they were all settled by paying amounts to the injured parties.
CHAPTER XX
Labours of the committee during the author's journey; Quakers the first to notice its institution; General Baptists the next.—Correspondence opened with American societies for Abolition.—First individual who addressed the committee was Mr. William Smith.—Thanks voted to Ramsay.—Committee prepares lists of persons to whom to send its publications; Barclay, Taylor, and Wedgewood, elected members of the committee.—Letters from Brissot and others.—Granville Sharp elected chairman,—Seal ordered to be engraved.—Letters from different correspondents, as they offered their services to the committee.
Work of the committee during the author's journey; Quakers were the first to notice its establishment; General Baptists followed next. — Correspondence started with American abolitionist organizations. — The first person to address the committee was Mr. William Smith. — Thanks were given to Ramsay. — The committee put together lists of people to send its publications to; Barclay, Taylor, and Wedgewood were elected as committee members. — Letters came in from Brissot and others. — Granville Sharp was elected chair; a seal was ordered to be engraved. — Letters from various correspondents as they offered their support to the committee.
The committee, during my absence, had attended regularly at their posts; they had been both vigilant and industrious; they were, in short, the persons who had been the means of raising the public spirit which I had observed first at Manchester, and afterwards as I journeyed on. It will be proper, therefore, that I should now say something of their labours, and of the fruits of them: and if, in doing this, I should be more minute for a few pages than some would wish, I must apologize for myself by saying, that there are others who would be sorry to lose the knowledge of the particular manner in which the foundation was laid, and the superstructure advanced, of a work which will make so brilliant an appearance in our history, as that of the abolition of the Slave Trade.
The committee, while I was away, consistently fulfilled their responsibilities; they were both watchful and hardworking; in short, they were the ones who inspired the public spirit that I first noticed in Manchester and later as I continued my journey. It’s appropriate for me to now discuss their efforts and the results of those efforts: and if I go into more detail for a few pages than some might prefer, I apologize, but I believe there are others who would regret not knowing the specific ways in which the foundation was established and the progress made on a project that will stand out prominently in our history, like the abolition of the Slave Trade.
The committee having dispersed five hundred circular letters, giving an account of their institution in London and its neighbourhood, the Quakers were the first to notice it. This they did in their yearly epistle, of which the following is an extract:—"We have also thankfully to believe there is a growing attention in many, not of our religious society, to the subject of negro slavery; and that the minds of the people are more and more enlarged to consider it as an aggregate of every species of evil, and to see the utter inconsistency of upholding it by the authority of any nation whatever, especially of such as punish, with loss of life, crimes whose magnitude bears scarce any proportion to this complicated iniquity."
The committee sent out five hundred circular letters to share information about their organization in London and the surrounding area. The Quakers were the first to take notice. They mentioned this in their annual letter, of which the following is an excerpt:—"We are also grateful to see a growing interest among many people, not just from our religious group, regarding the issue of slavery. More and more, individuals are recognizing it as a collection of every type of evil and are beginning to understand how completely inconsistent it is to support it under the authority of any nation, especially those that punish crimes, which are minor in comparison to this complex wrongdoing, with the death penalty."
The General Baptists were the next; for on the 22nd of June, Stephen Lowdell and Dan Taylor attended as a deputation from the annual meeting of that religious body, to inform the committee, that those whom they represented approved their proceedings, and that they would countenance the object of their institution.
The General Baptists were next; on June 22nd, Stephen Lowdell and Dan Taylor came as representatives from the annual meeting of that religious group to inform the committee that the people they represented supported their actions and would endorse the goals of their organization.
The first individual who addressed the committee was Mr. William Smith, the late member for Norwich. In his letter, he expressed the pleasure he had received in finding persons associated in the support of a cause in which he himself had taken a deep interest. He gave them advice as to their future plans. He promised them all the co-operation in his power: and he exhorted them not to despair, even if their first attempt should be unsuccessful; "for consolation," says he, "will not be wanting. You may rest satisfied that the attempt will be productive of some good; that the fervent wishes of the righteous will be on your side, and that the blessing of those who are ready to perish will fall upon you." And as Mr. Smith was the first person to address the committee as an individual after its formation, so, next to Mr. Wilberforce and the members of it, he gave the most time and attention to the promotion of the cause.
The first person to speak to the committee was Mr. William Smith, the former member for Norwich. In his letter, he shared how pleased he was to see others supporting a cause that he deeply cared about. He offered them advice on their future plans and promised to give them all the support he could. He encouraged them not to lose hope, even if their first attempt didn't work out; "because," he said, "you will find comfort. You can be confident that your efforts will lead to some good, that the sincere hopes of the righteous will be with you, and that the blessings of those who are struggling will be upon you." And as Mr. Smith was the first individual to speak to the committee after it was formed, he also dedicated more time and attention to promoting the cause than anyone else, except for Mr. Wilberforce and the committee members.
On the 5th of July, the committee opened a correspondence, by means of William Dillwyn, with the societies of Philadelphia and New York, of whose institution an account has been given. At this sitting a due sense was signified of the services of Mr. Ramsay, and a desire of his friendly communications when convenient.
On July 5th, the committee started communicating, through William Dillwyn, with the societies in Philadelphia and New York, which had already been mentioned. During this meeting, they expressed their appreciation for Mr. Ramsay's contributions and their wish to keep in touch with him whenever he's available.
The two next meetings were principally occupied in making out lists of the names of persons in the country, to whom the committee should send their publications for distribution. For this purpose, every member was to bring in an account of those whom he knew personally, and whom he believed not only to be willing, but qualified on account of their judgment and the weight of their character, to take an useful part in the work which was to be assigned to them. It is a remarkable circumstance, that when the lists were arranged, the committee, few as they were, found they had friends in no less than thirty-nine countiesA, in each of which there were several, so that a knowledge of their institution could now be soon diffusively spread.
The next two meetings mostly focused on creating lists of people in the country to whom the committee would send their publications for distribution. For this, every member was asked to provide a list of individuals they personally knew and believed were not only willing but also qualified due to their judgment and integrity to contribute meaningfully to the tasks assigned to them. It’s noteworthy that when the lists were finalized, the committee, though small in number, realized they had connections in no less than thirty-nine countiesA, each containing several potential contacts, making it possible for their organization to spread the word quickly.
A: The Quakers, by means of their discipline, have a greater personal knowledge of each other, than the members of any other religious society. But two-thirds of the committee were Quakers, and hence the circumstance is explained. Hence also nine-tenths of our first coadjutors were Quakers.
A: The Quakers, through their practices, have a deeper personal understanding of each other than members of any other religious group. However, two-thirds of the committee were Quakers, which explains this situation. This also accounts for the fact that nine-tenths of our initial collaborators were Quakers.
The committee having now fixed upon their correspondents, ordered five hundred of the circular letters which have been before mentioned, and five thousand of the Summary View, an account of which has been given also, to be printed.
The committee has now chosen their correspondents and ordered five hundred of the previously mentioned circular letters, along with five thousand copies of the Summary View, which has also been discussed, to be printed.
On account of the increase of business, which was expected in consequence of the circulation of the preceding publications, Robert Barclay, John Vickris Taylor, and Josiah Wedgewood, Esq., were added to the committee; and it was then resolved, that any three members might call a meeting when necessary.
Due to the anticipated growth in business from the distribution of the earlier publications, Robert Barclay, John Vickris Taylor, and Josiah Wedgewood, Esq., joined the committee; it was then decided that any three members could call a meeting when needed.
On the 27th of August, the new correspondents began to make their appearance. This sitting was distinguished by the receipt of letters from two celebrated persons. The first was from Brissot, dated Paris, August the 18th, who, it may be recollected, was an active member of the National Convention of France, and who suffered in the persecution of Robespierre. The second was from Mr. John Wesley, whose useful labours as a minister of the Gospel, are so well known to our countrymen.
On August 27th, the new correspondents started to show up. This meeting was notable for the arrival of letters from two famous individuals. The first was from Brissot, dated August 18th in Paris, who, as you may remember, was an active member of France's National Convention and faced persecution from Robespierre. The second was from Mr. John Wesley, whose valuable work as a minister of the Gospel is well recognized by our fellow countrymen.
Brissot, in his letter, congratulated the members of the committee, on having come together for so laudable an object. He offered his own assistance towards the promotion of it. He desired, also, that his valuable friend Claviere (who suffered also under Robespierre) might be joined to him, and that both might be acknowledged by the committee, as associates in what he called this heavenly work. He purposed to translate and circulate through France such publications as they might send him from time to time; and to appoint bankers in Paris, who might receive subscriptions, and remit them to London, for the good of their common cause. In the mean time, if his own countrymen should be found to take an interest in this great cause, it was not improbable that a committee might be formed in Paris, to endeavour to secure the attainment of the same object from the government in France.
Brissot, in his letter, congratulated the committee members for coming together for such a commendable cause. He offered his own help to promote it. He also requested that his valued friend Claviere (who was also suffering under Robespierre) be included with him, and that both be recognized by the committee as partners in what he referred to as this noble work. He intended to translate and distribute through France any publications they might send him from time to time, and to designate bankers in Paris who could collect subscriptions and send them to London for the benefit of their shared cause. In the meantime, if his fellow countrymen showed interest in this important cause, it was likely that a committee could be established in Paris to work towards securing the same goal from the French government.
The thanks of the committee were voted to Brissot for this disinterested offer of his services, and he was elected an honorary and corresponding member. In reply, however, to his letter, it was stated that, as the committee had no doubt of procuring from the generosity of their own nation sufficient funds for effecting the object of their institution, they declined the acceptance of any pecuniary aid from the people of France; but recommended him to attempt the formation of a committee in his own country, and to inform them of his progress, and to make to them such other communications as he might deem necessary upon the subject from time to time.
The committee thanked Brissot for his generous offer to help, and he was made an honorary and corresponding member. However, in response to his letter, they mentioned that they were confident they could secure enough funding from their own nation to achieve their goals, so they chose not to accept any financial support from the people of France. They encouraged him to try and create a committee in his own country and to keep them updated on his progress, as well as to share any other relevant information he thought was necessary.
Mr. Wesley, whose letter was read next, informed the committee of the great satisfaction which he also had experienced, when he heard of their formation. He conceived that their design, while it would destroy the Slave Trade, would also strike at the root of the shocking abomination of slavery also. He desired to forewarn them that they must expect difficulties and great opposition from those who were interested in the system; that these were a powerful body; and that they would raise all their forces, when they perceived their craft to be in danger. They would employ hireling writers, who would have neither justice nor mercy. But the committee were not to be dismayed by such treatment, nor even if some of those who professed goodwill towards them, should turn against them. As for himself, he would do all he could to promote the object of their institution. He would reprint a new and large edition of his Thought on Slavery, and circulate it among his friends in England and Ireland, to whom he would add a few words in favour of their design. And then he concluded in these words: "I commend you to Him who is able to carry you through all opposition, and support you under all discouragements."
Mr. Wesley, whose letter was read next, told the committee about the great satisfaction he felt when he heard about their formation. He believed that their goal, while it would end the Slave Trade, would also address the root of the terrible injustice of slavery. He wanted to warn them that they should expect challenges and strong resistance from those who benefitted from the system; that these were a powerful group, and they would gather all their resources when they saw their interests threatened. They would hire writers who would show neither fairness nor compassion. But the committee shouldn’t be discouraged by such treatment, even if some who claimed to support them turned against them. As for him, he would do everything he could to promote the purpose of their organization. He would print a new, larger edition of his Thought on Slavery and share it with his friends in England and Ireland, adding a few words in support of their mission. He concluded with these words: "I commend you to Him who is able to carry you through all opposition and support you through all discouragement."
On the 4th, 11th, and 18th of September, the committee were employed variously. Among other things, they voted their thanks to Mr. Leigh, a clergyman of the Established Church, for the offer of his services for the county of Norfolk. They ordered, also, one thousand of the circular letters to be additionally printed.
On the 4th, 11th, and 18th of September, the committee was busy with various tasks. Among other things, they expressed their gratitude to Mr. Leigh, a clergyman from the Established Church, for offering his services for the county of Norfolk. They also ordered an additional one thousand copies of the circular letters to be printed.
At one of these meetings a resolution was made, that Granville Sharp, Esq. be appointed chairman. This appointment, though now first formally made in the minute book, was always understood to have taken place; but the modesty of Mr. Sharp was such that, though repeatedly pressed, he would never consent to take the chair; and he generally refrained from coming into the room till after he knew it to be taken. Nor could he be prevailed upon, even after this resolution, to alter his conduct: for though he continued to sign the papers, which were handed to him by virtue of holding this office, he never was once seated as the chairman, during the twenty years in which he attended at these meetings. I thought it not improper to mention this trait in his character. Conscious that he engaged in the cause of his fellow-creatures, solely upon the sense of his duty as a Christian, he seems to have supposed either that he had done nothing extraordinary to merit such a distinction, or to have been fearful lest the acceptance of it should bring a stain upon the motive, on which alone he undertook it.
At one of these meetings, a resolution was made to appoint Granville Sharp, Esq. as chairman. This appointment, while officially noted for the first time in the minute book, had always been understood to have happened. However, Mr. Sharp was so modest that, despite being repeatedly urged, he would never agree to take the chair; he typically waited outside the room until he knew it was occupied. Even after this resolution, he couldn't be convinced to change his behavior: although he continued to sign documents presented to him because of this role, he never actually sat as chairman during the twenty years he attended these meetings. I felt it was worth mentioning this aspect of his character. Aware that he was fighting for the cause of his fellow human beings solely out of a sense of duty as a Christian, he seemed to believe he had done nothing remarkable to deserve such an honor, or he might have feared that accepting it would tarnish the sincerity of his motivation for getting involved.
On the 2nd and 16th of October two sittings took place; at
the latter of which a sub-committee, which had been appointed
for the purpose, brought in a design for a seal. An African was
seen, (as in the figureA,) in chains, in a
supplicating posture,
kneeling with one knee upon the ground, and with both his hands
lifted up to heaven, and round the seal was observed the
following motto, as if he was uttering the words himself,—"Am
I not a Man and a Brother?" The design having been approved
of, a seal was ordered to be engraved from it. I may mention
here that this seal, simple as the design was, was made to
contribute largely, as will be shown in its proper place, towards
turning the attention of our countrymen to the case of the injured
Africans, and of procuring a warm interest in their favour.
On October 2nd and 16th, two meetings were held. At the latter meeting, a sub-committee appointed for this purpose presented a design for a seal. An African man was depicted (as in the figureA), in chains, in a pleading position, kneeling on one knee with his hands raised to the heavens. Around the seal, the following motto was inscribed, as if he were speaking the words himself—"Am I not a Man and a Brother?" Once the design was approved, a seal was ordered to be engraved from it. I should mention that this seal, despite its simple design, significantly helped to draw our countrymen's attention to the plight of injured Africans and fostered a strong interest in their cause.
A: The figure is rather larger than that in the seal.
A: The figure is actually bigger than the one on the seal.
On the 30th of October several letters were read: one of these was from Brissot and Claviere conjointly; in this they acknowledged the satisfaction they had received on being considered as associates in the humane work of the abolition of the Slave Trade, and correspondents in France for the promotion of it. They declared it to be their intention to attempt the establishment of a committee there, on the same principles as that in England; but, in consequence of the different constitutions of the two governments, they gave the committee reason to suppose, that their proceedings must be different, as well as slower than those in England, for the same object.
On October 30th, several letters were read, including one from Brissot and Claviere together. In this letter, they expressed their pleasure at being regarded as partners in the important work of abolishing the Slave Trade and as contacts in France to promote it. They stated their intention to try to set up a committee there based on the same principles as the one in England. However, due to the different structures of the two governments, they suggested that their committee's actions would likely be different and proceed more slowly than those in England, even for the same goal.
A second letter was read from Mr. John Wesley. He said that he had now read the publications which the committee had sent him, and that he took, if possible, a still deeper interest in their cause. He exhorted them to more than ordinary diligence and perseverance; to be prepared for opposition; to be cautious about the manner of procuring information and evidence, that no stain might fall upon their character; and to take care that the question should be argued, as well upon the consideration of interest as of humanity and justice, the former of which he feared would have more weight than the latter; and he recommended them and their glorious concern, as before, to the protection of Him who was able to support them.
A second letter was read from Mr. John Wesley. He mentioned that he had now read the materials the committee had sent him and that he felt an even stronger interest in their cause. He urged them to work harder and be persistent, to be ready for opposition, to be careful about how they gathered information and evidence so that no blemish would be cast on their character, and to ensure that the discussion included both the aspects of self-interest as well as humanity and justice, the former of which he worried would carry more weight than the latter. He again recommended them and their noble cause to the protection of Him who could support them.
Letters were read from Dr. Price, approving the institution of the committee; from Charles Lloyd of Birmingham, stating the interest which the inhabitants of that town were taking in it; and from William Russell, Esq. of the same place, stating the same circumstance, and that he would co-operate with the former in calling a public meeting, and in doing whatever else was necessary for the promotion of so good a cause. A letter was read also from Manchester, signed conjointly by George Barton Thomas Cooper, John Ferriar, Thomas Walker, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Butterworth Bayley, and George Lloyd, Esqrs., promising their assistance from that place. Two others were read from John Kerrich, Esq., of Harleston, and from Joshua Grigby, Esq., of Drinkston, each tendering their services, one for the county Of Norfolk, and the other for the county of Suffolk. The latter concluded by saying, "With respect to myself, in no possible instance of my public conduct can I receive so much sincere satisfaction, as I shall, by the vote I will most assuredly give in parliament, in support of this most worthy effort to suppress a traffic, which is contrary to all the feelings of humanity, and the laws of our religion."
Letters were read from Dr. Price, who approved the formation of the committee; from Charles Lloyd in Birmingham, highlighting the interest the people of that town were showing in it; and from William Russell, Esq. from the same area, noting the same interest and that he would work with the former to organize a public meeting and do whatever else was needed to support such a good cause. A letter was also read from Manchester, signed jointly by George Barton, Thomas Cooper, John Ferriar, Thomas Walker, Thomas Phillips, Thomas Butterworth Bayley, and George Lloyd, Esqrs., offering their help from that location. Two other letters were read from John Kerrich, Esq., of Harleston, and from Joshua Grigby, Esq., of Drinkston, each offering their services—one for Norfolk, and the other for Suffolk. The latter ended by saying, "For me, there is no aspect of my public actions that brings me as much genuine satisfaction as the vote I will definitely cast in parliament in support of this noble effort to end a trade that goes against all human sentiments and the principles of our faith."
A letter was read also at this sitting from Major Cartwright, of Marnham, in which he offered his own services, in conjunction with those of the Rev. John Charlesworth, of Ossington, for the county of Nottingham.
A letter was also read at this meeting from Major Cartwright, of Marnham, in which he offered his services, along with those of Rev. John Charlesworth, of Ossington, for the county of Nottingham.
"I congratulate you," says he, in this letter, "on the happy prospect of some considerable step at least being taken, towards the abolition of a traffic, which is not only impious in itself, but of all others tends most to vitiate the human mind.
"I congratulate you," he says in this letter, "on the promising possibility of some significant action being taken towards ending a trade that is not only wrong in itself, but also greatly corrupts the human mind."
"Although procrastination is generally pernicious in cases depending upon the feelings of the heart, I should almost fear that, without very uncommon exertions, you will scarcely be prepared early in the next sessions, for bringing the business into parliament with the greatest advantage. But, be that as it may, let the best use be made of the intermediate time; and then, if there be a superintending Providence, which governs everything in the moral world, there is every reason to hope for a blessing on this particular work."
"Even though procrastination is usually harmful, especially when it comes to matters of the heart, I'm worried that, without some extraordinary effort, you won't be ready in time for the next sessions to bring the issue to parliament in the best way possible. That said, let's make the most of the time we have in between; and if there is a higher power that oversees everything in the moral realm, we have every reason to hope for success in this specific endeavor."
The last letter was from Robert Boucher Nickolls, dean of Middleham, in Yorkshire. In this he stated that he was a native of the West Indies, and had travelled on the continent of America. He then offered some important information to the committee as his mite, towards the abolition of the Slave Trade, and as an encouragement to them to persevere. He attempted to prove, that the natural increase of the negroes already in the West Indian islands would be fully adequate to the cultivation of them, without any fresh supplies from Africa; and that such natural increase would be secured by humane treatment. With this view, he instanced the two estates of Mr. MacMahon and of Dr. Mapp, in the island of Barbados. The first required continual supplies of new slaves, in consequence of the severe and cruel usage adopted upon it. The latter overflowed with labourers in consequence of a system of kindness, so that it almost peopled another estate. Having related these instances, he cited others in North America, where, though the climate was less favourable to the constitution of the Africans, but their treatment better, they increased also. He combated, from his own personal knowledge, the argument, that self-interest was always sufficient to insure good usage, and maintained that there was only one way of securing it, which was the entire abolition of the Slave Trade. He showed in what manner the latter measure would operate to the desired end: he then dilated on the injustice and inconsistency of this trade, and supported the policy of the abolition of it, both to the planter, the merchant, and the nation.
The last letter was from Robert Boucher Nickolls, the dean of Middleham in Yorkshire. In it, he mentioned that he was from the West Indies and had traveled across the continent of America. He then provided some important information to the committee as his contribution towards ending the Slave Trade and encouraged them to keep going. He tried to prove that the natural population growth of the enslaved people already in the West Indian islands would be enough for their cultivation, without needing more from Africa, and that this natural growth could be ensured through humane treatment. To illustrate this, he referred to two estates owned by Mr. MacMahon and Dr. Mapp in Barbados. The first estate constantly needed new slaves due to harsh and cruel treatment, while the second had plenty of workers due to a system of kindness, which almost provided workers for another estate. After sharing these examples, he cited others in North America, where, despite a less favorable climate for Africans but better treatment, they also increased in number. He challenged the argument that self-interest alone would guarantee good treatment, insisting that the only way to secure this was through the complete abolition of the Slave Trade. He explained how this measure would lead to the desired outcome, highlighting the injustice and inconsistency of the trade, and supported the policy of its abolition for the benefit of the planter, merchant, and nation.
This letter of the Dean of Middleham, which was a little Essay of itself, was deemed of so much importance by the committee, but particularly as it was the result of local knowledge, that they not only passed a resolution of thanks to him for it, but desired his permission to print it.
This letter from the Dean of Middleham, which was a small essay in itself, was considered so important by the committee, especially since it was based on local knowledge, that they not only passed a resolution to thank him for it but also requested his permission to publish it.
The committee sat again on the 13th and 22nd of November. At the first of these sittings, a letter was read from Henry Grimston, Esq., of Whitwell Hall, near York, offering his services for the promotion of the cause in his own county. At the second, the Dean of Middleham's answer was received. He acquiesced in the request of the committee; when five thousand of his letters were ordered immediately to be printed.
The committee met again on November 13th and 22nd. At the first meeting, a letter was read from Henry Grimston, Esq., of Whitwell Hall, near York, offering his help to promote the cause in his county. At the second meeting, the Dean of Middleham's response was received. He agreed to the committee's request, and five thousand of his letters were ordered to be printed right away.
On the 22nd a letter was read from Mr. James Mackenzie, of the town of Cambridge, desiring to forward the object of the institution there. Two letters were read also, one from the late Mr. Jones, tutor of Trinity College, and the other from Mr. William Frend, fellow of Jesus College. It appeared from these, that the gentlemen of the University of Cambridge were beginning to take a lively interest in the abolition of the Slave Trade, among whom Dr. Watson, the bishop of Llandaff, was particularly conspicuous. At this committee two thousand new Summary View were ordered to be printed, and the circular letter to be prefixed to each.
On the 22nd, a letter was read from Mr. James Mackenzie of Cambridge, expressing a desire to promote the goals of the institution there. Two additional letters were also read, one from the late Mr. Jones, a tutor at Trinity College, and the other from Mr. William Frend, a fellow at Jesus College. These letters indicated that the gentlemen of the University of Cambridge were starting to take a strong interest in the abolition of the Slave Trade, with Dr. Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, being particularly notable among them. At this committee, two thousand new Summary View pamphlets were ordered to be printed, along with a circular letter to be included with each.
CHAPTER XXI.
Labours of the committee continued to February, 1788.—Committee elect new members; vote thanks to Falconbridge and others; receive letters from Grove and others; circulate numerous publications; make a report; send circular letters to corporate bodies; release negroes unjustly detained; find new correspondents in Archdeacon Paley, the Marquis de la Fayette, Bishop of Cloyne, Bishop of Peterborough, and in many others.
The committee's work went on until February 1788. They elected new members, thanked Falconbridge and others, received letters from Grove and others, circulated many publications, made a report, sent circular letters to corporate bodies, released enslaved people who were being held unjustly, and found new correspondents in Archdeacon Paley, the Marquis de la Fayette, the Bishop of Cloyne, the Bishop of Peterborough, and many more.
The labours of the committee, during my absence, were as I have now explained them; but as I was obliged, almost immediately, on joining them, to retire into the country to begin my new work, I must give an account of their further services till I joined them again, or till the middle of February, 1788.
The committee's work while I was gone is as I've just described; however, since I had to quickly head to the countryside to start my new job as soon as I returned, I need to report on their additional efforts until I was back with them, or until mid-February 1788.
During sittings which were held from the middle of December, 1787, to the 18th of January, 1788, the business of the committee had so increased, that it was found proper to make an addition to their number. Accordingly James Martin and William Morton Pitt, Esquires, members of parliament, and Robert Hunter, and Joseph Smith, Esquires, were chosen members of it.
During meetings that took place from mid-December 1787 to January 18, 1788, the committee's workload had increased so much that it was deemed necessary to add more members. As a result, James Martin and William Morton Pitt, both members of parliament, along with Robert Hunter and Joseph Smith, were appointed as new members.
The knowledge also of the institution of the society had spread to such an extent, and the eagerness among individuals to see the publications of the committee had been so great, that the press was kept almost constantly going during the time now mentioned. No fewer than three thousand lists of the subscribers, with a circular letter prefixed to them, explaining the object of the institution, were ordered to be printed within this period, to which are to be added fifteen hundred of BENEZET'S Account of Guinea, three thousand of the DEAN of MIDDLEHAM'S Letters, five thousand Summary View, and two thousand of a new edition of the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, which I had enlarged before the last of these sittings from materials collected in my late tour.
The awareness of the society's purpose had spread widely, and people's excitement to see the committee's publications was so high that the press was almost always in operation during that time. No fewer than three thousand lists of subscribers, accompanied by a cover letter explaining the purpose of the society, were ordered to be printed during this period. Additionally, there were fifteen hundred copies of BENEZET'S Account of Guinea, three thousand copies of the DEAN of MIDDLEHAM'S Letters, five thousand of the Summary View, and two thousand of a new edition of the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, which I had expanded before the last of these sessions using materials I gathered during my recent trip.
The thanks of the committee were voted during this period to Mr. Alexander Falconbridge, for the assistance he had given me in my inquiries into the nature of the Slave Trade.
The committee extended their thanks during this time to Mr. Alexander Falconbridge for the help he provided me in my research on the Slave Trade.
As Mr. Falconbridge had but lately returned from Africa, and as facts and circumstances, which had taken place but a little time ago, were less liable to objections (inasmuch as they proved the present state of things) than those which happened in earlier times, he was prevailed upon to write an account of what he had seen during the four voyages he had made to that continent; and accordingly, within the period which has been mentioned, he began his work.
As Mr. Falconbridge had just returned from Africa, and since facts and events that had occurred recently were less open to criticism (since they showed the current situation) than those from earlier periods, he was encouraged to write about what he had experienced during the four voyages he made to that continent. So, within the mentioned timeframe, he started his work.
The committee, during these sittings, kept up a correspondence with those gentlemen who were mentioned in the last chapter to have addressed them. But, besides these, they found other voluntary correspondents in the following persons, Capell Lofft, Esq., of Troston, and the Reverend B. Brome, of Ipswich, both in the county of Suffolk. These made an earnest tender of their services for those parts of the county in which they resided. Similar offers were made by Mr. Hammond, of Stanton, near St. Ives, in the county of Huntingdon, by Thomas Parker, Esq., of Beverly, and by William Grove, Esq., of Litchfield, for their respective towns and neighbourhoods.
The committee, during these meetings, maintained communication with the gentlemen mentioned in the last chapter who had addressed them. Additionally, they found other willing correspondents in the following individuals: Capell Lofft, Esq., from Troston, and the Reverend B. Brome from Ipswich, both in Suffolk. They both earnestly offered their help for the areas of the county where they lived. Similar offers were made by Mr. Hammond from Stanton, near St. Ives, in Huntingdon, by Thomas Parker, Esq., from Beverly, and by William Grove, Esq., from Litchfield, for their respective towns and neighborhoods.
A letter was received also within this period from the society established at Philadelphia, accompanied with documents in proof of the good effects of the manumission of slaves, and with specimens of writing and drawing by the same. In this letter the society congratulated the committee in London on its formation, and professed its readiness to co-operate in any way in which it could me made useful.
A letter was also received during this time from the society established in Philadelphia, along with documents showing the positive effects of freeing slaves, and examples of writing and artwork by the same. In this letter, the society congratulated the committee in London on its formation and expressed its willingness to collaborate in any way it could be helpful.
During these sittings, a letter was also read from Dr. Bathurst, afterwards bishop of Norwich, dated Oxford, December 17th, in which he offered his services in the promotion of the cause.
During these meetings, a letter was also read from Dr. Bathurst, who later became the bishop of Norwich, dated December 17th from Oxford, in which he offered his help in advancing the cause.
Another was read, which stated that Dr. Home, president of Magdalen College in the same university, and afterwards bishop of the same see as the former, highly favoured it.
Another was read, which stated that Dr. Home, the president of Magdalen College at the same university, and later the bishop of the same see as the former, strongly supported it.
Another was read from Mr. Lambert, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in which he signified to the committee the great desire he had to promote the object of their institution. He had drawn up a number of queries relative to the state of the unhappy slaves in the islands, which he had transmitted to a friend, who had resided in them, to answer. These answers he purposed to forward to the committee on their arrival.
Another was read from Mr. Lambert, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in which he expressed to the committee his strong desire to support the mission of their organization. He had put together several questions about the conditions of the unfortunate slaves in the islands and sent them to a friend who had lived there to respond. He intended to send these responses to the committee upon receiving them.
Another was read from Dr. Hinchliffe, bishop of Peterborough, in which he testified his hearty approbation of the institution, and of the design of it, and his determination to support the object of it in parliament. He gave in at the same time a plan, which he called Thoughts on the Means of Abolishing the Slave Trade in Great Britain and in our West Indian Islands, for the consideration of the committee.
Another was read from Dr. Hinchliffe, bishop of Peterborough, in which he expressed his strong approval of the institution and its purpose, as well as his commitment to support its objectives in parliament. He also submitted a plan, which he referred to as Thoughts on the Means of Abolishing the Slave Trade in Great Britain and in our West Indian Islands, for the committee's consideration.
At the last of these sittings, the committee thought it right to make a report to the public relative to the state and progress of their cause; but as this was composed from materials which the reader has now in his possession, it may not be necessary to produce it.
At the final meeting, the committee decided it was important to report to the public on the status and progress of their cause; however, since this was created from information that the reader already has, it may not be needed to present it.
On the 22nd and 29th of January, and on the 5th and 12th of February, 1788, sittings were also held. During these, the business still increasing, John Maitland, Esq., was elected a member of the committee.
On January 22nd and 29th, and on February 5th and 12th, 1788, meetings were held as well. During these sessions, as the workload continued to grow, John Maitland, Esq., was elected to the committee.
As the correspondents of the committee were now numerous, and as these solicited publications for the use of those who applied to them, as well as of those to whom they wished to give a knowledge of the subject, the press was kept in constant employ during this period also. Five thousand two hundred and fifty additional Reports were ordered to be printed, and also three thousand of FALCONBRIDGE'S Account of the Slave Trade, the manuscript of which was now finished. At this time, Mr. Newton, rector of St. Mary Woolnoth in London, who had been in his youth to the coast of Africa, but who had now become a serious and useful divine, felt it his duty to write his Thoughts on the African Slave Trade. The committee, having obtained permission, printed three thousand copies of these also.
As the committee's correspondents grew in number, they sought publications both for those who reached out to them and for those they wanted to educate on the topic. The press was kept busy during this time as well. An additional five thousand two hundred and fifty Reports were ordered for printing, along with three thousand copies of FALCONBRIDGE'S Account of the Slave Trade, the manuscript of which was now complete. At this point, Mr. Newton, the rector of St. Mary Woolnoth in London, who had traveled to the coast of Africa in his youth but had since become a serious and impactful minister, felt compelled to write his Thoughts on the African Slave Trade. The committee secured permission and printed three thousand copies of this work too.
During these sittings, the chairman was requested to have frequent communication with Dr. Porteus, bishop of London, as he had expressed his desire of becoming useful to the institution.
During these meetings, the chairman was asked to stay in regular contact with Dr. Porteus, the bishop of London, as he had shown interest in being helpful to the organization.
A circular letter also, with the report before mentioned, was ordered to be sent to the majors of several corporate towns.
A circular letter was also ordered to be sent, along with the previously mentioned report, to the mayors of several corporate towns.
A case also occurred, which it may not be improper to notice. The treasurer reported that he had been informed by the chairman, that the captain of the Albion, merchant ship, trading to the Bay of Honduras, had picked up at sea, from a Spanish ship, which had been wrecked, two black men, one named Henry Martin Burrowes, a free native of Antigua, who had served in the royal navy, and the other named Antonio Berrat, a Spanish negro; that the said captain detained these men on board his ship, then lying in the river Thames, against their will; and that, he would not give them up. Upon this report, it was resolved that the cause of these unfortunate captives should be espoused by the committee. Mr. Sharp accordingly caused a writ of habeas-corpus to be served upon them; soon after which he had the satisfaction of reporting, that they had been delivered from the place of their confinement.
A case also came up that might be worth mentioning. The treasurer reported that he had been informed by the chairman that the captain of the Albion, a merchant ship trading to the Bay of Honduras, had rescued two black men from a wrecked Spanish ship at sea. One was named Henry Martin Burrowes, a free native of Antigua who had served in the royal navy, and the other was named Antonio Berrat, a Spanish man. The captain kept these men on board his ship, which was then in the River Thames, against their will, and refused to let them go. Following this report, the committee decided to support the cause of these unfortunate captives. Mr. Sharp subsequently arranged for a writ of habeas corpus to be served on the captain; shortly after that, he was pleased to report that they had been freed from their confinement.
During these sittings the following letters were read also:
During these meetings, the following letters were also read:
One from Richard How, of Apsley, offering his services to the committee.
One from Richard How of Apsley, offering his services to the committee.
Another from the Reverend Christopher Wyvill, of Burton Hall, in Yorkshire, to the same effect.
Another from Reverend Christopher Wyvill of Burton Hall in Yorkshire, with the same message.
Another from Archdeacon Plymley, (afterwards Corbett,) in which he expressed the deep interest he took in this cause of humanity and freedom, and the desire he had of making himself useful as far as he could towards the support of it; and he wished to know, as the Clergy of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry were anxious to espouse it also, whether a petition to parliament from them, as a part of the Established Church, would not be desirable at the present season.
Another from Archdeacon Plymley, (later Corbett), in which he expressed his strong interest in the cause of humanity and freedom, and his desire to be as helpful as possible in supporting it; he wanted to know, since the clergy of the diocese of Lichfield and Coventry were eager to get involved as well, whether a petition to parliament from them, as part of the Established Church, would be advisable at this time.
Another from Archdeacon Paley, containing his sentiments on a plan for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and the manumission of slaves in our islands, and offering his future services, and wishing success to the undertaking.
Another from Archdeacon Paley, sharing his thoughts on a plan to end the Slave Trade and free slaves in our islands, while also offering his future help and wishing success for the effort.
Another from Dr. Sharp, prebendary of Durham, inquiring into the probable amount of the subscriptions which might be wanted, and for what purposes, with a view of serving the cause.
Another message from Dr. Sharp, a prebendary of Durham, asking about the likely amount of subscriptions needed and for what purposes, with the aim of supporting the cause.
Another from Dr. Woodward, bishop of Cloyne, in which he approved of the institution of the committee. He conceived the Slave Trade to be no less disgraceful to the legislature and injurious to the true commercial interests of the country, than it was productive of unmerited misery to the unhappy objects of it, and repugnant both to the principles and the spirit of the Christian religion. He wished to be placed among the assertors of the liberty of his fellow-creatures, and he was therefore desirous of subscribing largely, as well as of doing all he could, both in England and Ireland, for the promotion of such a charitable work.
Another note from Dr. Woodward, the bishop of Cloyne, in which he supported the formation of the committee. He believed that the Slave Trade was not only disgraceful to the legislature and harmful to the true commercial interests of the country, but also caused undeserved suffering to the unfortunate victims and was in direct opposition to the principles and spirit of Christianity. He wanted to be counted among those defending the freedom of his fellow human beings, and he was therefore eager to contribute significantly, as well as do everything he could, both in England and Ireland, to support such a charitable cause.
A communication was made, soon after the reading of the last letter, through the medium of the Chevalier de Ternant, from the celebrated Marquis de la Fayette of France. The Marquis signified the singular pleasure he had received on hearing of the formation of a committee in England for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and the earnest desire he had to promote the object of it. With this view, he informed the committee that he should attempt the formation of a similar society in France. This he conceived to be one of the most effectual measures he could devise for securing the object in question; for he was of opinion, that if the two great nations of France and England were to unite in this humane and Christian work, the other European nations might be induced to follow the example.
A message was sent, shortly after the last letter was read, through Chevalier de Ternant, from the famous Marquis de la Fayette of France. The Marquis expressed his genuine pleasure at hearing about the formation of a committee in England to abolish the Slave Trade and his strong desire to support that cause. To this end, he informed the committee that he would try to create a similar society in France. He believed this would be one of the most effective ways to achieve the goal, as he felt that if the two major nations, France and England, joined forces in this compassionate and moral effort, other European countries might be encouraged to follow suit.
The committee, on receiving the two latter communications, resolved, that the chairman should return their thanks to the Bishop of Cloyne, and the Marquis de la Fayette, and the Chevalier de Ternant, and that he should inform them, that they were enrolled among the honorary and corresponding members of the society.
The committee, upon receiving the last two messages, decided that the chairman should express their gratitude to the Bishop of Cloyne, the Marquis de la Fayette, and the Chevalier de Ternant, and that he should let them know that they were added as honorary and corresponding members of the society.
The other letters read during these sittings were to convey information to the committee, that people in various parts of the kingdom had then felt themselves so deeply interested in behalf of the injured Africans, that they had determined either on public meetings, or had come to resolutions, or had it in contemplation to petition parliament, for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Information was signified to this effect by Thomas Walker, Esquire, for Manchester; by John Hoyland, William Hoyles, Esquire, and the Reverend James Wilkinson, for Sheffield; by William Tuke, and William Burgh, Esquire, for York; by the Reverend Mr. Foster, for Colchester; by Joseph Harford and Edmund Griffith, Esquires, for Bristol; by William Bishop, Esquire, the mayor, for Maidstone; by the Reverend R. Brome and the Reverend J. Wright, for Ipswich; by James Clarke, Esquire, the mayor, for Coventry; by Mr. Jones, of Trinity College, for the University of Cambridge; by Dr. Schomberg, of Magdalen College, for the University of Oxford; by Henry Bullen, Esquire, for Bury St. Edmunds; by Archdeacon Travis, for Chester; by Mr. Hammond, for the county of Huntingdon; by John Flint, Esquire, (afterwards Corbett,) for the town of Shrewsbury and county of Salop; by the Reverend Robert Lucas, for the town and also for the county of Northampton; by Mr. Winchester, for the county of Stafford; by the Reverend William Leigh, for the county of Norfolk; by David Barclay, for the county of Hertford; and by Thomas Babington, Esquire, for the county of Leicester.
The other letters read during these meetings were meant to inform the committee that people in different parts of the kingdom were so deeply concerned about the injured Africans that they decided to hold public meetings, pass resolutions, or plan to petition Parliament for the abolition of the Slave Trade. This information was communicated by Thomas Walker, Esquire, for Manchester; by John Hoyland, William Hoyles, Esquire, and the Reverend James Wilkinson, for Sheffield; by William Tuke and William Burgh, Esquire, for York; by the Reverend Mr. Foster, for Colchester; by Joseph Harford and Edmund Griffith, Esquires, for Bristol; by William Bishop, Esquire, the mayor, for Maidstone; by the Reverend R. Brome and the Reverend J. Wright, for Ipswich; by James Clarke, Esquire, the mayor, for Coventry; by Mr. Jones, of Trinity College, for the University of Cambridge; by Dr. Schomberg, of Magdalen College, for the University of Oxford; by Henry Bullen, Esquire, for Bury St. Edmunds; by Archdeacon Travis, for Chester; by Mr. Hammond, for the county of Huntingdon; by John Flint, Esquire, (later Corbett,) for the town of Shrewsbury and county of Salop; by the Reverend Robert Lucas, for both the town and county of Northampton; by Mr. Winchester, for the county of Stafford; by the Reverend William Leigh, for the county of Norfolk; by David Barclay, for the county of Hertford; and by Thomas Babington, Esquire, for the county of Leicester.
CHAPTER XXII.
Further progress to the middle of May.—Petitions begin to be sent to parliament.—The king orders the privy council to inquire into the Slave Trade.—Author called up to town; his interviews with Mr. Pitt, and with Mr.(afterwards Lord) Grenville.—Liverpool delegates examined first; these prejudice the council; this prejudice at length counteracted.—Labours of the committee in the interim.—Public anxious for the introduction of the question into parliament.—Message of Mr. Pitt to the committee concerning it.—Day fixed for the motion.—Substance of the debate which followed.—Discussion of the general question deferred till the next sessions.
Further progress to the middle of May.—Petitions start being sent to parliament.—The king instructs the privy council to investigate the Slave Trade.—The author is called to town; his meetings with Mr. Pitt and Mr. (later Lord) Grenville.—Liverpool delegates are examined first; this biases the council; this bias is eventually countered.—The committee's work in the meantime.—The public is eager for the issue to be introduced in parliament.—Message from Mr. Pitt to the committee regarding it.—A date is set for the motion.—Summary of the subsequent debate.—Discussion of the overall question postponed until the next sessions.
By this time the nature of the Slave Trade had, in consequence of the labours of the committee and of their several correspondents, become generally known throughout the kingdom. It had excited a general attention, and there was among the people a general feeling in behalf of the wrongs of Africa. This feeling had also, as may be collected from what has been already mentioned, broken out into language: for not only had the traffic become the general subject of conversation, but public meetings had taken place, in which it had been discussed, and of which the result was, that an application to parliament had been resolved upon in many places concerning it. By the middle of February not fewer than thirty-five petitions had been delivered to the Commons, and it was known that others were on their way to the same house.
By this time, the reality of the Slave Trade had, thanks to the efforts of the committee and their various correspondents, become widely recognized across the nation. It had sparked a broad interest, and there was a shared sentiment among the people regarding the injustices faced by Africa. This sentiment had also, as noted previously, turned into action: not only had the trade become a common topic of discussion, but public meetings had occurred where it was talked about, leading to many places deciding to petition Parliament about it. By mid-February, at least thirty-five petitions had been submitted to the House of Commons, and it was known that more were on their way to the same place.
This ferment in the public mind, which had shown itself in the public prints even before the petitions had been resolved upon, had excited the attention of government. To coincide with the wishes of the people on this subject, appeared to those in authority to be a desirable thing. To abolish the trade, replete as it was with misery, was desirable also; but it was so connected with the interest of individuals, and so interwoven with the commerce and revenue of the country, that a hasty abolition of it without a previous inquiry appeared to them to be likely to be productive of as much misery as good. The king, therefore, by an order of council dated February the eleventh, 1788, directed that a committee of Privy Council should sit as a board of trade, "to take into their consideration the present state of the African Trade, particularly as far as related to the practice and manner of purchasing or obtaining slaves on the coast of Africa, and the importation and sale thereof, either in the British colonies and settlements, or in the foreign colonies and settlements in America or the West-Indies; and also as far as related to the effects and consequences of the trade both in Africa and in the said colonies and settlements, and to the general commerce of this kingdom; and that they should report to him in council the result of their inquiries, with such observations as they might have to offer thereupon."
This public unrest, which had already been visible in the news before the petitions were put forward, caught the government’s attention. Aligning with the people’s wishes on this matter seemed important to those in power. Ending the trade, which was filled with suffering, also seemed important; however, it was so tied to individual interests and intertwined with the country’s commerce and revenue that rushing to abolish it without prior investigation seemed likely to cause as much suffering as it would alleviate. Therefore, the king, by an order of council dated February 11, 1788, instructed that a committee of Privy Council should act as a trade board, "to consider the current state of the African Trade, especially regarding how slaves are purchased or obtained on the coast of Africa, and their importation and sale, either in the British colonies and settlements or in foreign colonies and settlements in America or the West Indies; and also to look into the effects and consequences of the trade both in Africa and in those colonies and settlements, and to the overall commerce of this kingdom; and that they should report to him in council the outcome of their inquiries, along with any observations they might have."
Of this order of council Mr. Wilberforce, who had attended to this great subject, as far as his health would permit, since I left him, had received notice; but he was then too ill himself to take any measures concerning it. He therefore wrote to me, and begged of me to repair to London immediately, in order to get such evidence ready as we might think it eligible to introduce when the council sat. At that time, as appears from the former chapter, I had finished the additions to my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and I had now proceeded about half way in that of the Impolicy of it. This summons, however, I obeyed, and returned to town on the fourteenth of February, from which day to the twenty-fourth of May I shall now give the history of our proceedings.
Of this council order, Mr. Wilberforce, who had been engaged with this important issue as much as his health allowed since I last saw him, had received notice; however, he was too ill at that time to take any action regarding it. He wrote to me, asking me to go to London right away to gather the evidence we deemed suitable to present when the council convened. At that time, as noted in the previous chapter, I had completed the revisions to my Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and I was about halfway through the one on its Impolicy. Nevertheless, I complied with his request and returned to town on February 14th, and from that day until May 24th, I will now recount the history of our actions.
My first business in London was to hold a conversation with Mr. Pitt previously to the meeting of the council, and to try to interest him, as the first minister of state, in our favour. For this purpose Mr. Wilberforce had opened the way for me, and an interview took place. We were in free conversation together for a considerable time, during which we went through most of the branches of the subject. Mr. Pitt appeared to me to have but little knowledge of it. He had also his doubts, which he expressed openly, on many points. He was at a loss to conceive how private interest should not always restrain the master of the slave from abusing him. This matter I explained to him as well as I could; and if he was not entirely satisfied with my interpretation of it, he was at least induced to believe that cruel practices were more probable than he had imagined. A second circumstance, of the truth of which he doubted, was the mortality and usage of seamen in this trade; and a third was the statement by which so much had been made of the riches of Africa, and of the genius and abilities of her people; for he seemed at a loss to comprehend, if these things were so, how it happened that they should not have been more generally noticed before. I promised to satisfy him upon these points, and an interview was fixed for this purpose the next day.
My first task in London was to have a conversation with Mr. Pitt before the council meeting, and try to get him, as the leading minister, interested in our cause. Mr. Wilberforce had helped set this up, and we had a chance to meet. We talked freely for quite a while, covering most aspects of the topic. Mr. Pitt seemed to know very little about it. He openly expressed his doubts on several points. He couldn't understand why a slave owner wouldn't usually prevent their slaves from being mistreated. I explained it as best as I could, and while he might not have been completely satisfied with my explanation, he seemed more open to the idea that cruel practices were more likely than he had thought. Another thing he was skeptical about was the death rates and treatment of sailors in this trade. Lastly, he questioned the claims about Africa’s wealth and the talents of its people, wondering how these had not been more widely acknowledged before. I promised to clarify these issues for him, and we arranged to meet again the next day for this purpose.
At the time appointed, I went with my books, papers, and African productions. Mr. Pitt examined the former himself. He turned over leaf after leaf, in which the copies of the muster-rolls were contained, with great patience; and when he had looked over above a hundred pages accurately, and found the name of every seaman inserted, his former abode or service, the time of his entry, and what had become of him, either by death, discharge, or desertion, he expressed his surprise at the great pains which had been taken in this branch of the inquiry; and confessed, with some emotion, that his doubts were wholly removed with respect to the destructive nature of this employ; and he said, moreover, that the facts contained in these documents, if they had been but fairly copied, could never be disproved. He was equally astonished at the various woods and other productions of Africa, but most of all at the manufactures of the natives in cotton, leather, gold, and iron, which were laid before him. These he handled and examined over and over again. Many sublime thoughts seemed to rush in upon him at once at the sight of these, some of which he expressed with observations becoming a great and a dignified mind. He thanked me for the light I had given him on many of the branches of this great question. And I went away under a certain conviction that I had left him much impressed in our favour.
At the scheduled time, I brought my books, papers, and African products. Mr. Pitt looked over the documents himself. He patiently flipped through page after page that contained the muster rolls, and after carefully reviewing over a hundred pages, he verified the name of every sailor, their previous residence or service, the time they started, and what had happened to them—whether they had died, been discharged, or deserted. He expressed surprise at the extensive effort that had gone into this investigation and admitted, with some emotion, that all his doubts about the harmful nature of this work had been resolved. He also said that the information in these documents, if copied accurately, could never be disproven. He was equally amazed by the various woods and other products from Africa, but most impressed by the native manufactures of cotton, leather, gold, and iron that were presented to him. He handled and examined these repeatedly. Many profound thoughts seemed to flood his mind upon seeing them, some of which he articulated with insights fitting for a great and dignified intellect. He thanked me for the clarity I had provided on many aspects of this important issue. I left with the strong belief that I had made a significant impression on him in our favor.
My next visit was to Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grenville. I called upon him at the request of Mr. Wilberforce, who had previously written to him from Bath, as he had promised to attend the meetings of the privy council during the examinations which were to take place. I found, in the course of our conversation, that Mr. Grenville had not then more knowledge of the subject than Mr. Pitt; but I found him differently circumstanced in other respects, for I perceived in him a warm feeling in behalf of the injured Africans, and that he had no doubt of the possibility of all the barbarities which had been alleged against this traffic. I showed him all my papers and some of my natural productions, which he examined. I was with him the next day, and once again afterwards, so that the subject was considered in all its parts. The effect of this interview with him was of course different from that upon the minister. In the former case I had removed doubts, and given birth to an interest in favour of our cause. But I had here only increased an interest, which had already been excited, I had only enlarged the mass of feeling, or added zeal to zeal, or confirmed resolutions and reasonings. Disposed in this manner originally himself, and strengthened by the documents with which I had furnished him, Mr. Grenville contracted an enmity to the Slave Trade, which was never afterwards diminishedA.
My next visit was to Mr. Grenville (who later became Lord Grenville). I went to see him at the request of Mr. Wilberforce, who had previously written to him from Bath, as he had promised to attend the meetings of the Privy Council during the upcoming examinations. During our conversation, I realized that Mr. Grenville didn’t know much more about the subject than Mr. Pitt did, but I noticed he was in a different situation in other ways. He showed a strong concern for the suffering Africans and had no doubt about the horrible acts that had been reported about this trade. I shared all my papers and some of my natural specimens with him, which he looked over. I met with him the next day, and once more afterward, so we covered the topic in depth. The outcome of this meeting with him was, of course, different from the effect on the minister. In the first case, I had cleared up doubts and sparked an interest in our cause. Here, I simply deepened an interest that was already there; I expanded the existing feelings, added enthusiasm to enthusiasm, and reinforced resolutions and arguments. With his original disposition and strengthened by the documents I had provided, Mr. Grenville developed a strong opposition to the Slave Trade that never faded away.A
A: I have not mentioned the difference between these two eminent persons, with a view of drawing any invidious comparisons, but because, as these statements are true, such persons as have a high opinion of the late Mr. Pitt's judgment, may see that this great man did not espouse the cause hastily, or merely as a matter of feeling, but upon the conviction of his own mind.
A: I haven't pointed out the differences between these two prominent figures to make unfair comparisons, but because these statements are accurate. Those who hold the late Mr. Pitt's judgment in high regard can see that this great man did not support the cause lightly or just out of emotion, but based on his firm conviction.
A report having gone abroad that the committee of privy council would only examine those who were interested in the continuance of the trade, I found it necessary to call upon Mr. Pitt again, and to inform him of it, when I received an assurance that every person whom I chose to send to the council in behalf of the committee should be heard. This gave rise to a conversation relative to those witnesses whom we had to produce on the side of the abolition. And here I was obliged to disclose our weakness in this respect. I owned with sorrow that, though I had obtained specimens and official documents in abundance to prove many important points, yet I had found it difficult to prevail upon persons to be publicly examined on this subject. The only persons we could then count upon, were Mr. Ramsay, Mr. H. Gandy, Mr. Falconbridge, Mr. Newton, and the Dean of Middleham. There was one, however, who would be a host of himself, if we could but gain him. I then mentioned Mr. Norris. I told Mr. Pitt the natureA and value of the testimony which he had given me at Liverpool, and the great zeal he had discovered to serve the cause. I doubted, however, if he would come to London for this purpose, even if I wrote to him; for he was intimate with almost all the owners of slave-vessels in Liverpool, and, living among these, he would not like to incur their resentment by taking a prominent part against them. I therefore entreated Mr. Pitt to send him a summons of council to attend, hoping that Mr. Norris would then be pleased to come up, as he would be enabled to reply to his friends that his appearance had not been voluntary. Mr. Pitt, however, informed me, that a summons from a committee of privy council, sitting as a board, was not binding upon the subject; and therefore that I had no other means left, but of writing to him, and he desired me to do this by the first post.
A report had gone around that the Privy Council committee would only listen to those who wanted to keep the trade going, so I felt it was necessary to reach out to Mr. Pitt again to let him know about it. He assured me that anyone I chose to send to the council on behalf of the committee would be heard. This led to a discussion about the witnesses we needed to support the abolition. I had to admit our weakness in this area. I sadly acknowledged that, while I had gathered plenty of samples and official documents to prove various important points, it was challenging to convince people to be publicly examined on this matter. The only individuals we could rely on at that time were Mr. Ramsay, Mr. H. Gandy, Mr. Falconbridge, Mr. Newton, and the Dean of Middleham. However, there was one person who could be a tremendous asset if we could get him on board. I then mentioned Mr. Norris. I explained to Mr. Pitt the nature and significance of the testimony he gave me in Liverpool and the strong dedication he showed to support the cause. However, I was doubtful he would come to London for this, even if I wrote to him, because he was close with nearly all the slave ship owners in Liverpool, and living among them, he wouldn’t want to face their resentment by taking a strong stand against them. So, I urged Mr. Pitt to send him a council summons, hoping that Mr. Norris would be more willing to come, as he could tell his friends that his appearance was not voluntary. Mr. Pitt informed me, though, that a summons from a Privy Council committee acting as a board was not mandatory, and so I had no option but to write to him, which he asked me to do at the next post.
A: See his evidence, Chap. XVII.
This letter I accordingly wrote, and sent it to my friend William Rathbone, who was to deliver it in person, and to use his own influence at the same time; but I received for answer, that Mr. Norris was then in London. Upon this I tried to find him out, to entreat him to consent to an examination before the council. At length I found his address; but before I could see him, I was told by the Bishop of London that he had come up as a Liverpool delegate in support of the Slave Trade. Astonished at this information, I made the bishop acquainted with the case, and asked him how it became me to act; for I was fearful lest, by exposing Mr. Norris, I should violate the rights of hospitality on the one hand, and by not exposing him that I should not do my duty to the cause I had undertaken on the other. His advice was, that I should see him, and ask him to explain the reasons of his conduct. I called upon him for this purpose, but he was out. He sent me, however, a letter soon afterwards, which was full of flattery; and in which, after having paid high compliments to the general force of my arguments, and the general justice and humanity of my sentiments on this great question, which had made a deep impression upon his mind, he had found occasion to differ from me, since we had last parted, on particular points, and that he had therefore less reluctantly yielded to the call of becoming a delegate,—though notwithstanding he would gladly have declined the office if he could have done it with propriety.
I wrote this letter and sent it to my friend William Rathbone, who was going to deliver it in person and use his influence at the same time. However, I got a reply saying that Mr. Norris was in London. So, I tried to track him down to ask him to agree to an examination before the council. Eventually, I found his address, but before I could meet him, the Bishop of London informed me that he was in town as a delegate from Liverpool supporting the Slave Trade. Surprised by this news, I explained the situation to the bishop and asked for his advice on what to do. I was worried that exposing Mr. Norris could violate the rights of hospitality, while not exposing him would mean I wasn't fulfilling my duty to the cause I had taken on. The bishop advised me to meet him and ask for an explanation of his actions. I went to see him for this purpose, but he wasn't there. However, he sent me a letter soon after that was filled with flattery, where he praised the overall strength of my arguments and the fairness and humanity of my views on this important issue, which had made a strong impression on him. He mentioned that since we last met, he had found some points to disagree with me on, and thus he had somewhat reluctantly accepted the role of delegate—though he would have preferred to decline the position if he could do so appropriately.
At length the council began their examinations. Mr. Norris, Lieutenant Matthews, of the navy, who had just left a slave employ in Africa, and Mr. James Penny, formerly a slave captain, and then interested as a merchant in the trade, (which three were the delegates from Liverpool,) took possession of the ground first. Mr. Miles, Mr. Weuves, and others, followed them on the same side. The evidence which they gave, as previously concerted between themselves, may be shortly represented thus:—They denied that kidnapping either did or could take place in Africa, or that wars were made there for the purpose of procuring slaves. Having done away these wicked practices from their system, they maintained positions which were less exceptionable, as that the natives of Africa generally became slaves in consequence of having been made prisoners in just wars, or in consequence of their various crimes. They then gave a melancholy picture of the despotism and barbarity of some of the African princes, among whom the custom of sacrificing their own subjects prevailed. But, of all others, that which was afforded by Mr. Norris on this ground was the most frightful. The King of Dahomey, he said, sported with the lives of his people in the most wanton manner. He had seen at the gates of his palace two piles of heads, like those of shot in an arsenal. Within the palace, the heads of persons, newly put to death, were strewed at the distance of a few yards in the passage, which led to his apartment. This custom of human sacrifice by the King of Dahomey was not on one occasion only, but on many; such as on the reception of messengers from neighbouring states, or of white merchants, or on days of ceremonial. But the great carnage was once a year, when the poll-tax was paid by his subjects. A thousand persons, at least, were sacrificed annually on these different occasions. The great men, too, of the country, cut off a few heads on festival-days. From all these particulars the humanity of the Slave Trade was inferred, because it took away the inhabitants of Africa into lands where no such barbarities were known. But the humanity of it was insisted upon by positive circumstances also; namely, that a great number of the slaves were prisoners of war, and that in former times all such were put to death, whereas now they were saved: so that there was a great accession of happiness to Africa since the introduction of the trade.
At last, the council started their hearings. Mr. Norris, Lieutenant Matthews of the navy, who had just finished working in the slave trade in Africa, and Mr. James Penny, a former slave captain who later became a merchant involved in the trade (these three were the delegates from Liverpool), took the lead. Mr. Miles, Mr. Weuves, and others followed them on the same side. Their testimonies, which they had planned in advance, can be summarized as follows: They denied that kidnapping ever happened or could happen in Africa, or that wars were fought for the purpose of capturing slaves. Having dismissed these cruel practices, they argued less controversial points, claiming that the natives of Africa generally became slaves because they were captured in just wars or due to their various crimes. They then painted a grim picture of the tyranny and brutality of some African princes, who practiced the custom of sacrificing their own subjects. However, Mr. Norris provided the most horrifying account. He said the King of Dahomey treated his people’s lives with complete disregard. He had seen two piles of heads at the entrance of the palace, like shot in an arsenal. Inside the palace, the heads of individuals recently killed were scattered in the passage leading to the king's quarters. This practice of human sacrifice by the King of Dahomey occurred not just once but many times; for example, when receiving messengers from nearby states or white merchants, or on ceremonial days. However, the greatest slaughter happened annually when his subjects paid their poll tax. At least a thousand people were sacrificed each year on these occasions. The country’s dignitaries also conducted their own sacrifices on festival days. From all this, they inferred the humanity of the Slave Trade, claiming it removed people from Africa to places where such barbarity was unknown. They stressed this humanity was also supported by concrete evidence, noting that a significant number of slaves were war prisoners and that in the past all such prisoners were killed, whereas now they were spared. Thus, there was a significant increase in happiness in Africa since the trade began.
These statements, and those of others on the same side of the question, had a great effect, as may easily be conceived, upon the feelings of those of the council who were present. Some of them began immediately to be prejudiced against us. There were others who even thought that it was almost unnecessary to proceed in the inquiry, for that the trade was actually a blessing. They had little doubt that all our assertions concerning it would be found false. The Bishop of London himself was so impressed by these unexpected accounts, that he asked me if Falconbridge, whose pamphlet had been previously sent by the committee to every member of the council, was worthy of belief, and if he would substantiate publicly what he had thus written: but these impressions unfortunately were not confined to those who had been present at the examinations. These could not help communicating them to others. Hence, in all the higher circles (some of which I sometimes used to frequent) I had the mortification to hear of nothing but the Liverpool evidence, and of our own credulity, and of the impositions which had been practised upon us: of these reports the planters and merchants did not fail to avail themselves. They boasted that they would soon do away all the idle tales which had been invented against them. They desired the public only to suspend their judgment till the privy council report should be out, when they would see the folly and wickedness of all our allegations. A little more evidence, and all would be over. On the 22nd of March, though the committee council had not then held its sittings more than a month, and these only twice or thrice a week, the following paragraph was seen in a morning paper:—"The report of the committee of privy council will be ready in a few days. After due examination it appears that the major part of the complaints against this trade are ill-founded. Some regulations, however, are expected to take place, which may serve in a certain degree to appease the cause of humanity."
These statements, along with those from others who shared the same viewpoint, had a significant impact on the emotions of the council members who were there. Some of them quickly began to hold a bias against us. Others even felt that it might be unnecessary to continue the investigation, believing that the trade was genuinely beneficial. They were confident that all our claims about it would turn out to be false. The Bishop of London himself was so affected by these surprising accounts that he asked me whether Falconbridge, whose pamphlet had previously been sent to every member of the council by the committee, was trustworthy and if he would publicly back up what he had written. Unfortunately, these impressions weren't limited to those who attended the hearings. They inevitably shared them with others. As a result, in all the upper circles (some of which I occasionally visited), I faced the embarrassment of hearing only about the Liverpool evidence, our naivety, and the scams that had been pulled on us. The planters and merchants didn't hesitate to take advantage of these reports. They claimed that they would soon put an end to all the nonsense that had been made up against them. They urged the public to hold off on their judgment until the privy council report was released, at which point everyone would see the foolishness and nastiness of all our claims. Just a little more evidence, and everything would be resolved. On March 22nd, although the committee council hadn’t met for more than a month, and only two or three times a week, the following paragraph appeared in a morning paper:—"The report of the committee of privy council will be ready in a few days. After thorough examination, it seems that most of the complaints against this trade are baseless. However, some regulations are expected to be implemented, which may somewhat address the cause of humanity."
But while they, who were interested, had produced this outcry against us, in consequence of what had fallen from their own witnesses in the course of their examinations, they had increased it considerably by the industrious circulation of a most artful pamphlet among persons of rank and fortune at the west end of the metropolis, which was called, Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade. This they had procured to be written by R. Harris, who was then clerk in a slave-house in Liverpool, but had been formerly a clergyman and a Jesuit. As they had maintained in the first instance, as has been already shown, the humanity of the traffic, so, by means of this pamphlet they asserted its consistency with revealed religion. That such a book should have made converts in such an age is surprising; and yet many, who ought to have known better, were carried away by it; and we had now absolutely to contend, and almost degrade ourselves by doing so, against the double argument of the humanity and the holiness of the trade.
But while those who were interested had raised this outcry against us, as a result of what their own witnesses had said during their examinations, they had greatly amplified it by actively spreading a very clever pamphlet among wealthy and influential people in the west end of the city, titled Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade. They had arranged for R. Harris, who was then a clerk in a slave trading company in Liverpool but had previously been a clergyman and a Jesuit, to write it. As they had initially argued for the humanity of the trade, this pamphlet asserted its alignment with religious teachings. It's surprising that a book like this could win people over in this era; still, many who should have known better were swayed by it, and we now had to face, and almost humiliate ourselves by doing so, the dual argument of the humanity and the righteousness of the trade.
By these means, but particularly by the former, the current of opinion in particular circles ran against us for the first month, and so strong, that it was impossible for us to stem it at once; but as some of the council recovered from their panic, and their good sense became less biassed by their feelings, and they were in a state to hear reason, their prejudices began to subside. It began now to be understood among them, that almost all the witnesses were concerned in the continuance of the trade. It began to be known also, (for Mr. Pitt and the Bishop of London took care that it should be circulated,) that Mr. Norris had but a short time before furnished me at Liverpool with information, all of which he had concealedA from the council, but all of which made for the abolition of it. Mr. Devaynes also, a respectable member of parliament, who had been in Africa, and who had been appealed to by Mr. Norris, when examined before the privy council, in behalf of his extraordinary facts, was unable, when summoned, to confirm them to the desired extent. From this evidence the council collected, that human sacrifices were not made on the arrival of White traders, as had been asserted; that there was no poll-tax in Dahomey at all; and that Mr. Norris must have been mistaken on these points, for he must have been there at the time of the ceremony of watering the graves, when about sixty persons suffered. This latter custom moreover appeared to have been a religious superstition of the country, such as at Otaheite, or in Britain in the time of the Druids, and to have had nothing to do with the Slave TradeB. With respect to prisoners of war, Mr. Devaynes allowed that the old, the lame, and the wounded, were often put to death on the spot; but this was to save the trouble of bringing them away. The young and the healthy were driven off for sale; but if they were not sold when offered, they were not killed, but reserved for another market, or became house-slaves to the conquerors. Mr. Devaynes also maintained, contrary to the allegations of the others, that a great number of persons were kidnapped in order to be sold to the ships; and that the government, where this happened, was not strong enough to prevent it. But besides these drawbacks from the weight of the testimony which had been given, it began to be perceived by some of the lords of the council, that the cruel superstitions which had been described, obtained only in one or two countries in Africa, and these of insignificant extent; whereas at the time, when their minds were carried away, as it were by their feelings, they had supposed them to attach to the whole of that vast continent. They perceived also, that there were circumstances related in the evidence by the delegates themselves, by means of which, if they were true, the inhumanity of the trade might be established, and this to their own disgrace. They had all confessed that such slaves, as the White traders refused to buy, were put to death; and yet that these traders, knowing that this would be the case, had the barbarity uniformly to reject those whom it did not suit them to purchase. Mr. Matthews had rejected one of this description himself, whom he saw afterwards destroyed. Mr. Penny had known the refuse thrown down Melimba rock. Mr. Norris himself, when certain prisoners of war were offered to him for sale, declined buying them because they appeared unhealthy; and though the king then told him that he would put them to death, he could not be prevailed upon to take them but left them to their hard fate; and he had the boldness to state afterwards, that it was his belief that many of them actually suffered.
By these means, especially the first one, the opinion in certain circles turned against us for the first month, so strong that it was impossible for us to counter it right away. However, as some council members began to calm down from their panic and their rationality was less clouded by emotions, they became more open to reason, and their biases started to fade. It began to be understood among them that almost all the witnesses had a stake in continuing the trade. It was also becoming known (thanks to Mr. Pitt and the Bishop of London, who ensured this information spread) that Mr. Norris had recently given me information in Liverpool, all of which he had kept hidden from the council but which supported the case for abolishing it. Mr. Devaynes, a respected member of parliament who had been to Africa and had been called by Mr. Norris to testify about his unusual findings, was unable, when summoned, to fully confirm them. From this evidence, the council gathered that human sacrifices were not made upon the arrival of White traders, as had been claimed; that there was no poll tax in Dahomey at all; and that Mr. Norris must have been mistaken regarding these points, as he had to be present during the ceremony of watering the graves, when about sixty people died. This latter custom appeared to be a religious superstition, similar to those in Otaheite or in Britain during the Druids' time, and had nothing to do with the Slave Trade. Regarding prisoners of war, Mr. Devaynes admitted that the old, lame, and wounded were often killed on the spot to avoid the hassle of carrying them away. The young and healthy were taken for sale; if they weren't sold when offered, they weren't killed but were instead kept for another market or became house slaves to the conquerors. Mr. Devaynes also argued, contrary to what others said, that many people were kidnapped to be sold to ships; and that the government in those areas wasn't strong enough to stop it. However, beyond these inconsistencies in the testimony provided, some lords of the council began to realize that the cruel superstitions that had been described existed only in one or two small African regions; whereas at that time, when their emotions clouded their judgment, they had assumed these practices were widespread across the entire continent. They also noticed that certain details given by the delegates could, if true, highlight the inhumanity of the trade and shamefully reflect on themselves. They all admitted that slaves whom the White traders refused to buy were put to death, yet these traders, knowing this would happen, cruelly chose to reject those who didn't meet their purchasing criteria. Mr. Matthews himself had turned down one such person, whom he later saw killed. Mr. Penny had witnessed those deemed undesirable thrown off Melimba rock. Mr. Norris had also declined to buy certain prisoners of war because they seemed unhealthy, and even when the king promised he would kill them, Norris refused to take them, leaving them to their grim fate; he later bold enough to claim that he believed many of them actually died.
A: This was also the case with another witness, Mr. Weuves. He had given me accounts, before any stir was made about the Slave Trade, relative to it, all of which he kept back when he was examined there.
A: This was also true for another witness, Mr. Weuves. He had shared information with me about the Slave Trade before any commotion arose regarding it, but he withheld all of that when he was questioned there.
B: Being a religion custom, it would still have gone on, though the Slave Trade had been abolished: nor could the merchants at any time have bought off a single victim.
B: As a religious tradition, it would have continued even if the Slave Trade had been abolished; nor could the merchants at any point have purchased a single victim.
These considerations had the effect of diminishing the prejudices of some of the council on this great question: and when this was perceived to be the case, it was the opinion of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Grenville, and the Bishop of London, that we should send three or four of our own evidences for examination, who might help to restore matters to an equilibrium. Accordingly, Mr. Falconbridge, and some others, all of whom were to speak to the African part of the subject, were introduced. These produced a certain weight in the opposite scale. But soon after these had been examined, Dr. Andrew Spaarman, professor of physic, and inspector of the museum of the royal academy at Stockholm, and his companion, C.B. Wadstrom, chief director of the assay-office there, arrived in England. These gentlemen had been lately sent to Africa by the late king of Sweden, to make discoveries in botany, mineralogy, and other departments of science. For this purpose the Swedish ambassador at Paris had procured them permission from the French government to visit the countries bordering on the Senegal, and had insured them protection there. They had been conveyed to the place of their destination, where they had remained from August 1787, to the end of January 1788; but meeting with obstacles which they had not foreseen, they had left it, and had returned to Havre de Grace, from whence they had just arrived in London, on their way home. It so happened, that by means of George Harrison, one of our committee, I fell in unexpectedly with these gentlemen. I had not long been with them, before I perceived the great treasure I had found. They gave me many beautiful specimens of African produce. They showed me their journals, which they had regularly kept from day to day. In these I had the pleasure of seeing a number of circumstances minuted down, all relating to the Slave Trade, and even drawings on the same subject. I obtained a more accurate and satisfactory knowledge of the manners and customs of the Africans from these, than from all the persons put together whom I had yet seen. I was anxious, therefore, to take them before the committee of council, to which they were pleased to consent; and as Dr. Spaarman was to leave London in a few days, I procured him an introduction first. His evidence went to show, that the natives of Africa lived in a fruitful and luxuriant country, which supplied all their wants, and that they would be a happy people, if it were not for the existence of the Slave Trade. He instanced wars which he knew to have been made by the Moors upon the Negroes, (for they were entered upon wholly at the instigation of the White traders,) for the purpose of getting slaves, and he had the pain of seeing the unhappy captives brought in on such occasions, and some of them in a wounded state. Among them, were many women and children, and the women were in great affliction. He saw also the king of Barbesin send out his parties on expeditions of a similar kind, and he saw them return with slaves. The king had been made intoxicated on purpose, by the French agents, or he would never have consented to the measure. He stated also, that in consequence of the temptations held out by slave-vessels coming upon the coast, the natives seized one another in the night, when they found opportunity; and even invited others to their houses, whom they treacherously detained, and sold at these times; so that every enormity was practised in Africa, in consequence of the existence of the trade. These specific instances made a proper impression upon the lords of the council in their turn; for Dr. Spaarman was a man of high character; he possessed the confidence of his sovereign; he had no interest whatever in giving his evidence on this subject, either on one or the other side; his means of information too had been large; he had also recorded the facts which had come before him, and he had his journal, written in the French language, to produce. The tide, therefore, which had run so strongly against us, began now to turn a little in our favour.
These considerations lessened some of the council's biases on this important issue. When this became evident, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Grenville, and the Bishop of London believed we should send three or four of our own witnesses for review, who could help bring things back into balance. Consequently, Mr. Falconbridge and a few others, all of whom could speak about the African aspect of the matter, were introduced. They added some weight to the opposing argument. However, shortly after their examination, Dr. Andrew Spaarman, a professor of medicine and the inspector of the museum of the Royal Academy in Stockholm, along with his associate, C.B. Wadstrom, the chief director of the assay office there, arrived in England. These gentlemen had recently been sent to Africa by the late King of Sweden to explore botany, mineralogy, and other fields of science. The Swedish ambassador in Paris had arranged for them to receive permission from the French government to visit the areas around Senegal and had ensured their protection there. They had been transported to their destination, where they remained from August 1787 until the end of January 1788; however, due to unforeseen challenges, they left and returned to Havre de Grace, from where they had just arrived in London on their way home. As luck would have it, I unexpectedly met these gentlemen through George Harrison, a member of our committee. I hadn’t been with them long before I realized the valuable discovery I had made. They provided me with many beautiful samples of African goods. They shared their journals, which they had consistently kept. In these records, I found numerous details related to the Slave Trade, including sketches on the same topic. I gained a more accurate and thorough understanding of African customs and practices from them than from everyone else I had encountered so far. Eager to present them to the council committee, I arranged for an introduction first for Dr. Spaarman, who was set to leave London in a few days. His testimony indicated that the African natives lived in a fertile and thriving region that fulfilled all their needs and that they would be a joyful people if not for the Slave Trade. He cited wars he had witnessed that were instigated by the Moors against the Black population, all driven by the White traders’ influence, aimed at capturing slaves. He recounted the distress of seeing the unfortunate captives brought in during these incidents, some of whom were injured. Many of them were women and children, with the women visibly suffering. He also observed the king of Barbesin sending out groups on similar missions, returning with slaves. The king had been purposely intoxicated by French agents; otherwise, he would never have agreed to such actions. He noted that due to the temptations posed by slave ships arriving on the coast, natives began seizing one another at night whenever they had the chance; they even invited others to their homes, only to betray and sell them during these encounters. Thus, all kinds of atrocities occurred in Africa because of the trade's existence. These specific examples made a significant impression on the council members; Dr. Spaarman was a reputable individual who held the trust of his king. He had no personal stake in testifying on either side; moreover, his sources of information were vast. He had also documented the incidents he experienced, along with his journal, written in French, ready for presentation. Thus, the tide, which had previously run strongly against us, began to shift slightly in our favor.
While these examinations were going on, petitions continued to be sent to the House of Commons, from various parts of the kingdom. No less than one hundred and three were presented in this session. The city of London, though she was drawn the other way by the cries of commercial interest, made a sacrifice to humanity and justice: the two universities applauded her conduct by their own example. Large manufacturing towns, and whole counties, expressed their sentiments and wishes in a similar manner. The Established Church in separate dioceses, and the Quakers and other dissenters, as separate religious bodies, joined in one voice upon this occasion.
While these examinations were happening, petitions were still being sent to the House of Commons from different parts of the country. A total of one hundred and three were submitted in this session. The city of London, despite being swayed by the demands of business interests, made a sacrifice for the sake of humanity and justice: the two universities supported her actions by setting their own examples. Large manufacturing cities and entire counties expressed their opinions and desires in a similar way. The Established Church in various dioceses, along with the Quakers and other dissenters as distinct religious groups, united in their voice on this matter.
The committee, in the interim, were not unmindful of the great work they had undertaken, and they continued to forward it in its different departments. They kept up a communication by letter with most of the worthy persons, who have been mentioned to have written to them, but particularly with Brissot and Claviere; from whom they had the satisfaction of learning, that a society had at length been established at Paris, for the abolition of the Slave Trade in France. The learned Marquis de Condorcet had become the president of it. The virtuous Duc de la Rochefoucauld and the Marquis de la Fayette had sanctioned it by enrolling their names as the two first members. Petion, who was placed afterwards among the mayors of Paris, followed. Women also were not thought unworthy of being honorary and assistant members of this humane institution; and among these were found the amiable Marchioness of la Fayette, Madame de Poivre, widow of the late intendant of the Isle of France, and Madame Necker, wife of the first minister of state.
The committee, in the meantime, was fully aware of the important work they had taken on, and they continued to push it forward in its various areas. They maintained communication through letters with most of the notable individuals mentioned as having reached out to them, particularly Brissot and Claviere. They were pleased to learn that a society had finally been formed in Paris to abolish the Slave Trade in France. The esteemed Marquis de Condorcet had become its president. The honorable Duc de la Rochefoucauld and the Marquis de la Fayette endorsed it by becoming the first two members. Later, Petion, who would go on to be one of the mayors of Paris, joined as well. Women were also considered worthy of being honorary and assistant members of this noble organization, including the charming Marchioness of la Fayette, Madame de Poivre, widow of the former intendant of the Isle of France, and Madame Necker, the wife of the first minister of state.
The new correspondents, who voluntarily offered their services to the committee, during the first part of the period now under consideration, were S. Whitcomb, Esq., of Gloucester; the Rev. D. Watson, of Middleton Tyas, Yorkshire; John Murlin, Esq., of High Wycomb; Charles Collins, Esq., of Swansea; Henry Tudor, Esq., of Sheffield; the Rev. John Hare, of Lincoln; Samuel Tooker, Esq., of Moorgate, near Rotherham; the Rev. G. Walker, and Francis Wakefield, Esq., of Nottingham; the Rev. Mr. Hepworth, of Burton-upon-Trent; the Rev. H. Dannett, of St. John's, Liverpool; the Rev. Dr. Oglander, of New College, Oxford; the Rev. H. Coulthurst, of Sidney College, Cambridge; R. Selfe, Esq., of Cirencester; Morris Birkbeck, of Hanford, Dorsetshire; William Jepson, of Lancaster; B. Kaye, of Leeds: John Patison, Esq., of Paisley; J.E. Dolben, Esq., of Northamptonshire; the Rev. Mr. Smith, of Wendover; John Wilkinson, Esq., of Woodford; Samuel Milford, Esq., of Exeter; Peter Lunel, Esq., treasurer of the committee at Bristol; James Pemberton, of Philadelphia; and the president of the Society at New York.
The new correspondents who willingly offered their services to the committee during the first part of the period we're discussing were S. Whitcomb, Esq., from Gloucester; the Rev. D. Watson, from Middleton Tyas, Yorkshire; John Murlin, Esq., from High Wycombe; Charles Collins, Esq., from Swansea; Henry Tudor, Esq., from Sheffield; the Rev. John Hare, from Lincoln; Samuel Tooker, Esq., from Moorgate, near Rotherham; the Rev. G. Walker, and Francis Wakefield, Esq., from Nottingham; the Rev. Mr. Hepworth, from Burton-upon-Trent; the Rev. H. Dannett, from St. John's, Liverpool; the Rev. Dr. Oglander, from New College, Oxford; the Rev. H. Coulthurst, from Sidney College, Cambridge; R. Selfe, Esq., from Cirencester; Morris Birkbeck, from Hanford, Dorsetshire; William Jepson, from Lancaster; B. Kaye, from Leeds; John Patison, Esq., from Paisley; J.E. Dolben, Esq., from Northamptonshire; the Rev. Mr. Smith, from Wendover; John Wilkinson, Esq., from Woodford; Samuel Milford, Esq., from Exeter; Peter Lunel, Esq., treasurer of the committee in Bristol; James Pemberton, from Philadelphia; and the president of the Society in New York.
The letters from new correspondents during the latter part of this period, were the following:—
The letters from new correspondents during the later part of this period were as follows:—
One from Alexander Alison, Esq., of Edinburgh, in which he expressed it to be his duty to attempt to awaken the inhabitants of Scotland to a knowledge of the monstrous evil of the Slave Trade, and to form a committee there, to act in union with that of London, in carrying the great object of their institution into effect.
One from Alexander Alison, Esq., of Edinburgh, in which he stated it was his duty to try to make the people of Scotland aware of the terrible injustice of the Slave Trade, and to establish a committee there to work alongside the one in London to achieve the main purpose of their organization.
Another from Elhanan Winchester, offering the committee one hundred of his sermons, which he had preached against the Slave Trade, in Fairfax county, in Virginia, so early as in the year 1774.
Another from Elhanan Winchester, offering the committee one hundred of his sermons, which he had preached against the Slave Trade, in Fairfax County, Virginia, as early as the year 1774.
Another from Dr. Frossard, of Lyons, in which he offered his services for the South of France, and desired different publications to be sent him, that he might be better qualified to take a part in the promotion of the cause.
Another from Dr. Frossard in Lyon, where he offered his services for the South of France and requested various publications to be sent to him so he could be better prepared to help promote the cause.
Another from Professor Bruns, of Helmstadt, in Germany, in which he desired to know the particulars relative to the institution of the committee, as many thousands upon the continent were then beginning to feel for the sufferings of the oppressed African race.
Another message from Professor Bruns, from Helmstadt, Germany, in which he wanted to know the details about the establishment of the committee, as many thousands on the continent were starting to understand the struggles of the oppressed African race.
Another from Rev. James Manning, of Exeter, in which he stated himself to be authorized by the dissenting ministers of Devon and Cornwall, to express their high approbation of the conduct of the committee, and to offer their services in the promotion of this great work of humanity and religion.
Another from Rev. James Manning, of Exeter, in which he stated he was authorized by the dissenting ministers of Devon and Cornwall to express their strong support for the committee's actions and to offer their assistance in the advancement of this important work of humanity and religion.
Another from William Senhouse, Esq., of the island of Barbados. In this he gave the particulars of two estates, one of them his own, and the other belonging to a nobleman, upon each of which the slaves, in consequence of humane treatment, had increased by natural population only. Another effect of this humane treatment had been, that these slaves were among the most orderly and tractable in that island. From these and other instances he argued, that if the planters would, all of them, take proper care of their slaves, their humanity would be repaid in a few years, by a valuable increase in their property, and they would never want supplies from a traffic, which had been so justly condemned.
Another letter came from William Senhouse, Esq., from the island of Barbados. In it, he shared details about two estates, one of which was his own and the other belonged to a nobleman. On both estates, the slaves had increased naturally due to kind treatment. Another result of this kind treatment was that these slaves were among the most well-behaved and cooperative on the island. From these and other examples, he argued that if all planters took proper care of their slaves, their kindness would pay off in a few years with a significant increase in their property, and they would never have to rely on a trade that had been so justly condemned.
Two others, the one from Travers Hartley, and the other from Alexander Jaffray, Esqrs., both of Dublin, were read. These gentlemen sent certain resolutions, which had been agreed upon by the chamber of commerce and by the guild of merchants there, relative to the abolition of the Slave Trade. They rejoiced, in the name of those whom they represented, that Ireland had been unspotted by a traffic, which they held in such deep abhorrence; and promised, if it should be abolished in England, to take the post active measures to prevent it from finding an asylum in the ports of that kingdom.
Two others, one from Travers Hartley and the other from Alexander Jaffray, both from Dublin, were read. These gentlemen sent certain resolutions that had been agreed upon by the chamber of commerce and the guild of merchants there, regarding the abolition of the Slave Trade. They expressed their joy, on behalf of those they represented, that Ireland had remained untouched by a trade they found deeply detestable; and they promised that if it were abolished in England, they would take active steps to stop it from taking refuge in the ports of that kingdom.
The letters of William Senhouse, and of Travers Hartley, and of Alexander Jaffray, Esqrs., were ordered to be presented to the committee of privy council, and copies of them to be left there.
The letters from William Senhouse, Travers Hartley, and Alexander Jaffray, Esqrs., were directed to be submitted to the committee of the privy council, with copies to be kept there.
The business of the committee having almost daily increased within this period, Dr. Baker and Bennet Langton, Esq., who were the two first to assist me in my early labours, and who have been mentioned among the forerunners and coadjutors of the cause, were elected members of it. Dr. Kippis also was added to the list.
The committee's activities have grown almost daily during this time. Dr. Baker and Bennet Langton, Esq., who were the first two to help me in my early efforts and have been recognized as pioneers and supporters of the cause, were elected as members. Dr. Kippis was also added to the list.
The honorary and corresponding members, elected within the same period, were the Dean of Middleham; T.W. Coke, Esq., member of parliament, of Holkham, in Norfolk; and the Rev. William Leigh, who has been before mentioned, of Little Plumstead, in the same county. The latter had published several valuable letters in the public papers, under the signature of Africanus: these had excited great notice, and done much good. The worthy author had now collected them into a publication, and had offered the profits of it to the committee. Hence this mark of their respect was conferred upon him.
The honorary and corresponding members elected during the same period included the Dean of Middleham; T.W. Coke, Esq., a Member of Parliament from Holkham in Norfolk; and the Rev. William Leigh, previously mentioned, from Little Plumstead in the same county. The latter had published several valuable letters in public newspapers under the pen name Africanus; these gained a lot of attention and did much good. The esteemed author had now compiled them into a publication and offered the profits to the committee. This led to the committee bestowing this mark of their respect upon him.
The committee ordered a new edition of three thousand of the Dean of Middleham's Letters to be printed. Having approved of a manuscript, written by James Field Stanfield, a mariner, containing observations upon a voyage which he had lately made to the coast of Africa for slaves, they ordered three thousand of these to be printed also. By this time, the subject having been much talked of, and many doubts and difficulties having been thrown in the way of the abolition, by persons interested in the continuance of the trade, Mr. Ramsay, who has been often so honourably mentioned, put down upon paper all the objections which were then handed about, and also those answers to each, which he was qualified, from his superior knowledge of the subject, to suggest. This he did, that the members of the legislature might see the more intricate parts of the question unravelled, and that they might not be imposed upon by the spurious arguments which were then in circulation concerning it. Observing also the poisonous effect which The Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade had produced upon the minds of many, he wrote an answer on scriptural grounds to that pamphlet. These works were sent to the press, and three thousand copies of each of them were ordered to be struck off.
The committee ordered a new edition of three thousand copies of the Dean of Middleham's Letters to be printed. They approved a manuscript by James Field Stanfield, a mariner, which contained observations from a recent voyage he took to the coast of Africa for slaves, and they also ordered three thousand copies of that to be printed. By this time, the topic had been widely discussed, and many doubts and challenges had been raised against abolition by those who wanted to keep the trade going. Mr. Ramsay, who has often been mentioned honorably, wrote down all the objections that were circulating, along with responses to each, which he was able to provide due to his greater knowledge of the subject. He did this so that the members of the legislature could understand the more complex parts of the issue and not be misled by the misleading arguments that were being circulated at the time. Noticing the negative impact that The Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade had on many people's minds, he wrote a response on scriptural grounds to that pamphlet. These works were sent to the press, and three thousand copies of each were ordered to be printed.
The committee, in their arrangement of the distribution of their books, ordered NEWTON'S Thoughts, and RAMSAY'S Objections and Answers, to be sent to each member of both houses of parliament.
The committee, in organizing the distribution of their books, ordered NEWTON'S Thoughts, and RAMSAY'S Objections and Answers, to be sent to each member of both houses of parliament.
They appointed also three sub-committees for different purposes: one to draw up such facts and arguments respecting the Slave Trade, with a view of being translated into other languages, as should give foreigners a suitable knowledge of the subject; another to prepare an answer to certain false reports which had been spread relative to the object of their institution, and to procure an insertion of it in the daily papers; and a third to draw up rules for the government of the society.
They also set up three sub-committees for different purposes: one to gather facts and arguments about the Slave Trade, so they could be translated into other languages, to give foreigners a proper understanding of the subject; another to prepare a response to some false rumors that had been circulated regarding the purpose of their organization, and to get it published in the daily newspapers; and a third to create rules for the management of the society.
By the latter end of the month of March, there was an anxious expectation in the public, notwithstanding the privy council had taken up the subject, that some notice should be taken, in the lower house of parliament, of the numerous petitions which had been presented there. There was the same expectation in many of the members of it themselves. Lord Penrhyn, one of the representatives for Liverpool, and a planter also, had anticipated this notice, by moving for such papers relative to ships employed, goods exported, produce imported, and duties upon the same, as would show the vast value of the trade, which it was in contemplation to abolish. But at this time Mr. Wilberforce was ill, and unable to gratify the expectations which had been thus apparent. The committee, therefore, who partook of the anxiety of the public, knew not what to do. They saw that two-thirds of the session had already passed. They saw no hope of Mr. Wilberforce's recovery for some time. Rumours too were afloat, that other members, of whose plans they knew nothing, and who might even make emancipation their object, would introduce the business into the house. Thus situated, they waited, as patiently as they could, till the 8th of AprilA, when they resolved to write to Mr. Wilberforce, to explain to him their fears and wishes, and to submit it to his consideration, whether, if he were unable himself, he would appoint some one in whom he could confide, to make some motion in parliament on the subject.
By the end of March, the public was anxiously waiting, even though the privy council had taken up the issue, for the lower house of parliament to address the many petitions that had been submitted there. Many members of parliament were feeling the same anticipation. Lord Penrhyn, one of the representatives for Liverpool and a planter, had expected this discussion by requesting documents related to ships engaged in the trade, exported goods, imported produce, and their associated duties, which would demonstrate the immense value of the trade they were considering abolishing. However, at that time, Mr. Wilberforce was unwell and unable to meet these rising expectations. The committee, sharing the public's anxiety, was unsure of what to do. They noticed that two-thirds of the session had already gone by and had no hope for Mr. Wilberforce’s recovery anytime soon. There were also rumors that other members, whose plans were unknown, might even pursue emancipation and would bring the issue to the house. Given this situation, they waited as patiently as they could until April 8thA, when they decided to write to Mr. Wilberforce to express their concerns and hopes, and to ask if he could appoint someone he trusted to make a motion in parliament about the matter if he was unable to do it himself.
A: Brissot attended in person at this committee in his way to America, which it was then an object with him to visit.
A: Brissot personally attended this committee on his way to America, which he intended to visit.
But the public expectation became now daily more visible. The inhabitants of Manchester, many of whom had signed the petition for that place, became impatient, and they appointed Thomas Walker and Thomas Cooper, Esquires, as their delegates, to proceed to London to communicate with the committee on this subject, to assist them in their deliberations upon it, and to give their attendance while it was under discussion by the legislature.
But public expectations became more and more apparent every day. The people of Manchester, many of whom had signed the petition for their city, grew impatient. They appointed Thomas Walker and Thomas Cooper as their delegates to go to London, talk to the committee about this issue, help them with their discussions, and be present while it was debated by the legislature.
At the time of the arrival of the delegates, who were received as such by the committee, a letter came from Bath, in which it was stated that Mr. Wilberforce's health was in such a precarious state, that his physicians dared not allow him to read any letter which related to the subject of the Slave Trade.
At the time the delegates arrived and were welcomed by the committee, a letter came from Bath stating that Mr. Wilberforce’s health was so fragile that his doctors wouldn’t let him read any letters related to the issue of the Slave Trade.
The committee were now again at a loss how to act, when they were relieved from this doubtful situation by a message from Mr. Pitt, who desired a conference with their chairman. Mr. Sharp accordingly went, and on his return made the following report: "He had a full opportunity," he said, "of explaining to Mr. Pitt that the desire of the committee went to the entire abolition of the Slave Trade. Mr. Pitt assured him that his heart was with the committee as to this object, and that he considered himself pledged to Mr. Wilberforce, that the cause should not sustain any injury from his indisposition; but at the same time observed, that the subject was of great political importance, and it was requisite to proceed in it with temper and prudence. He did not apprehend, as the examinations before the privy council would yet take up some time, that the subject could be fully investigated in the present session of parliament; but said he would consider whether the forms of the house would admit of any measures that would be obligatory on them to take it up early in the ensuing session."
The committee was once again unsure of how to proceed when they received a message from Mr. Pitt, who requested a meeting with their chairman. Mr. Sharp went to the meeting and returned with the following report: "He had a complete opportunity," he said, "to explain to Mr. Pitt that the committee’s goal was the total abolition of the Slave Trade. Mr. Pitt assured him that he supported the committee's aim and felt committed to Mr. Wilberforce that the cause wouldn’t suffer due to his unavailability; however, he also mentioned that the issue was politically significant and needed to be approached with caution and wisdom. He didn’t think, since the hearings before the privy council would take some time, that the topic could be thoroughly examined in the current session of parliament; but he said he would see if the house's procedures would allow for any measures that would require them to address it early in the next session."
In about a week after this conference, Mr. Morton Pitt was deputed by the minister to write to the committee, to say that he had found precedents for such a motion as he conceived to be proper, and that he would submit it to the House of Commons in a few days.
In about a week after this conference, Mr. Morton Pitt was assigned by the minister to write to the committee, letting them know that he had found examples for a motion he believed was appropriate, and that he would present it to the House of Commons in a few days.
At the next meeting, which was on the 6th of May, and at which Major Cartwright and the Manchester delegates assisted, Mr. Morton Pitt attended as a member of the committee, and said that the minister had fixed his motion for the 9th. It was then resolved, that deputations should be sent to some of the leading members of parliament, to request their support of the approaching motion. I was included in one of these, and in that which was to wait upon Mr. Fox. We were received by him in a friendly manner. On putting the question to him, which related to the object of our mission, Mr. Fox paused for a little while, as if in the act of deliberation; when he assured us unequivocally, and in language which could not be misunderstood, that he would support the object of the committee to its fullest extent, being convinced that there was no remedy for the evil, but in the total abolition of the trade.
At the next meeting on May 6th, which Major Cartwright and the Manchester delegates attended, Mr. Morton Pitt came as a committee member and announced that the minister had scheduled his motion for the 9th. It was then decided that delegations would be sent to some key members of parliament to ask for their support for the upcoming motion. I was part of one of these delegations, specifically the one that was going to meet with Mr. Fox. He welcomed us warmly. When we asked him about the purpose of our visit, Mr. Fox took a moment to think it over before assuring us clearly and unmistakably that he would fully support the committee's goals, as he believed that the only solution to the problem was the complete abolition of the trade.
At length, the 9th, or the day fixed upon, arrived, when this important subject was to be mentioned in the House of Commons for the first timeA, with a view to the public discussion of it. It is impossible for me to give, within the narrow limits of this work, all that was then said upon it; and yet as the debate which ensued was the first which took place upon it, I should feel inexcusable if I were not to take some notice of it.
At last, the 9th—the day we had set—arrived, when this important topic would be brought up in the House of Commons for the first timeA, aiming for a public discussion. I can't provide everything that was said within the limits of this work, but since the debate that followed was the first of its kind, I would feel remiss if I didn’t mention it at all.
A: David Hartley made a motion some years before in the same house, as has been shown in a former part of this work; but this was only to establish a proposition, That the Slave Trade was contrary to the Laws of God and the Rights of Man.
A: David Hartley proposed a motion a few years earlier in the same house, as discussed earlier in this work; however, this was merely to establish the idea that the Slave Trade was against the Laws of God and the Rights of Man.
Mr. Pitt rose. He said he intended to move a resolution relative to a subject which was of more importance than any which had ever been agitated in that house. This honour he should not have had, but for a circumstance which he could not but deeply regret, the severe indisposition of his friend Mr. Wilberforce, in whose hands every measure which belonged to justice, humanity, and the national interest, was peculiarly well placed. The subject in question was no less than that of the Slave Trade. It was obvious from the great number of petitions which had been presented concerning it, how much it had engaged the public attention, and consequently how much it deserved the serious notice of that house, and how much it became their duty to take some measure concerning it. But whatever was done on such a subject, every one would agree, ought to be done with the maturest deliberation. Two opinions had prevailed without doors, as appeared from the language of the different petitions. It had been pretty generally thought that the African Slave Trade ought to be abolished. There were others, however, who thought that it only stood in need of regulations. But all had agreed that it ought not to remain as it stood at present. But that measure which it might be the most proper to take, could only be discovered by a cool, patient, and diligent examination of the subject in all its circumstances, relations, and consequences. This had induced him to form an opinion that the present was not the proper time for discussing it; for the session was now far advanced, and there was also a want of proper materials for the full information of the house. It would, he thought, be better discussed, when it might produce some useful debate, and when that inquiry which had been instituted by His Majesty's Ministers, (he meant the examination by a committee of privy council,) should be brought to such a state of maturity as to make it fit that the result of it should be laid before the house. That inquiry, he trusted, would facilitate their investigation, and enable them the better to proceed to a decision which should be equally founded on principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy. As there was not a probability of reaching so desirable an end in the present state of the business, he meant to move a resolution to pledge the house to the discussion of the question early in the next session. If by that time his honourable friend should be recovered, which he hoped would be the case, then he (Mr. Wilberforce) would take the lead in it; but should it unfortunately happen otherwise, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pledged himself to bring forward some proposition concerning it. The house, however, would observe, that he had studiously avoided giving any opinion of his own on this great subject. He thought it wiser to defer this till the time of the discussion should arrive. He concluded with moving, after having read the names of the places from whence the different petitions had come, "That this house will, early in the next session of parliament, proceed to take into consideration the circumstances of the Slave Trade complained of in the said petitions, and what may be fit to be done thereupon."
Mr. Pitt stood up. He said he planned to propose a resolution about a topic that was more important than anything that had ever been discussed in that house. He wouldn’t have had the honor to do this if it weren’t for a situation he deeply regretted: the serious illness of his friend Mr. Wilberforce, who was especially well-suited to handle matters of justice, humanity, and national interest. The topic at hand was nothing less than the Slave Trade. It was clear from the numerous petitions presented about it that the public was very concerned, and therefore it deserved the serious attention of that house, and it was their duty to take some action regarding it. But whatever action was taken on such an issue, everyone would agree it should be done with careful consideration. There were two prominent views outside, as shown by the language of the different petitions. It was generally believed that the African Slave Trade should be abolished. However, there were others who thought it simply needed regulation. But everyone agreed it shouldn’t stay as it currently was. The most appropriate course of action could only be determined through a calm, patient, and thorough examination of the topic in all its aspects, relations, and consequences. This led him to believe that now was not the right time to discuss it; the session was already well underway, and there was a lack of necessary information for the house to be fully informed. He thought it would be better to discuss it when it could lead to a productive debate, and when the inquiry started by His Majesty's Ministers (he meant the examination by a committee of privy council) was sufficiently developed to present to the house. He hoped that inquiry would aid their investigation and allow them to make a decision grounded in humanity, justice, and good policy. Since it was unlikely to achieve such a desired outcome in the current state of affairs, he intended to propose a resolution to commit the house to discussing the issue early in the next session. If by then his honorable friend had recovered, which he hoped would be the case, then Mr. Wilberforce would take the lead; but if not, then he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) promised to bring forward a proposal regarding it. However, the house would notice that he had intentionally avoided sharing any personal opinion on this major issue. He thought it wiser to hold off until the time for discussion arrived. He concluded by moving, after reading the names of the places from which the various petitions had come, "That this house will, early in the next session of parliament, proceed to consider the circumstances of the Slave Trade mentioned in the said petitions, and what actions might be appropriate in response."
Mr. Fox began by observing, that he had long taken an interest in this great subject, which he had also minutely examined, and that it was his intention to have brought something forward himself in parliament respecting it; but when he heard that Mr. Wilberforce had resolved to take it up, he was unaffectedly rejoiced, not only knowing the purity of his principles and character, but because, from a variety of considerations as to the situations in which different men stood in the house, there was something that made him honestly think it was better that the business should be in the hands of that gentleman than in his own. Having premised this, he said that, as so many petitions, and these signed by such numbers of persons of the most respectable character, had been presented, he was sorry that it had been found impossible that the subject of them could be taken up this year, and more particularly as he was not able to see, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, that there were circumstances, which might happen by the next year, which would make it more advisable and advantageous to take it up then, than it would have been to enter upon it in the present session. For certainly there could be no information laid before the house, through the medium of the lords of the council, which could not more advantageously have been obtained by themselves, had they instituted a similar inquiry. It was their duty to advise the king, and not to ask his advice. This the constitution had laid down as one of its most essential principles; and though in the present instance he saw no cause for blame, because he was persuaded His Majesty's Ministers had not acted with any ill intention, it was still a principle never to be departed from, because it never could be departed from without establishing a precedent which might lead to very serious abuses. He lamented that the privy council, who had received no petitions from the people on the subject, should have instituted an inquiry, and that the House of Commons, the table of which had been loaded with petitions from various parts of the kingdom, should not have instituted any inquiry at all. He hoped these petitions would have a fair discussion in that house, independently of any information that could be given to it by His Majesty's Ministers. He urged again the superior advantage of an inquiry into such a subject carried on within those walls over any inquiry carried on by the lords of the council. In inquiries carried on in that house, they had the benefit of every circumstance of publicity; which was a most material benefit indeed, and that which of all others made the manner of conducting the parliamentary proceedings of Great Britain the envy and the admiration of the world. An inquiry there was better than an inquiry in any other place, however respectable the persons before and by whom it was carried on. There, all that could be said for the abolition or against it might be said. In that house every relative fact would have been produced, no information would have been withheld, no circumstance would have been omitted, which was necessary for elucidation; nothing would have been kept back. He was sorry, therefore, that the consideration of the question, but more particularly where so much human suffering was concerned, should be put off to another session, when it was obvious that no advantage could be gained by the delay.
Mr. Fox started by stating that he had been interested in this important issue for a long time and had looked into it in detail. He had intended to present something in Parliament about it himself, but when he learned that Mr. Wilberforce had decided to take it up, he was genuinely pleased. He appreciated Mr. Wilberforce's integrity and character, and he believed that, given the various roles of different members of the House, it was better for Mr. Wilberforce to handle it than for him to do so. After saying this, he expressed regret that, despite many petitions being signed by numerous respectable individuals, it was not possible to address the issue this year. He particularly noted that he couldn’t see, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had claimed, any circumstances next year that would make it more advisable to address it then rather than now. Clearly, any information presented to the House via the council could have been obtained more effectively by them had they conducted a similar inquiry. It was their responsibility to advise the king, not to request his advice. This was a key principle established by the constitution, and even though he did not blame the current administration, believing they acted without ill intent, this principle should never be set aside, as doing so could set a dangerous precedent that could lead to serious abuses. He expressed disappointment that the Privy Council, which had not received any petitions from the public on this topic, had initiated an inquiry while the House of Commons, which had been inundated with petitions from across the kingdom, had not initiated any inquiry at all. He hoped these petitions would be discussed fairly in the House, independent of any information provided by the king’s Ministers. He emphasized again that an inquiry conducted in that House would be far superior to one conducted by the council. In inquiries in that House, they benefited from complete transparency, which was crucial and made the parliamentary process of Great Britain the envy and admiration of the world. An inquiry there was better than any conducted elsewhere, no matter how respectable the individuals involved. In that House, every argument for or against abolition could be put forward, all relevant facts would be presented, no information would be withheld, and nothing crucial would be overlooked. Therefore, he regretted that the discussion of this question, especially given the significant human suffering involved, would be postponed to another session when it was clear that delaying it would offer no benefits.
He then adverted to the secrecy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed relative to his own opinion on this important subject. Why did he refuse to give it? Had Mr. Wilberforce been present, the house would have had a great advantage in this respect, because doubtless he would have stated in what view he saw the subject, and in a general way described the nature of the project he meant to propose. But now they were kept in the dark as to the nature of any plan, till the next session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed said, that it had been a very general opinion that the African Slave Trade should be abolished. He had said again, that others had not gone so far, but had given it as their opinion, that it required to be revised and regulated. But why did he not give his own sentiments boldly to the world on this great question? As for himself, he (Mr. Fox) had no scruple to declare at the outset, that the Slave Trade ought not to be regulated, but destroyed. To this opinion his mind was made up; and he was persuaded that, the more the subject was considered, the more his opinion would gain ground; and it would be admitted, that to consider it in any other manner, or on any other principles than those of humanity and justice, would be idle and absurd. If there were any such men, and he did not know but that there were those, who, led away by local and interested considerations, thought the Slave Trade might still continue under certain modifications, these were the dupes of error, and mistook what they thought their interest, for what he would undertake to convince them was their loss. Let such men only hear the case further, and they would find the result to be, that a cold-hearted policy was folly when it opposed the great principles of humanity and justice.
He then brought up the secrecy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had maintained regarding his own views on this important issue. Why was he unwilling to share them? If Mr. Wilberforce had been present, the house would have greatly benefited, as he would have clearly articulated his perspective on the matter and generally described the nature of the proposal he intended to make. But now they were left in the dark about any plan until the next session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed stated that there was a widespread opinion that the African Slave Trade should be abolished. He had also mentioned that others hadn’t gone as far but had suggested that it needed to be reviewed and regulated. But why didn’t he boldly express his own views to the world on this significant question? As for himself, he (Mr. Fox) had no hesitation in declaring from the start that the Slave Trade should not be regulated but abolished. He was firmly convinced of this, and he believed that the more the issue was examined, the more his opinion would gain acceptance; it would be recognized that considering it in any other way or from any other standpoint than those of humanity and justice would be pointless and absurd. If there were people— and he had reason to think there were— who, swayed by local and self-interested factors, believed that the Slave Trade could continue under certain modifications, these individuals were misled, mistaking what they thought was their gain for what he would argue is their loss. If such people only listened to the arguments further, they would discover that a cold-hearted policy is foolish when it contradicts the fundamental principles of humanity and justice.
He concluded by saying that he would not oppose the resolution, if other members thought it best to postpone the consideration of the subject; but he should have been better pleased if it had been discussed sooner; and he certainly reserved to himself the right of voting for any question upon it that should be brought forward by any other member in the course of the present session.
He finished by saying that he wouldn't object to the resolution if the other members believed it's better to delay discussing the topic; however, he would have preferred if it had been talked about earlier. He also made it clear that he would retain the right to vote on any related questions brought up by any other member during the current session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that nothing he had heard had satisfied him of the propriety of departing from the rule he had laid down for himself, of not offering, but of studiously avoiding to offer, any opinion upon the subject till the time should arrive when it could be fully argued. He thought that no discussion which could take place that session, could lead to any useful measure, and therefore, he had wished not to argue it till the whole of it could be argued. A day would come, when every member would have an opportunity of stating his opinion; and he wished it might be discussed with a proper spirit on all sides, on fair and liberal principles, and without any shackles from local and interested considerations.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that nothing he had heard convinced him to change his rule of not offering, but rather carefully avoiding, any opinion on the matter until it could be thoroughly discussed. He believed that any discussion during this session wouldn’t lead to any useful outcome, so he preferred to wait until everything could be fully debated. There would come a day when every member would have the chance to express their opinion, and he hoped it would be discussed with an open mind on all sides, based on fair and generous principles, without being hindered by local and self-interested concerns.
With regard to the inquiries instituted before the committee of privy council, he was sure, as soon as it became obvious that the subject must undergo a discussion, it was the duty of His Majesty's Ministers to set those inquiries on foot, which should best enable them to judge in what manner they could meet or offer any proposition respecting the Slave Trade. And although such previous examinations by no means went to deprive that house of its undoubted right to institute those inquiries; or to preclude them, they would be found greatly to facilitate them. But, exclusive of this consideration, it would have been utterly impossible to have come to any discussion of the subject, that could have been brought to a conclusion in the course of the present session. Did the inquiry then before the privy council prove a loss of time? So far from it, that, upon the whole, time had been gained by it. He had moved the resolution, therefore, to pledge the house to bring on the discussion early in the next session, when they would have a full opportunity of considering every part of the subject: first, whether the whole of the trade ought to be abolished; and, if so, how and when. If it should be thought that the trade should only be put under certain regulations, what those regulations ought to be, and when they should take place. These were questions which must be considered; and therefore he had made his resolution as wide as possible, that there might be room for all necessary considerations to be taken in. He repeated his declaration, that he would reserve his sentiments till the day of discussion should arrive; and again declared, that he earnestly wished to avoid an anticipation of the debate upon the subject. But if such debate was likely to take place, he would withdraw his motion, and offer it another day.
Regarding the inquiries initiated before the committee of the Privy Council, he was certain that as soon as it became clear that the topic required discussion, it was the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers to initiate inquiries that would best enable them to determine how they could address or propose something about the Slave Trade. Even though such preliminary examinations did not take away the House's undeniable right to conduct those inquiries or prevent them, they would significantly simplify the process. Besides this point, it would have been completely impossible to have any discussion on the matter that could be concluded during the current session. Did the inquiry currently before the Privy Council prove to be a waste of time? On the contrary, time had been gained from it. He had therefore proposed the resolution to commit the House to start the discussion early in the next session, when they would have ample opportunity to consider every aspect of the issue: first, whether the entire trade should be abolished, and if so, how and when. If it were deemed that the trade should only be regulated in certain ways, what those regulations should be, and when they should come into effect. These were questions that needed to be addressed; and so he had made his resolution as broad as possible to allow for all necessary considerations. He reiterated his statement that he would hold off on sharing his opinions until the day of discussion arrived; and once again, he expressed his strong desire to avoid anticipating the debate on the subject. However, if such a debate was likely to occur, he would withdraw his motion and table it for another day.
A few words then passed between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in reply to each other; after which Lord Penrhyn rose. He said there were two classes of men, the African merchants, and the planters, both of whose characters had been grossly calumniated. These wished that an inquiry might be instituted, and this immediately, conscious that the more their conduct was examined the less they would be found to merit the opprobrium with which they had been loaded. The charges against the Slave Trade were either true or false. If they were true, it ought to be abolished; but if upon inquiry they were found to be without foundation, justice ought to be done to the reputation of those who were concerned in it. He then said a few words, by which he signified, that, after all, it might not be an improper measure to make regulations in the trade.
A few words were exchanged between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in response to each other, after which Lord Penrhyn stood up. He said there were two groups of people, the African merchants and the planters, whose reputations had been unfairly attacked. They wanted an investigation to happen right away, knowing that the more their actions were scrutinized, the less they would deserve the criticism they had received. The accusations against the Slave Trade were either true or false. If they were true, it should be abolished; but if an investigation found them to be baseless, then those involved deserved justice for their reputations. He then added a few more comments, suggesting that it might actually be reasonable to implement regulations in the trade.
Mr. Burke said, the noble lord, who was a man of honour himself, had reasoned from his own conduct, and, being conscious of his own integrity, was naturally led to imagine that other men were equally just and honourable. Undoubtedly the merchants and planters had a right to call for an investigation of their conduct, and their doing so did them great credit. The Slave Trade also ought equally to be inquired into. Neither did he deny that it was right his Majesty's ministers should inquire into its merits for themselves. They had done their duty; but that House, who had the petitions of the people on their table, neglected it, by having so long deferred an inquiry of their own. If that House wished to preserve their functions, their understandings, their honour, and their dignity, he advised them to beware of committees of privy council. If they suffered their business to be done by such means, they were abdicating their trust and character, and making way for an entire abolition of their functions, which they were parting with one after another, Thus:—
Mr. Burke said that the noble lord, who was an honorable man himself, based his reasoning on his own behavior and, being aware of his own integrity, naturally assumed that other men were just and honorable too. Clearly, the merchants and planters had the right to demand an investigation into their actions, and doing so was commendable. The Slave Trade should also be investigated equally. He did not deny that it was appropriate for his Majesty's ministers to evaluate its merits themselves. They had fulfilled their duty; however, that House, which had the people's petitions on their table, neglected it by postponing their own investigation for so long. If that House wanted to maintain their roles, their understanding, their honor, and their dignity, he advised them to be cautious of committees of privy council. If they allowed their business to be handled this way, they were abandoning their trust and reputation, paving the way for a complete dissolution of their functions, which they were relinquishing one by one, thus:—
If they neglected the petitions of their constituents, they must fall, and the privy-counsel be instituted in their stead. What would be the consequence? His Majesty's Ministers, instead of consulting them, and giving them the opportunity of exercising their functions of deliberation and legislation, would modify the measures of government elsewhere, and bring down the edicts of the privy council to them to register. Mr. Burke said, he was one of those who wished for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He thought it ought to be abolished, on principles of humanity and justice. If, however, opposition of interests should render its total abolition impossible, it ought to be regulated, and that immediately. They need not send to the West Indies to know the opinions of the planters on the subject. They were to consider first of all, and abstractedly from all political, personal, and local considerations, that the Slave Trade was directly contrary to the principles of humanity and justice, and to the spirit of the British constitution; and that the state of slavery, which followed it, however mitigated, was a state so improper, so degrading, and so ruinous to the feelings and capacities of human nature, that it ought not to be suffered to exist. He deprecated delay in this business, as well for the sake of planters as of the slaves.
If they ignored the requests of their constituents, they would have to go, and the privy council would be put in their place. What would happen then? His Majesty's Ministers, rather than consulting with them and allowing them to participate in discussions and legislation, would adjust government policies elsewhere and just send down the decrees from the privy council for them to approve. Mr. Burke stated that he was one of those who wanted to end the Slave Trade. He believed it should be abolished for reasons of humanity and justice. However, if conflicting interests made it impossible to fully abolish it, it should at least be regulated, and that should happen right away. They didn't need to inquire with the West Indies to learn the planters' opinions on the matter. They had to recognize, first and foremost, and regardless of any political, personal, or local factors, that the Slave Trade was directly against the principles of humanity and justice, as well as the spirit of the British constitution. The condition of slavery that followed, no matter how softened, was so inappropriate, degrading, and damaging to the dignity and potential of human beings that it should not be allowed to exist. He emphasized the importance of not delaying this issue, both for the sake of the planters and the slaves.
Mr. Gascoyne, the other member for Liverpool, said he had no objection that the discussion should stand over to the next session of parliament, provided it could not come on in the present, because he was persuaded it would ultimately be found that his constituents, who were more immediately concerned in the trade, and who had been so shamefully calumniated, were men of respectable character. He hoped the privy council would print their Report when they had brought their inquiries to a conclusion, and that they would lay it before the House and the public, in order to enable all concerned to form a judgment of what was proper to be done relative to the subject next session. With respect, however, to the total abolition of the Slave Trade, he must confess that such a measure was both unnecessary, visionary, and impracticable; but he wished some alterations or modifications to be adopted. He hoped that, when the House came to go into the general question, they would not forget the trade, commerce, and navigation of the country.
Mr. Gascoyne, the other representative for Liverpool, said he didn’t mind if the discussion was postponed to the next session of parliament, as long as it couldn’t happen now, because he believed it would eventually be shown that his constituents, who were most affected by the trade and had been unfairly criticized, were individuals of good character. He hoped the privy council would publish their Report once their inquiries were finished and present it to the House and the public, so everyone involved could form an opinion on what should be done regarding the issue next session. However, regarding the complete abolition of the Slave Trade, he had to admit that such a move was unnecessary, unrealistic, and unfeasible; but he hoped that some changes or modifications would be made. He wished that when the House discussed the broader issue, they wouldn’t overlook the trade, commerce, and navigation of the country.
Mr. Rolle said, he had received instruction from his constituents to inquire if the grievances, which had been alleged to result from the Slave Trade, were well founded; and, if it appear that they were, to assist in applying a remedy. He was glad the discussion had been put off till next session, as it would give all of them an opportunity of considering the subject with more mature deliberation.
Mr. Rolle said he had been instructed by his constituents to find out if the complaints related to the Slave Trade were valid; and if they were, to help find a solution. He was pleased that the discussion had been postponed until the next session, as it would give everyone a chance to think about the issue more thoroughly.
Mr. Martin desired to say a few words only. He put the case, that, supposing the slaves were treated ever so humanely, when they were carried to the West Indies, what compensation could be made them for being torn from their nearest relations, and from everything that was dear to them in life? He hoped no political advantage, no national expediency, would be allowed to weigh in the scale against the eternal rules of moral rectitude. As for himself, he had no hesitation to declare, in this early stage of the business, that he should think himself a wicked wretch if he did not do everything in his power to put a stop to the Slave Trade.
Mr. Martin wanted to say just a few words. He presented the case that, even if the slaves were treated very humanely, once they were taken to the West Indies, what kind of compensation could be offered to them for being ripped away from their closest family and everything that mattered to them in life? He hoped no political gain or national interest would be allowed to outweigh the fundamental principles of moral integrity. As for himself, he had no doubt in stating, at this early stage of the discussion, that he would consider himself a wicked person if he didn’t do everything in his power to end the Slave Trade.
Sir William Dolben said, that he did not then wish to enter into the discussion of the general question of the abolition of the Slave Trade, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so desirous of postponing; but he wished to say a few words on what he conceived to be a most crying evil, and which might be immediately remedied, without infringing upon the limits of that question. He did not allude to the sufferings of the poor Africans in their own country, nor afterwards in the West India islands, but to that intermediate state of tenfold misery which they underwent in their transportation. When put on board the ships, the poor unhappy wretches were chained to each other, hand and foot, and stowed so close, that they were not allowed above a foot and a half for each individual in breadth. Thus crammed together like herrings in a barrel, they contracted putrid and fatal disorders; so that they who came to inspect them in a morning had occasionally to pick dead slaves out of their rows, and to unchain their carcasses from the bodies of their wretched fellow-sufferers, to whom they had been fastened. Nor was it merely to the slaves that the baneful effects of the contagion thus created were confined. This contagion affected the ships' crews, and numbers of the seamen employed in the horrid traffic perished. This evil, he said, called aloud for a remedy, and that remedy ought to be applied soon; otherwise no less than ten thousand lives might be lost between this and next session. He wished therefore this grievance to be taken into consideration, independently of the general question; and that some regulations, such as restraining the captains from taking above a certain number of slaves on board, according to the size of their vessels, and obliging them to let in fresh air, and provide better accommodation for the slaves during their passage, should be adopted.
Sir William Dolben stated that he didn't want to dive into the broader issue of abolishing the Slave Trade, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to delay; instead, he wanted to address what he believed to be a major injustice that could be fixed right away, without touching on the larger question. He wasn't referring to the suffering of the poor Africans in their homeland or later in the West Indies, but to the extreme misery they experienced during their transport. Once on board the ships, these unfortunate individuals were chained together, hand and foot, and packed so tightly that they barely had a foot and a half of space each. Crammed together like sardines in a can, they developed toxic and deadly diseases, leading inspectors to occasionally find dead slaves among them in the morning and having to unchain their bodies from those of their suffering companions. The harmful effects of this spread of disease didn’t just affect the slaves; it also impacted the ship's crew, and many seamen involved in this horrific trade lost their lives. This issue, he argued, urgently needed a solution, and it should be implemented soon; otherwise, as many as ten thousand lives could be at risk before the next session. He therefore urged that this problem be considered separately from the general debate, and that regulations be put in place to limit the number of slaves each captain could carry based on the ship's size, as well as to ensure they had access to fresh air and better living conditions during their journey.
Mr. Young wished the consideration of the whole subject to stand over to the next session.
Mr. Young wanted to postpone the discussion of the entire topic until the next session.
Sir James Johnstone, though a planter, professed himself a friend to the abolition of the Slave Trade. He said it was highly necessary that the House should do something respecting it; but whatever was to be done should be done soon, as delay might be productive of bad consequences in the islands.
Sir James Johnstone, although a plantation owner, declared himself a supporter of ending the Slave Trade. He stated that it was crucial for the House to take action on the issue; however, whatever actions were taken needed to happen quickly, as delays could lead to negative outcomes in the islands.
Mr. L. Smith stood up a zealous advocate for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He said that even Lord Penrhyn and Mr. Gascoyne, the members for Liverpool, had admitted the evil of it to a certain extent; for regulations or modifications, in which they seemed to acquiesce, were unnecessary where abuses did not really exist.
Mr. L. Smith stood up as a passionate advocate for ending the Slave Trade. He pointed out that even Lord Penrhyn and Mr. Gascoyne, the representatives for Liverpool, had acknowledged the harm it caused to some degree; for the regulations or changes they appeared to accept were not needed where real abuses did not actually exist.
Mr. Grigby thought it his duty to declare, that no privy council report, or other mode of examination, could influence him. A traffic in the persons of men was so odious, that it ought everywhere, as soon as ever it was discovered, to be abolished.
Mr. Grigby felt it was his responsibility to state that no council report or any other form of investigation could sway him. The trade in human beings was so repulsive that it should be eradicated everywhere as soon as it was uncovered.
Mr. Bastard was anxious that the House should proceed to the discussion of the subject in the present session. The whole country, he said, had petitioned; and was it any satisfaction to the country to be told, that the committee of privy council were inquiring? Who knew anything of what was doing by the committee of privy council, or what progress they were making? The inquiry ought to have been instituted in that House, and in the face of the public, that everybody concerned might know what was going on. The numerous petitions of the people ought immediately to be attended to. He reprobated delay on this occasion; and as the honourable baronet, Sir William Dolben, had stated facts which were shocking to humanity, he hoped he would move that a committee might be appointed to inquire into their existence, that a remedy might be applied, if possible, before the sailing of the next ships for Africa.
Mr. Bastard was eager for the House to discuss the issue during the current session. He argued that the entire country had petitioned, and was it satisfying for the country to be informed that the committee of privy council was looking into it? Who actually knew what the committee of privy council was doing or how much progress they were making? The inquiry should have taken place in the House, in front of the public, so everyone involved could be aware of what was happening. The many petitions from the people needed immediate attention. He criticized any delays at this time; and since the honorable baronet, Sir William Dolben, had shared facts that were disturbing to humanity, he hoped he would propose that a committee be formed to investigate their existence, so a solution could be found, if possible, before the next ships headed to Africa.
Mr. Whitbread professed himself a strenuous advocate for the total and immediate abolition of the Slave Trade. It was contrary to nature, and to every principle of justice, humanity, and religion.
Mr. Whitbread declared himself a strong supporter of the complete and immediate end of the Slave Trade. It was against nature and every principle of justice, humanity, and religion.
Mr. Pelham stated, that he had very maturely considered the subject of the Slave Trade; and had he not known that the business was in the hands of an honourable member, (whose absence from the house, and the cause of it, no man lamented more sincerely than he did,) he should have ventured to propose something concerning it himself. If it should be thought that the trade ought not to be entirely done away, the sooner it was regulated the better. He had a plan for this purpose, which appeared to him to be likely to produce some salutary effects. He wished to know if any such thing would be permitted to be proposed in the course of the present session.
Mr. Pelham mentioned that he had thoroughly considered the issue of the Slave Trade; and if he hadn't known that it was being handled by an honorable member (whose absence from the house, and the reason behind it, he sincerely regretted more than anyone), he would have been willing to suggest something himself. If it's believed that the trade shouldn’t be completely abolished, the sooner it gets regulated, the better. He had a plan in mind that he thought could lead to some positive outcomes. He wanted to know if such a proposal would be allowed during the current session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he should be happy, if he thought the circumstances of the house were such as to enable them to proceed to an immediate discussion of the question; but as that did not appear, from the reasons he had before stated, to be the case, he could only assure the honourable gentleman, that the same motives which had induced him to propose an inquiry into the subject early in the next session of parliament, would make him desirous of receiving any other light which could be thrown upon it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would be happy if he thought the situation of the house allowed them to have an immediate discussion on the matter. However, since that didn't seem to be the case based on the reasons he outlined earlier, he could only assure the honorable gentleman that the same reasons that led him to suggest an inquiry into the topic early in the next parliamentary session would also make him eager to receive any additional insights that could be provided.
The question having been then put, the resolution was agreed to unanimously. Thus ended the first debate that ever took place in the Commons, on this important subject. This debate, though many of the persons concerned in it abstained cautiously from entering into the merits of the general question, became interesting, in consequence of circumstances attending it. Several rose up at once to give relief, as it were, to their feelings by utterance; but by so doing they were prevented, many of them, from being heard. They who were heard, spoke with peculiar energy, as if warmed in an extraordinary manner by the subject. There was an apparent enthusiasm in behalf of the injured Africans. It was supposed by some, that there was a moment, in which, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved for an immediate abolition of the trade, he would have carried it that night; and both he and others, who professed an attachment to the cause, were censured for not having taken a due advantage of the disposition which was so apparent. But independently of the inconsistency of doing this on the part of the ministry, while the privy council were in the midst of their inquiries, and of the improbability that the other branches of the legislature would have concurred in so hasty a measure; what good would have accrued to the cause, if the abolition had been then carried? Those concerned in the cruel system would never have rested quietly under the stigma under which they then laboured. They would have urged, that they had been condemned unheard. The merchants would have said, that they had had no notice of such an event, that they might prepare, a way for their vessels in other trades. The planters would have said, that they had had no time allowed them to provide such supplies from Africa as might enable them to keep up their respective stocks. They would, both of them, have called aloud for immediate indemnification. They would have decried the policy of the measure of the abolition; and where had it been proved? They would have demanded a reverse of it; and might they not in cooler moments have succeeded? Whereas, by entering into a patient discussion of the merits of the question; by bringing evidence upon it; by reasoning upon that evidence night after night, and year after year, and thus by disputing the ground inch as it were by inch, the abolition of the Slave Trade stands upon a rock, upon which it never can be shaken. Many of those who were concerned in the cruel system have now given up their prejudices, because they became convinced in the contest. A stigma too has been fixed upon it, which can never be erased: and in a large record, in which the cruelty and injustice of it have been recognised in indelible characters, its impolicy also has been eternally enrolled.
The question was put forward, and the resolution was agreed upon unanimously. This marked the end of the first debate ever held in the Commons on this important issue. Although many participants were careful not to delve into the broader merits of the topic, the debate was still engaging due to the surrounding circumstances. Several people stood up at once, eager to express their feelings, but many were drowned out and couldn't be heard. Those who did speak conveyed their points with a notable passion, seemingly energized by the topic. There was a clear enthusiasm in support of the wronged Africans. Some believed that at one point, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed an immediate end to the trade, it would have passed that night. Both he and others who supported the cause were criticized for not seizing the evident opportunity. However, beyond the inconsistency of the ministry taking such action while the privy council was still investigating, and the unlikeliness that the other legislative branches would agree to such a rushed decision, one must ask what would have been achieved if the abolition had occurred right then. Those involved in the brutal system would not have quietly accepted the stigma they faced. They would have claimed they were condemned without a fair hearing. The merchants would argue that they hadn’t been notified of such a measure, which would have allowed them to adjust their trading plans. The planters would say they hadn’t been given enough time to secure supplies from Africa to maintain their operations. Both groups would loudly demand immediate compensation. They would have criticized the policy of abolition; but had it ever been proven? They would have called for a reversal of the decision, and they could have succeeded in calmer moments. In contrast, by engaging in a thorough discussion of the issue, presenting evidence, and reasoning through that evidence night after night and year after year—essentially contesting every inch—the abolition of the Slave Trade has become firmly established on a foundation that can never be shaken. Many who were once part of the cruel system have since abandoned their biases after being convinced through the debate. A stigma has been attached to it that can never be removed; and in a comprehensive record, the cruelty and injustice of it have been marked in indelible words, alongside its inefficiency, which has been eternally documented.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Continuation to the middle of July.—Anxiety of Sir William Dolben to lessen the horrors of the Middle Passage till the great question should be discussed; brings in a bill for that purpose; debate upon it.—Evidence examined against it; its inconsistency and falsehoods.—Further debate upon it.—Bill passed, and carried to the Lords; vexatious delays and opposition there; carried backwards and forwards to both houses.—At length finally passed.—Proceedings of the committee in the interim; effects of them.
Continuation to the middle of July.—Sir William Dolben's efforts to reduce the suffering of the Middle Passage until the major issue could be addressed; introduces a bill for that purpose; debate ensues.—Evidence against it examined; inconsistencies and falsehoods found.—Further debate follows.—Bill approved, sent to the Lords; frustrating delays and opposition there; shifts back and forth between both houses.—Eventually passed once more.—Activities of the committee in the meantime; their outcomes.
It was supposed, after the debate, of which the substance has been just given, that there would have been no further discussion of the subject till the next year; but Sir William Dolben became more and more affected by those considerations which he had offered to the house on the ninth of May. The trade, he found, was still to go on. The horrors of the transportation, or Middle Passage, as it was called, which he conceived to be the worst in the long catalogue of evils belonging to the system, would of course accompany it. The partial discussion of these, he believed, would be no infringement of the late resolution of the house. He was desirous, therefore, of doing something in the course of the present session, by which the miseries of the trade might be diminished as much as possible, while it lasted, or till the legislature could take up the whole of the question. This desire he mentioned to several of his friends; and as these approved of his design, he made it known on the twenty-first of May in the House of Commons.
It was assumed that after the debate, which has just been summarized, there would be no further discussion on the topic until the following year. However, Sir William Dolben became increasingly influenced by the points he had presented to the House on May ninth. He realized that the trade would still continue. The horrors of the transportation, known as the Middle Passage, which he believed to be the worst in the long list of evils associated with the system, would naturally continue as well. He thought that briefly discussing these issues wouldn’t violate the recent resolution of the House. Therefore, he wanted to take action during the current session to reduce the suffering caused by the trade as much as possible while it continued, or until the legislature could address the entire issue. He shared this intention with several of his friends, and since they supported his plan, he announced it in the House of Commons on May twenty-first.
He began by observing, that he would take up but little of their time. He rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the relief of those unhappy persons, the natives of Africa, from the hardships to which they were usually exposed in their passage from the coast of Africa to the colonies. He did not mean, by any regulations he might introduce for this purpose, to countenance or sanction the Slave Trade, which, however modified, would be always wicked and unjustifiable. Nor did he mean, by introducing these, to go into the general question which the house had prohibited. The bill which he had in contemplation, went only to limit the number of persons to be put on board to the tonnage of the vessel which was to carry them, in order to prevent them from being crowded too closely together; to secure to them good and sufficient provisions; and to take cognizance of other matters, which related to their health and accommodation; and this only till parliament could enter into the general merits of the question. This humane interference he thought no member would object to. Indeed, those for Liverpool had both of them admitted, on the ninth of May, that regulations were desirable; and he had since conversed with them, and was happy to learn that they would not oppose him on this occasion.
He started by noting that he wouldn’t take up much of their time. He stood up to propose a bill aimed at helping those unfortunate individuals, the natives of Africa, from the hardships they typically faced during their journey from the coast of Africa to the colonies. He did not intend, through any regulations he might suggest for this purpose, to support or endorse the Slave Trade, which, in any form, would always be wrong and unjustifiable. Nor did he plan to tackle the broader issue that the house had prohibited. The bill he was thinking about aimed only to limit the number of people that could be put on board based on the ship’s tonnage, to prevent them from being crammed too closely together; ensure they received adequate food; and address other concerns related to their health and comfort; and this was only until parliament could discuss the overall merits of the issue. He believed no member would have a problem with this compassionate approach. In fact, the representatives from Liverpool had both acknowledged on May 9 that regulations were needed; he had since spoken with them and was pleased to find out they would not oppose him this time.
Mr. Whitbread highly approved of the object of the worthy baronet, which was to diminish the sufferings of an unoffending people. Whatever could be done to relieve them in their hard situation, till parliament could take up the whole of their case, ought to be done by men living in a civilized country, and professing the Christian religion: he therefore begged leave to second the motion which had been made.
Mr. Whitbread fully supported the goal of the honorable baronet, which was to reduce the suffering of innocent people. Anything that could be done to help them in their difficult situation, until parliament could address their entire case, should be done by those living in a civilized society and practicing the Christian faith: he therefore requested to second the motion that had been made.
General Norton was sorry that he had not risen up sooner. He wished to have seconded this humane motion himself. It had his most cordial approbation.
General Norton regretted not speaking up sooner. He wished he could have supported this compassionate proposal himself. He fully endorsed it.
Mr. Burgess complimented the worthy baronet on the honour he had done himself on this occasion, and congratulated the house on the good, which they were likely to do by acceding, as he was sure they would, to his proposition.
Mr. Burgess praised the esteemed baronet for the honor he had brought upon himself in this situation and congratulated the group on the positive impact they were likely to have by agreeing, as he was certain they would, to his suggestion.
Mr. Joliffe rose, and said that the motion in question should have his strenuous support.
Mr. Joliffe stood up and said that he would fully support the motion in question.
Mr. Gascoyne stated, that having understood from the honourable baronet that he meant only to remedy the evils, which were stated to exist in transporting the inhabitants of Africa to the West Indies, he had told them that he would not object to the introduction of such a bill. Should it however interfere with the general question, the discussion of which had been prohibited, he would then oppose it. He must also reserve another case for his opposition; and this would be, if the evils of which it took cognizance should appear not to have been well founded. He had written to his constituents to be made acquainted with this circumstance, and he must be guided by them on the subject.
Mr. Gascoyne said that after discussing with the honorable baronet, who intended to address the issues related to the transportation of African inhabitants to the West Indies, he informed them that he wouldn’t oppose the introduction of such a bill. However, if it interfered with the broader issue that had been off-limits for discussion, he would oppose it. He also needed to reserve another reason for his opposition: if the issues it addressed turned out to be unfounded. He had written to his constituents to inform them of this situation and would follow their guidance on the matter.
Mr. Martin was surprised how any person could give an opposition to such a bill. Whatever were the merits of the great question, all would allow, that if human beings were to be transported across the ocean, they should be carried over with as little suffering as possible to themselves.
Mr. Martin was surprised that anyone could oppose such a bill. Regardless of the merits of the larger issue, everyone would agree that if humans are going to be transported across the ocean, it should be done with as little suffering as possible for them.
Mr. Hamilton deprecated the subdivision of this great and important question, which the house had reserved for another session. Every endeavour to meddle with one part of it, before the whole of it could be taken into consideration, looked rather as if it came from an enemy than from a friend. He was fearful that such a bill as this would sanction a traffic, which should never be viewed but in a hostile light, or as repugnant to the feelings of our nature, and to the voice of our religion.
Mr. Hamilton criticized the splitting of this significant question, which the house had set aside for a future session. Any attempt to address one part of it before the entire issue could be discussed seemed more like it came from an opponent than an ally. He was worried that a bill like this would legitimize a trade that should always be seen in a negative way, contradicting our moral beliefs and the principles of our faith.
Lord Frederic Campbell was convinced that the postponing of all consideration of the subject till the next session was a wise measure. He was sure that neither the house nor the public were in a temper sufficiently cool to discuss it properly. There was a general warmth of feeling, or an enthusiasm about it, which ran away with the understandings of men, and disqualified them from judging soberly concerning it. He wished, therefore, that the present motion might be deferred.
Lord Frederic Campbell believed that delaying any discussion on the topic until the next session was a smart decision. He felt that neither the house nor the public were in a calm enough state to address it adequately. There was a strong emotional response, or enthusiasm, surrounding the issue that clouded people’s judgment and made it hard for them to think rationally about it. Therefore, he wanted the current motion to be postponed.
Mr. William Smith said, that if the motion of the honourable Baronet had trespassed upon the great question reserved for consideration, he would have opposed it himself; but he conceived the subject which it comprehended might with propriety be separately considered; and if it were likely that a hundred, but much more a thousand, lives would be saved by this bill, it was the duty of that house to adopt it without delay.
Mr. William Smith said that if the motion from the honorable Baronet had crossed into the important question set aside for consideration, he would have opposed it himself; however, he believed the topic it included could be properly discussed separately. If this bill could potentially save a hundred, or even a thousand, lives, then it was the duty of that house to pass it without hesitation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he meant still to conceal his opinion as to the general merits of the question, could not be silent, here. He was of opinion that he could very consistently give this motion his support. There was a possibility (and a bare possibility was a sufficient ground with him) that in consequence of the resolution lately come to by the house, and the temper then manifested in it, those persons who were concerned in the Slave Trade might put the natives of Africa in a worse situation, during their transportation to the colonies, even than they were in before, by cramming additional numbers on board their vessels, in order to convey as many as possible to the West Indies before parliament ultimately decided on the subject. The possibility, therefore, that such a consequence might grow out of their late resolution during the intervening months between the end of the present and the commencement of the next session, was a good and sufficient parliamentary ground for them to provide immediate means to prevent the existence of such an evil. He considered this as an act of indispensable duty, and on that ground the bill should have his support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he still intended to keep his thoughts on the overall merits of the issue hidden, could not remain quiet here. He believed he could consistently back this motion. There was a chance (and even a small chance was enough for him) that due to the recent resolution made by the house and the attitude displayed at that time, those involved in the Slave Trade might worsen the situation for the natives of Africa during their transport to the colonies, by overcrowding their ships to get as many as possible to the West Indies before Parliament made a final decision on the matter. Therefore, the possibility that such a situation could arise in the months between the end of the current session and the start of the next one was a valid reason for them to take immediate action to prevent such a wrong. He viewed this as a crucial duty, and for that reason, the bill would have his backing.
Soon after this the question was put, and leave was given for the introduction of the bill.
Soon after this, the question was raised, and permission was granted to introduce the bill.
An account of these proceedings of the house having been sent to the merchants of Liverpool, they held a meeting, and came to resolutions on the subject. They determined to oppose the bill in every stage in which it should be brought forward, and, what was extraordinary, even the principle of it. Accordingly, between the 21st of May and the 2nd of June, on which latter day the bill having been previously read a second time was to be committed, petitions from interested persons had been brought against it, and consent had been obtained, that both council and evidence should be heard.
An update on these proceedings from the house was sent to the merchants of Liverpool, who then held a meeting and reached resolutions on the matter. They decided to oppose the bill at every stage it would be presented, and, unusually, even opposed the very principle of it. From May 21 to June 2, on which latter date the bill, having been read a second time, was set to be committed, petitions from those affected were submitted against it, and agreement was reached to hear both the council and evidence.
The order of the day having been read on the 2nd of June for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, a discussion took place relative to the manner in which the business was to be conducted. This being over, the counsel began their observations; and, as soon as they had finished, evidence was called to the bar in behalf of the petitions which had been delivered.
The agenda was read on June 2nd for the house to turn into a committee of the whole house, and a discussion occurred regarding how the proceedings would be conducted. Once that was done, the counsel began their remarks; and as soon as they finished, evidence was presented to the bar in support of the petitions that had been submitted.
From the 2nd of June to the 17th the house continued to hear the evidence at intervals, but the members for Liverpool took every opportunity of occasioning delay. They had recourse twice to counting out the house; and at another time, though complaint had been made of their attempts to procrastinate, they opposed the resuming of their own evidence with the same view; and this merely for the frivolous reason, that, though there was then a suitable opportunity, notice had not been previously given. But in this proceeding, other members feeling indignant at their conduct, they were overruled.
From June 2nd to 17th, the house held hearings at intervals, but the members from Liverpool took every chance to cause delays. They twice called for a count of the house, and at another point, even though complaints had been made about their attempts to stall, they opposed continuing their own evidence for the same reason: that, despite there being a suitable opportunity, they had not given prior notice. However, during this process, other members, feeling outraged by their behavior, overruled them.
The witnesses brought by the Liverpool merchants against this humane bill were the same as they had before sent for examination to the privy council, namely, Mr. Norris, Lieutenant Matthews, and others. On the other side of the question it was not deemed expedient to bring any. It was soon perceived that it would be possible to refute the former out of their own mouths, and to do this seemed more eligible than to proceed in the other way. Mr. Pitt, however, took care to send Captain Parrey, of the Royal Navy, to Liverpool, that he might take the tonnage and internal dimensions of several slave-vessels, which were then there, supposing that these, when known, would enable the house to detect any misrepresentations, which the delegates from that town might be disposed to make upon this subject.
The witnesses brought by the Liverpool merchants against this compassionate bill were the same ones they had previously sent for examination to the privy council, namely, Mr. Norris, Lieutenant Matthews, and others. On the opposite side of the debate, it was not considered necessary to present any witnesses. It quickly became clear that it would be possible to counter the former witnesses with their own statements, and this approach seemed better than the alternative. Mr. Pitt, however, made sure to send Captain Parrey of the Royal Navy to Liverpool to gather the tonnage and internal dimensions of several slave ships that were there at the time, believing that this information would help the house identify any false claims that the representatives from that city might make on this topic.
It was the object of the witnesses, when examined, to prove two things: first, that regulations were unnecessary, because the present mode of the transportation was sufficiently convenient for the objects of it, and was well adapted to preserve their comfort and their health. They had sufficient room, sufficient air, and sufficient provisions. When upon deck, they made merry and amused themselves with dancing. As to the mortality, or the loss of them by death in the course of their passage, it was trifling. In short, the voyage from Africa to the West Indies "was one of the happiest periods of a Negro's life."
The goal of the witnesses during their examination was to demonstrate two things: first, that regulations were unnecessary because the current transportation method was sufficiently convenient for its purpose and was well-suited to maintain the passengers' comfort and health. They had enough space, enough fresh air, and adequate supplies. When on deck, they enjoyed themselves and danced. Regarding the mortality rate or the deaths that occurred during the journey, it was minimal. In summary, the trip from Africa to the West Indies "was one of the happiest times in a Black person's life."
Secondly, that if the merchants were hindered from taking less that two full sized, or three smaller Africans, to a ton, then the restrictions would operate not as the regulation, but as the utter ruin of the trade. Hence the present bill, under the specious mask of a temporary interference, sought nothing less than its abolition.
Secondly, if the merchants were prevented from taking fewer than two full-sized or three smaller Africans per ton, then the restrictions wouldn't regulate the trade; they would completely destroy it. Therefore, the current bill, under the false pretense of being a temporary measure, aimed for nothing less than its elimination.
These assertions having been severally made, by the former of which it was insinuated that the African, unhappy in his own country, found in the middle passage, under the care of the merchants, little less than an Elysian retreat, it was now proper to institute a severe inquiry into the truth of them. Mr. Pitt, Sir Charles Middleton, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Beaufoy, took a conspicuous part on this occasion, but particularly the two latter, to whom much praise was due for the constant attention they bestowed upon this subject. Question after question was put by these to the witnesses; and from their own mouths they dragged out, by means of a cross-examination as severe as could be well instituted, the following melancholy account:—
These claims have been made, one of which suggested that the African, unhappy in his own country, found the middle passage, under the care of the merchants, almost like a paradise. It was now necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the truth of these statements. Mr. Pitt, Sir Charles Middleton, Mr. William Smith, and Mr. Beaufoy all played prominent roles in this matter, especially the latter two, who deserved much praise for their consistent focus on this issue. They posed question after question to the witnesses; through rigorous cross-examination, they drew out the following heartbreaking account:—
Every slave, whatever his size might be, was found to have only five feet and six inches in length, and sixteen inches in breadth, to lie in. The floor was covered with bodies stowed or packed according to this allowance: but between the floor and the deck or ceiling were often platforms or broad shelves in the mid-way, which were covered with bodies also. The height from the floor to the ceiling, within which space the bodies on the floor and those on the platforms lay, seldom exceeded five feet eight inches, and in some cases it did not exceed four feet.
Every slave, no matter their size, was found to have only five feet six inches in length and sixteen inches in width to lie down in. The floor was filled with bodies arranged according to this allowance, but there were often platforms or wide shelves in the middle section between the floor and the ceiling that were also covered with bodies. The height from the floor to the ceiling, within which the bodies on the floor and those on the platforms lay, rarely exceeded five feet eight inches, and in some cases, it didn’t go beyond four feet.
The men were chained two and two together by their hands and feet, and were chained also by means of ring-bolts, which were fastened to the deck. They were confined in this manner at least all the time they remained upon the coast, which was from six weeks to six months as it might happen.
The men were chained two by two, hand to hand and foot to foot, and were also secured with ring-bolts anchored to the deck. They were kept in this way for as long as they stayed on the coast, which could range from six weeks to six months, depending on the situation.
Their allowance consisted of one pint of water a day to each person, and they were fed twice a day with yams and horsebeans.
Their allowance included one pint of water per person each day, and they were fed twice daily with yams and horsebeans.
After meals they jumped up in their irons for exercise. This was so necessary for their health, that they were whipped if they refused to do it; and this jumping had been termed dancing.
After meals, they would jump up in their restraints for exercise. This was so essential for their health that they were whipped if they refused to participate; this jumping was referred to as dancing.
They were usually fifteen and sixteen hours below deck out of the twenty-four. In rainy weather they could not be brought up for two or three days together. If the ship was full, their situation was then distressing. They sometimes drew their breath with anxious and laborious efforts, and some died of suffocation.
They were typically below deck for fifteen to sixteen hours out of the twenty-four. In rainy weather, they might not be allowed up for two or three days at a time. If the ship was overcrowded, their situation became really distressing. They sometimes struggled to breathe, and some even died from suffocation.
With respect to their health in these voyages, the mortality, where the African constitution was the strongest, or on the windward coast, was only about five in a hundred. In thirty-five voyages, an account of which was produced, about six in a hundred was the average number lost. But this loss was still greater at Calabar and Bonny, which were the greatest markets for slaves. This loss, too, did not include those who died, either while the vessels were lying upon the Coast, or after their arrival in the West Indies, of the disorders which they had contracted upon the voyage. Three and four in a hundred had been known to die in this latter case.
Regarding their health during these voyages, the mortality rate, where the African constitution was strongest, or on the windward coast, was only about five in a hundred. In thirty-five voyages, for which records were kept, the average number lost was about six in a hundred. However, this loss was higher at Calabar and Bonny, which were the largest slave markets. This figure also didn't account for those who died, either while the ships were anchored on the coast or after they arrived in the West Indies, due to the illnesses they developed during the voyage. It was known that three to four in a hundred could die in these latter circumstances.
But besides these facts, which were forced out of the witnesses by means of the cross-examination which took place, they were detected in various falsehoods.
But aside from these facts, which were revealed by the cross-examination, they were caught in several lies.
They had asserted that the ships in this trade were peculiarly constructed, or differently from others, in order that they might carry a great number of persons with convenience; whereas Captain Parrey asserted, that out of the twenty-six, which he had seen, ten only had been built expressly for this employ.
They claimed that the ships used in this trade were uniquely designed, or different from others, so they could comfortably carry a lot of people; however, Captain Parrey stated that out of the twenty-six he had seen, only ten were built specifically for this purpose.
They had stated the average height between decks at about five feet and four inches. But Captain Parrey showed, that out of the nine he measured, the height in four of the smallest was only four feet eight inches, and the average height in all of them was but five feet two.
They reported that the average height between decks was around five feet four inches. However, Captain Parrey demonstrated that out of the nine he measured, four of the shortest ones were only four feet eight inches tall, and the overall average height among all of them was just five feet two.
They had asserted that vessels under two hundred tons had no platforms. But by his account the four just mentioned were of this tonnage, and yet all of them had platforms either wholly or in part.
They claimed that ships under two hundred tons didn’t have platforms. However, according to him, the four vessels just mentioned were this size, and all of them had platforms, either fully or partially.
On other points they were found both to contradict themselves and one another. They had asserted, as before mentioned, that if they were restricted to less than two full-grown slaves to a ton, the trade would be ruined. But in examining into the particulars of nineteen vessels, which they produced themselves, five of them only had cargoes equal to the proportion which they stated to be necessary to the existence of the trade. The other fourteen carried a less number of slaves (and they might have taken more on board if they had pleased); so that the average number in the nineteen was but one man and four-fifths to a ton, or ten in a hundred below their lowest standardA. One again said, that no inconvenience arose in consequence of the narrow space allowed to each individual in these voyages. Another said, that smaller vessels were more healthy than larger, because, among other reasons, they had a less proportion of slaves as to number on board.
On other points, they were found to contradict themselves and each other. They claimed, as mentioned earlier, that if they were limited to fewer than two adult slaves per ton, the trade would collapse. However, when looking at the details of nineteen ships they provided, only five had cargoes matching the proportion they deemed necessary for the trade to survive. The other fourteen carried fewer slaves (and could have taken more on board if they wanted), meaning the average was only one and four-fifths men per ton, or ten in a hundred below their lowest standardA. One person stated that no issues arose due to the limited space assigned to each individual during these voyages. Another said that smaller vessels were healthier than larger ones because, among other reasons, they had a lower proportion of slaves on board.
A: The falsehood of their statements in this respect was proved again afterwards by facts. For, after the regulation had taken place, they lost fewer slaves and made greater profits.
A: The untruth of their claims in this regard was proven later by evidence. After the new rules were implemented, they lost fewer slaves and earned more profits.
They were found also guilty of a wilful concealment of such facts, as they knew, if communicated, would have invalidated their own testimony. I was instrumental in detecting them on one of these occasions myself. When Mr. Dalzell was examined, he was not wholly unknown to me; my Liverpool muster-rolls told me that he had lost fifteen seamen out of forty in his last voyage. This was a sufficient ground to go upon; for generally, where the mortality of the seamen has been great, it may be laid down that the mortality of the slaves has been considerable also. I waited patiently till his evidence was nearly closed, but he had then made no unfavourable statements to the house. I desired, therefore, that a question might be put to him, and in such a manner, that he might know that they, who put it, had got a clue to his secrets. He became immediately embarrassed; his voice faltered; he confessed with trembling that he had lost a third of his sailors in his last voyage. Pressed hard immediately by other questions, he then acknowledged that he had lost one hundred and twenty, or a third of his slaves, also. But would he say that these were all he had lost in that voyage? No; twelve others had perished by an accident, for they were drowned. But were no others lost beside the one hundred and twenty and the twelve? None, he said, upon the voyage, but between twenty and thirty before he left the Coast. Thus this champion of the merchants, this advocate for the health and happiness of slaves in the middle passage, lost nearly a hundred and sixty of the unhappy persons committed to his superior care, in a single voyage!
They were also found guilty of willfully hiding facts that, if revealed, would have undermined their own testimony. I played a key role in exposing them on one such occasion myself. When Mr. Dalzell was questioned, I already knew him to some extent; my Liverpool records showed that he had lost fifteen sailors out of forty on his last voyage. This was enough to raise suspicion, because generally, where there has been high mortality among sailors, the same can be assumed for the slaves. I waited patiently until his testimony was almost over, but he hadn’t made any damaging statements to the committee. I then requested that a question be directed to him, in a way that made it clear the questioners had insight into his secrets. He immediately became flustered; his voice shook as he admitted, nervously, that he had lost a third of his sailors on his last voyage. Under pressure from further questions, he then revealed that he had also lost one hundred and twenty, or a third of his slaves. But would he claim that these were all the losses from that voyage? No; he added that twelve more had died from an accident when they drowned. However, were there any other losses besides the one hundred and twenty and the twelve? He said there were none during the voyage, but between twenty and thirty had died before he left the coast. Thus, this champion of the merchants, this advocate for the health and welfare of slaves during the middle passage, lost nearly one hundred and sixty of the unfortunate individuals entrusted to his care, in a single voyage!
The evidence, on which I have now commented, having been delivered, the counsel summed up on the 17th of June, when the committee proceeded to fill up the blanks in the bill. Mr. Pitt moved that the operation of it be retrospective, and that it commence from the 10th instant. This was violently opposed by Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Gascoyne, and Mr. Brickdale, but was at length acceded to.
The evidence I've just discussed was presented, and on June 17th, the council summarized the matter as the committee worked on completing the bill. Mr. Pitt proposed that the bill apply retroactively, starting from the 10th of the month. This was strongly opposed by Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Gascoyne, and Mr. Brickdale, but eventually, it was accepted.
Sir William Dolben then proposed to apportion five men to every three tons in every ship under one hundred and fifty tons burden, which had the space of five feet between the decks, and three men to two tons in every vessel beyond one hundred and fifty tons burden, which had equal accommodation in point of height between the decks. This occasioned a very warm dispute, which was not settled for some time, and which gave rise to some beautiful and interesting speeches on the subject.
Sir William Dolben then suggested assigning five men for every three tons on ships under one hundred and fifty tons capacity, provided there was five feet of space between the decks, and three men for every two tons on vessels over one hundred and fifty tons, given they had similar height accommodations between the decks. This led to a heated debate that went on for a while and sparked some eloquent and engaging speeches on the topic.
Mr. William Smith pointed out in the clearest manner many of the contradictions, which I have just stated in commenting upon the evidence; indeed he had been a principal means of detecting them. He proved how little worthy of belief the witnesses had shown themselves, and how necessary they had made the present bill by their own confession. The worthy baronet, indeed, had been too indulgent to the merchants, in the proportion he had fixed of the number of persons to be carried to the tonnage of their vessels. He then took a feeling view of what would be the wretched state of the poor Africans on board, even if the bill passed as it now stood; and conjured the house, if they would not allow them more room, at least not to infringe upon that which had been proposed.
Mr. William Smith clearly highlighted many of the contradictions I just mentioned while discussing the evidence; in fact, he played a major role in uncovering them. He demonstrated how untrustworthy the witnesses turned out to be and how their own statements made the current bill necessary. The honorable baronet had, indeed, been too lenient toward the merchants regarding the ratio of the number of people to the tonnage of their ships. He then expressed a heartfelt concern about the miserable condition of the poor Africans on board, even if the bill passed as it currently stood, and urged the house, if they wouldn't grant more space, at least not to reduce what had already been proposed.
Lord Belgrave (afterwards Grosvenor) animadverted with great ability upon the cruelties of the trade, which he said had been fully proved at the bar. He took notice of the extraordinary opposition which had been made to the bill then before them, and which he believed every gentleman, who had a proper feeling of humanity, would condemn. If the present mode of carrying on the trade received the countenance of that house, the poor unfortunate African would have occasion doubly to curse his fate. He would not only curse the womb that brought him forth, but the British nation also, whose diabolical avarice had made his cup of misery still more bitter. He hoped that the members for Liverpool would urge no further opposition to the bill, but that they would join with the house in an effort to enlarge the empire of humanity; and that, while they were stretching out the strong arm of justice to punish the degraders of British honour and humanity in the East, they would with equal spirit exert their powers to dispense the blessings of their protection to those unhappy Africans, who were to serve them in the West.
Lord Belgrave (later Grosvenor) pointed out with great skill the cruel realities of the trade, which he said had been clearly demonstrated. He noted the intense resistance to the bill they were discussing, which he believed anyone with a sense of humanity would condemn. If the current way of conducting the trade received support from that assembly, the poor unfortunate African would have even more reasons to curse his fate. He would not only curse the womb that gave him life but also the British nation, whose greed had made his suffering even more unbearable. He hoped that the representatives for Liverpool would stop opposing the bill and instead join the assembly in a push to expand the reach of humanity. He urged them, while they were taking decisive action to punish those who dishonor British values and humanity in the East, to equally use their influence to protect those unfortunate Africans who were forced to serve them in the West.
Mr. Beaufoy entered minutely into an examination of the information, which had been given by the witnesses, and which afforded unanswerable arguments for the passing of the bill. He showed the narrow space which they themselves had been made to allow for the package of a human body, and the ingenious measures they were obliged to resort to for stowing this living cargo within the limits of the ship. He adverted next to the case of Mr. Dalzell, and showed how one dismal fact after another, each making against their own testimony, was extorted from him. He then went to the trifling mortality said to be experienced in these voyages, upon which subject he spoke in the following words: "Though the witnesses are some of them interested in the trade, and all of them parties against the bill, their confession is, that of the negroes of the windward coast, who are men of the strongest constitution which Africa affords, no less on an average than five in each hundred perish in the voyage,—a voyage, it must be remembered but of six weeks. In a twelvemonth, then, what must be the proportion of the dead? No less than forty-three in a hundred, which is seventeen times the usual rate of mortality; for all the estimates of life suppose no more than a fortieth of the people, or two and a half in the hundred, to die within the space of a year. Such then is the comparison. In the ordinary course of nature the number of persons, (including those in age and infancy, the weakest periods of existence,) who perish in the space of a twelvemonth, is at the rate of but two and a half in a hundred; but in an African voyage, notwithstanding the old are excluded and few infants admitted, so that those who are shipped are in the firmest period of life, the list of deaths, presents an annual mortality of forty-three in a hundred. It presents this mortality even in vessels from the windward coast of Africa; but in those which sail to Bonny, Benin, and the Calabars, from whence the greatest proportion of the slaves are brought, this mortality is increased by a variety of causes, (of which the greater length of the voyage is one,) and is said to be twice as large which supposes that in every hundred the deaths annually amount to no less than eighty-six. Yet even the former comparatively low mortality; of which the counsel speaks with so much satisfaction, as a proof of the kind and compassionate treatment of the slaves, even this indolent and lethargic destruction gives to the march of death seventeen times its usual speed. It is a destruction, which, if general but for ten years, would depopulate the world, blast the purposes of its creation, and extinguish the human race."
Mr. Beaufoy thoroughly examined the information provided by the witnesses, which presented undeniable arguments for passing the bill. He highlighted the small space they forced themselves to allocate for packing a human body and the clever methods they had to use to fit this living cargo within the ship's confines. He then referred to Mr. Dalzell's case, revealing how one grim fact after another, each undermining their own testimony, was squeezed out of him. Next, he addressed the supposedly low mortality reported during these voyages, stating: "Although some witnesses have a stake in the trade and all are against the bill, they admit that of the slaves from the Windward Coast—who are among the strongest in Africa—on average, five out of every hundred die during the voyage, which lasts just six weeks. So, in a year, what would the death rate look like? It would be no less than forty-three out of a hundred, which is seventeen times the normal mortality rate; estimates of life expect that only two and a half out of every hundred would die within a year. Thus, in usual circumstances, the number of people (including the very young and very old, who are the most vulnerable) who die within a year is just two and a half out of a hundred. But on an African voyage, even though the old are excluded and very few infants are allowed, resulting in those shipped being in their strongest years, the death toll shows an annual mortality of forty-three out of a hundred. This mortality occurs even in ships from the Windward Coast of Africa. However, on vessels heading to Bonny, Benin, and the Calabars—where the majority of slaves come from—this mortality rate increases due to various factors, one being the longer journey, and it’s reported to be twice as high, reaching eighty-six deaths for every hundred annually. Even the previously mentioned lower mortality rate, which the counsel discusses with so much pride as evidence of the kind treatment of the slaves, still shows a destruction rate that is seventeen times faster than usual. This kind of destruction, if it continued for just ten years, would depopulate the earth, invalidate the purpose of its creation, and extinguish the human race."
After having gone with great ability through the other branches of the subject, he concluded in the following manner:—"Thus I have considered the various objections which have been stated to the bill, and am ashamed to reflect that it could be necessary to speak so long in defence of such a cause; for what, after all, is asked by the proposed regulations? On the part of the Africans, the whole of their purport is, that they whom you allow to be robbed of all things but life, may not unnecessarily and wantonly be deprived of life also. To the honour; to the wisdom, to the feelings of the house, I now make my appeal, perfectly confident that you will not tolerate, as senators, a traffic which, as men, you shudder to contemplate, and that you will not take upon yourselves the responsibility of this waste of existence. To the memory of former parliaments the horrors of this traffic will be an eternal reproach; yet former parliaments have not known, as you on the clearest evidence now know, the dreadful nature of this trade. Should you reject this bill, no exertions of yours to rescue from oppression the suffering inhabitants of your eastern empire; no records of the prosperous state to which, after a long and unsuccessful war, you have restored your native land; no proofs; however splendid, that under your guidance Great Britain has recovered her rank, and is again the arbitress of nations, will save your names from the stigma of everlasting dishonour. The broad mantle of this one infamy will cover with substantial blackness the radiance of your glory, and change to feelings of abhorrence the present admiration of the world. But pardon the supposition of so impossible an event. I believe that justice and mercy may be considered as the attributes of your character, and that you will not tarnish their lustre on this occasion."
After thoroughly examining the other aspects of the topic, he concluded as follows:—"I have looked into the various objections raised against the bill and feel embarrassed that it's necessary to defend such a cause for so long; because what, really, is being requested by these proposed regulations? From the perspective of the Africans, all they ask is that those who are already stripped of everything except for their lives shouldn’t be unnecessarily and cruelly deprived of life as well. I now appeal to the honor, wisdom, and compassion of this house, fully confident that as senators, you won't allow a trade that, as human beings, you find horrifying, and that you won't take on the responsibility for this waste of lives. The memory of past parliaments will carry an eternal shame for the horrors of this trade; yet those parliaments did not understand, as you now do with clear evidence, the terrible nature of this business. If you reject this bill, no efforts of yours to free the suffering people of your eastern empire; no records of the thriving state to which you have returned your homeland after a long and difficult war; no impressive achievements that show under your leadership Great Britain has regained her status and is once again a powerful force among nations, will save your names from the stain of lasting disgrace. The single blemish of this infamy will overshadow the brilliance of your accomplishments and turn global admiration into feelings of disgust. But forgive me for even entertaining the thought of such an unlikely outcome. I believe that justice and mercy are part of your character, and that you won’t let them be tarnished on this occasion."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose next; and after having made some important observations on the evidence (which took up much time), he declared himself most unequivocally in favour of the motion made by the honourable baronet. He was convinced that the regulation proposed would not tend to the abolition of the trade; but if it even went so far, he had no hesitation openly and boldly to declare, that if it could not be carried on in a manner different from that stated by the members for Liverpool, he would retract what he had said on a former day against going into the general question; and, waving every other discussion than what had that day taken place, he would give his vote for the utter annihilation of it at once. It was a trade, which it was shocking to humanity to hear detailed. If it were to be carried, on as proposed by the petitioners, it would, besides its own intrinsic baseness, be contrary to every humane and Christian principle, and to every sentiment that ought to inspire the breast of man; and would reflect the greatest dishonour on the British senate and the British nation. He, therefore, hoped that the house, being now in possession of such information as never hitherto had been brought before them, would in some measure endeavour to extricate themselves from that guilt, and from that remorse, which every one of them ought to feel for having suffered such monstrous cruelties to be practised upon an helpless and unoffending part of the human race.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke next; and after making some important points about the evidence (which took a lot of time), he clearly stated his support for the motion made by the honorable baronet. He was convinced that the proposed regulation wouldn’t lead to the end of the trade; but if it did, he wasn’t afraid to admit that if it couldn't be conducted in a way different from what the members for Liverpool had said, he would take back what he had previously stated against discussing the broader issue; and, setting aside all other discussions beyond what had been said that day, he would vote for its complete elimination right away. It was a trade that was shocking to humanity when discussed. If it were to be conducted as the petitioners suggested, it would, in addition to its own inherent injustice, go against every humane and Christian principle, and against every sentiment that should inspire mankind; and it would bring great dishonor to the British senate and the British nation. He, therefore, hoped that the house, now equipped with information that had never been presented to them before, would make an effort to free themselves from the guilt and remorse that each of them should feel for allowing such terrible cruelties to be inflicted on a helpless and innocent part of the human race.
Mr. Martin complimented Mr. Pitt in terms of the warmest panegyric on his noble sentiments, declaring that they reflected the greatest honour upon him both as an Englishman and as a man.
Mr. Martin praised Mr. Pitt with the highest accolades for his noble thoughts, stating that they brought great honor to him both as an Englishman and as a person.
Soon after this the house divided upon the motion of Sir William Dolben. Fifty-six appeared to be in favour of it, and only five against it. The latter consisted of the two members for Liverpool and three other interested persons. This was the first division which ever took place on this important subject. The other blanks were then filled up, and the bill was passed without further delay.
Soon after this, the house split over the proposal made by Sir William Dolben. Fifty-six voted in favor, while just five were against it. The opposition included the two representatives from Liverpool and three other stakeholders. This was the first division ever held on this significant issue. The remaining blanks were then completed, and the bill was passed without any further holdup.
The next day, or on the 18th of June, it was carried up to the House of Lords. The slave-merchants of London, Liverpool, and Bristol, immediately presented petitions against it, as they had done in the lower house. They prayed that counsel might open their case; and though they had been driven from the Commons on account of their evidence, with disgrace, they had the effrontery to ask that they might call witnesses here also.
The next day, on June 18th, it was taken up to the House of Lords. The slave traders from London, Liverpool, and Bristol quickly submitted petitions against it, just like they had in the lower house. They requested that legal counsel could present their case; and even though they had been expelled from the Commons due to their evidence, in disgrace, they had the nerve to ask to call witnesses here as well.
Counsel and evidence having been respectively heard, the bill was ordered to be committed the next day. The Lords attended according to summons. But on a motion by Dr. Warren, the Bishop of Bangor, who stated that the Lord Chancellor Thurlow was much indisposed, and that he wished to be present when the question was discussed, the committee was postponed.
Counsel and evidence having been heard, the bill was scheduled to be discussed the next day. The Lords attended as summoned. However, on a motion by Dr. Warren, the Bishop of Bangor, who mentioned that the Lord Chancellor Thurlow was feeling unwell and wanted to be present for the discussion, the committee was postponed.
It was generally thought that the reason for this postponement, and particularly as it was recommended by a prelate, was that the Chancellor might have an opportunity of forwarding this humane bill. But it was found to be quite otherwise. It appeared that the motive was, that he might give to it, by his official appearance as the chief servant of the crown in that house, all the opposition in his power. For when the day arrived which had been appointed for the discussion, and when the Lords Bathurst and Hawkesbury (afterwards Liverpool) had expressed their opinions, which were different, relative to the time when the bill should take place, he rose up and pronounced a bitter and vehement oration against it. He said, among other things, that it was full of inconsistency and nonsense from the beginning to the end. The French had lately offered large premiums for the encouragement of this trade. They were a politic people, and the presumption was, that we were doing politically wrong by abandoning it. The bill ought not to have been brought forward in this session. The introduction of it was a direct violation of the faith of the other house. It was unjust, when an assurance had been given that the question should not be agitated till next year, that this sudden fit of philanthropy, which was but a few days old, should be allowed to disturb the public mind, and to become the occasion of bringing men to the metropolis with tears in their eyes and horror in their countenances, to deprecate the ruin of their property, which they had embarked on the faith of parliament.
It was widely believed that the reason for this delay, especially since it was suggested by a church leader, was so the Chancellor could have a chance to promote this compassionate bill. However, it turned out to be completely the opposite. The real motive seemed to be that he wanted to use his official position as the chief servant of the crown in that chamber to oppose it as much as possible. When the day finally came for the discussion, and Lords Bathurst and Hawkesbury (who later became Liverpool) had expressed differing opinions on when the bill should take effect, he stood up and delivered a harsh and passionate speech against it. He stated, among other things, that it was filled with contradictions and nonsense from start to finish. The French had recently offered significant rewards to encourage this trade. They were a strategic people, and it seemed we were making a political mistake by abandoning it. The bill shouldn't have been introduced in this session. Bringing it forward was a clear betrayal of the commitments made to the other house. It was unfair, especially after assurance had been given that the issue wouldn't be raised until next year, for this sudden burst of compassion, which was only a few days old, to disrupt public opinion and lead people to travel to the capital with tears in their eyes and fear on their faces, pleading against the destruction of their investments, which they had made in good faith based on parliamentary promises.
The extraordinary part which the Lord Chancellor Thurlow took upon this occasion, was ascribed at the time by many who moved in the higher circles, to a shyness or misunderstanding which had taken place between him and Mr. Pitt on other matters; when, believing this bill to have been a favourite measure with the latter, he determined to oppose it. But whatever were his motives (and let us hope that he could never have been actuated by so malignant a spirit as that of sacrificing the happiness of forty thousand persons for the next year to spite the gratification of an individual), his opposition had a mischievous effect, on account of the high situation in which he stood; for he not only influenced some of the Lords themselves, but, by taking the cause of the slave-merchants so conspicuously under his wing, he gave them boldness to look up again under the stigma of their iniquitous calling, and courage even to resume vigorous operations after their disgraceful defeat. Hence arose those obstacles which will be found to have been thrown in the way of the passing of the bill from this period.
The unusual stance taken by Lord Chancellor Thurlow during this event was interpreted at the time by many in high society as a result of shyness or a misunderstanding between him and Mr. Pitt over past issues. Thinking that this bill was a favored initiative of Pitt, Thurlow decided to oppose it. But whatever his reasons were (and let's hope he wasn't driven by such a malicious intent as sacrificing the happiness of forty thousand people for the next year just to spite one individual), his opposition had a harmful impact due to his prominent position. Not only did he sway some of the Lords, but by openly supporting the slave merchants, he also gave them the confidence to stand tall again despite the stigma of their unethical profession, and even encouraged them to resume aggressive efforts after their humiliating defeat. This led to the obstacles that emerged against the passage of the bill from this point onward.
Among the Lords who are to be particularly noticed as having taken the same side as the Lord Chancellor in this debate, were the Duke of Chandos and the Earl of Sandwich. The former foresaw nothing but insurrections of the slaves in our islands, and the massacre of their masters there, in consequence of the agitation of this question. The latter expected nothing less than the ruin of our marine. He begged the house to consider how, by doing that which might bring about the abolition of this traffic, they might lessen the number of British sailors; how, by throwing it into the hands of France they might increase those of a rival nation; and how, in consequence, the flag of the latter might ride triumphant on the ocean. The Slave Trade was undoubtedly a nursery for our seamen. All objections against it in this respect were ill-founded. It was as healthy as the Newfoundland and many other trades.
Among the Lords who should be especially noted for siding with the Lord Chancellor in this debate were the Duke of Chandos and the Earl of Sandwich. The former predicted nothing but uprisings from the slaves in our islands and the killing of their masters due to the agitation around this issue. The latter feared nothing less than the destruction of our navy. He urged the house to consider how taking steps towards abolishing this trade could reduce the number of British sailors; how handing it over to France could increase the sailors of a rival nation; and how, as a result, the flag of that nation might prevail on the ocean. The Slave Trade was certainly a crucial source for our sailors. All objections to it on this front were unfounded. It was as healthy as the Newfoundland and many other trades.
The debate having closed, during which nothing more was done than filling up the blanks with the time when the bill was to begin to operate, the committee was adjourned. But the bill after this dragged on so heavily, that it would be tedious to detail the proceedings upon it from day to day. I shall, therefore, satisfy myself with the following observations concerning them:—The committee sat not less than five different times, which consumed the space of eight days, before a final decision took place. During this time, so much was it an object to throw in obstacles which might occupy the little remaining time of the session, that other petitions were presented against the bill, and leave was asked, on new pretences contained in these, that counsel might be heard again. Letters also were read from Jamaica, about the mutinous disposition of the slaves there, in consequence of the stir which had been made about the abolition; and also from merchants in France, by which large offers were made to the British merchants to furnish them with slaves. Several regulations also were proposed in this interval, some of which were negatived by majorities of only one or two voices. Of the regulations which were carried, the most remarkable were those proposed by Lord Hawkesbury (afterwards Liverpool); namely, that no insurance should be made on the slaves, except against accidents by fire and water; that persons should not be appointed as officers of vessels transporting them, who had not been a certain number of such voyages before; that a regular surgeon only should be capable of being employed in them; and that both the captain and surgeon should have bounties, if, in the course of the transportation, they had lost only two in a hundred slaves. The Duke of Chandos again, and Lord Sydney, were the more conspicuous among the opposers of the humane bill; and the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis Townshend, the Earl of Carlisle, the Bishop of London, and Earl Stanhope, among the most strenuous supporters of it. At length it passed by a majority of nineteen to eleven votes.
The debate wrapped up, where the only thing decided was the start date for the bill, and then the committee was adjourned. However, the bill afterwards moved so slowly that it would be tedious to detail the daily proceedings. So, I will just mention the following: the committee met at least five times over eight days before reaching a final decision. During this period, there was a strong push to introduce obstacles that would take up the session's remaining time. Other petitions against the bill were submitted, and requests were made to hear counsel again based on new claims in these petitions. Letters were also read from Jamaica discussing the rebellious attitudes of the slaves there, sparked by the discussions about abolition, and from merchants in France offering substantial amounts to British merchants to supply them with slaves. Several regulations were proposed during this time, some of which were rejected by narrow margins. Among the regulations that passed, the most notable were those put forward by Lord Hawkesbury (later known as Liverpool); specifically, that no insurance could be made on slaves except for fire and water accidents; that only people with a certain number of previous voyages could be appointed as officers on the ships transporting them; that only certified surgeons could be employed; and that both the captain and surgeon would receive bonuses if they lost only two out of every hundred slaves during transportation. The Duke of Chandos and Lord Sydney were among the most visible opponents of the humanitarian bill, while the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis Townshend, the Earl of Carlisle, the Bishop of London, and Earl Stanhope were some of its strongest supporters. Eventually, it passed with a majority of nineteen to eleven votes.
On the 4th of July, when the bill had been returned to the Commons, it was moved, that the amendments made in it by the Lords should be read; but as it had become a money-bill in consequence of the bounties to be granted, and as new regulations were to be incorporated in it, it was thought proper that it should be wholly done away. Accordingly Sir William Dolben moved, that the further consideration of it should be put off till that day three months. This having been agreed upon, he then moved for leave to bring in a new bill. This was accordingly introduced, and an additional clause was inserted in it, relative to bounties, by Mr. Pitt. But on the second reading, that no obstacle might be omitted which could legally be thrown in the way of its progress, petitions were presented against it, both by the Liverpool merchants and the agent for the island of Jamaica, under the pretence that it was a new bill. Their petitions, however, were rejected, and it was committed and passed through its regular stages, and sent up to the Lords.
On July 4th, when the bill was sent back to the Commons, a motion was made to read the amendments made to it by the Lords. However, because it had turned into a money bill due to the bounties to be granted, and because new regulations needed to be added, it was decided to completely discard it. Therefore, Sir William Dolben proposed that further consideration of it be postponed for three months. Once this was agreed upon, he requested permission to introduce a new bill. This was subsequently introduced, and Mr. Pitt added an extra clause regarding the bounties. But during the second reading, to ensure that no legal obstacles could delay its progress, petitions were submitted against it by both the Liverpool merchants and the agent for the island of Jamaica, claiming it was a new bill. Nevertheless, their petitions were rejected, and the bill was committed, passed through its usual stages, and sent up to the Lords.
On its arrival there on the 5th of July, petitions from London and Liverpool still followed it. The prayer of these was against the general tendency of it, but it was solicited also that counsel might be heard in a particular case; the solicitation was complied with; after which the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
On its arrival there on July 5th, petitions from London and Liverpool were still coming in. They opposed the overall direction of it, but they also requested that legal advice be heard in a specific case; this request was granted; after that, the bill was read a second time and scheduled for further consideration.
On the 7th, when it was taken next into consideration, two other petitions were presented against it. But here so many objections were made to the clauses of it as they then stood, and such new matter suggested that the Duke of Richmond, who was a strenuous supporter of it, thought it best to move that the committee then sitting should be deferred till that day seven-night, in order to give time for another more perfect to originate in the lower house.
On the 7th, when it was discussed again, two more petitions were presented against it. However, there were so many objections to the clauses as they were written, and so many new points raised, that the Duke of Richmond, who strongly supported it, decided it would be best to suggest that the committee currently meeting should postpone until a week later, to allow time for a better proposal to come from the lower house.
This motion having been acceded to, Sir William Dolben introduced a new one for the third time into the Commons. This included the suggestions which had been made in the Lords. It included also a regulation, on the motion of Mr. Sheridan, that no surgeon should be employed as such in the slave-vessels, except he had a testimonial that he had passed a proper examination at Surgeon's Hall. The amendments were all then agreed to, and the bill was passed through its several stages.
This motion was agreed to, and Sir William Dolben introduced a new one for the third time in the Commons. This included the suggestions that had been made in the Lords. It also included a regulation, based on Mr. Sheridan's motion, that no surgeon should be employed as such on the slave ships unless they had a certificate proving they passed a proper examination at Surgeon's Hall. All the amendments were then accepted, and the bill went through its various stages.
On the 10th of July, being now fully amended it came for a third time before the Lords; but it was no sooner brought forward than it met with the same opposition as it had experienced before. Two new petitions appeared against it; one from a certain class of persons in Liverpool, and another from Miles Peter Andrews, Esq., stating that if it passed into a law it would injure the sale of his gunpowder, and that he had rendered great services to the government during the last war, by his provision of that article. But here the Lord Chancellor Thurlow reserved himself for an effort, which, by occasioning only a day's delay, would, in that particular period of the session have totally prevented the passing of the bill. He suggested certain amendments for consideration and discussion which, if they had agreed upon, must have been carried again to the lower House, and sanctioned there before the bill could have been complete. But it appeared afterwards, that there would have been no time for the latter proceeding. Earl Stanhope, therefore, pressed this circumstance peculiarly upon the lords who were present. He observed that the king was to dismiss the parliament next day, and therefore they must adopt the bill as it stood, or reject it altogether. There was no alternative, and no time was to be lost: accordingly, he moved for an immediate division on the first of the amendments proposed by Lord Thurlow. This having taken place, it was negatived. The other amendments shared the same fate; and thus, at length, passed through the Upper House, as through an ordeal as it were of fire, the first bill that ever put fetters upon that barbarous and destructive monster, the Slave Trade.
On July 10th, after being fully revised, the bill came before the Lords for the third time; but as soon as it was presented, it faced the same opposition as before. Two new petitions appeared against it: one from a certain group in Liverpool, and another from Miles Peter Andrews, Esq., who claimed that if the bill became law, it would hurt his gunpowder sales and mentioned that he had provided significant support to the government during the last war by supplying that product. However, the Lord Chancellor Thurlow planned to delay the process with an effort that would, with just a day's postponement, have completely blocked the bill's passage during that session. He proposed certain amendments for discussion and consideration, which, if agreed upon, would have to be sent back to the House of Commons for approval before the bill could be finalized. It later became clear that there wouldn't be enough time for that. Therefore, Earl Stanhope highlighted this situation to the attending Lords. He pointed out that the king was set to dissolve Parliament the next day, meaning they had to either accept the bill as it was or reject it entirely. There was no other option, and time was running out: thus, he called for an immediate vote on the first amendment proposed by Lord Thurlow. After the vote, it was rejected. The other amendments met the same fate; consequently, the bill finally passed through the Upper House, going through a sort of trial by fire, as the first legislation ever to place restrictions on the brutal and destructive Slave Trade.
The next day, or on Friday, July the 11th, the king gave his assent to it, and, as Lord Stanhope had previously asserted in the House of Lords, concluded the session.
The next day, or on Friday, July 11th, the king approved it, and, as Lord Stanhope had stated earlier in the House of Lords, ended the session.
While the legislature was occupied in the consideration of this bill, the lords of the council continued their examinations, that they might collect as much light as possible previously to the general agitation of the question in the next session of parliament. Among others I underwent an examination: I gave my testimony first, relative to many of the natural productions of Africa, of which I produced the specimens. These were such as I had collected in the course of my journey to Bristol and Liverpool, and elsewhere. I explained, secondly, the loss and usage of seamen in the Slave Trade. To substantiate certain points, which belonged to this branch of the subject, I left several depositions and articles of agreement for the examination of the council. With respect to others, as it would take a long time to give all the data upon which calculations had been made, and the manner of making them, I was desired to draw up a statement of particulars, and to send it to the council at a future time. I left also depositions with them, relative to certain instances of the mode of procuring and treating slaves.
While the legislature was busy considering this bill, the council continued their investigations to gather as much information as possible before the debate on the issue in the next session of parliament. I was among those examined: I provided my testimony regarding many of the natural resources from Africa, presenting the specimens I had collected during my journeys to Bristol, Liverpool, and other places. I also explained the loss and treatment of sailors in the Slave Trade. To support certain points related to this topic, I left several statements and agreements for the council's review. For other matters, since it would take a long time to provide all the data used for calculations and the methods of obtaining it, I was asked to prepare a detailed report and send it to the council later. I also left statements with them regarding specific instances of how slaves were obtained and treated.
The committee also for effecting the abolition of the Slave Trade continued their attention, during this period, towards the promotion of the different objects which came within the range of the institution.
The committee also kept focusing on the abolition of the Slave Trade during this time, while also promoting various goals that fell within the scope of the institution.
They added the Rev. Dr. Coombe, in consequence of the great increase of their business, to the list of their members.
They added Rev. Dr. Coombe to their list of members because of the significant growth in their business.
They voted thanks to Mr. Hughes, vicar of Ware, in Hertfordshire, for his excellent answer to Harris's Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade, and they enrolled him among their honorary and corresponding members. Also thanks to William Roscoe, Esq., for his Answer to the same. Mr. Roscoe had not affixed his name to this pamphlet any more than to his poem of The Wrongs of Africa; but he made himself known to the committee as the author of both. Also thanks to William Smith and Henry Beaufoy, Esqrs., for having so successfully exposed the evidence offered by the slave merchants against the bill of Sir William Dolben, and for having drawn out of it so many facts, all making for their great object the abolition of the Slave Trade.
They voted to thank Mr. Hughes, the vicar of Ware in Hertfordshire, for his excellent response to Harris's Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave Trade, and they added him to their honorary and corresponding members. They also thanked William Roscoe, Esq., for his response to the same issue. Mr. Roscoe hadn’t put his name on this pamphlet any more than on his poem The Wrongs of Africa; however, he made himself known to the committee as the author of both. They also thanked William Smith and Henry Beaufoy, Esqrs., for successfully exposing the evidence presented by the slave merchants against Sir William Dolben’s bill and for highlighting so many facts that supported their main goal: the abolition of the Slave Trade.
As the great question was to be discussed in the approaching sessions, it was moved in the committee to consider of the propriety of sending persons to Africa and the West Indies, who should obtain information relative to the different branches of the system as they existed in each of these countries, in order that they might be able to give their testimony, from their own experience, before one or both of the houses of parliament, as it might be judged proper. This proposition was discussed at two or three several meetings. It was, however, finally rejected, and principally on the following grounds—First, It was obvious that persons sent out upon such an errand would be exposed to such dangers from varying causes, that it was not improbably that both they and their testimony might be lost. Secondly, Such persons would be obliged to have recourse to falsehoods, that is, to conceal or misrepresent the objects of their destination, that they might get their intelligence with safety; which falsehoods the committee could not countenance. To which it was added, that few persons would go to these places, except they were handsomely rewarded for their trouble; but this reward would lessen the value of their evidence, as it would afford a handle to the planters and slave-merchants to say that they had been bribed.
As the important issue was set to be discussed in the upcoming sessions, the committee proposed considering whether to send individuals to Africa and the West Indies to gather information about the various aspects of the system as it existed in each of these regions. This would allow them to provide their firsthand accounts before one or both houses of parliament, as deemed appropriate. This idea was discussed in two or three meetings. However, it was ultimately rejected, mainly for the following reasons: First, it was clear that individuals sent on such a mission would face numerous dangers, making it likely that both they and their testimonies could be lost. Second, those individuals would likely have to resort to dishonesty, meaning they would need to conceal or misrepresent their purpose to gather information safely, which the committee could not support. Additionally, it was noted that few people would be willing to go to these areas unless they were fairly compensated for their efforts. However, this compensation could diminish the credibility of their testimony, as it would give planters and slave traders a reason to claim they had been bribed.
Another circumstance which came before the committee was the following:—Many arguments were afloat at this time relative to the great impolicy of abolishing the Slave Trade, the principal of which was, that, if the English abandoned it, other foreign nations would take it up; and thus, while they gave up certain national profits themselves, the great cause of humanity would not be benefited, nor would any moral good be done by the measure. Now there was a presumption that, by means of the society instituted in Paris, the French nation might be awakened to this great subject; and that the French government might in consequence, as well as upon other considerations, be induced to favour the general feeling upon this occasion. But there was no reason to conclude, either than any other maritime people, who had been engaged in the Slave Trade, would relinquish it, or that any other, who had not yet been engaged in it, would not begin it when our countrymen should give it up. The consideration of these circumstances occupied the attention of the committee; and as Dr. Spaarman, who was said to have been examined by the privy council, was returning home, it was thought advisable to consider whether it would not be proper for the committee to select certain of their own books on the subject of the Slave Trade, and send them by him, accompanied by a letter, to the King of Sweden, in which they should entreat his consideration of this powerful argument which now stood in the way of the cause of humanity, with a view that, as one of the princes of Europe, he might contribute to obviate it, by preventing his own subjects, in case of the dereliction of this commerce by ourselves, from embarking in it. The matter having been fully considered, it was resolved that the proposed measure would be proper, and it was accordingly adapted. By a letter received afterwards from Dr. Spaarman, it appeared that both the letter and the books had been delivered, and received graciously; and that he was authorized to say, that, unfortunately, in consequence of those hereditary possessions which had devolved upon His Majesty, he was obliged to confess that he was the sovereign of an island which had been principally peopled by African slaves, but that he had been frequently mindful of their hard case. With respect to the Slave Trade, he never heard of an instance in which the merchants of his own native realm had embarked in it; and as they had preserved their character pure in this respect, he would do all he could that it should not be sullied in the eyes of the generous English nation, by taking up, in the case which had been pointed out to him, such an odious concern.
Another situation that came before the committee was the following: Many discussions were happening at that time regarding the serious drawbacks of abolishing the Slave Trade. The main argument was that if the English stopped the trade, other foreign nations would take it over; thus, while they would lose certain national profits, humanity wouldn’t be any better off, nor would any moral good result from the decision. There was hope that, thanks to a society established in Paris, the French nation might be inspired to take up this important issue and that the French government might, for that reason and others, be persuaded to support the general sentiment about it. However, there was no reason to believe that any other maritime nations involved in the Slave Trade would give it up, nor that nations not yet engaged in it wouldn’t start it if our countrymen decided to quit. These considerations occupied the committee's attention, and as Dr. Spaarman, who had reportedly been examined by the privy council, was heading home, it was suggested that the committee should pick several of their own books on the Slave Trade and send them with him, along with a letter to the King of Sweden. In the letter, they would appeal for his consideration of this powerful argument standing in the way of humanity’s cause, hoping that, as one of Europe’s princes, he might help eliminate this concern by preventing his own subjects from entering the trade if our country abandoned it. After thorough discussion, they agreed that this proposed action was appropriate and thus it was enacted. Later, Dr. Spaarman sent a letter stating that both the letter and the books had been delivered and received positively. He was also permitted to convey that, unfortunately, due to the hereditary holdings that had come to His Majesty, he had to admit that he was the ruler of an island largely populated by African slaves, but he had often been mindful of their difficult situation. Regarding the Slave Trade, he had never known of any instance where merchants from his own homeland had participated in it; and since they had maintained their reputation intact in this respect, he pledged to do everything possible to ensure it remained unsullied in the eyes of the honorable English nation by avoiding involvement in such a disgraceful business.
By this time I had finished my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, which I composed from materials collected chiefly during my journey to Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster. These materials I had admitted with great caution and circumspection; indeed I admitted none for which I could not bring official and other authentic documents, or living evidences if necessary, whose testimony could not reasonably be denied; and when I gave them to the world, I did it under the impression that I ought to give them as scrupulously as if I were to be called upon to substantiate them upon oath. It was of peculiar moment that this book should make its appearance at this time. First, Because it would give the lords of the council, who were then sitting, an opportunity of seeing many important facts, and of inquiring into their authenticity; and it might suggest to them, also, some new points, or such as had not fallen within the limits of the arrangement they had agreed upon for their examinations on this subject: and secondly, Because, as the members of the House of Commons were to take the question into consideration early in the next sessions, it would give them, also, new light and information upon it before this period. Accordingly the committee ordered two thousand copies of it to be struck off, for these and other objects; and though the contents of it were most diligently sifted by the different opponents of the cause, they never even made an attempt to answer it. It continued, on the other hand, during the inquiry of the legislature, to afford the basis or grounds upon which to examine evidences on the political part of the subject; and evidences thus examined continued in their turn to establish it.
By this point, I had completed my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, which I wrote using materials mainly gathered during my travels to Bristol, Liverpool, and Lancaster. I was very careful and meticulous in choosing these materials; in fact, I included nothing that I couldn’t back up with official documents or authentic evidence, if needed, whose validity couldn’t reasonably be challenged. When I published it, I felt it was important to present the information as rigorously as if I were required to verify it under oath. It was especially important for this book to be released at this moment. First, it would allow the lords of the council, who were currently in session, to see many significant facts and to verify their authenticity; it might also prompt them to consider additional points that hadn’t been covered in their arranged discussions on the topic. Second, since the members of the House of Commons were planning to discuss the issue in the next session, it would provide them with new insights and information ahead of that time. Consequently, the committee ordered two thousand copies to be printed for these and other purposes; despite the fact that the content was thoroughly examined by various opponents of the cause, they never even attempted to respond. Meanwhile, during the legislature's inquiry, it continued to serve as the foundation for analyzing evidence related to the political aspects of the subject, and the evidence that was examined only further supported it.
Among the other books ordered to be printed by the committee within the period now under our consideration, were a new edition of two thousand of the DEAN OF MIDDLEHAM'S Letter, and another of three thousand of FALCONBBIDGE'S Account of the Slave Trade.
Among the other books ordered for printing by the committee during the time we are looking at, there were a new edition of two thousand copies of the DEAN OF MIDDLEHAM'S Letter, and another edition of three thousand copies of FALCONBRIDGE'S Account of the Slave Trade.
The committee continued to keep ups, during the same period, a communication with many of their old correspondents, whose names have been already mentioned. But they received, also, letters from others, who had not hitherto addressed them: namely, from Ellington Wright, of Erith; Dr. Franklin, of Philadelphia; Eustace Kentish, Esq., high sheriff for the county of Huntingdon; Governor Bouchier; the Reverend Charles Symmons, of Haverfordwest; and from John York and William Downes, Esquires, high sheriffs for the counties of York and Hereford.
The committee continued to maintain communication during this time with many of their old contacts, whose names have already been mentioned. However, they also received letters from others who had not reached out before, including Ellington Wright from Erith; Dr. Franklin from Philadelphia; Eustace Kentish, Esq., the high sheriff of Huntingdon; Governor Bouchier; the Reverend Charles Symmons from Haverfordwest; and John York and William Downes, Esquires, the high sheriffs for the counties of York and Hereford.
A letter, also, was read in this interval from Mr. Evans, a dissenting clergyman, of Bristol, stating that the elders of several Baptist churches, forming the western Baptist association, who had met at, Portsmouth Common, had resolved to recommend it to the ministers and members of the same, to unite with the committee in the promotion of the great object of their institution.
A letter was also read during this time from Mr. Evans, a dissenting clergyman from Bristol, stating that the elders of several Baptist churches, which form the Western Baptist Association, had met at Portsmouth Common and decided to recommend that the ministers and members of those churches join with the committee in supporting the main goal of their organization.
Another from Mr. Andrew Irvin, of the Island of Grenada, in which he confirmed the wretched situation of many of the slaves there, and in which he gave the outlines of a plan for bettering their condition, as well as that of those in the other islands.
Another from Mr. Andrew Irvin, from the Island of Grenada, in which he confirmed the poor situation of many of the slaves there, and he outlined a plan for improving their conditions, as well as those in the other islands.
Another from I.L. Wynne, Esq., of Jamaica. In this he gave an afflicting account of the suffering and unprotected state of the slaves there, which it was high time to rectify. He congratulated the committee on their institution, which he thought would tend to promote so desirable an end; but desired them not to stop short of the total abolition of the Slave Trade, as no other measure would prove effectual against the evils of which he complained. This trade, he said, was utterly unnecessary, as his own plantation, on which his slaves had increased rapidly by population, and others which he knew to be similarly circumstanced, would abundantly testify. He concluded by promising to give the committee such information from time to time as might be useful on this important subject.
Another letter from I.L. Wynne, Esq., of Jamaica. In this, he provided a heartbreaking account of the suffering and vulnerable situation of the slaves there, which needed immediate attention. He congratulated the committee on their formation, believing it would help achieve this important goal; however, he urged them not to stop short of completely abolishing the Slave Trade, as no other action would effectively tackle the issues he described. He claimed this trade was entirely unnecessary, as his own plantation, where the slave population had grown rapidly, along with others he knew of in similar situations, would clearly demonstrate. He concluded by promising to share useful information with the committee on this crucial matter from time to time.
The session of parliament having closed, the committee thought it right to make a report to the public: in which they gave an account of the great progress of their cause since the last; of the state in which they then were; and of the unjustifiable conduct of their opponents, who industriously misrepresented their views, but particularly by attributing to them the design of abolishing slavery: and they concluded by exhorting their friends not to relax their endeavours on account of favourable appearances; but to persevere, as if nothing had been done, under the pleasing hope of an honourable triumph.
The parliament session has ended, and the committee felt it was important to share a report with the public. They detailed the significant progress they had made since the last session, described their current situation, and addressed the unfair actions of their opponents, who deliberately misrepresented their intentions, especially by claiming they wanted to abolish slavery. They concluded by urging their supporters not to lessen their efforts because of any positive signs but to keep pushing forward as if nothing had been achieved yet, holding on to the hopeful prospect of a deserving victory.
And now having given the substance of the labours of the committee from its formation to the present time, I cannot conclude this chapter without giving to the worthy members of it that tribute of affectionate and grateful praise, which is due to them for their exertions in having forwarded the great cause which was intrusted to their care. And this I can do with more propriety, because, having been so frequently absent from them when they were engaged in the pursuit of this their duty, I cannot be liable to the suspicion, that in bestowing commendation upon them I am bestowing it upon myself. From about the end of May, 1787, to the middle of July, 1788, they had no less than fifty-one committees. These generally occupied them from about six in the evening till about eleven at night. In the intervals between the committees they were often occupied, having each of them some object committed to his charge. It is remarkable, too, that though they were all, except one, engaged in, business or trade, and though they had the same calls as other men for innocent recreation, and the same interruptions of their health, there were individuals who were not absent more than five or six times within this period. In the course of the thirteen months, during which they had exercised this public trust, they had printed, and afterwards distributed, not at random, but judiciously, and through, respectable channels, (besides 26,526 reports, accounts of debates in parliament, and other small papers,) no less than 51,432 pamphlets, or books.
And now that I’ve summarized the work of the committee from its start to now, I can’t wrap up this chapter without expressing my heartfelt and grateful appreciation to its dedicated members for their efforts in advancing the important cause they were entrusted with. I can say this more appropriately since I have often been away while they were busy with their duties, so there’s no suspicion that I’m praising them to elevate myself. From the end of May 1787 to mid-July 1788, they held no less than fifty-one meetings, typically working from around six in the evening until eleven at night. In the time between meetings, each member was often busy with their individual responsibilities. It’s also noteworthy that, although all but one were involved in business or trade and faced the same demands for leisure and health interruptions as others, some individuals missed no more than five or six meetings during this period. Throughout the thirteen months in which they held this public responsibility, they printed and then distributed—carefully and through respected channels—not just 26,526 reports, accounts of parliamentary debates, and other short documents, but also 51,432 pamphlets or books.
Nor, was the effect, produced within this short period otherwise than commensurate with the efforts used. In May, 1787, the only public notice taken of this great cause was by this committee of twelve individuals, of whom all were little known to the world except Mr. Granville Sharp. But in July, 1788, it had attracted the notice of several distinguished individuals in France and Germany; and in our own country it had come within the notice of the government, and a branch of it had undergone a parliamentary discussion and restraint. It had arrested, also, the attention of the nation, and it had produced a kind of holy flame, or enthusiasm, and this to a degree and to an extent never before witnessed. Of the purity of this flame no better proof can be offered, than that even Bishops deigned to address an obscure committee, consisting principally of Quakers; and that Churchmen and Dissenters forgot their difference of religious opinions, and joined their hands, all over the kingdom, in its support.
Nor was the effect produced in this short time any different from the effort put in. In May 1787, the only public acknowledgment of this important issue came from a committee of twelve people, all of whom were relatively unknown except for Mr. Granville Sharp. But by July 1788, it had caught the attention of several prominent figures in France and Germany, and in our own country, it had reached the government, with a part of it being discussed and restricted in Parliament. It also grabbed the nation’s attention, igniting a kind of holy fervor or enthusiasm that had never been seen before. The purity of this enthusiasm is best proven by the fact that even Bishops were willing to engage with an obscure committee made up mostly of Quakers, and that Church members and Dissenters set aside their differences in religious beliefs to unite in support of this cause throughout the kingdom.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Continuation from June 1788 to July 1789.—Author travels to collect further evidence; great difficulties in obtaining it; forms committees on his tour.—Privy council resume the examinations; inspect cabinet of African productions; obliged to leave many of the witnesses in behalf of the abolition unexamined; prepare their report—Labours of the committee in the interim.—Proceedings of the planters and others.—Report laid on the table of the House of Commons.—Introduction of the question, and debate there; twelve propositions deduced from the report and reserved for future discussion; day of discussion arrives; opponents refuse to argue from the report; require new evidence; this granted and introduced; further consideration of the subject deferred to the next session.—Renewal of Sir William Dolben's bill.—Death and character of Ramsay.
Continuation from June 1788 to July 1789.—The author travels to gather more evidence; faces significant challenges in doing so; sets up committees during the journey.—The privy council resumes the investigations; examines a collection of African products; is forced to leave many witnesses supporting the abolition unexamined; prepares their report—The committee's work during this time.—Actions of the planters and others.—The report is presented to the House of Commons.—The question is introduced and debated; twelve propositions extracted from the report are set aside for future discussion; the day for discussion comes; opponents refuse to engage based on the report; they ask for new evidence; this is provided and introduced; further discussion of the topic is postponed until the next session.—Revival of Sir William Dolben's bill.—Death and character of Ramsay.
Matters had now become serious. The gauntlet had been thrown down and accepted. The combatants had taken their stations, and the contest was to be renewed, which was to be decided soon on the great theatre of the nation. The committee by the very act of their institution had pronounced the Slave Trade to be criminal. They, on the other hand, who were concerned in it, had denied the charge. It became the one to prove, and the other to refute it, or to fall in the ensuing session.
Matters had now gotten serious. The challenge had been thrown down and accepted. The competitors had taken their positions, and the contest was about to start again, set to be decided soon on the national stage. By forming the committee, they had declared the Slave Trade to be a crime. Those involved in it, however, denied the accusation. One side had to prove their point, while the other had to refute it, or they would fall in the upcoming session.
The committee, in this perilous situation, were anxious to find out such other persons as might become proper evidences before the privy council. They had hitherto sent there only nine or ten, and they had then only another, whom they could count upon for this purpose, in their view. The proposal of sending persons to Africa, and the West Indies, who might come back and report what they had witnessed, had already been negatived. The question then was, what they were to do. Upon this they deliberated, and the result was an application to me to undertake a journey to different parts of the kingdom for this purpose.
The committee, in this dangerous situation, was eager to identify other individuals who could serve as credible witnesses before the privy council. So far, they had only sent about nine or ten, and they only had one more person in mind whom they could rely on for this task. The idea of sending people to Africa and the West Indies to come back and share what they had seen had already been dismissed. The question then was what they should do next. They discussed it, and the outcome was a request for me to undertake a journey to various parts of the kingdom for this purpose.
When this determination was made, I was at Teston, writing a long letter to the privy council on the ill usage and mortality of the seamen employed in the Slave Trade, which it had been previously agreed should be received as evidence there. I thought it proper, however, before I took my departure, to form a system of questions upon the general subject. These I divided into six tables. The first related to the productions of Africa, and the dispositions and manners of the natives. The second, to the methods of reducing them to slavery. The third, to the manner of bringing them to the ships, their value, the medium of exchange, and other circumstances. The fourth, to their transportation. The fifth, to their treatment in the colonies. The sixth, to the seamen employed in the trade. These tables contained together one hundred and forty-five questions. My idea was that they should be printed on a small sheet of paper, which should be folded up in seven or eight leaves, of the length and breadth of a small almanac, and then be sent in franks to our different correspondents. These, when they had them, might examine persons capable of giving evidence, who might live in their neighbourhoods, or fall in their way, and return us their examinations by letter.
When this decision was made, I was in Teston, writing a long letter to the privy council about the mistreatment and death rates of the sailors involved in the Slave Trade, which had been previously agreed to be accepted as evidence. I thought it was important, however, before I left, to create a set of questions on the overall topic. I divided these into six categories. The first was about Africa's resources and the habits and behaviors of the locals. The second focused on how they were enslaved. The third dealt with how they were brought to the ships, their worth, the means of exchange, and other factors. The fourth was about their transportation. The fifth examined their treatment in the colonies. The sixth concerned the sailors engaged in the trade. Together, these categories included one hundred and forty-five questions. My idea was for them to be printed on a small sheet of paper, which would be folded into seven or eight pages, the size of a small almanac, and then sent out as franked letters to our various contacts. Once they received them, they could question people able to provide evidence, who lived nearby or happened to cross their paths, and send us their findings by letter.
The committee having approved and printed the tables of questions, I began my tour. I had selected the southern counties from Kent to Cornwall for it. I had done this, because these included the great stations of the ships of war in ordinary; and as these were all under the superintendence of Sir Charles Middleton, as comptroller of the navy, I could get an introduction to those on board them. Secondly, because sea-faring people, when they retire from a marine life, usually settle in some town or village upon the coast.
The committee approved and printed the list of questions, so I started my tour. I chose the southern counties from Kent to Cornwall for this. I did this because these areas included the main naval ports. Since all these ports were overseen by Sir Charles Middleton, the comptroller of the navy, I could get introductions to the people on board the ships. Additionally, seafarers, when they leave their marine careers, often settle in towns or villages along the coast.
Of this tour I shall not give the reader any very particular account. I shall mention only those things which are most worthy of his notice in it. At Poole, in Dorsetshire, I laid the foundation of a committee, to act in harmony with that of London for the promotion of the cause. Moses Neave, of the respectable society of the Quakers, was the chairman; Thomas Bell, the secretary; and Ellis B. Metford and the Reverend Mr. Davis and others the committee. This was the third committee which had been instituted in the country for this purpose. That at Bristol, under Mr. Joseph Harford as chairman, and Mr. Lunell as secretary, had been the first: and that at Manchester, under Mr. Thomas Walker as chairman, and Mr. Samuel Jackson as secretary, had been the second.
I won't give the reader a detailed account of this tour. I'll only mention the things that are most noteworthy. In Poole, Dorset, I started a committee to work alongside the one in London to promote the cause. Moses Neave, from the respected Quaker community, was the chairman; Thomas Bell was the secretary; and Ellis B. Metford, the Reverend Mr. Davis, and others made up the committee. This was the third committee created in the country for this purpose. The first was in Bristol, led by Mr. Joseph Harford as chairman and Mr. Lunell as secretary; and the second was in Manchester, with Mr. Thomas Walker as chairman and Mr. Samuel Jackson as secretary.
As Poole was a great place for carrying on the trade to Newfoundland, I determined to examine the assertion of the Earl of Sandwich in the House of Lords, when he said, in the debate on Sir William Dolben's bill, that the Slave Trade was not more fatal to seamen than the Newfoundland and some others. This assertion I knew at the time to be erroneous, as far as my own researches had been concerned: for out of twenty-four vessels, which had sailed out of the port of Bristol in that employ, only two sailors were upon the dead list. In sixty vessels from Poole, I found but four lost. At Dartmouth, where I went afterwards on purpose, I found almost a similar result. On conversing, however, with Governor Holdsworth, I learnt that the year 1786 had been more fatal than any other in this trade. I learnt that in consequence of extraordinary storms and hurricanes, no less than five sailors had died and twenty-one had been drowned in eighty-three vessels from that port. Upon this statement I determined to look into the muster-rolls of the trade there for two or three years together. I began by accident with the year 1769, and I went on to the end of 1772. About eighty vessels on an average had sailed thence in each of these years. Taking the loss in these years, and compounding it with that in the fatal year, three sailors had been lost; but taking it in these four years by themselves, only two had been lost in twenty-four vessels so employed. On comparison with the Slave Trade, the result would be, that two vessels to Africa would destroy more seamen than eighty-three sailing to Newfoundland. There was this difference also to be noted, that the loss in the one trade was generally by the weather or by accident, but in the other by cruel treatment or disease; and that they who went out in a declining state of health in the one, came home generally recovered; whereas they, who went out robust in the other, came home in a shattered condition.
As Poole was a key port for trade to Newfoundland, I decided to investigate the claim made by the Earl of Sandwich in the House of Lords, when he stated during the debate on Sir William Dolben's bill that the Slave Trade was not more deadly for sailors than the Newfoundland trade and a few others. I knew at the time this claim was incorrect based on my own research: out of twenty-four ships that had left the port of Bristol for this purpose, only two sailors were on the death list. From sixty ships leaving Poole, I found only four had losses. At Dartmouth, where I went next specifically for this reason, the results were nearly the same. However, during a conversation with Governor Holdsworth, I learned that 1786 had been more deadly than any other year in this trade. He told me that due to severe storms and hurricanes, five sailors had died and twenty-one had drowned among eighty-three vessels from that port. Based on this information, I decided to review the muster-rolls for the trade there over the course of two or three years. I started, somewhat randomly, with the year 1769 and continued through the end of 1772. An average of about eighty vessels had sailed from there each of those years. When I analyzed the losses during those years and combined them with the losses from the deadly year, I found three sailors had been lost overall; however, looking just at those four years, only two had been lost among the twenty-four ships involved. In comparison with the Slave Trade, this suggested that two ships going to Africa would result in more sailor deaths than eighty-three sailing to Newfoundland. Another difference to consider was that the losses in the former trade were typically due to weather or accidents, while in the latter, they were often caused by mistreatment or illness. Additionally, those who left in poor health in the former generally returned recovered, while those who left strong in the latter came back in a weakened state.
At Plymouth I laid the foundation of another committee. The late William Cookworthy, the late John Prideaux, and James Fox, all of the society of the Quakers, and Mr. George Leach, Samuel Northcote and John Saunders, had a principal share in forming it. Sir William Ellford was chosen chairman.
At Plymouth, I started another committee. The late William Cookworthy, the late John Prideaux, and James Fox, all members of the Quakers, along with Mr. George Leach, Samuel Northcote, and John Saunders, played key roles in its formation. Sir William Ellford was elected as the chairman.
From Plymouth I journeyed on to Falmouth, and from thence to Exeter, where having meetings with the late Mr. Samuel Milford, the late Mr. George Manning, the Reverend James Manning, Thomas Sparkes, and others, a desire became manifest among them of establishing a committee there. This was afterwards effected; and Mr. Milford, who at a general meeting of the inhabitants of Exeter, on the 10th of June, on this great subject, had been called by those present to the chair, was appointed the chairman of it.
From Plymouth, I traveled to Falmouth, and then to Exeter, where I had meetings with the late Mr. Samuel Milford, the late Mr. George Manning, Reverend James Manning, Thomas Sparkes, and others. They expressed a clear desire to establish a committee there. This was later accomplished, and Mr. Milford was appointed chairman after being called to lead a general meeting of the residents of Exeter on June 10th to discuss this important matter.
With respect to evidence, which was the great object of this tour, I found myself often very unpleasantly situated in collecting it. I heard of many persons capable of giving it to our advantage, to whom I could get no introduction. I had to go after these many miles out of my established route. Not knowing me, they received me coldly, and even suspiciously; while I fell in with others, who, considering themselves, on account of their concerns and connexions, as our opponents, treated me in an uncivil manner.
Regarding evidence, which was the main goal of this tour, I often found myself in really uncomfortable situations while trying to collect it. I learned about many people who could provide valuable information, but I couldn't get an introduction to them. I had to travel many miles off my planned route. Since they didn’t know me, they welcomed me coldly and even with suspicion. Meanwhile, I encountered others who considered themselves our opponents due to their interests and connections, and they treated me rudely.
But the difficulties and disappointments in other respects which I experienced in this tour,—even where I had an introduction, and where the parties were not interested in the continuance of the Slave Trade,—were greater than people in general would have imagined. One would have thought, considering the great enthusiasm of the nation on this important subject, that they who could have given satisfactory information upon it, would have rejoiced to do it. But I found it otherwise; and this frequently to my sorrow. There was an aversion in persons to appear before such a tribunal as they conceived the privy council to be. With men of shy or timid character this operated as an insuperable barrier in their way. But it operated more or less upon all. It was surprising to see what little circumstances affected many. When I took out my pen and ink to put down the information which a person was giving me, he became evidently embarrassed and frightened. He began to excuse himself from staying, by alleging that he had nothing more to communicate, and he took himself away as quickly as he could with decency. The sight of the pen and ink had lost me so many good evidences, that I was obliged wholly to abandon the use of them, and to betake myself to other means. I was obliged for the future to commit my tables of questions to memory; and endeavour by practice to put down, after the examination of a person, such answers as he had given me to each of them.
But the challenges and disappointments I faced during this trip—even when I had an introduction and the people weren't invested in continuing the Slave Trade—were much more significant than most would have expected. You'd think that given the widespread enthusiasm for this important issue, those who could provide useful information would have been eager to do so. Instead, I found it to be quite the opposite, which often left me feeling frustrated. People seemed reluctant to engage with what they saw as a daunting authority like the privy council. For those who were shy or timid, it created an insurmountable barrier. However, it affected just about everyone to some degree. It was surprising how little things could throw people off. When I took out my pen and ink to jot down the information someone was sharing with me, they visibly became uncomfortable and anxious. They would start to make excuses to leave, claiming they had nothing more to add, and would exit as quickly as they could without seeming rude. The sight of my pen and ink cost me so many potential insights that I had to completely stop using them and find other ways to gather information. From then on, I had to memorize my list of questions and, through practice, try to recall the answers people had given me after our discussions.
Others went off, because it happened that immediately on my interview, I acquainted them with the nature of my errand and solicited their attendance in London. Conceiving that I had no right to ask them such a favour, or terrified at the abruptness and apparent awfulness of my request some of them gave me an immediate denial, which they would never afterwards retract. I began to perceive in time that it was only by the most delicate management that I could get forward on these occasions. I resolved, therefore, for the future, except in particular cases, that when I should be introduced to persons who had a competent knowledge of this trade, I would talk with them upon it as upon any ordinary subject, and then leave them without saying anything about their becoming evidences. I would take care, however, to commit all their conversation to writing when it was over; and I would then try to find out that person among their relations or friends, who could apply to them for this purpose, with the least hazard of a refusal.
Others left because right after my interview, I told them what I was there for and asked if they would come to London with me. Some of them thought I had no right to ask for such a favor, or were scared by the suddenness and seriousness of my request, and they flat-out denied me in a way they would never take back. I started to realize that I could only make progress in these situations with the most careful handling. So, I decided that from then on, except in certain cases, when I met people who really understood this field, I would discuss it with them like any other topic and then leave without asking them to be witnesses. I would make sure to write down everything we talked about after it was done; then I would try to find someone among their family or friends who could approach them about this with the least chance of getting a no.
There were others, also, who, though they were not so much impressed by the considerations mentioned, yet objected to give their public testimony. Those whose livelihood, or promotion, or expectations, were dependent upon the government of the country, were generally backward on these occasions. Though they thought they discovered in the parliamentary conduct of Mr. Pitt, a bias in favour of the cause, they knew to a certainty that the Lord Chancellor Thurlow was against it. They conceived, therefore, that the administration was at least divided upon the question, and they were fearful of being called upon, lest they should give offence, and thus injure their prospects in life. This objection was very prevalent in that part of the kingdom which I had selected for my tour.
There were others who, although they weren't particularly swayed by the reasons given, were hesitant to share their thoughts publicly. Those whose jobs, promotions, or hopes depended on the government generally held back during these moments. While they thought they could see Mr. Pitt in Parliament leaning towards their cause, they knew for sure that Lord Chancellor Thurlow was against it. Therefore, they believed that the administration was at least split on the issue, and they were afraid of being asked to speak up, worried it might offend someone and hurt their chances in life. This reluctance was quite common in the region I had chosen for my tour.
The reader can hardly conceive how my mind was agitated and distressed on these different accounts. To have travelled more than two months,—to have seen many who could have materially served our cause,—and to have lost most of them,—was very trying. And though it is true that I applied a remedy, I was not driven to the adoption of it, till I had performed more than half my tour. Suffice it to say, that after having travelled upwards of sixteen hundred miles backwards and forwards, and having conversed with forty-seven persons, who were capable of promoting the cause by their evidence, I could only prevail upon nine, by all the interest I could make, to be examined.
The reader can hardly imagine how troubled and upset my mind was for these various reasons. To have traveled for more than two months—seeing many people who could have significantly helped our cause—only to lose most of them was very difficult. And although it's true that I found a solution, I didn’t resort to it until I had completed more than half of my journey. It's enough to say that after traveling over sixteen hundred miles back and forth, and talking to forty-seven people who could support the cause with their testimony, I was only able to convince nine, despite all the effort I put in, to come forward for examination.
On my return to London, whither I had been called up by the committee, to take upon me the superintendence of the evidence, which the privy council was now ready again to hear, I found my brother: he was then a young officer in the navy; and as I knew he felt as warmly as I did in this great cause, I prevailed upon him to go to Havre de Grace, the great slave-port in France, where he might make his observations for two or three months, and then report what he had seen and heard; so that we might have some one to counteract any false statement of things, which might be made relative to the subject in that quarter.
On my return to London, where I had been called by the committee to supervise the evidence that the privy council was now ready to hear again, I found my brother. He was a young officer in the navy at the time, and since I knew he felt as passionately as I did about this important cause, I convinced him to go to Havre de Grace, the major slave port in France, where he could make observations for two or three months and then report what he saw and heard. This way, we would have someone to counter any false statements about the situation coming from that area.
At length the examinations were resumed, and with them the contest, in which our own reputation and the fate of our cause were involved. The committee for the abolition had discovered, one or two willing evidences during my absence; and Mr. Wilberforce, who was now recovered from his severe indisposition, had found one or two others. These, added to my own, made a respectable body; but we had sent no more than four or five of these to the council, when the king's illness unfortunately stopped our career. For nearly five weeks between the middle of November and January, the examinations were interrupted or put off, so that at the latter period we began to fear, that there would be scarcely time to hear the rest; for not only the privy council report was to be printed, but the contest itself was to be decided by the evidence contained in it, in the existing session.
Finally, the examinations resumed, along with the competition that involved our reputation and the future of our cause. The committee for abolition had found a couple of willing witnesses during my absence, and Mr. Wilberforce, who had now recovered from his serious illness, had found a few more. These, combined with my own testimonies, formed a decent group. However, we had submitted only four or five of these to the council when the king's illness unfortunately halted our progress. For nearly five weeks, from the middle of November to January, the examinations were delayed or postponed, and by that time, we started to worry that there would be barely enough time to hear the rest. Not only did the privy council report need to be printed, but the outcome of the competition also depended on the evidence in it during the current session.
The examinations, however, went on; but they went on only slowly, being still subject to interruption from the same unfortunate cause. Among others I offered my mite of information again. I wished the council to see more of my African productions and manufactures, that they might really know what Africa was capable of affording, instead of the Slave Trade; and that they might make a proper estimate of the genius and talents of the natives. The samples which I had collected, had been obtained by great labour, and at no inconsiderable expense: for whenever I had notice that a vessel had arrived immediately from that continent, I never hesitated to go, unless under the most pressing engagements elsewhere, even as far as Bristol, if I could pick up but a single new article. The lords having consented, I selected several things for their inspection out of my box,—of the contents of which the following account may not be unacceptable to the reader:—
The examinations, however, continued; but they progressed only slowly, still facing interruptions from the same unfortunate cause. Among other things, I offered my share of information again. I wanted the council to see more of my African products and crafts so they could truly understand what Africa had to offer beyond the Slave Trade, and evaluate the skills and talents of the locals properly. The samples I collected were obtained through significant effort and at considerable cost: whenever I learned that a ship had arrived directly from that continent, I never hesitated to go, unless I had very pressing commitments elsewhere, even as far as Bristol, if I could find just one new item. The lords having agreed, I selected several items for their review from my collection—of which the following account may be of interest to the reader:—
The first division of the box consisted of woods of about four inches square, all polished. Among these were mahogany of five different sorts, tulip-wood, satin-wood, cam-wood, bar-wood, fustic, black and yellow ebony, palm-tree, mangrove, calabash, and date. There were seven woods, of which the native names were remembered; three of these, Tumiah, Samain, and Jimlake, were of a yellow colour; Acajoú was of a beautiful deep crimson; Bork and Quellé were apparently fit for cabinet work; and Benten was the wood of which the natives made their canoes. Of the, various other woods the names had been forgotten, nor were they known in England at all. One of them was of a fine purple; and from two others, upon which the privy council had caused experiments to be made, a strong yellow, a deep orange, and a flesh-colour were extracted.
The first section of the box included pieces of wood about four inches square, all polished. Among these were five different types of mahogany, along with tulip wood, satin wood, cam wood, bar wood, fustic, black and yellow ebony, palm tree, mangrove, calabash, and date. There were seven types of wood with names that the locals remembered; three of these, Tumiah, Samain, and Jimlake, were yellow; Acajoú had a beautiful deep crimson hue; Bork and Quellé seemed suitable for cabinet making; and Benten was the wood the locals used to craft their canoes. The names of various other woods had been forgotten, and they weren’t known in England at all. One of them was a lovely purple, and from two others, which the privy council had tested, strong yellow, deep orange, and flesh color were extracted.
The second, division included ivory and musk; four species of pepper, the long, the black, the Cayenne, and the Malaguetta; three species of gum, namely, Senegal, Copal, and ruber astringens; cinnamon, rice, tobacco, indigo, white and Nankin cotton, Guinea corn, and millet; three species of beans, of which two were used for food, and the other for dyeing orange; two species of tamarinds, one for food, and the other to give whiteness to the teeth; pulse, seeds, and fruits of various kinds, some of the latter of which Dr. Spaarman had pronounced; from a trial during his residence in Africa, to be peculiarly valuable as drugs.
The second division included ivory and musk; four types of pepper: long, black, Cayenne, and Malaguetta; three kinds of gum: Senegal, Copal, and ruber astringens; cinnamon, rice, tobacco, indigo, white and Nankin cotton, Guinea corn, and millet; three types of beans, two used for food and one for dyeing orange; two types of tamarinds, one for eating and the other for whitening teeth; various pulses, seeds, and fruits, some of which Dr. Spaarman noted, based on his experience in Africa, were particularly valuable as medicines.
The third division contained an African loom, and an African spindle with spun cotton round it; cloths of cotton of various kinds made by the natives, some white, but others dyed by them of different colours, and others in which they had interwoven European silk; cloths and bags made of grass, and fancifully coloured; ornaments made of the same materials; ropes made from a species of aloes and others, remarkably strong, from glass and straw; fine string made from the fibres of the roots of trees; soap of two kinds; one of which was formed from an earthy substance; pipe-bowls made of clay, and of a brown red; one of these, which came from the village of Dakard, was beautifully ornamented by black devices burnt in, and was besides highly glazed; another brought from Galam, was made of earth, which was richly impregnated with little particles of gold; trinkets made by the natives from their own gold; knives and daggers made by them from our bar-iron; and various other articles, such as bags, sandals, dagger-cases, quivers, grisgris, all made of leather of their own manufacture, and dyed of various colours, and ingeniously sewed together.
The third section featured an African loom and an African spindle wrapped with spun cotton; various types of cotton cloth made by the locals, some white and others dyed in different colors, along with fabrics that incorporated European silk; colorful grass cloths and bags; ornaments made from the same materials; ropes crafted from a type of aloe and others, incredibly strong, made from glass and straw; fine string made from tree root fibers; two types of soap, one created from an earthy substance; pipe bowls made from red-brown clay, one of which came from the village of Dakard, beautifully decorated with black designs burned in and highly glazed; another from Galam, made from earth that was richly mixed with tiny gold particles; trinkets crafted by the locals from their own gold; knives and daggers made from our iron; and various other items like bags, sandals, dagger cases, quivers, grisgris, all made from leather they produced themselves, dyed in a variety of colors, and skillfully sewn together.
The fourth division consisted of the thumb-screw, speculum oris, and chains and shackles of different kinds, collected at Liverpool. To these were added, iron neck-collars, and other instruments of punishment and confinement used in the West Indies, and collected at other places. The instrument also, by which Charles Horseler was mentioned to have been killed, in a former chapter, was to be seen among these.
The fourth division included the thumb-screw, mouth speculum, and various types of chains and shackles collected in Liverpool. Along with these were iron neck collars and other tools for punishment and confinement used in the West Indies, gathered from different locations. The device that Charles Horseler was said to have been killed with, mentioned in an earlier chapter, was also displayed among these items.
We were now advanced far into February, when we were alarmed by the intelligence that the lords of the council were going to prepare their report: At this time we had sent but few persons to them to examine, in comparison with our opponents, and we had yet eighteen to introduce: for answers had come into my tables of questions from several places, and persons had been pointed out to us by our correspondents, who had increased our list of evidences to this number. I wrote therefore to them, at the desire of the committee for the abolition, and gave them the names of the eighteen, and requested also, that they would order, for their own inspection; certain muster-rolls of vessels from Poole and Dartmouth, that they might be convinced that the objection which the Earl of Sandwich had made in the House of Lords, against the abolition of the Slave Trade, had no solid foundation. In reply to my first request they informed me, that it was impossible, in the advanced state of the session, (it being then the middle of March,) that the examinations of so many could be taken; but I was at liberty, in conjunction with the Bishop of London, to select eight for this purpose. This occasioned me to address them again; and I then found, to my surprise and sorrow, that even this last number was to be diminished; for I was informed in writing, "that the Bishop of London having laid my last letter before their lordships, they had agreed to meet on the Saturday next, and on the Tuesday following, for the purposes of receiving the evidence of some of the gentlemen named in it. And it was their lordships' desire that I would give notice to any three of them (whose information I might consider the most material) of the above determination, that they might attend the committee accordingly."
We had moved well into February when we received the worrying news that the council was preparing their report. At this point, we had sent very few people to them to testify compared to our opponents, and we still had eighteen more to introduce. Responses had come back to my questions from several places, and our correspondents had pointed out additional people, boosting our list of witnesses to this number. Therefore, I wrote to them, at the request of the committee for abolition, providing the names of the eighteen and asking them to review certain muster-rolls of ships from Poole and Dartmouth to verify that the argument made by the Earl of Sandwich in the House of Lords against the abolition of the Slave Trade lacked solid evidence. In response to my first request, they informed me that, given how far along the session was (it was now mid-March), it was impossible to examine so many people. However, I could work with the Bishop of London to select eight for this purpose. This led me to write to them again, and I was surprised and disheartened to learn that even this number would be cut down; I was informed in writing that "the Bishop of London, having presented my last letter to their lordships, they agreed to meet the following Saturday and Tuesday to receive evidence from some of the gentlemen listed. Their lordships requested that I notify any three of them (whom I thought were the most important) about this decision so they could attend the committee accordingly."
This answer, considering the difficulties we had found in collecting a body of evidence, and the critical situation in which we were, was peculiarly distressing; but we had no remedy left us, nor could we reasonably complain. Three therefore were selected, and they were sent to deliver their testimony on their arrival in town.
This answer, taking into account the challenges we faced in gathering evidence and the tough situation we were in, was particularly upsetting; however, we had no options left and couldn’t reasonably complain. So, three were chosen, and they were sent to give their testimony upon arriving in town.
But before the last of these had left the council room, who should come up to me but Dr. Arnold? He had but lately arrived at Bristol from Africa; and having heard from our friends there that we had been daily looking for him, he had come to us in London. He and Mr. Gardiner were the two surgeons, as mentioned in the former chapter, who had promised me, when I was in Bristol, in the year 1787, that they would keep a journal of facts during the voyages they were then going to perform. They had both kept this promise. Gardiner, I found, had died upon the coast; and his journal, having been discovered at his death, had been buried with him in great triumph. But Arnold had survived, and he came now to offer us his services in the cause.
But before the last of them left the council room, who should come up to me but Dr. Arnold? He had just arrived in Bristol from Africa, and hearing from our friends there that we had been expecting him every day, he came to us in London. He and Mr. Gardiner were the two surgeons mentioned in the previous chapter who promised me, when I was in Bristol in 1787, that they would keep a journal of facts during the voyages they were about to embark on. They both kept that promise. I learned that Gardiner had died on the coast, and his journal, which was found after his death, had been buried with him in a grand ceremony. But Arnold had survived, and he came now to offer us his services for the cause.
As it was a pity that such correct information as that taken down in writing upon the spot should be lost (for all the other evidences, except Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom, had spoken from their memory only), I made all the interest I could to procure a hearing for Mr. Arnold. Pleading now for the examination of him only, and under these particular circumstances, I was attended to. It was consented, in consequence of the little time which was now left for preparing and printing the report, that I should make out his evidence from his journal under certain heads. This I did. Mr. Arnold swore to the truth of it, when so drawn up, before Edward Montague, Esquire, a master in Chancery. He then delivered the paper in which it was contained to the lords of the council, who, on receiving it, read it throughout, and then questioned him upon it.
It was a shame that such accurate information, written down right at the scene, could be lost (since all the other testimonies, except from Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom, were based only on memory). I did everything I could to get Mr. Arnold a chance to speak. I argued for his examination under these specific circumstances, and I was listened to. Given the limited time left to prepare and publish the report, it was agreed that I would summarize his evidence from his journal under specific headings. I did this, and Mr. Arnold swore to its accuracy when I presented it in that format before Edward Montague, Esquire, a master in Chancery. He then handed the document over to the council lords, who read it in full and then questioned him about it.
At this time, also, my brother returned with accounts and papers relative to the Slave Trade from Havre de Grace; but as I had pledged myself to offer no other person to be examined, his evidence was lost. Thus, after all the pains we had taken, and in a contest, too, on the success of which our own reputation and the fate of Africa depended, we were obliged to fight the battle with sixteen less than we could have brought into the field; while our opponents, on the other hand, on account of their superior advantages, had mustered all their forces, not having omitted a single man.
At this time, my brother also returned with accounts and documents related to the Slave Trade from Havre de Grace; however, since I had promised not to have anyone else examined, his testimony was wasted. So, after all the effort we had put in, and in a struggle where our reputation and Africa's future were at stake, we had to go into battle with sixteen fewer people than we could have fielded. Meanwhile, our opponents, due to their better resources, had brought in all their forces, leaving no one behind.
I do not know of any period of my life in which I suffered so much, both in body and mind, as from the time of resuming these public inquiries by the privy council, to the time when they were closed. For I had my weekly duty to attend at the committee for the abolition during this interval. I had to take down the examinations of all the evidences who came to London, and to make certain copies of these. I had to summon these to town, and to make provision against all accidents; and here I was often troubled, by means of circumstances, which unexpectedly occurred, lest, when committees of the council had been purposely appointed to hear them, they should not be forthcoming at the time. I had also a new and extensive correspondence to keep up; for the tables of questions which had been sent down to our correspondents, brought letters almost innumerable on this subject, and they were always addressed to me. These not only required answers of themselves, but as they usually related to persons capable of giving their testimony, and contained the particulars of what they could state, they occasioned fresh letters to be written to others. Hence the writing often of ten or twelve daily became necessary.
I can’t think of any time in my life when I suffered as much, both physically and mentally, as during the period from when the privy council resumed these public inquiries until they ended. During this time, I had my weekly responsibilities with the committee for abolition. I had to take notes on the testimonies of all the witnesses who came to London and create certain copies of these notes. I needed to call these witnesses to the city and prepare for any unexpected situations; I was often stressed by unforeseen circumstances, worrying that, when the council committees had been specifically set up to hear them, the witnesses wouldn’t show up. I also had a new and extensive correspondence to manage; the lists of questions sent to our contacts generated an overwhelming number of letters on this topic, all addressed to me. These not only required responses but since they usually involved individuals who could provide testimony and included details about what they could share, they led to even more letters needing to be sent to others. As a result, I often found myself writing ten or twelve letters a day.
But the contents of these letters afforded the circumstances, which gave birth to so much suffering. They contained usually some affecting tale of woe. At Bristol my feelings had been harassed by the cruel treatment of the seamen, which had come to my knowledge there: but now I was doomed to see this treatment over again in many other melancholy instances; and, additionally, to take in the various sufferings of the unhappy slaves. These accounts I could seldom get time to read till late in the evening, and sometimes not till midnight, when the letters containing them were to be answered. The effect of these accounts was in some instances to overwhelm me for a time in tears, and in others to produce a vivid indignation, which affected my whole frame. Recovering from these, I walked up and down the room: I felt fresh vigour, and made new determinations of perpetual warfare against this impious trade. I implored strength that I might succeed. I then sat down, and continued my work as long as my wearied eyes would permit me to see. Having been agitated in this manner, I went to bed; but my rest was frequently broken by the visions which floated before me. When I awoke, these renewed themselves to me, and they flitted about with me for the remainder of the day. Thus I was kept continually harassed: my mind was confined to one gloomy and heart-breaking subject for months. It had no respite, and my health began now materially to suffer.
But the content of these letters revealed the circumstances that caused so much suffering. They usually contained some touching story of hardship. In Bristol, my feelings had been troubled by the cruel treatment of the sailors that I learned about there; but now I was forced to witness this treatment again in many other sad cases, and to take in the various sufferings of the unfortunate slaves. I could seldom find time to read these accounts until late in the evening, and sometimes not until midnight, when I needed to respond to the letters containing them. The impact of these stories sometimes overwhelmed me with tears, and at other times sparked a fierce indignation that affected my entire being. After recovering from these emotions, I paced up and down the room: I felt a renewed energy and made new vows to fight against this immoral trade. I begged for strength so that I might succeed. Then I sat down and continued my work for as long as my tired eyes would allow me to see. After being stirred up in this way, I went to bed; but my sleep was often interrupted by the visions that haunted me. When I woke up, these thoughts reappeared and lingered with me for the rest of the day. Thus, I was constantly distressed: my mind was fixed on one bleak and heartbreaking topic for months. There was no relief, and my health began to suffer significantly.
But the contents of these letters were particularly grievous, on account of the severe labours which they necessarily entailed upon me in other ways than those which have been mentioned. It was my duty, while the privy council examinations went on, not only to attend to all the evidence which was presented to us by our correspondents, but to find out and select the best. The happiness of millions depended upon it. Hence I was often obliged to travel during these examinations, in order to converse with those who had been pointed out to us as capable of giving their testimony; and, that no time might be lost, to do this in the night. More than two hundred miles in a week were sometimes passed over on these occasions.
But the contents of these letters were especially distressing, due to the heavy workload they created for me in ways beyond what I've already mentioned. It was my responsibility, while the secret council examinations were happening, not only to pay attention to all the evidence presented by our contacts but to find and choose the best of it. The happiness of millions depended on it. Because of this, I often had to travel during these examinations to talk to those identified as being able to provide testimony; to avoid wasting any time, I even did this at night. At times, I covered more than two hundred miles in a week for these purposes.
The disappointments too, which I frequently experienced in journeys, increased the poignancy of the, suffering, which arose from a contemplation of the melancholy cases which I had thus travelled to bring forward to the public view. The reader at present can have no idea of these. I have been sixty miles to visit a person, of whom I had heard, not only as possessing important knowledge, but as espousing our opinions on this subject. I have at length seen him. He has applauded my pursuit at our first interview. He has told me, in the course of our conversation, that neither my own pen, nor that of any other man, could describe adequately the horrors, of the Slave Trade, horrors which he himself had witnessed. He has exhorted me to perseverance in this noble cause. Could I have wished for a more favourable reception!—But mark the issue. He was the nearest relation of a rich person concerned in the traffic; and if he were to come forward with his evidence publicly, he should ruin all his expectations from that Quarter. In the same week I have visited another at a still greater distance. I have met with similar applause. I have heard him describe scenes of misery which he had witnessed, and on the relation of which he himself almost wept. But mark the issue again.—"I am a surgeon," says he; "through that window you see a spacious house; it is occupied by a West Indian. The medical attendance upon his family is of considerable importance to the temporal interests of mine. If I give you my evidence I lose his patronage. At the house above him lives a East Indian. The two families are connected: I fear, if I lose the support of one, I shall lose that of the other also: but I will give you privately all the intelligence in my power."
The disappointments I often faced during my travels only made the pain I felt from thinking about the sad cases I aimed to bring to the public's attention even stronger. Right now, the reader can't imagine these experiences. I traveled sixty miles to meet someone I had heard about, not just for their important knowledge, but because they shared our views on this issue. We finally met, and he praised my efforts during our first conversation. He told me that neither my writing nor anyone else's could truly capture the horrors of the Slave Trade, horrors he had witnessed himself. He encouraged me to keep going with this important work. I couldn't have asked for a better response!—But here's the catch. He was the closest relative of a wealthy person involved in the trade, and if he spoke out publicly, it would ruin his prospects with that person. Later that week, I went to see someone even farther away and received similar praise. He talked about the scenes of suffering he had seen, and he almost cried while sharing them. But once again, here's the catch.—“I’m a surgeon,” he said; “if you look out that window, you’ll see a big house occupied by a West Indian. The medical care for his family is crucial for my financial well-being. If I share my evidence, I lose his support. Above him lives an East Indian. The two families are connected: I worry that if I lose one, I’ll lose the other as well. But I’ll share whatever information I can privately.”
The reader may now conceive the many miserable hours I must have spent, after such visits, in returning home; and how grievously my heart must have been afflicted by these cruel disappointments, but more particularly where they arose from causes inferior to those which have been now mentioned, or from little frivolous excuses, or idle and unfounded conjectures, unworthy of beings expected to fill a moral station in life. Yes, O man! often in these solitary journeyings have I exclaimed against the baseness of thy nature, when reflecting on the little paltry considerations which have smothered thy benevolence, and hindered thee from succouring an oppressed brother. And yet, on a further view of things, I have reasoned myself into a kinder feeling towards thee. For I have been obliged to consider ultimately, that there were both lights and shades in the human character; and that, if the bad part of our nature was visible on these occasions, the nobler part of it ought not to be forgotten. While I passed a censure upon those, who were backward in serving this great cause of humanity and justice, how many did I know, who were toiling in the support of it! I drew also this consolation from my reflections, that I had done my duty; that I had left nothing untried or undone; that amidst all these disappointments I had collected information, which might be useful at a future time; and that such disappointments were almost inseparable from the prosecution of a cause of such magnitude, and where the interests of so many were concerned:—
The reader can now imagine the many miserable hours I must have spent after such visits, heading home; and how deeply my heart must have been hurt by these cruel disappointments, especially when they stemmed from reasons less significant than those already mentioned, or from trivial excuses, or idle and unfounded guesses, unworthy of those expected to hold a moral position in life. Yes, O man! often during these solitary journeys have I lamented the baseness of your nature, reflecting on the petty concerns that have stifled your kindness and stopped you from helping an oppressed brother. And yet, upon further reflection, I have managed to feel more compassion towards you. For I have had to consider ultimately, that there are both light and dark sides to human character; and that, while the negative aspects of our nature were evident on these occasions, the nobler parts shouldn't be overlooked. While I criticized those who were reluctant to support this important cause of humanity and justice, how many did I know who were working hard to uphold it! I also found this comfort in my thoughts, that I had done my duty; that I had left nothing untried or undone; that amidst all these disappointments I had gathered information that could be useful in the future; and that such disappointments were almost inseparable from pursuing a cause of this magnitude, especially when the interests of so many were at stake:—
Having now given a general account of my own proceedings, I shall state those of the committee; or show how they contributed, by fulfilling the duties of their several departments, to promote the cause in the interim.
Having shared a general overview of my own actions, I will outline what the committee did and explain how their work in their respective roles helped advance the cause in the meantime.
In the first place they completed the rules, or code of laws, for their own government.
First, they finalized the rules or code of laws for their own government.
They continued to adopt and circulate books, that they might still enlighten the public mind on the subject, and preserve it interested in favour of their institution. They kept the press indeed almost constantly going for this purpose. They printed, within the period mentioned, RAMSAY'S, Address on the proposed Bill for the Abolition; The Speech of Henry Beaufoy, Esq., on Sir William Dolben's Bill, of which an extract is given in Chap. xxiii.; Notes by a Planter on the two Reports from the Committee of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica; Observations on the Slave Trade by Mr. Wadstrom; and DICKSON'S Letters on Slavery. These were all new publications. To those they added others of less note, with new editions of the old.
They kept adopting and sharing books to keep the public informed on the topic and maintain interest in their organization. They ran the press almost constantly for this reason. During the mentioned period, they printed RAMSAY'S Address on the proposed Bill for the Abolition; The Speech of Henry Beaufoy, Esq., on Sir William Dolben's Bill, an excerpt of which is included in Chap. xxiii.; Notes by a Planter on the two Reports from the Committee of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica; Observations on the Slave Trade by Mr. Wadstrom; and DICKSON'S Letters on Slavery. All of these were new publications. They also included other, less notable works, along with new editions of older ones.
They voted their thanks to the Rev. Mr. Clifford, for his excellent Sermon on the Slave Trade; to the pastor and congregation of the Baptist church at Maze Pond, Southwark, for their liberal subscription; and to John Barton, one of their own members, for the services he had rendered them. The latter, having left his residence in town for one in the country, solicited permission to resign, and hence this mark of approbation was given to him. He was continued also as an honorary and corresponding member.
They expressed their gratitude to Rev. Mr. Clifford for his excellent sermon on the slave trade; to the pastor and congregation of the Baptist church at Maze Pond, Southwark, for their generous contribution; and to John Barton, one of their own members, for the services he had provided. The latter, after moving from his home in the city to one in the countryside, requested permission to resign, and thus this gesture of appreciation was given to him. He was also kept on as an honorary and corresponding member.
They elected David Hartley and Richard Sharpe, Esqs., into their own body, and Alexander Jaffray, Esq., the Rev. Charles Symmons, of Haverfordwest, and the Rev. T. Burgess (afterwards bishop of Salisbury), as honorary and corresponding members. The latter had written Considerations on the Abolition of Slavery and the Slave Trade, upon grounds of natural, religious, and political Duty, which had been of great service to the cause.
They elected David Hartley and Richard Sharpe as their own members, and Alexander Jaffray, Rev. Charles Symmons from Haverfordwest, and Rev. T. Burgess (who later became the bishop of Salisbury) as honorary and corresponding members. The latter had written Considerations on the Abolition of Slavery and the Slave Trade, based on natural, religious, and political duty, which had greatly benefited the cause.
Of the new correspondents of the committee within this period I may first mention Henry Taylor, of North Shields; William Proud, of Hull; the Rev. T. Gisborne, of Yoxall Lodge; and William Ellford, Esq., of Plymouth. The latter as chairman of the Plymouth committee, sent up for inspection an engraving of a plan and section of a slave-ship, in which the bodies of the slaves were seen stowed in the proportion of rather less than one to a ton. This happy invention gave all those who saw it a much better idea, than they could otherwise have had, of the horrors of their transportation, and contributed greatly, as will appear, afterwards, to impress the public in favour of our cause.
Of the new correspondents of the committee during this time, I should first mention Henry Taylor from North Shields, William Proud from Hull, the Rev. T. Gisborne from Yoxall Lodge, and William Ellford, Esq., from Plymouth. The latter, as the chairman of the Plymouth committee, submitted an engraving of a plan and section of a slave ship, showing the bodies of the slaves packed in at a ratio of just under one to a ton. This powerful illustration gave everyone who saw it a much clearer understanding of the horrors of their transportation and significantly helped, as will be evident later, to sway public opinion in favor of our cause.
The next, whom I shall mention, was C.L. Evans, Esq., of West Bromwich; the Rev. T. Clarke, of Hull; S.P. Wolferstan, of Stratford, near Tamworth; Edmund Lodge, Esq., of Halifax; the Rev. Caleb Rotheram, of Kendal; and Mr. Campbell Haliburton, of Edinburgh. The news which Mr. Haliburton sent was very agreeable. He informed us that, in consequence of the great exertions of Mr. Alison, an institution had been formed in Edinburgh, similar to that in London, which would take all Scotland under its care and management, as far as related to this great subject. He mentioned Lord Gardenston as the chairman; Sir William Forbes as the deputy-chairman; himself as the secretary; and Lord Napier, Professor Andrew Hunter, Professor Greenfield, and William Creech, Adam Rolland, Alexander Ferguson, John Dickson, John Erskine, John Campbell, Archibald Gibson, Archibald Fletcher, and Horatius Canning, Esqrs., as the committee.
The next person I’ll mention is C.L. Evans, Esq., from West Bromwich; Rev. T. Clarke from Hull; S.P. Wolferstan from Stratford, near Tamworth; Edmund Lodge, Esq., from Halifax; Rev. Caleb Rotheram from Kendal; and Mr. Campbell Haliburton from Edinburgh. The news Mr. Haliburton shared was very positive. He let us know that, due to Mr. Alison's considerable efforts, an organization has been established in Edinburgh, similar to the one in London, which will oversee all of Scotland concerning this important issue. He noted that Lord Gardenston was the chairman, Sir William Forbes was the deputy chairman, he was the secretary, and that Lord Napier, Professor Andrew Hunter, Professor Greenfield, and William Creech, along with Adam Rolland, Alexander Ferguson, John Dickson, John Erskine, John Campbell, Archibald Gibson, Archibald Fletcher, and Horatius Canning, Esqrs., were part of the committee.
The others were, the Rev. J. Bidlake, of Plymouth; Joseph Storrs, of Chesterfield; William Fothergill, of Carr End, Yorkshire; J. Seymour, of Coventry; Moses Neave, of Poole; Joseph Taylor, of Scarborough; Timothy Clark, of Doncaster; Thomas Davis, of Milverton; George Croker Fox, of Falmouth; Benjamin Grubb, of Clonmell in Ireland; Sir William Forbes, of Edinburgh; the Rev. J. Jamieson, of Forfar; and Joseph Gurney, of Norwich; the latter of whom sent up a remittance, and intelligence at the same time, that a committee, under Mr. Leigh, so often before mentioned, had been formed in that cityA.
The others were Rev. J. Bidlake from Plymouth; Joseph Storrs from Chesterfield; William Fothergill from Carr End, Yorkshire; J. Seymour from Coventry; Moses Neave from Poole; Joseph Taylor from Scarborough; Timothy Clark from Doncaster; Thomas Davis from Milverton; George Croker Fox from Falmouth; Benjamin Grubb from Clonmell in Ireland; Sir William Forbes from Edinburgh; Rev. J. Jamieson from Forfar; and Joseph Gurney from Norwich. The latter sent a payment along with news that a committee, led by Mr. Leigh, as mentioned before, had been established in that cityA.
A: On the removal of Mr. Leigh from Norwich, Dr. Pretyman, precentor of Lincoln and a prebend of Norwich, succeeded him.
A: After Mr. Leigh was moved from Norwich, Dr. Pretyman, who was the precentor of Lincoln and held a prebend at Norwich, took his place.
But the committee in London, while they were endeavouring to promote the object of their institution at home, continued their exertions for the same purpose abroad within this period.
But the committee in London, while they were trying to promote the goals of their organization at home, continued their efforts for the same purpose abroad during this time.
They kept up a communication with the different societies established in America.
They maintained communication with the various societies set up in America.
They directed their attention also to the continent of Europe. They had already applied, as I mentioned before, to the king of Sweden in favour of their cause, and had received a gracious answer. They now attempted to interest other Potentates in it. For this purpose they bound up in an elegant manner two sets of the Essays on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, and sent them to the Chevalier de Pinto, in Portugal. They bound up in a similar manner three sets of the same, and sent them to Mr. Eden (afterwards Lord Aukland), at Madrid, to be given to the king of Spain, the Count d'Aranda, and the Marquis del Campomanes.
They also turned their focus to Europe. They had previously reached out to the king of Sweden to support their cause and had received a positive response. Now, they were trying to get other leaders interested as well. To do this, they elegantly bound two sets of the Essays on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species, and on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade and sent them to Chevalier de Pinto in Portugal. They also bound three more sets in the same way and sent them to Mr. Eden (who later became Lord Aukland) in Madrid, to be given to the king of Spain, Count d'Aranda, and Marquis del Campomanes.
They kept up their correspondence with the committee at Paris, which had greatly advanced itself in the eyes of the French nation; so that, when the different bailliages sent deputies to the states-general, they instructed them to take the Slave Trade into their consideration as a national object, and with a view to its abolition.
They maintained their communication with the committee in Paris, which had significantly improved its reputation with the French people; so that, when the various bailliages sent representatives to the states-general, they directed them to consider the Slave Trade as a national issue, aimed at its abolition.
They kept up their correspondence with Dr. Frossard of Lyons. He had already published in France on the subject of the Slave Trade; and now he offered the committee to undertake the task, so long projected by them, of collecting such arguments and facts concerning it, and translating them into different languages, as might be useful in forwarding their views in foreign parts.
They maintained their correspondence with Dr. Frossard from Lyons. He had already published work in France on the topic of the Slave Trade; now he offered the committee to take on the long-planned task of gathering arguments and facts about it, and translating them into different languages, which could be helpful in promoting their views in other countries.
They addressed letters also to various individuals, to Monsieur Snetlage, doctor of laws at Halle in Saxony; to Monsieur Ladebat, of Bordeaux; to the Marquis de Feuillade d'Aubusson, at Paris; and to Monsieur Necker. The latter in his answer replied in part as follows: "As this great question," says he, "is not in my department, but in that of the minister for the colonies, I cannot interfere in it directly, but I will give indirectly all the assistance in my power. I have for a long time taken an interest in the general alarm on this occasion, and in the noble alliance of the friends of humanity in favour of the injured Africans. Such an attempt throws a new lustre over your nation. It is not yet, however, a national object in France; but the moment may perhaps come, and I shall think myself happy in preparing the way for it. You must be aware, however, of the difficulties which we shall have to encounter on our side of the water; for our colonies are much more considerable than yours; so that in the view of political interest we are not on an equal footing. It will therefore be necessary to find some middle line at first, as it cannot be expected that humanity alone will be the governing principle of mankind."
They also sent letters to several people, including Monsieur Snetlage, a law professor at Halle in Saxony; Monsieur Ladebat, from Bordeaux; the Marquis de Feuillade d'Aubusson, in Paris; and Monsieur Necker. In his response, Necker wrote in part: "Since this important issue is not in my area but falls under the minister for the colonies, I can't directly get involved, but I will do everything I can to help indirectly. I've been concerned for a long time about the widespread alarm over this situation and about the admirable alliance of those who care about humanity in support of the wronged Africans. This effort brings new honor to your nation. However, it isn’t yet a national priority in France; but perhaps that moment will come, and I would be glad to help pave the way for it. You should also be aware of the challenges we will face on our side of the ocean because our colonies are much larger than yours, meaning we aren't on equal political ground. So, we will need to find a compromise at first, as we can't expect humanity alone to be the guiding principle for everyone."
But the day was now drawing near, when it was expected that this great contest would be decided. Mr. Wilberforce, on the 19th of March, rose up in the House of Commons and desired the resolution to be read, by which the house stood pledged to take the Slave Trade into their consideration in the then session; He then moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee of the whole house on Thursday the 23rd of April, for this purpose. This motion was agreed to; after which he moved for certain official documents necessary to throw light upon the subject in the course of its discussion.
But the day was now approaching when it was expected that this great contest would be decided. Mr. Wilberforce, on March 19th, stood up in the House of Commons and asked for the resolution to be read, in which the house committed to discussing the Slave Trade during that session. He then proposed that the house should meet as a committee on Thursday, April 23rd, for this purpose. This motion was agreed upon; after that, he requested certain official documents necessary to shed light on the subject during its discussion.
This motion, by means of which the great day of trial was now fixed, seemed to be the signal for the planters, merchants, and other interested persons to begin a furious opposition. Meetings were accordingly called by advertisement. At these meetings much warmth and virulence were manifested in debate, and propositions breathing a spirit of anger were adopted. It was suggested there, in the vehemence of passion, that the islands could exist independently of the mother country; nor were even threats withheld to intimidate government from effecting the abolition.
This motion, which set the date for the big trial, seemed to signal the start of a fierce opposition from the planters, merchants, and others with a stake in the matter. Meetings were quickly organized through advertisements. At these gatherings, there was a lot of heated and aggressive debate, and angry proposals were accepted. Some passionately suggested that the islands could thrive without the support of the mother country, and even threats were made to scare the government into abandoning the abolition.
From this time, also, the public papers began to be filled with such statements as were thought most likely to influence the members of the House of Commons, previously to the discussion of the question.
From this time on, public articles started to be filled with statements that were believed to be most likely to sway the members of the House of Commons before the discussion on the issue.
The first impression attempted to be made upon them was with respect to the slaves themselves. It was contended, and attempted to be shown by the revival of the old argument of human sacrifices in Africa, that these were better off in the islands than in their own country. It was contended, also, that they were people of very inferior capacities, and but little removed from the brute creation; whence an inference was drawn that their treatment, against which so much clamour had arisen, was adapted to their intellect and feelings.
The initial impression aimed at them focused on the slaves themselves. It was argued, and an attempt was made to prove using the old argument about human sacrifices in Africa, that these individuals were better off in the islands than in their homeland. It was also argued that they were people of very limited abilities, only slightly above animals; from this, it was inferred that the way they were treated, which had sparked so much outcry, was suitable for their intellect and emotions.
The next attempt was to degrade the abolitionists in the opinion of the house, by showing the wildness and absurdity of their schemes. It was again insisted upon that emancipation was the real, object of the former; so that thousands of slaves would be let loose in the islands to rob or perish, and who could never be brought back again into habits of useful industry.
The next attempt was to undermine the abolitionists in the eyes of the house by highlighting the craziness and ridiculousness of their plans. It was once again emphasized that emancipation was the primary goal of the former, meaning that thousands of slaves would be set free in the islands to steal or suffer, and who could never be returned to productive work habits.
An attempt was then made to excite their pity in behalf of the planters. The abolition, it was said, would produce insurrections among the slaves. But insurrections would produce the massacre of their masters; and, if any of these should happily escape from butchery, they would be reserved only for ruin.
An attempt was then made to stir their sympathy for the planters. It was said that abolition would lead to rebellions among the slaves. But rebellions would result in the slaughter of their masters; and if any of them managed to survive the violence, they would only face destruction.
An appeal was then made to them on the ground of their own interest and of that of the people whom they represented. It was stated that the ruin of the islands would be the ruin of themselves and of the country. Its revenue would be half annihilated; its naval strength would decay. Merchants, manufacturers and others would come to beggary. But in this deplorable situation they would expect to be indemnified for their losses. Compensation, indeed, must follow: it could not be withheld. But what would be the amount of it? The country would have no less than from eighty to a hundred millions to pay the sufferers; and it would be driven to such distress in paying this sum as it had never before experienced.
An appeal was then made to them based on their own interests and those of the people they represented. It was pointed out that the destruction of the islands would mean their own downfall and that of the country. The revenue would be severely reduced, and its naval power would weaken. Merchants, manufacturers, and others would end up in poverty. In this unfortunate situation, they would expect to be compensated for their losses. Compensation was indeed necessary; it couldn’t be denied. But what would the amount be? The country would have to pay out between eighty and a hundred million to the affected individuals, and it would face a level of distress in making this payment that it had never experienced before.
The last attempt was to show them that a regulation of the trade was all that was now wanted. While this would remedy the evils complained of, it would prevent the mischief which would assuredly follow the abolition. The planters had already done their part. The assemblies of the different islands had most of them made wholesome laws upon the subject. The very bills passed for this purpose in Jamaica and Grenada had arrived in England, and might be seen by the public; the great grievances had been redressed; no slave could now be mutilated or wantonly killed by his owner; one man could not now maltreat, or bruise, or wound the slave of another; the aged could not now be turned off to perish by hunger. There were laws, also, relative to the better feeding and clothing of the slaves. It remained only that the trade to Africa should be put under as wise and humane regulations as the slavery in the islands had undergone.
The last effort was to show them that regulating the trade was all that was needed now. While this would address the issues being raised, it would also prevent the harm that would surely come from ending the trade. The planters had already done their part. Most of the assemblies in the different islands had enacted sensible laws on the matter. The very bills passed for this purpose in Jamaica and Grenada had arrived in England and were accessible to the public; the major grievances had been resolved; no slave could now be mutilated or killed for no reason by their owner; one person could no longer abuse, injure, or wound someone else's slave; the elderly could no longer be abandoned to die of starvation. There were also laws about improving the feeding and clothing of the slaves. It was only necessary for the trade to Africa to be governed by regulations that were as wise and humane as those that had been applied to slavery in the islands.
These different statements, appearing now in the public papers from day to day, began, in this early stage of the question, when the subject in all its bearings was known but to few, to make a considerable impression upon those, who were soon to be called to the decision of it. But that which had the greatest effect upon them, was the enormous amount of the compensation, which, it was said, must be made. This statement against the abolition was making its way so powerfully, that Archdeacon Paley thought it his duty to write, and to send to the committee, a little treatise called Arguments against the unjust Pretensions of Slave Dealers and Holders, to be indemnified by pecuniary Allowances at the public expense, in case the Slave Trade should be abolished. This treatise, when the substance of it was detailed in the public papers, had its influence upon several members of the House of Commons; but there were others who had been, as it were, panic-struck by the statement. These in their fright seemed to have lost the right use of their eyes, or to have looked through a magnifying glass. With these the argument of emancipation, which they would have rejected at another time as ridiculous, obtained now easy credit. The massacres too, and the ruin, though only conjectural, they admitted also. Hence some of them deserted our cause wholly, while others, wishing to do justice as far as they could to the slaves on the one hand, and to their own countrymen on the other, adopted a middle line of conduct, and would go no further than the regulation of the trade.
These different statements, appearing daily in the news, began, at this early stage of the issue, when only a few knew all the details, to make a significant impact on those who were soon to be responsible for the decision. However, what affected them the most was the massive amount of compensation that was said to be necessary. This argument against abolition was gaining such traction that Archdeacon Paley felt it was his responsibility to write and send a short treatise to the committee titled Arguments against the Unjust Claims of Slave Dealers and Holders, to be Compensated by Monetary Payments at the Public's Expense, if the Slave Trade Should Be Abolished. When the essence of this treatise was reported in the news, it influenced several members of the House of Commons; however, there were others who seemed to be so scared by the claim that they lost their perspective or viewed everything through a magnifying lens. For them, the argument for emancipation, which they would have dismissed as absurd at another time, now gained easy acceptance. They also accepted the potential massacres and destruction, even though those were only hypothetical. Consequently, some of them completely abandoned our cause, while others, wanting to balance justice for the slaves and for their fellow countrymen, adopted a middle-ground approach and agreed only to regulate the trade.
While these preparations were making by our opponents to prejudice the minds of those who were to be the judges in this contest, Mr. Pitt presented the privy council report at the bar of the House of Commons; and as it was a large folio volume, and contained the evidence upon which the question was to be decided, it was necessary that time should be given to the members to peruse it. Accordingly, the 12th of May was appointed, instead of the 23rd of April, for the discussion of the question.
While our opponents were working to sway the opinions of those who would judge this contest, Mr. Pitt presented the privy council report to the House of Commons. Since it was a large folio volume and included the evidence that would lead to a decision, members needed time to review it. Therefore, May 12 was set for the discussion of the issue instead of April 23.
This postponement of the discussion of the question gave time to all parties to prepare themselves further. The merchants and planters availed themselves of it to collect petitions to parliament from interested persons, against the abolition of the trade, to wait upon members of parliament by deputation, in order to solicit their attendance in their favour, and to renew their injurious paragraphs in the public papers. The committee for the abolition availed themselves of it to reply to these; and here Dr. Dickson, who had been secretary to Governor Hey, in Barbados, and who had offered the committee his Letters on Slavery before mentioned, and his services also, was of singular use. Many members of parliament availed themselves of it to retire into the country to read the report. Among the latter were Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Pitt. In this retirement they discovered, notwithstanding the great disadvantages under which we had laboured with respect to evidence, that our cause was safe, and that, as far as it was to be decided by reason and sound policy, it would triumph. It was in this retirement that Mr. Pitt made those able calculations which satisfied him for ever after, as the minister of the country, as to the safety of the great measure of the abolition of the Slave Trade; for he had clearly proved, that not only the islands could go on in a flourishing state without supplies from the coast of Africa, but that they were then in a condition to do it.
This delay in discussing the issue gave everyone time to prepare more thoroughly. The merchants and planters used this time to gather petitions for parliament from interested individuals against ending the trade, to meet with parliament members to ask for their support, and to renew their damaging statements in the newspapers. The committee working towards abolition took this opportunity to respond to them; in this effort, Dr. Dickson, who had been the secretary to Governor Hey in Barbados and had offered the committee his previously mentioned Letters on Slavery and his assistance, was particularly helpful. Many parliament members took the chance to retreat to the countryside to read the report. Among them were Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Pitt. During this retreat, they realized, despite the significant challenges we faced regarding evidence, that our cause was strong and, as far as it could be determined by reason and sound policy, it would succeed. It was during this time that Mr. Pitt made those insightful calculations that convinced him forever afterward, as the government minister, of the safety of the significant measure to abolish the Slave Trade; he clearly demonstrated that not only could the islands thrive without supplies from the coast of Africa, but that they were also already in a position to do so.
At length the 12th of May arrived. Mr. Wilberforce rose up in the Commons and moved the order of the day for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the petitions which had been presented against the Slave Trade.
At last, May 12th came. Mr. Wilberforce stood up in the Commons and moved that the house go into a committee of the whole house to discuss the petitions that had been presented against the Slave Trade.
This order having been read, he moved that the report of the committee of privy council, that the acts passed in the islands relative to slaves, that the evidence adduced last year on the Slave Trade, that the petitions offered in the last session against the Slave Trade, and that the accounts presented to the house in the last and present session relative to the exports and imports of Africa, be referred to the same committee.
This order having been read, he proposed that the report from the committee of the privy council, including the acts passed in the islands regarding slaves, the evidence presented last year on the Slave Trade, the petitions submitted in the last session against the Slave Trade, and the accounts presented to the house in both the last and current sessions concerning Africa's exports and imports, be referred to the same committee.
These motions having been severally agreed to, the House immediately resolved itself into a committee of the whole house, and Sir William Dolben was put into the chair.
These motions were all agreed upon, so the House quickly turned into a committee of the whole house, and Sir William Dolben was appointed to chair it.
Mr. Wilberforce began by declaring, that when he considered how much discussion the subject, which he was about to explain to the committee, had occasioned, not only in that House, but throughout the kingdom, and throughout Europe; and when he considered the extent and importance of it, the variety of interests involved in it, and the consequences which might arise, he owned he had been filled with apprehensions, lest a subject of such magnitude, and a cause of such weight, should suffer from the weakness of its advocate; but when he recollected that, in the progress of his inquiries, he had everywhere been received with candour, that most people gave him credit for the purity of his motives, and that, however many of these might then differ from him, they were all likely to agree in the end, he had dismissed his fears, and marched forward with a firmer step in this cause of humanity, justice, and religion. He could not, however, but lament that the subject had excited so much warmth. He feared that too many on this account were but ill prepared to consider it with impartiality. He entreated all such to endeavour to be calm and composed. A fair and cool discussion was essentially necessary. The motion he meant to offer, was as reconcilable to political expediency as to national humanity. It belonged to no party question. It would in the end be found serviceable to all parties, and to the best interests of the country. He did not come forward to accuse the West India planter, or the Liverpool merchant, or indeed any one concerned in this traffic; but, if blame attached anywhere, to take shame to himself in common, indeed, with the whole parliament of Great Britain, who, having suffered it to be carried on under their own authority, were all of them participators in the guilt.
Mr. Wilberforce started by stating that when he thought about how much debate the topic he was about to present to the committee had sparked—not just in this House, but across the nation and Europe—and when he considered its vast importance, the range of interests involved, and the potential consequences, he admitted he felt anxious. He worried that such a significant issue, supported by such a serious cause, might be undermined by the shortcomings of its advocate. However, he remembered that throughout his research, he had been met with openness, that most people acknowledged the sincerity of his intentions, and that, despite differing opinions then, many would likely come to agree in the end. This helped him shake off his fears and move forward with more determination in this cause for humanity, justice, and religion. He couldn’t help but regret that the topic had stirred up such strong emotions. He feared that too many people were therefore not ready to consider it impartially. He urged all those individuals to strive to remain calm and collected. A fair and thoughtful discussion was absolutely essential. The proposal he intended to put forward was compatible with both political practicalities and national humanity. It wasn’t a party issue. In the end, it would benefit all parties and serve the best interests of the country. He was not there to blame West Indian planters, Liverpool merchants, or anyone else involved in the slave trade; instead, if there was any blame to assign, he took shared responsibility along with the entire parliament of Great Britain, who allowed this practice to continue under their authority and were thereby complicit in the guilt.
In endeavouring to explain the great business of the day, he said he should call the attention of the House only to the leading features of the Slave Trade. Nor should he dwell long upon these. Every one might imagine for himself what must be the natural consequence of such a commerce with Africa. Was it not plain that she must suffer from it? that her savage manners must be rendered still more ferocious? and that a trade of this nature, carried on round her coasts, must extend violence and desolation to her very centre? It was well known that the natives of Africa were sold as goods, and that numbers of them were continually conveyed away from their country by the owners of British vessels. The question then was, which way the latter came by them. In answer to this question, the privy council report, which was then on the table, afforded evidence the most satisfactory and conclusive. He had found things in it, which had confirmed every proposition he had maintained before, whether this proposition had been gathered from living information of the best authority, or from the histories he had read. But it was unnecessary either to quote the report, or to appeal to history on this occasion. Plain reason and common sense would point out how the poor Africans were obtained. Africa was a country divided into many kingdoms, which had different governments and laws. In many parts the princes were despotic. In others they had a limited rule. But in all of them, whatever the nature of the government was, men were considered as goods and property, and, as such, subject to plunder in the same manner as property in other countries. The persons in power there were naturally fond of our commodities; and to obtain them, (which could only be done by the sale of their countrymen,) they waged war on one another, or even ravaged their own country, when they could find no pretence for quarrelling with their neighbours: in their courts of law many poor wretches, who were innocent, were condemned; and to obtain these commodities in greater abundance, thousands were kidnapped and torn from their families, and sent into slavery. Such transactions, he said, were recorded in every history of Africa, and the report on the table confirmed them. With respect, however, to these he should make but one or two observations. If we looked into the reign of Henry the Eighth, we should find a parallel for one of them. We should find that similar convictions took place; and that penalties followed conviction. With respect to wars, the kings of Africa were never induced to engage in them by public principles, by national glory, and least of all by the love of their people. This had been stated by those most conversant in the subject, by Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom. They had conversed with these princes, and had learned from their own mouths that to procure slaves was the object of their hostilities. Indeed, there was scarcely a single person examined before the privy council who did not prove that the Slave Trade was the source of the tragedies acted upon that extensive continent. Some had endeavoured to palliate this circumstance; but there was not one who did not more or less admit it to be true. By one the Slave Trade was called the concurrent cause, by the majority it was acknowledged to be the principal motive, of the African wars. The same might be said with respect to those instances of treachery and injustice, in which individuals were concerned. And here he was sorry to observe that our own countrymen were often guilty. He would only at present advert to the tragedy at Calabar, where two-large African villages, having been for some time at war, made peace. This peace was to have, been ratified by intermarriages; but some of our captains, who were there, seeing their trade would be stopped for a while, sowed dissension again between them. They actually set one village against the other, took a share in the contest, massacred many of the inhabitants, and carried others of them away as slaves. But shocking as this transaction might appear, there was not a single history of Africa to be read, in which scenes of as atrocious a nature were not related. They, he said, who defended this trade, were warped and blinded by their own interests, and would not be convinced of the miseries they were daily heaping on their fellow creatures. By the countenance, they gave it, they had reduced the inhabitants of Africa to a worse state than that of the most barbarous nation. They had destroyed what ought to have been the bond of union and safety among them; they had introduced discord and anarchy among them; they had set kings against their subjects, and subjects against each other; they had rendered every private family wretched; they had, in short, given birth to scenes of injustice and misery not to be found in any other quarter of the globe.
In trying to explain the major issue of the day, he said he would focus only on the main aspects of the Slave Trade. He wouldn’t spend too long on these points. Everyone could imagine the natural consequences of such trade with Africa. Wasn’t it obvious that Africa must suffer from it? That her harsh ways would become even more brutal? And that a trade like this, happening along her coasts, would spread violence and destruction deep into her lands? It was well known that the people of Africa were sold like commodities, and that many were continuously taken away from their homeland by the owners of British ships. The question then was, how did these owners acquire them? The report from the privy council, which was currently available, provided solid evidence about this. He had found information in it that confirmed every claim he had made before, whether that information came from reliable sources or historical accounts. But it wasn’t necessary to quote the report or refer to history in this case. Basic reasoning and common sense would reveal how the unfortunate Africans were obtained. Africa was divided into various kingdoms, each with its own governments and laws. In many areas, the rulers were authoritarian. In others, they had limited power. But in all of them, regardless of the government type, people were treated as property, subject to being stolen just like other goods in different countries. The leaders there were naturally drawn to our products; to get them (which could only be done by selling their fellow countrymen), they waged wars on each other, or even devastated their own lands when they had no reason to fight their neighbors. In their courts, many innocent people were condemned; and to gain access to these commodities in larger quantities, thousands were kidnapped, torn from their families, and forced into slavery. He mentioned that these events were recorded in every history of Africa, and the report at hand also confirmed them. However, regarding these matters, he would only make one or two comments. If we looked back to the reign of Henry the Eighth, we would find a similar situation. We would see that analogous convictions occurred, and that penalties followed those convictions. Concerning wars, the kings of Africa were never motivated by public principles, national pride, and least of all by the welfare of their people. This idea was shared by those most knowledgeable on the topic, like Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom. They had spoken to these rulers and learned from them that acquiring slaves was the main goal of their conflicts. Indeed, almost every person questioned before the privy council proved that the Slave Trade was the source of the tragedies happening on that vast continent. Some had tried to downplay this fact, but no one denied it to some extent. One person referred to the Slave Trade as a contributing factor, while the majority recognized it as the primary reason behind the African wars. The same could be said about the instances of betrayal and injustice involving individuals. And here he regrettably noted that our own countrymen were often at fault. He would only briefly mention the tragedy at Calabar, where two large African villages, having been at war for some time, sought peace. This peace was supposed to be sealed with intermarriages, but some of our captains, seeing their trade would be interrupted for a while, stirred up conflict between the villages again. They actually turned one village against the other, joined the fight, killed many inhabitants, and took others away as slaves. But as shocking as this incident might seem, there wasn’t a single history of Africa that didn’t recount equally horrific events. He stated that those who defended this trade were blinded by their own interests and refused to acknowledge the suffering they were inflicting on their fellow humans daily. By supporting this trade, they had pushed the people of Africa into a worse state than that of the most barbaric nations. They had destroyed the bonds that should have united and protected them; they had introduced strife and chaos among them; they had pitted kings against their subjects and neighbors against each other; they had made families miserable; in short, they had created scenes of injustice and hardship not found anywhere else in the world.
Having said thus much on the subject of procuring slaves in, Africa, he would now go to that of the transportation of them. And here he had fondly hoped, that when men with affections and feelings like our own had been torn from their country, and everything dear to them, he should have found some mitigation of their sufferings; but the sad reverse was the case. This was the most wretched part of the whole subject. He was incapable, of impressing the House with what he felt upon it. A description of their conveyance was impossible. So much misery condensed, in so little room was more than the human imagination had ever before conceived. Think only of six hundred persons linked together, trying to get rid of each other, crammed in a close vessel with every object that was nauseous and disgusting, diseased, and struggling with all the varieties of wretchedness. It seemed impossible to add anything more to human misery. Yet shocking as this description must be felt to be by every man, the transportation had been described by several witnesses from Liverpool to be a comfortable conveyance. Mr. Norris had painted the accommodations on board a slave-ship in the most glowing colours. He had represented them in a manner which would have exceeded his attempts at praise of the most luxurious scenes. Their apartments, he said, were fitted up as advantageously for them as circumstances could possibly admit: they had several meals a day; some of their own country provisions, with the best sauces of African cookery; and, by way of variety, another meal of pulse, according to the European taste. After breakfast they had water to wash themselves, while their apartments were perfumed with frankincense and lime-juice. Before dinner they were amused after the manner of their country; instruments of music were introduced; the song and the dance were promoted; games of chance were furnished them; the men played and sang, while the women and girls made fanciful ornaments from beads, with which they were plentifully supplied. They were indulged in all their little fancies, and kept in sprightly humour. Another of them had said, when the sailors were flogged, it was out of the hearing of the Africans, lest it should depress their spirits. He by no means wished to say that such descriptions were wilful misrepresentations. If they were not, it proved that interest or prejudice was capable of spreading a film over the eyes thick enough to occasion total blindness.
Having said all this about getting slaves in Africa, he would now move on to the topic of their transportation. He had naively hoped that once people with feelings and emotions like ours were taken from their homeland and everything they held dear, there would be some relief from their suffering; but the exact opposite was true. This was the most miserable aspect of the whole issue. He found it impossible to convey to the House what he felt about it. A description of their transport was beyond words. The sheer amount of suffering packed into such a small space was more than anyone had ever imagined. Just think of six hundred people chained together, trying to escape from one another, crammed into a cramped ship filled with everything repulsive and disgusting, sick, and battling every kind of misery. It seemed impossible to add anything more to human suffering. Yet, as shocking as this description is for anyone to hear, several witnesses from Liverpool have described the transportation as a comfortable experience. Mr. Norris had depicted the accommodations on board a slave ship in the most glowing terms. He portrayed them in a way that would have outdone his attempts to praise the most luxurious settings. Their quarters, he claimed, were arranged as advantageously as circumstances allowed: they had several meals a day, including some of their native foods with the best sauces from African cooking; and for variety, another meal of legumes, according to European taste. After breakfast, they had water to wash themselves, and their quarters were scented with frankincense and lime juice. Before dinner, they enjoyed entertainment in the style of their homeland; musicians played instruments, songs and dances were encouraged, and games of chance were provided. The men sang and played while the women and girls made decorative items from the plentiful beads they had. They were indulged in all their small pleasures and kept in good spirits. Another person mentioned that when the sailors were punished, it was done out of earshot of the Africans to avoid dampening their spirits. He didn’t mean to suggest that such descriptions were deliberate misrepresentations. If they weren’t, it showed that self-interest or bias could create a blindness thick enough to prevent seeing the truth.
Others, however, and these men of the greatest veracity, had given a different account. What would the house think, when by the concurring testimony of these the true history was laid open? The slaves who had been described as rejoicing in their captivity, were so wrung with misery at leaving their country, that it was the constant practice to set sail in the night, lest they should know the moment of their departure. With respect to their accommodation, the right ancle of one was fastened to the left ancle of another by an iron fetter; and if they were turbulent, by another on the wrists. Instead of the apartments described, they were placed in niches, and along the decks, in such a manner, that it was impossible for any one to pass among them, however careful he might be, without treading upon them. Sir George Yonge had testified, that in a slave-ship, on board of which he went, and which had not completed her cargo by two hundred and fifty, instead of the scent of frankincense being perceptible to the nostrils, the stench was intolerable. The allowance of water was, so deficient, that the slaves were, frequently found gasping for life, and almost suffocated. The pulse with which they had been said to be favoured, were absolutely English horse-beans. The legislature of Jamaica had stated the scantiness both of water and provisions, as a subject which called for the interference of parliament. As Mr. Norris had said, the song and the dance were promoted, he could not pass over these expressions without telling the house what they meant. It would have been much more fair if he himself had explained the word promoted. The truth was, that, for the sake of exercise, these miserable wretches, loaded with chains and oppressed with disease, were forced to dance by the terror of the lash, and sometimes by the actual use of it. "I" said one of the evidences, "was employed to dance the men, while another person danced the women." Such then was the meaning of the, word promoted; and it might also be observed with respect to food, that instruments were sometimes carried out in order to force them to eat; which was the same sort of proof, how much they enjoyed themselves in this instance also. With respect to their singing, it consisted of songs, of lamentation for the loss of their country. While they sung they were in tears: so that one of the captains, more humane probably than the rest, threatened a woman with a flogging because the mournfulness of her song was too painful for his feelings. Perhaps he could not give a better proof of the sufferings of these injured people during their passage, than by stating the mortality which accompanied it. This was a species of evidence, which was infallible on this occasion. Death was a witness which could not deceive them; and the proportion of deaths would not only confirm, but, if possible, even aggravate our suspicion of the misery of the transit. It would be found, upon an average of all the ships, upon which evidence had been given, that, exclusively of such as perished before they sailed from Africa, not less than twelve and-a-half per cent died on their passage: besides these, the Jamaica report stated that four and-a-half per cent died while in the harbours, or on shore before the day of sale, which was only about the space of twelve or fourteen days after their arrival there; and one-third more died in the seasoning: and this in a climate exactly similar to their own, and where, as some of the witnesses pretended, they were healthy and happy. Thus out of every lot of one hundred shipped from Africa, seventeen died in about nine weeks, and not more than fifty lived to become effective labourers in our islands.
Others, however, including some very trustworthy men, had given a different account. What would the house think when the true story was revealed by the combined testimony of these individuals? The slaves, who were said to be happy in their captivity, were actually filled with despair at leaving their homeland, leading to a common practice of setting sail at night to spare them from knowing the moment of their departure. Regarding their living conditions, one slave's right ankle was shackled to another's left ankle with an iron fetter, and if they showed any resistance, they were also shackled at the wrists. Instead of the supposed accommodations, they were crammed into small spaces and along the decks, making it impossible for anyone to pass through without stepping on them. Sir George Yonge testified that on a slave ship he visited, which was still 250 slaves short of full capacity, the foul odor was unbearable instead of the expected scent of frankincense. The water supply was so inadequate that slaves were often found gasping for breath and nearly suffocated. The "rations" they received were simply English horse beans. The Jamaican legislature had indicated the severe lack of water and food as a matter needing parliament's attention. As Mr. Norris stated, song and dance were encouraged, but he couldn't just leave it at that without explaining what that really meant. It would have been much fairer if he had clarified the term promoted. The reality was that these miserable individuals, burdened with chains and suffering from illness, were forced to dance out of fear of being whipped, with some being actually punished. "I," said one witness, "was made to dance with the men while another danced with the women." That was the true meaning of the term promoted; it’s also worth noting that tools were sometimes used to force them to eat, showing how much they enjoyed this as well. Their singing was filled with songs mourning their lost homeland, and they sang through tears. One of the captains, perhaps more compassionate than the others, even threatened to whip a woman because her sorrowful song was too painful for him to hear. There might be no clearer evidence of the suffering these abused people endured during their journey than the high mortality rate that accompanied it. This kind of evidence could not be misleading in this case. Death was a witness that couldn't lie, and the death rate only confirmed, if not heightened, our concerns about their terrible conditions during transit. It was found that, based on all the ships for which evidence was given, not counting those who died before leaving Africa, nearly 12.5% died on the journey; in addition to this, the Jamaican report noted that 4.5% died while in the harbors or on shore before the sale day, which was only about twelve or fourteen days after their arrival; and one-third more died during the acclimatization period—this occurred in a climate similar to their own, where some witnesses claimed they were healthy and happy. Thus, from every hundred shipped from Africa, seventeen died within approximately nine weeks, and only about fifty survived to become effective laborers in our islands.
Having advanced thus far in his investigation, he felt, he said, the wickedness of the Slave Trade to be so enormous, so dreadful, and irremediable, that he could stop at no alternative short of its abolition, A trade founded on iniquity, and carried on with such circumstances of horror, must be abolished, let the policy of it be what it might; and he had from this time determined, whatever were the consequences, that he would never rest till he had effected that abolition. His mind had, indeed, been harassed by the objections of the West India planters, who had asserted, that the ruin of their property must be the consequence of such a measure. He could not help, however, distrusting their arguments. He could not believe that the Almighty Being, who had forbidden the practice of rapine and bloodshed, had made rapine and bloodshed necessary to any part of his universe. He felt a confidence in this persuasion, and took the resolution to act upon it. Light, indeed, soon broke in upon him. The suspicion of his mind was every day confirmed by increasing information, and the evidence he had now to offer upon this point was decisive and complete. The principle upon which he founded the necessity of the abolition was not policy, but justice: but though justice were the principle of the measure, yet he trusted he should distinctly prove it to be reconcilable with our truest political interest.
Having progressed this far in his investigation, he felt, as he stated, that the evil of the Slave Trade was so vast, so dreadful, and irreversible that he could consider no alternative but its abolition. A trade built on injustice and carried out with such horrific circumstances must be stopped, regardless of its perceived economic benefits; and from that moment, he was resolved, no matter the consequences, to not rest until he achieved that abolition. His mind had indeed been troubled by the arguments of the West India planters, who claimed that such a measure would lead to the destruction of their property. However, he couldn't help but be skeptical of their arguments. He couldn't believe that the Almighty Being, who had condemned acts of violence and plunder, had made violence and plunder necessary for any part of his creation. He felt confident in this belief and decided to act on it. Clarity soon emerged for him. His suspicions were continually validated by increasing information, and the evidence he now had to support this claim was conclusive and thorough. The basis for his argument supporting abolition was not economic policy, but justice; yet even though justice was the foundation of the measure, he believed he could clearly demonstrate that it aligns with our most genuine political interests.
In the first place, he asserted that the number of the slaves in our West India islands might be kept up without the introduction of recruits from Africa; and to prove this, he would enumerate the different sources of their mortality. The first was the disproportion of the sexes, there being, upon an average, about five males imported to three females: but this evil, when the Slave Trade was abolished, would cure itself. The second consisted in the bad condition in which they were brought to the islands, and the methods of preparing them for sale. They arrived frequently in a sickly and disordered state, and then they were made up for the market by the application of astringents, washes, mercurial ointments, and repelling drugs, so that their wounds and diseases might be hid. These artifices were not only fraudulent but fatal; but these, it was obvious, would of themselves fall with the trade. A third was, excessive labour joined with improper food; and a fourth was, the extreme dissoluteness of their manners. These, also, would both of them be counteracted by the impossibility of getting further supplies: for owners, now unable to replace those slaves whom they might lose, by speedy purchases in the markets, would be more careful how they treated them in future, and a better treatment would be productive of better morals. And here he would just advert to an argument used against those who complained of cruelty in our islands, which was, that it was the interest of masters to treat their slaves with humanity: but surely it was immediate and present, not future and distant interest, which was the great spring of action in the affairs of mankind. Why did we make laws to punish men? It was their interest to be upright and virtuous: but there was a present impulse continually breaking in upon their better judgment, and an impulse, which was known to be contrary to their permanent advantage. It was ridiculous to say that men would be bound by their interest, when gain or ardent passion urged them. It might as well be asserted, that a stone could not be thrown into the air, or a body move from place to place, because the principle of gravitation bound them to the surface of the earth. If a planter in the West Indies found himself reduced in his profits, he did not usually dispose of any part of his slaves; and his own gratifications were never given up, so long as there was a possibility of making any retrenchment in the allowance of his slaves.—But to return to the subject which he had left: he was happy to state, that as all the causes of the decrease which he had stated might be remedied, so, by the progress of light and reformation, these remedies had been gradually coming into practice; and that, as these had increased, the decrease of slaves had in an equal proportion been lessened. By the gradual adoption of these remedies, he could prove from the report on the table, that the decrease of slaves in Jamaica had lessened to such a degree, that from the year 1774 to the present it was not quite one in a hundred, and that, in fact, they were at present in a state of increase; for that the births in that island, at this moment, exceeded the deaths by one thousand or eleven hundred per annum. Barbados, Nevis, Antigua, and the Bermudas, were, like Jamaica, lessening their decrease, and holding forth an evident and reasonable expectation of a speedy state of increase by natural population. But allowing the number of Negroes even to decrease for a time, there were methods which would insure the welfare of the West India islands. The lands there might be cultivated by fewer hands, and this to greater advantage to the proprietors and to this country, by the produce of cinnamon, coffee, and cotton, than by that of sugar. The produce of the plantations might also be considerably increased, even in the case of sugar, with less hands than were at present employed, if the owners of them would but introduce machines of husbandry. Mr. Long himself, long resident as a planter, had proved, upon his own estate, that the plough, though so little used in the West Indies, did the service of a hundred slaves, and caused the same ground to produce three hogsheads of sugar, which, when cultivated by slaves, would only produce two. The division of work, which, in free and civilized countries, was the grand source of wealth, and the reduction of the number of domestic servants, of whom not less than from twenty to forty were kept in ordinary families, afforded other resources for this purpose. But, granting that all these suppositions should be unfounded, and that everyone of these substitutes should fail for a time, the planters would be indemnified, as is the case in all transactions of commerce, by the increased price of their produce in the British market. Thus, by contending against the abolition, they were defeated in every part of the argument. But he would never give up the point, that the number of the slaves could be kept up, by natural population, and without any dependence whatever on the Slave Trade. He therefore called upon the house again to abolish it as a criminal waste of life—it was utterly unnecessary—he had proved it so by documents contained in the report. The merchants of Liverpool, indeed, had thought otherwise, but he should be cautious how he assented to their opinions. They declared last year that it was a losing trade at two slaves to a ton, and yet they pursued it when restricted to five slaves to three tons. He believed, however, that it was upon the whole a losing concern; in the same manner as the lottery would be a losing adventure to any company who should buy all the tickets. Here and there an individual gained a large prize, but the majority of adventurers gained nothing. The same merchants, too, had asserted, that the town of Liverpool would be mined by the abolition. But Liverpool did not depend for its consequence upon the Slave Trade. The whole export-tonnage from that place amounted to no less than 170,000 tons; whereas the export part of it to Africa amounted only to 13,000. Liverpool, he was sure, owed its greatness to other and very different causes; the Slave Trade bearing but a small proportion to its other trade.
In the first place, he argued that the number of slaves in our West Indian islands could be maintained without bringing in more from Africa; and to support this, he would list the different reasons for their deaths. The first was the imbalance in gender, with about five males brought in for every three females: but this issue would fix itself once the Slave Trade was abolished. The second was the poor conditions in which they were brought to the islands, and the ways they were prepared for sale. They often arrived sick and unwell, and were made market-ready through the use of astringents, washes, mercurial ointments, and other harmful drugs to hide their wounds and illnesses. These tricks were not only deceitful but also deadly; however, it was clear that these practices would fade away with the trade. A third reason was excessive labor combined with inadequate food; and a fourth was the extreme laxity of their behavior. Both of these issues would diminish as it would become impossible to get more supplies: since owners, now unable to quickly replace slaves they lost with new purchases, would be more careful in how they treated them. Better treatment would lead to better behavior. Here, he would just mention an argument used against those who complained about cruelty in our islands, which was that it was in the masters' interest to treat their slaves humanely: but certainly, immediate and present interest, rather than future or distant interest, drives people's actions. Why do we create laws to punish individuals? It's because they have a reason to act rightly and virtuously. Yet, there is always a current impulse breaking in on their better judgment, and that impulse is known to work against their long-term benefit. It's ridiculous to think that people will be guided solely by their interests when pursuit of gain or intense passion compels them. It would be just as absurd to say that a stone can't be thrown into the air, or that an object can't move from one place to another, simply because gravity binds it to the Earth's surface. If a plantation owner in the West Indies found his profits dwindling, he usually wouldn’t sell any part of his slaves; his own comforts were never sacrificed as long as he could cut back on the allowances for his slaves. But to return to the topic he had set aside: he was pleased to state that since all the causes for the decrease he mentioned could be addressed, and because of the progress of awareness and reform, these solutions had been gradually implemented; and as these remedies had been adopted, the decline in slave numbers had proportionately slowed down. Through the slow adoption of these solutions, he could demonstrate from the report on the table that the decrease in slaves in Jamaica had dropped to such an extent that from the year 1774 to the present, it was less than one in a hundred, and in fact, they were currently experiencing a growth; since births on that island now exceeded deaths by about one thousand or eleven hundred each year. Barbados, Nevis, Antigua, and Bermuda were, like Jamaica, reducing their decreases and showing clear and reasonable expectations of soon experiencing growth through natural population increase. Even if the number of Negroes were to decrease for a while, there were ways to ensure the well-being of the West Indian islands. The land could be farmed with fewer workers, which would benefit the owners and this country more through producing cinnamon, coffee, and cotton than through sugar. The output of the plantations could also significantly increase, even for sugar, with fewer workers than currently employed if the owners would just introduce agricultural machinery. Mr. Long, who had been a planter for a long time, proved on his own estate that the plow, even though rarely used in the West Indies, did the work of a hundred slaves and could produce three hogsheads of sugar, which could only yield two when grown by slaves. The division of labor, which in free and civilized countries is the main source of wealth, along with the reduction in the number of domestic servants—who typically numbered from twenty to forty in ordinary households—offered additional resources for this purpose. But, even if all these assumptions were proven false, and every one of these alternatives failed temporarily, the planters would still be compensated, just like in all of commerce, due to the rising prices of their products in the British market. Therefore, by opposing the abolition, they found themselves countered on every point of their argument. Yet, he would never concede the point that the number of slaves could be sustained through natural population, without any reliance on the Slave Trade. He thus called upon the house again to abolish it as a criminal waste of life—it was completely unnecessary—he had proven this with documents included in the report. The merchants of Liverpool, however, thought differently, but he was hesitant to agree with their views. They claimed last year that the trade was unprofitable at two slaves per ton, yet they continued it when limited to five slaves per three tons. Nevertheless, he believed that, overall, it was indeed a losing venture; much like a lottery would be a losing gamble for any group buying all the tickets. Occasionally, one person might hit the jackpot, but most participants would gain nothing. These same merchants also claimed that the city of Liverpool would be ruined by the abolition. But Liverpool didn't rely on the Slave Trade for its significance. The total export tonnage from that city was no less than 170,000 tons; yet, the portion directed to Africa was just 13,000. Liverpool, he was certain, owed its prominence to other, very different factors; the Slave Trade made up only a small fraction of its overall trade.
Having gone through that part of the subject which related to the slaves, he would now answer two objections which he had frequently heard stated. The first of these was, that the abolition of the Slave Trade would operate to the total ruin of our navy, and to the increase of that of our rivals. For an answer to these assertions, he referred to what he considered to be the most valuable part of the report, and for which the House and the country were indebted to the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Clarkson. By the report it appeared, that, instead of the Slave Trade being a nursery for British seamen, it was their grave. It appeared that more seamen died in that trade in one year than in the whole remaining trade of the country in two. Out of 910 sailors in it, 216 died in the year, while upon a fair average of the same number of men employed in the trades to the East and West Indies, Petersburgh, Newfoundland, and Greenland, no more than eighty-seven died. It appeared also, that out of 3170, who had left Liverpool in the slave-ships in the year 1787, only 1428 had returned. And here, while he lamented the loss which the country thus annually sustained in her seamen, he had additionally to lament the barbarous usage which they experienced, and which this trade, by its natural tendency to harden the heart, exclusively produced. He would just read an extract of a letter from Governor Parrey, of Barbados, to Lord Sydney, one of the secretaries of state. The Governor declared he could no longer contain himself on account of the ill treatment, which the British sailors endured at the hands of their savage captains. These were obliged to have their vessels strongly manned, not only on account of the unhealthiness of the climate of Africa, but of the necessity of guarding the slaves, and preventing and suppressing insurrections; and when they arrived in the West Indies, and were out of all danger from the latter, they quarrelled with their men on the most frivolous pretences, on purpose to discharge them, and thus save the payment of supernumerary wages home. Thus many were left in a diseased and deplorable state; either to perish by sickness, or to enter into foreign service; great numbers of whom were for ever lost to their country. The Governor concluded by declaring, that the enormities attendant on this trade were so great, as to demand the immediate interference of the legislature.
Having covered the part of the topic related to slaves, he would now address two common objections he often heard. The first was that ending the Slave Trade would completely destroy our navy and boost our rivals' fleets. To counter these claims, he pointed to what he viewed as the most crucial part of the report, for which the House and the nation owed a debt of gratitude to Mr. Clarkson's tireless efforts. The report indicated that rather than the Slave Trade serving as a training ground for British sailors, it was actually a grave for them. It showed that more sailors died in that trade in one year than in the entire rest of the country’s trade over two years. Out of 910 sailors involved in it, 216 died in that year, whereas, on average, only eighty-seven died among the same number of men working in trades to the East and West Indies, Petersburgh, Newfoundland, and Greenland. It was also noted that out of 3,170 sailors who left Liverpool on slave ships in 1787, only 1,428 returned. While he mourned the loss the country suffered annually in its sailors, he also had to grieve over the brutal treatment they faced, which this trade, by its very nature, tended to produce. He wanted to read an excerpt from a letter written by Governor Parrey of Barbados to Lord Sydney, one of the secretaries of state. The Governor expressed that he could no longer hold back regarding the poor treatment British sailors suffered at the hands of their cruel captains. These captains had to crew their ships heavily not only due to the unhealthy climate of Africa but also to manage the slaves and prevent uprisings. When they reached the West Indies, and were free from that danger, they would pick fights with their men over the slightest issues, just to discharge them and avoid paying extra wages upon return. As a result, many sailors were left in sickly and miserable conditions, either to die from illness or to join foreign service, with many of them lost forever to their country. The Governor concluded by stating that the atrocities associated with this trade were so severe that they required immediate action from the legislature.
The next objection to the abolition was, that if we were to relinquish the Slave Trade, our rivals, the French, would take it up; so that, while we should suffer by the measure, the evil would still go on, and this even to its former extent. This was, indeed, a very weak argument; and, if it would defend the continuance of the Slave Trade, might equally be urged in favour of robbery, murder, and every species of wickedness, which, if we did not practise, others would commit. But suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were to take it up, what good would it do them? What advantages, for instance, would they derive from this pestilential commerce to their marine? Should not we, on the other hand, be benefited by this change? Would they not be obliged to come to us, in consequence of the cheapness of our manufactures, for what they wanted for the African market? But he would not calumniate the French nation so much as to suppose that they would carry on the trade, if we were to relinquish it. He believed, on the other hand, that they would abolish it also. Mr. Necker, the minister of France, was a man of religious principle; and, in his work upon the administration of the finances, had recorded his abhorrence of this trade. He was happy also to relate an anecdote of the king of France, which proved that he was a friend to the abolition; for, being petitioned to dissolve a society, formed at Paris, for the annihilation of the Slave Trade, his majesty answered, that he would not, and was happy to hear that so humane an association was formed in his dominions. And here, having mentioned the society in Paris, he could not help paying a due compliment to that established in London for the same purpose, which had laboured with the greatest assiduity to make this important subject understood, and which had conducted itself with so much judgment and moderation as to have interested men of all religions, and to have united them in their cause.
The next argument against ending the Slave Trade was that if we stopped, our rivals, the French, would take over; thus, while we would suffer from this decision, the problem would continue, even to the same extent as before. This was really a weak argument; if it justified keeping the Slave Trade going, it could just as easily be used to defend robbery, murder, and every kind of wrongdoing, suggesting that if we didn’t do it, others would. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they did take it up—what good would it do them? What benefits, for instance, would they get from this destructive trade to their shipping industry? Shouldn’t we, on the other hand, benefit from this change? Wouldn’t they have to come to us because of the affordability of our products for what they needed for the African market? However, I wouldn’t slander the French nation by assuming they would continue the trade if we stopped. I actually believe they would also abolish it. Mr. Necker, the French minister, is a man of strong religious principles, and in his work on financial administration, he expressed his disgust for this trade. I'm also pleased to share a story about the King of France, which shows he supports abolition; when he was asked to disband a society formed in Paris to end the Slave Trade, he replied that he wouldn’t and was glad to hear that such a humane organization existed in his realm. And since I've mentioned the society in Paris, I must also give proper acknowledgment to the one in London for the same cause, which has worked tirelessly to raise awareness on this crucial issue and has conducted itself with such thoughtfulness and moderation that it has engaged people of all faiths and united them in their mission.
There was another topic which he would submit to the notice of the House, before he concluded. They were perhaps not aware that a fair and honourable trade might be substituted in the natural productions of Africa, so that our connexion with that continent in the way of commercial advantage need not be lost. The natives had already made some advances in it; and if they had not appeared so forward in raising and collecting their own produce for sale as in some other countries, it was to be imputed to the Slave Trade: but remove the cause, and Africa would soon emerge from her present ignorant and indolent state. Civilization would go on with her as well as with other nations. Europe, three or four centuries ago, was in many parts as barbarous as Africa at present, and chargeable with as bad practices. For what would be said, if, so late as the middle of the thirteenth century, he could find a parallel there for the Slave Trade?—Yes. This parallel was to be found even in England. The people of Bristol, in the reign of Henry the Seventh, had a regular market for children, which were bought by the Irish: but the latter having experienced a general calamity, which they imputed as a judgment from Heaven on account of this wicked traffic, abolished it. The only thing, therefore, which he had to solicit of the House, was to show that they were now as enlightened as the Irish were four centuries back, by refusing to buy the children of other nations. He hoped they would do it. He hoped, too, they would do it in an unqualified manner. Nothing less than a total abolition of the trade would do away the evils complained of. The legislature of Jamaica, indeed, had thought that regulations might answer the purpose. Their report had recommended, that no person should be kidnapped, or permitted to be made a slave, contrary to the customs of Africa. But might he not be reduced to this state very unjustly, and yet by no means contrary to the African laws? Besides, how could we distinguish between those who were justly or unjustly reduced to it? Could we discover them by their physiognomy?—But if we could, who would believe that the British captains would be influenced by any regulations; made in this country, to refuse to purchase those who had not been fairly, honestly? and uprightly enslaved? They who were offered to us for sale, were brought, some of them, three or four thousand miles, and exchanged like cattle from one hand to another, till they reached the coast. But who could return these to their homes, or make them compensation for their sufferings during their long journeyings? He would now conclude by begging pardon of the House for having detained them so long. He could indeed have expressed his own conviction in fewer words. He needed only to have made one or two short statements, and to have quoted the commandment, "Thou shalt do no murder." But he thought it his duty to lay the whole of the case, and the whole of its guilt, before them. They would see now that no mitigations, no palliatives, would either be efficient or admissible. Nothing short of an absolute abolition could be adopted. This they owed to Africa: they owed it, too, to their own moral characters. And he hoped they would follow up the principle of one of the repentant African captains, who had gone before the committee of privy council as a voluntary witness, and that they would make Africa all the atonement in their power for the multifarious injuries she had received at the hands of British subjects. With respect to these injuries, their enormity and extent, it might be alleged in their excuse, that they were not fully acquainted with them till that moment, and therefore not answerable for their former existence: but now they could no longer plead ignorance concerning them. They had seen them brought directly before their eyes, and they must decide for themselves, and must justify to the world and their own consciences the facts and principles upon which their decision was formed.
There was another topic he wanted to bring to the House's attention before he finished. They might not realize that a fair and honorable trade could be developed from Africa’s natural resources, so we wouldn’t have to lose our commercial ties with that continent. The locals had already made some progress; and if they weren't as proactive in producing and collecting their goods for sale as in other countries, it was due to the Slave Trade. But remove that issue, and Africa would quickly rise from its current state of ignorance and laziness. Civilization would advance there just like it has for other nations. Europe, three or four centuries ago, was as barbaric in many areas as Africa is now, and was guilty of just as terrible practices. What would people say if, as recently as the mid-13th century, a parallel for the Slave Trade could be found? Yes, there was one even in England. The people of Bristol, during King Henry the Seventh’s reign, had a regular market for children who were sold to the Irish. However, after the Irish suffered a widespread disaster, which they believed was a divine punishment for this wicked trade, they abolished it. So, what I ask of the House is to show that they are as enlightened today as the Irish were four centuries ago by refusing to buy the children of other nations. I hope they will do this, and I hope they will do it thoroughly. Anything less than completely ending the trade wouldn't resolve the issues being raised. The legislature of Jamaica thought that regulations might serve the purpose. Their report recommended that no one should be kidnapped or made a slave against African customs. But couldn’t someone be wrongfully deprived of their freedom, potentially without it being against African laws? Plus, how could we tell apart those who were justly or unjustly enslaved? Could we determine that by their appearance? And even if we could, who would believe that British captains would actually be swayed by regulations from this country to refuse to buy those who hadn’t been fairly and honestly enslaved? Those offered for sale were often transported thousands of miles and traded like cattle until they reached the coast. But who could return them home or compensate them for their suffering during the long journey? Now I will conclude by asking the House to forgive me for taking up so much of their time. I could have expressed my conviction in just a few words. I only needed to make one or two brief statements and quote the commandment, “Thou shalt do no murder.” However, I felt it was my duty to lay the entire case and the full extent of its guilt before them. They would see now that no mitigations or excuses would be effective or acceptable. Nothing short of complete abolition could be considered. This is what they owed to Africa, and what they owed to their own moral integrity. I hope they will embrace the principle of one of the remorseful African captains who appeared before the committee of privy council as a willing witness, and that they will make Africa all the amends possible for the numerous injuries she has suffered at the hands of British subjects. Regarding these injuries and their severity and scope, it could be argued in their defense that they weren’t fully aware of them until now and thus couldn’t be held responsible for their past existence. But now they can no longer claim ignorance. They have seen the reality laid bare before them, and they must decide for themselves and justify to the world and their own consciences the facts and principles that guide their decision.
Mr. Wilberforce having concluded his speech, which lasted three hours and a half, read, and laid on the table of the House, as subjects for their future discussion, twelve propositions which he had deduced from the evidence contained in the privy council report, and of which the following is the abridged substance:—
Mr. Wilberforce finished his speech, which lasted three and a half hours, and then he read and placed on the table of the House twelve proposals for their future discussion. These were based on the evidence from the privy council report, and here’s a brief summary of them:—
1. That the number of slaves annually carried from the coast of Africa, in British vessels, was about 38,000, of which, on an average, 22,500 were carried to the British islands, and that of the latter only 17,500 were retained there.
1. The number of slaves taken each year from the coast of Africa in British ships was about 38,000, with an average of 22,500 being brought to the British islands, and of those, only 17,500 were kept there.
2. That these slaves, according to the evidence on the table, consisted, first, of prisoners of war; secondly, of free persons sold for debt, or on account of real or imputed crimes, particularly adultery and witchcraft; in which cases they were frequently sold with their whole families, and sometimes for the profit of those by whom they were condemned; thirdly, of domestic slaves sold for the profit of their masters, in some places at the will of the masters, and in others, on being condemned by them for real or imputed crimes; fourthly, of persons made slaves by various acts of oppression, violence, or fraud, committed either by the princes and chiefs of those countries on their subjects, or by private individuals on each other; or, lastly, by Europeans engaged in this traffic.
2. The evidence shows that these slaves were, first, prisoners of war; second, free people sold for debt or because of real or alleged crimes, especially adultery and witchcraft. In these cases, they were often sold along with their entire families, sometimes for the benefit of those who judged them; third, domestic slaves sold for their masters' profit, either at the masters' discretion or when they were condemned for real or alleged crimes; fourth, individuals enslaved through various forms of oppression, violence, or deceit, perpetrated either by local leaders against their subjects or by individuals against one another; or lastly, by Europeans involved in this trade.
3. That the trade so carried on, had necessarily a tendency to occasion frequent and cruel wars among the natives; to produce unjust convictions and punishments for pretended or aggravated crimes; to encourage acts of oppression, violence, and fraud, and to obstruct the natural course of civilization and improvement in those countries!
3. The way this trade was conducted inevitably led to frequent and brutal wars among the natives; it resulted in unfair convictions and punishments for made-up or exaggerated crimes; it encouraged oppression, violence, and fraud, and it hindered the natural progress of civilization and development in those regions!
4. That Africa in its present state furnished several valuable articles of commerce, which were partly peculiar to itself, but that it was adapted to the production of others, with which we were now either wholly or in great part supplied by foreign nations. That an extensive commerce with Africa might be substituted in these commodities, so as to afford a return for as many articles as had annually been carried thither in British vessels: and, lastly, that such a commerce might reasonably be expected to increase, by the progress of civilization there.
4. Africa today provides several valuable trade goods that are unique to the continent, and it is also suitable for producing other items that we currently mostly import from foreign countries. We could replace these imports with extensive trade with Africa, allowing us to bring back as many goods as were previously shipped there in British ships. Finally, we can reasonably expect that this trade will grow as the process of civilization advances in the region.
5. That the Slave Trade was peculiarly destructive to the seamen employed in it; and that the mortality there had been much greater than in any British vessels employed upon the same coast in any other service or trade.
5. That the Slave Trade was particularly harmful to the sailors involved in it; and that the death rate was significantly higher than in any British ships operating on the same coast in any other service or trade.
6. That the mode of transporting the slaves from Africa to the West Indies necessarily exposed them to many and grievous sufferings, for which no regulations could provide an adequate remedy; and that in consequence thereof a large proportion had annually perished during the voyage.
6. The way slaves were transported from Africa to the West Indies inevitably subjected them to numerous and severe hardships, for which no rules could offer a sufficient solution; as a result, a significant number died each year during the journey.
7. That a large proportion had also perished in the harbours in the West Indies, from the diseases contracted in the voyage, and the treatment of the same, previously to their being sold; and that this loss amounted to four and a half percent of the imported slaves.
7. A large number also died in the harbors of the West Indies from diseases they caught during the journey and from the way they were treated before being sold; this loss totaled four and a half percent of the imported slaves.
8. That the loss of the newly-imported slaves, within the three first years after their importation, bore a large proportion to the whole number imported.
8. That the loss of the newly-imported slaves within the first three years after their arrival was a significant portion of the total number brought in.
9. That the natural increase of population among the slaves in the islands appeared to have been impeded principally by the following causes:—First, by the inequality of the sexes in the importations from Africa. Secondly, by the general dissoluteness of manners among the slaves, and the want of proper regulations for the encouragement of marriages, and of rearing children among them. Thirdly, by the particular diseases which were prevalent among them, and which were, in some instances, to be attributed to too severe labour, or rigorous treatment; and in others to insufficient or improper food. Fourthly, by those diseases, which affected a large proportion of negro-children in their infancy, and by those to which the negroes, newly imported from Africa, had been found to be particularly liable.
9. The natural increase of the slave population in the islands seemed to have been mainly hindered by the following reasons:—First, the imbalance of the sexes in the imports from Africa. Secondly, the general decline in morals among the slaves and the lack of proper regulations to encourage marriages and raising children. Thirdly, the specific diseases that were common among them, which were sometimes linked to excessive labor or harsh treatment, and other times due to inadequate or inappropriate food. Fourthly, the diseases that affected a significant number of black children in their early years, as well as those to which newly imported blacks from Africa were particularly susceptible.
10. That the whole number of the slaves in the island of Jamaica, in 1768, was about 167,000, in 1774, about 193,000, and in 1787, about 256,000: that by comparing these numbers with the numbers imported and retained in the said island during all these years, and making proper allowances, the annual excess of deaths above births was in the proportion of about seven-eighths per cent.; that in the first six years of this period it was in the proportion of rather more than one on every hundred; that in the last thirteen years of the same it was in the proportion of about three-fifths on every hundred; and that a number of slaves, amounting to fifteen thousand, perished during the latter period, in consequence of repeated hurricanes, and of the want of foreign supplies of provisions.
10. The total number of slaves on the island of Jamaica was approximately 167,000 in 1768, around 193,000 in 1774, and about 256,000 in 1787. By comparing these figures with the number of slaves imported and kept on the island during those years, and taking proper factors into account, the annual excess of deaths over births was about seven-eighths of a percent. In the first six years of this period, it was slightly more than one in every hundred. In the last thirteen years, it was roughly three-fifths per hundred. Additionally, about fifteen thousand slaves died during this later period due to repeated hurricanes and a lack of foreign food supplies.
11. That the whole number of slaves in the island of Barbados was, in the year, 1764, about 70,706; in 1774, about 74,874; in 1780, about 68,270; in 1781, after the hurricane, about 63,248, and in 1786, about 62,115; that, by comparing these numbers with the number imported into this island, (not allowing for any re-exportation,) the annual excess of deaths above births in the ten years, from 1764 to 1774, was in, the proportion of about five on every hundred; that in the seven years, from 1774 to 1780, it was in the proportion of about one and one-third on every hundred; that between the years 1780 and 1781 there had been a decrease in the number of slaves, of about 5000; that in the six years, from 1781 to 1786, the excess of deaths was in the proportion of rather less than seven-eighths on every hundred; that in the four years, from, 1783 to 1786, it was in the proportion of rather less than one-third on every hundred; and that during the whole period, there was no doubt that some had been exported from the island, but considerably more in the first part of this period than in the last.
11. The total number of slaves on the island of Barbados in the year 1764 was about 70,706; in 1774, about 74,874; in 1780, around 68,270; in 1781, after the hurricane, about 63,248; and in 1786, about 62,115. By comparing these figures with the number imported to the island (not accounting for any re-exports), the annual number of deaths exceeding births over the ten years from 1764 to 1774 was about five for every hundred. In the seven years from 1774 to 1780, it was about one and one-third for every hundred. Between 1780 and 1781, there was a decrease in the number of slaves by about 5,000. In the six years from 1781 to 1786, the excess of deaths was slightly less than seven-eighths for every hundred. From 1783 to 1786, it was slightly less than one-third for every hundred. Throughout this period, it is clear that some slaves were exported from the island, but significantly more were exported in the earlier part of this timeframe than in the later part.
12. That the accounts from the Leeward Islands, and from Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent's, did not furnish sufficient grounds for comparing the state of population in the said islands, at different periods, with the number of slaves, which had been from time to time imported there, and exported therefrom; but that from the evidence which had been received, respecting the present state of these islands, as well as that of Jamaica and Barbados, and from a consideration of the means of obviating the causes, which had hitherto operated to impede the natural increase of the slaves, and of lessening the demand for manual labour, without diminishing the profit of the planters, no considerable or permanent inconvenience would result from discontinuing the further importation of African slaves.
12. The reports from the Leeward Islands, along with Dominica, Grenada, and St. Vincent, didn't provide enough information to compare the population state in those islands over different periods with the number of slaves that had been imported and exported. However, based on the evidence about the current situation in these islands, as well as Jamaica and Barbados, and considering ways to address the factors that have previously hindered the natural growth of the slave population and reduced the need for manual labor without cutting the profits for the planters, there wouldn't be any significant or lasting issues from stopping the further importation of African slaves.
These propositions having been laid upon the table of the House, Lord Penrhyn rose in behalf of the planters; and next, after him, Mr. Gascoyne, (both members for Liverpool,) in behalf of the merchants concerned in the latter place. They both predicted the ruin and misery which would inevitably follow the abolition of the trade. The former said, that no less than seventy millions were mortgaged upon lands in the West Indies, all of which would be lost. Mr. Wilberforce, therefore, should have made a motion to pledge the House to the repayment of this sum, before he had brought forward his propositions. Compensation ought to have been agreed upon as a previous necessary measure. The latter said, that in consequence of the bill of last year, many ships were laid up, and many seamen out of employ. His constituents had large capitals engaged in the trade, and, if it were to be wholly done away, they would suffer from not knowing where to employ them: they both joined in asserting, that Mr. Wilberforce had made so many misrepresentations in all the branches of this subject, that no reliance whatever was to be placed on the picture, which he had chosen to exhibit. They should speak, however, more fully to this point when the propositions were discussed.
These proposals were brought before the House, and Lord Penrhyn spoke on behalf of the planters. Following him, Mr. Gascoyne, both of whom were members for Liverpool, represented the merchants from that city. They both warned about the disaster and hardship that would surely come from ending the trade. Lord Penrhyn stated that there were around seventy million pounds mortgaged on lands in the West Indies, all of which would be lost. Therefore, Mr. Wilberforce should have made a motion to commit the House to repaying this amount before presenting his proposals. Compensation should have been established as a necessary first step. Mr. Gascoyne added that following the bill from last year, many ships were docked, and many sailors were out of work. His constituents had invested significant capital in the trade, and if it were to be completely eliminated, they wouldn’t know where to invest it. They both agreed that Mr. Wilberforce had made numerous misrepresentations regarding all aspects of this issue, so no trust could be placed in the portrayal he presented. However, they would address this more thoroughly when the proposals were debated.
The latter declaration called up Mr. Wilberforce again, who observed that he had no intention of misrepresenting any fact: he did not know that he had done it in any one instance; but, if he had, it would be easy to convict him out of the report upon the table.
The latter statement brought Mr. Wilberforce back into the discussion, and he pointed out that he had no intention of misrepresenting any fact. He wasn't aware that he had done so in any instance; however, if he had, it would be easy to prove that using the report on the table.
Mr. Burke then rose. He would not, he said, detain the committee long: indeed, he was not able, weary and indisposed as he then felt himself, even if he had an inclination to do it; but as on account of his other parliamentary duty, he might not have it in his power to attend the business now before them in its course, he would take that opportunity of stating his opinion upon it.
Mr. Burke then stood up. He mentioned that he wouldn't keep the committee long: in fact, he wasn't able to, feeling tired and unwell as he did; even if he wanted to. However, since he might not be able to participate in the current matter due to his other parliamentary responsibilities, he wanted to take this chance to share his opinion on it.
And, first, the House, the nation, and all Europe were under great obligations to Mr. Wilberforce for having brought this important subject forward. He had done it in a manner the most masterly, impressive, and eloquent. He had laid down his principles so admirably, and with so much order and force, that his speech had equalled anything he had ever heard in modern oratory, and perhaps it had not been excelled by anything to be found in ancient times. As to the Slave Trade itself, there could not be two opinions about it, where men were not interested. A trade begun in savage war, prosecuted with unheard-of barbarity, continued during the transportation with the most loathsome imprisonment, and ending in perpetual exile and slavery, was a trade so horrid in all in circumstances, that it; was impossible to produce a single argument in its favour. On the ground of prudence, nothing could be said in defence of it, nor could it be justified by necessity. It was necessity alone that could be brought to justify inhumanity; but no case of necessity could be made out strong enough to justify this monstrous traffic. It was therefore the duty of the House to put an end to it, and this without further delay. This conviction, that it became them to do it immediately, made him regret (and it was the only thing he regretted in the admirable speech he had heard) that his honourable friend should have introduced propositions on this subject. He could have wished that the business had been brought to a conclusion at once, without voting the propositions which had been read to them. He was not over fond of abstract propositions; they were seldom necessary, and often occasioned great difficulty, embarrassment, and delay. There was, besides, no occasion whatever to assign detailed reasons for a vote, which nature herself dictated, and which religion enforced. If it should happen that the propositions were not carried in that House or the other, such a complication of mischiefs might follow, as might occasion them heartily to lament that they were ever introduced. If the ultimate resolution should happen to be lost, he was afraid the propositions would pass as waste paper, if not be injurious to the cause at a future time.
And first, the House, the nation, and all of Europe owed a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Wilberforce for bringing this important issue to light. He did it in a way that was skillful, compelling, and eloquent. He presented his principles so clearly and with such strength that his speech matched anything heard in modern rhetoric, and maybe even surpassed what could be found in ancient times. As for the Slave Trade itself, there was no debate about it among those not personally vested in it. A trade that started with brutal warfare, carried out with unimaginable cruelty, continued during transit with horrific imprisonment, and ended in lifelong exile and slavery was so dreadful in all its aspects that it was impossible to make a single argument in its favor. From a practical standpoint, nothing could be said to defend it, nor could it be justified by necessity. Only necessity could potentially justify inhumanity, but no case of necessity could be strong enough to defend this horrific trade. Therefore, it was the House's responsibility to put an end to it without any delay. This strong belief that they needed to act immediately made him regret (and it was the only part he regretted in the outstanding speech he had just heard) that his honorable friend had introduced proposals on this topic. He wished the matter had been resolved right away without the need for voting on the proposals that had been presented. He wasn’t a fan of abstract proposals; they were rarely necessary and often led to significant complications, confusion, and delays. Moreover, there was no need to provide detailed reasons for a vote that was clearly dictated by nature and reinforced by religion. If it turned out that the proposals were not passed in either House, a complicated mess of problems could arise, leading them to deeply regret that they were ever introduced. If the final resolution happened to fail, he feared the proposals would become worthless, if not harmful to the cause in the future.
And now, as the House must bring this matter to an issue, he would beg their attention to a particular point. He entreated them to look further than the present moment, and to ask themselves if they had fortified their minds sufficiently to bear the consequences which might arise from the abolition of the Slave Trade, supposing they should decide upon it. When they abandoned it, other foreign powers might take it up, and clandestinely supply our islands with slaves. Had they virtue enough to see another country reaping profits, which they themselves had given up; and to abstain from that envy natural to rivals, and firmly to adhere to their determination? If so, let them thankfully proceed to vote the immediate abolition of the Slave Trade. But if they should repent of their virtue, (and he had known miserable instances of such repentance,) all hopes of future reformation of this enormous evil would be lost. They would go back to a trade they had abandoned with redoubled attachment, and would adhere to it with a degree of avidity and shameless ardour, to their own humiliation, and to the degradation and disgrace of the nation in the eyes of all Europe. These were considerations worth regarding, before they took a decisive step in a business, in which they ought not to move with any other determination than to abide by the consequences at all hazards. The honourable gentleman (who to his eternal honour had introduced this great subject to their notice) had, in his eloquent oration, knocked at every door, and appealed to every passion, well knowing that mankind were governed by their sympathies. But there were other passions to be regarded; men were always ready to obey their sympathies when it cost them nothing; but were they prepared to pay the price of their virtue on this great occasion? This was the question. If they were, they would do themselves immortal honour, and would have the satisfaction of having done away a commerce, which, while it was productive of misery not to be described, most of all hardened the heart and vitiated the human character.
And now that the House needs to make a decision on this matter, he would ask for their attention to a specific point. He urged them to think beyond just the present moment and to consider whether they were mentally prepared to handle the consequences that might come from ending the Slave Trade, if they chose to do so. If they abandoned it, other foreign powers could step in and secretly supply our islands with slaves. Did they have enough integrity to watch another country profiting from something they had given up, and to resist the natural envy of rivals while sticking to their decision? If they did, then they should confidently move forward to vote for the immediate abolition of the Slave Trade. But if they later regretted their choice (and he had seen unfortunate examples of such regret), any hope for future reform of this terrible evil would be lost. They would return to a trade they had previously abandoned with even more attachment, clinging to it with a greedy and shameless passion, which would bring them humiliation and disgrace the nation in the eyes of all of Europe. These are important considerations to think about before they take a decisive step in a matter where they should only proceed with the determination to face the consequences, no matter what. The honorable gentleman (who, to his eternal credit, had brought this important issue to their attention) had, in his stirring speech, knocked at every door and appealed to every emotion, fully aware that people are driven by their sympathies. But there are other emotions to consider; people are always ready to respond to their sympathies when it costs them nothing. But were they prepared to pay the price for their virtue in this major issue? That is the real question. If they were, they would earn themselves lasting honor and would take satisfaction in having abolished a trade that, while causing unimaginable suffering, most of all hardened hearts and corrupted human character.
With respect to the consequences mentioned by the two members for Liverpool, he had a word or two to offer upon them. Lord Penrhyn had talked of millions to be lost and paid for; but seeing no probability of any loss ultimately, he could see no necessity for compensation. He believed on the other hand, that the planters would be great gainers by those wholesome regulations, which they would be obliged to make, if the Slave Trade were abolished. He did not however flatter them with the idea that this gain would be immediate. Perhaps they might experience inconveniences at first, and even some loss. But what then? With their loss, their virtue would be the greater. And in this light he hoped the House would consider the matter; for, if they were called upon to do an act of virtuous energy and heroism, they ought to think it right to submit to temporary disadvantages for the sake of truth, justice, humanity, and the prospect of greater happiness.
Regarding the consequences mentioned by the two members for Liverpool, he had a few things to say about them. Lord Penrhyn spoke of millions to be lost and compensated for; however, since he didn’t see any likelihood of actual loss in the end, he found no need for compensation. On the contrary, he believed that the planters would benefit greatly from those necessary regulations that they would have to implement if the Slave Trade were abolished. He didn’t want to give them the impression that these gains would come right away. They might face inconveniences at first, and possibly some losses. But so what? With their losses, their virtue would shine even brighter. He hoped the House would consider the matter this way; if they were called to take a stand of moral strength and courage, they should see it as right to endure temporary setbacks for the sake of truth, justice, humanity, and the promise of greater happiness.
The other member, Mr. Gascoyne, had said that his constituents, if the trade were abolished, could not employ their capitals elsewhere. But whether they could or not, it was the duty of that House, if they put them into a traffic which was shocking to humanity and disgraceful to the nation, to change their application, and not to allow them to be used to a barbarous purpose. He believed, however, that the merchants of Liverpool would find no difficulty on this head. All capitals required active motion; it was in their nature not to remain passive and unemployed; they would soon turn them into other channels. This they had done themselves during the American war; for the Slave Trade was almost wholly lost, and yet they had their ships employed, either as transports in the service of government or in other ways.
The other member, Mr. Gascoyne, had mentioned that his constituents, if the trade were ended, wouldn’t be able to invest their money elsewhere. But whether they could or not, it was the responsibility of that House, if they were putting them into a trade that was appalling to humanity and shameful to the nation, to redirect their use and not let them be utilized for a cruel purpose. He believed, however, that the merchants of Liverpool wouldn’t face any issues with this. All capital needs to be actively used; it’s in its nature not to stay idle and unproductive; they would quickly find other ways to invest it. They had done just that during the American war, as the Slave Trade had nearly vanished, yet they had their ships busy, either transporting for the government or working in other capacities.
And as he now called upon the House not to allow any conjectural losses to become impediments in the way of the abolition of the Slave Trade, so he called upon them to beware how they suffered any representations of the happiness of the state of slavery in our islands to influence them against so glorious a measure. Admiral Barrington had said in his testimony, that he had often envied the condition of the slaves there. But surely, the honourable admiral must have meant, that, as he had often toiled like a slave in the defence of his country, (as his many gallant actions had proved,) so he envied the day when he was to toil in a similar manner in the same cause. If, however, his words were to be taken literally, his sensations could only be accounted for by his having seen the negroes in the hour of their sports, when a sense of the misery of their condition was neither felt by themselves not visible to others. But their appearance on such occasions did by no means disprove their low and abject state. Nothing made a happy slave but a degraded man. In proportion as the mind grows callous to its degradation, and all sense of manly pride is lost, the slave feels comfort. In fact, he is no longer a man. If he were to define a man, he would say with Shakespeare,
And as he now urged the House not to let any imagined losses stand in the way of ending the Slave Trade, he also warned them not to be swayed by any claims about the supposed happiness of enslaved people in our islands that could turn them against such a noble cause. Admiral Barrington had mentioned in his testimony that he often envied the condition of the slaves there. But surely, the honorable admiral must have meant that, just as he had toiled like a slave in defense of his country (as demonstrated by his many brave actions), he envied the day when he would work hard for the same cause. However, if we were to take his words literally, his feelings could only be explained by having seen the enslaved individuals during their moments of leisure, when they neither felt the weight of their misery nor were it visible to others. But their appearance during such moments did not negate their poor and miserable state. Nothing made a slave happy except for a man who had been degraded. As the mind becomes numb to its degradation and all sense of pride disappears, the enslaved person finds comfort. In fact, he is no longer considered a man. If he were to define a man, he would say with Shakespeare,
Looking before and after.
But, a slave was incapable of looking before and after; he had no motive to do it; he was a mere passive instrument in the hands of others to be used at their discretion. Though living, he was, dead as to all voluntary agency; though moving amidst the creation with an erect form, and with the shape and semblance of a human being, he was a nullity as a man.
But a slave couldn’t think ahead or reflect on the past; he had no reason to do so; he was just a passive tool in the hands of others, used at their will. Even though he was alive, he was essentially dead when it came to any voluntary action; although he moved among others with an upright form and had the appearance of a human being, he was meaningless as a man.
Mr. Pitt thanked his honourable friend Mr. Wilberforce for having at length introduced this great and important subject to the consideration of the House. He thanked him also for the perspicuous, forcible, and masterly manner in which he had treated it. He was sure that no argument compatible with any idea of justice could be assigned for the continuation of the Slave Trade. And at the same time that he was willing to listen with candour and attention to everything that could be urged on the other side of the question, he was sure that the principles, from which his opinion was deduced, were unalterable. He had examined the subject with the anxiety which became him, where the happiness and interests of so many thousands were concerned, and with the minuteness which would be expected of him, on account of, the responsible situation which he held; and he averred that it was sophistry, obscurity of ideas, and vagueness of reasoning, which alone could have hitherto prevented all mankind (those immediately interested in the question excepted) from agreeing in one and the same opinion upon the subject. With respect to the propriety of introducing the individual propositions which had been offered, he differed with Mr. Burke, and he thanked his honourable friend Mr. Wilberforce for having chosen the only way in which it could be made obvious to the worlds that they were warranted on every ground of reason and of fact in coming to that vote, which he trusted would be the end of their proceeding. The grounds for the attainment of this end were distinctly stated in the propositions. Let the propositions be brought before the House, one by one, and argued from the evidence, and it would then be seen that they were such as no one, who was not deaf to the language of reason, could deny. Let them be once entered upon the journals of that House, and it was almost impossible they should fail. The abolition must be voted; as to the mode of it, or how it should be effected, they were not at present to discuss it; but he trusted it would be such as would not invite foreign powers to supply our islands with slaves by a clandestine trade. After a debt, founded on the immutable principles of justice, was found to be due, it was impossible but the country had means to cause it to be paid. Should such an illicit proceeding be attempted; the only language which it became us to adopt, was, that Great Britain had resources to enable her to protect her islands, and to prevent that traffic from being clandestinely carried on by them, which she had thought fit from a regard to her character to abandon. It was highly becoming Great Britain to take the lead of other nations in such a virtuous and magnificent measure, and he could not but have confidence that they would he inclined to share the honour with us, or be pleased to follow us as their example. If we were disposed to set about this glorious work in earnest, they might he invited to concur with us by a negotiation to be immediately opened for that purpose. He would only now observe, before he sat down, in answer to certain ideas thrown out, that he could by no means acquiesce in any compensation for losses which might be sustained by the people of Liverpool or by others in any other part of the kingdom, in the execution of this just and necessary undertaking.
Mr. Pitt thanked his honorable friend Mr. Wilberforce for finally bringing this significant issue to the House’s attention. He also expressed gratitude for the clear, forceful, and skillful way Mr. Wilberforce had presented it. He was confident that no argument rooted in justice could justify the continuation of the Slave Trade. While he was open to listening with an open mind to any opposing viewpoints, he believed that the principles guiding his stance were unchangeable. He had examined the matter with the care that was appropriate given the stakes involved for so many people, and with the thoroughness expected of him due to his responsible position. He asserted that only confusion, lack of clarity, and weak reasoning had kept most people (excluding those directly affected) from agreeing on this issue. Regarding the appropriateness of the individual proposals presented, he disagreed with Mr. Burke, and he thanked Mr. Wilberforce for choosing the only method that could clearly show the world that they were justified in every way to reach a decision he hoped would conclude their efforts. The reasons for achieving this goal were clearly outlined in the proposals. Let each proposal be presented to the House one at a time and debated based on the evidence, and it would soon be evident that they were irrefutable to anyone not dismissing reason. Once recorded in the House's journals, it was nearly impossible for them to fail. The abolition must be voted on; they weren’t discussing how it should happen at this moment, but he hoped it would not encourage foreign nations to supply slaves to their islands through illegal trade. Once a debt, based on unchanging principles of justice, was acknowledged, the country would find a way to settle it. If any illegal trade were attempted, the only response should be that Great Britain had the means to protect her islands and stop any clandestine trade she had chosen to abandon in consideration of her reputation. It was fitting for Great Britain to lead other nations in such a noble and significant endeavor, and he was confident they would be willing to share this honor with us or follow our example. If we were ready to commit seriously to this important work, others could be invited to join us through immediate negotiations for that purpose. He would only add, before he concluded, in response to some ideas expressed, that he could not agree to any compensation for losses that might be faced by the people of Liverpool or anyone else in the nation as part of this just and essential effort.
Sir William Yonge said, he wanted no inducement to concur with the honourable mover of the propositions, provided the latter could be fairly established, and no serious mischiefs were to arise from the abolition. But he was apprehensive, that many evils might follow in the case of any sudden or unlooked-for decrease in the slaves. They might be destroyed by hurricanes. They might be swept off by many fatal disorders. In these cases, the owners of them would not be able to fill up their places, and they who had lent money upon the lands, where the losses had happened, would foreclose their mortgages. He was fearful, also, that a clandestine trade would be carried on, and then the sufferings of the Africans, crammed up in small vessels, which would be obliged to be hovering about from day to day, to watch an opportunity of landing, would be ten times greater than any which they now experienced in the legal trade. He was glad, however, as the matter was to be discussed, that it had been brought forward in the shape of distinct propositions, to be grounded upon the evidence in the privy council report.
Sir William Yonge said he didn't need any extra motivation to agree with the honorable person proposing the ideas, as long as those ideas could be proven valid and there wouldn't be any serious problems arising from ending slavery. However, he was concerned that many issues could come up if there was a sudden or unexpected drop in the number of slaves. They could be lost to hurricanes or wiped out by various deadly diseases. In such cases, the owners wouldn't be able to replace them, and those who had lent money against the lands where losses occurred would start foreclosing their mortgages. He was also worried that illegal trading would take place, leading to even greater suffering for Africans crammed into small ships, forced to drift around day after day waiting for a chance to unload, suffering ten times more than they currently did in the legal trade. He was, however, pleased that the topic was being discussed and that it was framed as specific proposals based on the evidence from the privy council report.
Mr. Fox observed that he did not like, where he agreed as to the substance of a measure, to differ with respect to the form of it. If, however, he differed in any thing in the present case, it was with a view rather to forward the business than to injure it, or to throw anything like an obstacle in its way. Nothing like either should come from him. What he thought was, that all the propositions were not necessary to be voted previously to the ultimate decision, though some of them undoubtedly were. He considered them as of two classes: the one, alleging the grounds upon which it was proper to proceed to the abolition; such as that the trade was productive of inexpressible misery, in various ways, to the innocent natives of Africa; that it was the grave of our seamen, and so on; the other merely answering objections which might be started, and where there might be a difference of opinion. He was, however, glad that the propositions were likely to be entered upon the journals; since, if, from any misfortune, the business should be deferred, it might succeed another year. Sure he was that it could not fail to succeed sooner or later. He highly approved of what Mr. Pitt had said relative to the language it became us to hold out to foreign powers, in case of a clandestine trade. With respect, however, to the assertion of Sir William Yonge that a clandestine trade in slaves would be worse than a legal one, he could not admit it. Such a trade, if it existed at all, ought only to be clandestine. A trade in human flesh and sinews was so scandalous, that it ought not openly to be carried on by any government whatever, and much less by that of a Christian country. With regard to the regulation of the Slave Trade, he knew of no such thing as a regulation of robbery and murder. There was no medium. The legislature must either abolish it, or plead guilty of all the wickedness which had been shown to attend it. He would now say a word or two with respect to the conduct of foreign nations on this subject. It was possible that these, when they heard that the matter had been discussed in that House, might follow the example, or they might go before us and set one themselves. If this were to happen, though we might be the losers, humanity would be the gainer. He himself had been thought sometimes to use expressions relative to France, which were too harsh, and as if he could only treat her as the enemy of this country. Politically speaking, France was our rival. But he well knew the distinction between political enmity and illiberal prejudice. If there was any great and enlightened nation in Europe, it was France, which was as likely as any country upon the face of the globe to catch a spark from the light of our fire, and to act upon the present subject with warmth and enthusiasm. France had often been improperly stimulated by her ambition; and he had no doubt but that, in the present instance, she would readily follow its honourable dictates.
Mr. Fox noted that he didn’t like to disagree on the substance of a measure when he agreed with it, just because of differences in its form. However, if he had any disagreement in this case, it was to support the business rather than harm it or create any obstacles. He believed that none of that should come from him. What he thought was that not all the proposals needed to be voted on before the final decision, although some certainly did. He viewed them in two categories: one was about the reasons for proceeding with the abolition, such as the fact that the trade caused immense suffering to innocent people in Africa and claimed the lives of our sailors, among others; the other addressed potential objections and varied opinions. Still, he was pleased that the proposals were likely to be recorded in the journals because if, due to any unfortunate circumstance, the business had to be postponed, it could still succeed another year. He was confident that it would eventually succeed, sooner or later. He fully supported what Mr. Pitt had said about how we should communicate with foreign powers regarding any secret trade. However, regarding Sir William Yonge’s claim that a secret slave trade would be worse than a legal one, he couldn't agree. Such a trade, if it existed at all, should only be secret. The trade in human beings was so disgraceful that it should not be openly practiced by any government, especially not by a Christian country. In terms of regulating the Slave Trade, he believed there was no such thing as regulating theft and murder. There was no middle ground. The legislature had to either abolish it or accept the guilt of all the evils associated with it. Now, he wanted to say a few words about how foreign nations handle this issue. It was possible that once they heard that the matter had been discussed in this House, they might follow our lead or even take the initiative themselves. If that happened, although we might lose out, humanity would benefit. He had sometimes been thought to express views about France that were too harsh, as if he could only see her as our enemy. Politically, France was our rival. But he understood the difference between political rivalry and narrow-minded prejudice. If there was any major and enlightened nation in Europe, it was France, which was as capable as any country to be inspired by our example and to approach this issue with passion and enthusiasm. France had often been driven by her ambition inappropriately, and he had no doubt that, in this case, she would be eager to follow its honorable guidance.
Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grenville would not detain the house by going into a question which had been so ably argued; but he should not do justice to his feelings, if he did not express publicly to his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, the pleasure he had received from one of the most masterly and eloquent speeches he had ever heard; a speech which, while it did honour to him, entitled him to the thanks of the House, of the people of England, of all Europe, and of the latest posterity. He approved of the propositions as the best mode of bringing this great question to a happy issue. He was pleased, also, with the language which had been held out with respect to foreign nations, and with our determination to assert our right of preventing our colonies from carrying on any trade which we had thought it our duty to abandon.
Mr. Grenville (later Lord Grenville) didn’t want to hold up the House by revisiting a question that had already been so well debated; however, he felt he wouldn’t be doing justice to his feelings if he didn’t publicly express to his honorable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, how much he appreciated one of the most skillful and eloquent speeches he had ever heard. It was a speech that not only honored him but also earned him the gratitude of the House, the people of England, all of Europe, and future generations. He supported the proposals as the best way to resolve this significant issue positively. He was also pleased with the tone used regarding foreign nations and with our commitment to asserting our right to prevent our colonies from engaging in any trade we deemed it our responsibility to abandon.
Aldermen Newnham, Sawbridge, and Watson, though they wished well to the cause of humanity, could not, as representatives of the city of London, give their concurrence to a measure which would injure it so essentially as the abolition of the Slave Trade. This trade might undoubtedly be put under wholesome regulations, and made productive of great commercial advantages; but, if it were abolished, it would render the city of London one scene of bankruptcy and ruin. It became the house to take care, while they were giving way to the goodness of their hearts, that they did not contribute to the ruin of the mercantile interests of their country.
Aldermen Newnham, Sawbridge, and Watson, although they supported the cause of humanity, could not, as representatives of the city of London, agree to a measure that would harm it so significantly as the abolition of the Slave Trade. This trade could certainly be regulated in a way that would yield great commercial benefits; however, if it were abolished, it would lead to widespread bankruptcy and ruin in the city of London. They needed to be cautious, while being compassionate, not to jeopardize the mercantile interests of their country.
Mr. Martin stated that he was so well satisfied with the speech of the honourable gentleman who had introduced the propositions, and with the language held out by other distinguished members on this subject, that he felt himself more proud than ever of being an Englishman. He hoped and believed that the melancholy predictions of the worthy aldermen would not prove true, and that the citizens of London would have too much public spirit to wish that a great national object (which comprehended the great duties of humanity and justice) should be set aside, merely out of consideration to their own private interests.
Mr. Martin said he felt very pleased with the speech from the honorable gentleman who proposed the ideas, as well as with the comments from other respected members on this issue. He felt prouder than ever to be English. He hoped and believed that the sad predictions of the respected aldermen wouldn’t come true and that the people of London would have enough public spirit to ensure that a major national goal (which included the essential responsibilities of humanity and justice) wouldn’t be sidelined just for their own personal interests.
Mr. Dempster expected, notwithstanding all he had heard, that the first proposition submitted to them would have been to make good out of the public purse all the losses individuals were liable to sustain from an abolition of the Slave Trade. This ought to have been, as Lord Penrhyn had observed, a preliminary measure. He did not like to be generous out of the pockets of others. They were to abolish the trade, it was said, out of a principle of humanity. Undoubtedly they owed humanity to all mankind; but they also owed justice to those who were interested in the event of the question, and had embarked their fortunes on the faith of parliament. In fact he did not like to see men introducing even their schemes of benevolence to the detriment of other people; and much less did he like to see them going to the colonies, as it were upon their estates, and prescribing rules to them for their management. With respect to his own speculative opinion, as it regarded cultivation, he had no objection to give it. He was sure that sugar could be raised cheaper by free-men than by slaves. This the practice in China abundantly proved; but yet neither he, nor any other person, had a right to force a system upon others. As to the trade itself, by which the present labourers were supplied, it had been considered by that House as so valuable that they had preferred it to all others, and had annually voted a considerable sum towards carrying it on. They had hitherto deemed it an essential nursery for our seamen. Had it really been such as had been represented, our ancestors would scarcely have encouraged it; and therefore, upon these and other considerations, he could not help thinking that they would be wanting in their duty if they abolished it altogether.
Mr. Dempster expected, despite everything he had heard, that the first proposal presented to them would have been to cover all the losses individuals would incur from ending the Slave Trade using public funds. This should have been, as Lord Penrhyn pointed out, a preliminary step. He didn’t like being generous at the expense of others. They were supposedly ending the trade out of a sense of humanity. While it’s true that we owe humanity to everyone, we also owe justice to those who are affected by this issue and have risked their fortunes based on the assurance of parliament. In fact, he disliked seeing people push their charitable ideas at the expense of others; and he was even less fond of seeing them go to the colonies, almost as if they were on their property, and dictating how things should be run there. As for his own personal opinion on cultivation, he was happy to share it. He was sure that sugar could be produced more cheaply by free men than by slaves. This was clearly demonstrated by practices in China; however, neither he nor anyone else had the right to impose a system on others. Regarding the trade itself, which supplied the current labor force, that House had valued it so much that they had prioritized it over all others and had voted each year to support it financially. They had previously seen it as an essential training ground for our sailors. If it truly had been as detrimental as claimed, our ancestors would hardly have promoted it; thus, based on these and other factors, he believed they would fail in their duties if they abolished it completely.
Mr. William Smith would not detain the House long at that late hour upon this important subject; but he could not help testifying the great satisfaction he felt at the manner, in which the honourable gentleman who opened the debate (if it could be so called) had treated it. He approved of the propositions as the best mode of bringing the decision to a happy issue. He gave Mr. Fox great credit for the open and manly way in which he had manifested his abhorrence of this trade, and for the support he meant to give to the total and unqualified abolition of it; for he was satisfied, that the more it was inquired into, the more it would be found that nothing short of abolition would cure the evil. With respect to certain assertions of the members for Liverpool, and certain melancholy predictions about the consequences of such an event, which others had held out, he desired to lay in his claim for observation upon them when the great question should come before the House.
Mr. William Smith didn't want to keep the House for too long at this late hour discussing this important topic, but he had to express his great satisfaction with how the honorable gentleman who started the debate (if it could be called that) addressed it. He supported the proposals as the best way to reach a positive conclusion. He praised Mr. Fox for the straightforward and courageous way he showed his strong disapproval of this trade, and for the support he intended to provide for its complete and absolute abolition; because he was convinced that the more it was examined, the more it would become clear that only abolition would resolve the issue. Regarding certain claims made by the members from Liverpool and some gloomy predictions about the consequences of such an event that others had proposed, he wanted to reserve his comments about them for when the significant question came before the House.
Soon after this the House broke up; and the discussion of the propositions, which was the next parliamentary measure intended, was postponed to a future day, which was sufficiently distant to give all the parties concerned, time to make the necessary preparations for it.
Soon after this, the House adjourned, and the discussion of the proposals, which was the next parliamentary action planned, was postponed to a later date that was far enough away to allow all the parties involved time to prepare for it.
Of this interval the committee for the abolition availed themselves, to thank Mr. Wilberforce for the very able and satisfactory manner in which he had stated to the House his propositions for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and for the unparalleled assiduity and perseverance with which he had all along endeavoured to accomplish this object, as well as to take measures themselves for the further promotion of it. Their opponents availed themselves of this interval also. But that which now embarrassed them, was the evidence contained in the privy council report. They had no idea, considering the number of witnesses they had sent to be examined, that this evidence, when duly weighed, could by right reasoning have given birth to the sentiments which had been displayed in the speeches of the most distinguished members of the House of Commons, or to the contents of the propositions which had been laid upon their table. They were thunderstruck as it were by their own weakness; and from this time they were determined, if possible, to get rid of it as a standard for decision, or to interpose, every parliamentary delay in their power.
During this time, the committee for abolition took the opportunity to thank Mr. Wilberforce for the effective and satisfactory way he presented his proposals for ending the Slave Trade in the House. They also appreciated his unmatched dedication and persistence in working towards this goal, while they themselves planned further actions to promote it. Their opponents also used this time to regroup. However, what troubled them was the evidence from the privy council report. They couldn’t believe that, given the number of witnesses they had sent for examination, this evidence could reasonably lead to the opinions expressed by the most prominent members of the House of Commons or to the proposals that were put before them. They were taken aback by their own shortcomings, and from that moment on, they were determined to find a way to dismiss it as a standard for decision-making or to introduce every parliamentary delay they could.
On the 21st of May, the subject came again before the attention of the House. It was ushered in, as was expected, by petitions collected in the interim, and which were expressive of the frightful consequences which would attend the abolition of the Slave Trade. Alderman Newnham presented one from certain merchants in London; Alderman Watson another from certain merchants, mortgagees, and creditors of the sugar-islands; Lord Maitland, another from the planters of Antigua; Mr. Blackburne, another from certain manufacturers of Manchester; Mr. Gascoyne, another from the corporation of Liverpool; and Lord Penrhyn, others from different interested bodies in the same town.
On May 21st, the issue came back to the House's attention. It was introduced, as expected, by petitions gathered in the meantime, which expressed the terrible consequences that would follow if the Slave Trade was abolished. Alderman Newnham presented one from certain merchants in London; Alderman Watson brought another from various merchants, mortgage holders, and creditors of the sugar islands; Lord Maitland presented another from the planters of Antigua; Mr. Blackburne presented one from certain manufacturers in Manchester; Mr. Gascoyne brought one from the Liverpool corporation; and Lord Penrhyn submitted others from different interested groups in the same town.
Mr. Wilberforce then moved the order of the day for the House to go into a committee of the whole house on the report of the privy council, and the several matters of evidence already upon the table relative to the Slave Trade.
Mr. Wilberforce then proposed that the House enter a committee of the whole to discuss the report from the privy council and the various pieces of evidence already presented regarding the Slave Trade.
Mr. Alderman Sawbridge immediately arose, and asked Mr. Wilberforce if he meant to adduce any other evidence, besides that in the privy council report, in behalf of his propositions, or to admit other witnesses, if such could be found, to invalidate them. Mr. Wilberforce replied, that he was quite satisfied with the report on the table. It would establish all his propositions. He should call no witnesses himself; as to permission to others to call them, that must be determined by the House.
Mr. Alderman Sawbridge immediately stood up and asked Mr. Wilberforce if he intended to present any other evidence besides what was in the privy council report to support his proposals, or if he would allow others to bring in witnesses to challenge them if such could be found. Mr. Wilberforce replied that he was completely satisfied with the report on the table. It would prove all his proposals. He wouldn’t be calling any witnesses himself; whether others could be allowed to do so would need to be decided by the House.
This question and this answer gave birth immediately to great disputes upon the subject. Aldermen Sawbridge, Newnham, and Watson; Lords Penrhyn and Maitland; Messrs. Gascoyne, Marsham, and others, spoke against the admission of the evidence which had been laid upon the table. They contended that it was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that it was ex parte evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers; that it was founded chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it was false; that it had undergone no cross-examination; that it was unconstitutional; and that, if they admitted it, they would establish a dangerous precedent, and abandon their rights. It was urged on the other hand by Mr. Courtenay, that it could not be ex parte evidence, because it contained testimony on both sides of the question. The circumstance, also, of its being contradictory, which had been alleged against it, proved that it was the result of an impartial examination. Mr. Fox observed, that it was perfectly admissible. He called upon those, who took the other side of the question, to say why, if it was really inadmissible, they had not opposed it at first. It had now been a long time on the table, and no fault had been found with it. The truth was, it did not suit them; and they were determined by a side-wind, as it were, to put an end to the inquiry. Mr. Pitt observed, that, if parliament had previously resolved to receive no evidence on a given subject but from the privy council, such a resolution, indeed, would strike at the root of the privileges of the House of Commons; but it was absurd to suppose that the House could upon no occasion receive evidence, taken where it was most convenient to take it, and subject throughout to new investigation, if any one doubted its validity. The report of the privy council consisted, first, of calculations and accounts from the public offices; and, next, of written documents on the subject: both of which were just as authentic as if they had been laid upon the table of that House. The remaining part of it consisted of the testimony of living witnesses, all of whose names were published; so that if any one doubted their veracity, it was open to him to re-examine all or each of them. It had been said by adversaries that the report on the table was a weak and imperfect report, but would not these have the advantage of its weakness and imperfection? It was strange, when his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, had said, "Weak and imperfect as the report may be thought to be, I think it strong enough to bear me out in all my propositions," that they, who objected to it, should have no better reason to give than this, "We object, because the ground of evidence on which you rest is too weak to support your cause." Unless it were meant to say (and the meaning seemed to be but thinly disguised) that the House ought to abandon the inquiry, he saw no reason whatever for not going immediately into a committee; and he wished gentlemen to consider whether it became the dignity of their proceedings to obstruct the progress of an inquiry, which the House had pledged itself to undertake. Their conduct, indeed, seemed extraordinary on this occasion. It was certainly singular that; while the report had been five weeks upon the table, no argument had been brought against its sufficiency; but that on the moment when the House was expected to come to an ultimate vote upon the subject, it should be thought defective, contradictory, unconstitutional, and otherwise objectionable. These objections, he was satisfied, neither did nor could originate with the country gentlemen; but they were brought forward; for purposes not now to be concealed, by the avowed enemies of this noble cause.
This question and its answer immediately sparked significant disputes on the topic. Aldermen Sawbridge, Newnham, and Watson; Lords Penrhyn and Maitland; Messrs. Gascoyne, Marsham, and others spoke against accepting the evidence that had been presented. They argued that it was inadequate, flawed, and contradictory; that it was ex parte evidence; that it had been created by the ministers; that it relied mainly on hearsay, and that much of it was false; that it had not undergone cross-examination; that it was unconstitutional; and that if they accepted it, they would set a dangerous precedent and relinquish their rights. On the other hand, Mr. Courtenay argued that it could not be ex parte evidence because it included testimonies from both sides. The claim that it was contradictory, which had been cited against it, actually showed that it resulted from an impartial investigation. Mr. Fox noted that it was completely admissible. He urged those opposing it to explain why, if it were truly inadmissible, they had not objected in the beginning. It had been on the table for a long time, and no flaws had been identified. The reality was, it didn't suit them, and they were determined to end the inquiry through underhanded means. Mr. Pitt remarked that if Parliament had previously decided to only accept evidence on a specific matter from the Privy Council, such a resolution would indeed undermine the privileges of the House of Commons; however, it was absurd to think that the House could never accept evidence gathered where it was most convenient, and that could be reviewed again if anyone questioned its credibility. The Privy Council's report included, first, calculations and records from public offices, and second, written documents on the issue: both of which were just as authentic as if they had been submitted to that House. The rest of the report contained testimonies from living witnesses, all of whom were named; so if anyone doubted their honesty, they were free to re-examine any or all of them. Adversaries claimed that the report was weak and incomplete, but wouldn’t they benefit from its weakness and incompleteness? It was odd that when his honorable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, said, "Weak and imperfect as the report may be thought to be, I think it strong enough to support all my arguments," those who objected provided no better justification than, "We object because the basis of evidence on which you rely is too weak to support your position." Unless the intention was to suggest (and the suggestion seemed only thinly veiled) that the House should abandon the inquiry, he saw no reason not to move directly into a committee; and he hoped everyone would reflect on whether it was fitting for the dignity of their procedures to hinder the progress of an inquiry that the House had committed to undertake. Their behavior during this instance seemed extraordinary. It was certainly peculiar that while the report had been on the table for five weeks, no arguments had been made against its adequacy; yet at the moment when the House was expected to reach a final vote on the matter, it was suddenly declared defective, contradictory, unconstitutional, and otherwise problematic. He was convinced that these objections did not, and could not, originate from the country gentlemen, but were put forward for purposes that were not now to be concealed by the known opponents of this noble cause.
In the course of the discussion which arose upon this subject, every opportunity was taken to impress the House with the dreadful consequences of the abolition! Mr. Heriniker read a long letter from the King of Dahomey to George the First, which had been found among the papers of James, first Duke of Chandos, and which had remained in the family till that time. In this, the King of Dahomey boasted of his victory over the King of Ardrah and how he had ornamented the pavement and walls of his palace with the heads of the vanquished. These cruelties, Mr. Henniker said, were not imputable to the Slave Trade. They showed the Africans to be naturally a savage people, and that we did them a great kindness by taking them from their country. Alderman Sawbridge maintained that, if the abolition passed, the Africans who could not be sold as slaves would be butchered at home; while those who had been carried, to our islands would be no longer under control. Hence insurrections, and the manifold evils which belonged to them. Alderman Newnham was certain that the abolition would be the ruin of the trade of the country. It would affect even the landed interest and the funds. It would be impossible to collect money to diminish the national debt. Every man in the kingdom would feel the abolition come home to hit. Alderman Watson maintained the same argument, and pronounced the trade under discussion to be a merciful and humane trade.
During the discussion on this topic, every chance was taken to emphasize the terrible consequences of ending the Slave Trade! Mr. Henniker read a lengthy letter from the King of Dahomey to George the First, which had been discovered among the papers of James, the first Duke of Chandos, and had stayed in the family until then. In it, the King of Dahomey bragged about his victory over the King of Ardrah and how he decorated the floors and walls of his palace with the heads of the defeated. These brutalities, Mr. Henniker argued, were not the result of the Slave Trade. They demonstrated that Africans were inherently a savage people, and we were doing them a great favor by taking them away from their homeland. Alderman Sawbridge contended that if the abolition went through, the Africans who couldn’t be sold as slaves would be killed back home, while those who had been brought to our islands would no longer be controlled. This would lead to uprisings and the various problems that come with them. Alderman Newnham was sure that ending the trade would be disastrous for the country’s economy. It would even impact the landowners and investments. It would become impossible to raise funds to reduce the national debt. Every person in the kingdom would feel the effects of the abolition. Alderman Watson argued similarly and claimed that the trade being discussed was a compassionate and humane one.
Compensation was also insisted upon by Mr. Drake, Alderman Newnham, Mr. Senniker, Mr. Cruger, and others. This was resisted by Mr. Burke; who said, that compensation in such a case would be contrary to every principle of legislation. Government gave encouragement to any branch of commerce while it was regarded as conducive to the welfare of the community; or compatible with humanity and justice; but they were competent to withdraw their countenance from it, when it was found to be immoral, and injurious, and disgraceful to the state: They who engaged in it knew the terms under which they were placed, and adopted it with all the risks with which it was accompanied; and of consequence it was but just, that they should be prepared to abide by the loss which might accrue, when the public should think it right no longer to support it. But such a trade as this it was impossible any longer to support. Indeed it was not a trade. It was a system of robbery. It was a system, too, injurious to the welfare of other nations. How could Africa ever be civilized under it? While we continued to purchase the natives, they must remain in a state of barbarism. It was impossible to civilize slaves. It was contrary to the system of human nature. There was no country placed under such disadvantageous circumstances, into which the shadow of improvement had ever been introduced.
Compensation was also demanded by Mr. Drake, Alderman Newnham, Mr. Senniker, Mr. Cruger, and others. Mr. Burke opposed this, stating that compensation in this case would go against every principle of legislation. The government supported any sector of commerce that was seen as beneficial to the community and aligned with humanity and justice; however, they had the authority to withdraw their support when it was deemed immoral, harmful, and disgraceful to the state. Those who participated in it understood the conditions they were under and accepted it with all the risks involved; therefore, it was only fair that they should be ready to face any losses when the public decided that it was no longer right to support it. But such a trade could no longer be sustained. In fact, it wasn’t a trade at all. It was a system of theft. It was also harmful to the welfare of other nations. How could Africa ever be civilized under such conditions? As long as we continued to buy the natives, they would remain in a state of barbarism. It was impossible to civilize slaves. It went against the very nature of humanity. No country faced such unfavorable circumstances has ever seen even a glimpse of improvement.
Great pains were taken to impress the house with the propriety of regulation. Sir Grey Cooper; Aldermen Sawbridge, Watson, and Newnham; Mr. Marsham, and Mr. Cruger, contended strenuously for it instead of abolition. It was also stated, that the merchants would consent to any regulation of the trade which might be offered to them.
A lot of effort was made to ensure that the house followed the rules. Sir Grey Cooper, Aldermen Sawbridge, Watson, and Newnham, along with Mr. Marsham and Mr. Cruger, argued strongly for keeping it instead of getting rid of it. It was also mentioned that the merchants would agree to any trade regulations that were proposed to them.
In the course of the debate much warmth of temper was manifested on both sides. The expression of Mr. Fox in a former debate, "that the Slave Trade could not be regulated, because there could be no regulation of robbery and murder," was brought up, and construed by planters in the house as a charge of these crimes upon themselves. Mr. Fox, however, would not retract the expression. He repeated it. He had no notion, however, that any individual would have taken it to himself. If it contained any reflection at all, it was on the whole parliament, who had sanctioned such a trade. Mr. Molyneux rose up, and animadverted severely on the character of Mr. Ramsay, one of the evidences in the privy council report, during his residence in the West Indies. This called up Sir William Dolben and Sir Charles Middleton in his defence, the latter of whom bore honourable testimony to his virtues from an intimate acquaintance with him, and a residence in the same village with him, for twenty years. Mr. Molyneux spoke also in angry terms of the measure of abolition. To annihilate the trade, he said, and to make no compensation on account of it, was an act of swindling. Mr. Macnamara called the measure hypocritical, fanatic, and methodistical. Mr. Pitt was so irritated at the insidious attempt to set aside the privy council report, when no complaint had been alleged against it before, that he was quite off his guard, and he thought it right afterwards to apologize for the warmth into which he had been betrayed. The Speaker, too, was obliged frequently to interfere. On this occasion no less than thirty members spoke. And there had probably been few seasons, when so much disorder had been discoverable in that house.
During the debate, both sides showed a lot of heated emotions. Mr. Fox's earlier statement that "the Slave Trade cannot be regulated, because you can't regulate robbery and murder" was mentioned and interpreted by the planters in the house as accusing them of these crimes. However, Mr. Fox refused to take back his words and repeated them. He didn’t think anyone would take it personally. If his statement was a criticism at all, it was directed at the entire parliament, which had approved such a trade. Mr. Molyneux stood up and harshly criticized Mr. Ramsay, who was one of the witnesses in the privy council report during his time in the West Indies. This prompted Sir William Dolben and Sir Charles Middleton to defend Ramsay, with Middleton providing honorable praise for his character based on a close friendship over twenty years in the same village. Mr. Molyneux also spoke angrily about the abolition measure, stating that ending the trade without compensation was an act of swindling. Mr. Macnamara labeled the measure as hypocritical, fanatic, and overly methodical. Mr. Pitt became so frustrated by the sneaky attempt to dismiss the privy council report—especially since no complaints had been raised about it before—that he lost his composure and later felt the need to apologize for his outburst. The Speaker had to intervene frequently as well. On this occasion, thirty members spoke, and it was likely one of the most disorderly times for that house.
The result of the debate was, a permission to those interested in the continuance of the Slave Trade to bring counsel to the bar on the 26th of May, and then to introduce such witnesses, as might throw further light on the propositions in the shortest time: for Mr. Pitt only acquiesced in this new measure on a supposition, "that there would be no unnecessary delay, as he could by no means submit to the ultimate procrastination of so important a business." He even hoped (and in this hope he was joined by Mr. Fox) that those concerned would endeavour to bring the whole of the evidence they meant to offer at the first examination.
The outcome of the debate was that those who wanted to keep the Slave Trade could bring their arguments to the bar on May 26th and then introduce any witnesses who could clarify the proposals as quickly as possible. Mr. Pitt agreed to this new measure on the condition that there would be no unnecessary delays, as he couldn't accept the ultimate procrastination of such an important matter. He even hoped—joined in this hope by Mr. Fox—that those involved would try to present all the evidence they planned to offer in the first round of questioning.
On the day appointed, the house met for the purposes now specified; when Alderman Newnham, thinking that such an important question should not be decided but in a full assembly of the representatives of the nation, moved for a call of the House on that day fortnight. Mr. Wilberforce stated that he had no objection to such a measure; believing the greater the number present the more favourable it would be to his cause. This motion, however, produced a debate and a division, in which it appeared that there were one hundred and fifty-eight in favour of it, and twenty-eight against it. The business of the day now commenced. The house went into a committee, and Sir William Dolben was put into the chair. Mr. Serjeant Le Blanc was then called in. He made an able speech in behalf of his clients; and introduced John Barnes, Esquire, as his first witness, whose examination took up the remainder of the day. By this step they who were interested in the continuance of the trade, attained their wishes, for they had now got possession of the ground with their evidence; and they knew they could keep it, almost as long as they pleased, for the purposes of delay. Thus they, who boasted, when the privy council examinations began, that they would soon do away all the idle tales which had been invented against them, and who desired the public only to suspend their judgment till the report should come out, when they would see the folly and wickedness of all our allegations, dared not abide by the evidence which they themselves had taught others to look up to as the standard by which they were desirous of being judged: thus they, who had advantages beyond measure in forming a body of evidence in their own favour, abandoned that which they had collected. And here it is impossible for me not to make a short comparative statement on this subject, if it were only to show how little can be made out, with the very best opportunities, against the cause of humanity and religion. With respect to ourselves, we had almost all our witnesses to seek. We had to travel after them for weeks together. When we found them, we had scarcely the power of choice. We where obliged to take them as they came. When we found them, too, we had generally to implore them to come forward in our behalf. Of those so implored, three out of four refused, and the plea for this refusal was a fear lest they should injure their own interests. The merchants, on the other hand, had their witnesses ready on the spot. They had always ships in harbour, containing persons who had a knowledge of the subject, they had several also from whom to choose. If one man was favourable to their cause in three of the points belonging to it, but was unfavourable in the fourth, he could be put aside and replaced. When they had thus selected them, they had not to entreat, but to command their attendance. They had no fear, again, when they thus commanded, of a refusal on the ground of interest; because these were promoting their interest by obliging these who employed them. Viewing these and other circumstances, which might be thrown into this comparative statement, it was some consolation to us to know, amidst the disappointment which this new measure occasioned, and our apparent defeat in the eyes of the public, that we had really beaten our opponents at their own weapons, and that, as this was a victory in our own private feelings, so it was the presage to us of a future triumph.
On the appointed day, the house gathered for the specified purposes. Alderman Newnham, believing an important question like this should only be decided in a full assembly of the nation’s representatives, proposed a call of the House for two weeks later. Mr. Wilberforce stated he had no objection to this, assuming that the larger the crowd, the better it would be for his cause. However, this motion sparked a debate and a vote, revealing that one hundred fifty-eight were in favor and twenty-eight against it. The day’s business then commenced. The house formed a committee, and Sir William Dolben took the chair. Mr. Serjeant Le Blanc was then called in. He delivered a strong argument on behalf of his clients and introduced John Barnes, Esquire, as his first witness, whose examination lasted the rest of the day. With this step, those in favor of continuing the trade achieved their goals, as they secured their position with their evidence and knew they could prolong the process as long as they wanted. Thus, those who had boasted at the beginning of the council examinations that they would quickly dismiss all the falsehoods invented against them, and who only asked the public to hold judgment until the report was released to reveal our allegations' foolishness and wickedness, were now unwilling to stand by the evidence they encouraged others to regard as the standard by which they wanted to be judged. They, who had immense advantages in gathering evidence in their favor, abandoned their own collected proof. Here, I cannot help but make a short comparative statement on this matter, if only to show how little can be made against the cause of humanity and religion, even with the best opportunities. As for us, we had to seek almost all our witnesses. We spent weeks searching for them. When we found them, we had little choice, forced to take whoever came forward. Moreover, we generally had to plead with them to support us. Of those we implored, three out of four refused, fearing that speaking out would harm their own interests. In contrast, the merchants had witnesses readily available. They always had ships in the harbor with knowledgeable people, and they had several options to choose from. If one person was favorable to their cause on three points but not on the fourth, they could simply replace him. Once they selected their witnesses, they didn’t have to plead; they could command their attendance. They also faced no fear of refusal based on personal interest since those witnesses were advancing their interests by helping them. Given these and other factors in this comparative analysis, it was somewhat comforting for us to know, amid the disappointment this new measure caused and our apparent defeat in the public eye, that we had truly overcome our opponents with their own tactics, and that this victory not only resonated with our personal feelings but also predicted a future triumph.
On the 29th of May, Mr. Tierney made a motion to divide the consideration of the Slave Trade into two heads, by separating the African from the West Indian part of the question. This he did for the more clear discussion of the propositions, as well as to save time. This motion, however, was overruled by Mr. Pitt.
On May 29th, Mr. Tierney proposed to split the discussion of the Slave Trade into two parts, separating the African aspect from the West Indian one. He intended this for a clearer discussion of the proposals and to save time. However, this motion was rejected by Mr. Pitt.
At length, on the 9th of June, by which time it was supposed that new light, and this in sufficient quantity, would have been thrown upon the propositions, it appeared that only two witnesses had been fully heard. The examinations, therefore, were continued, and they went on till the 23rd. On this day, the order for the call of the house, which had been prolonged, standing unrepealed, there was a large attendance of members. A motion was then made, to get rid of the business altogether, but it failed. It was now seen, however, that it was impossible to bring the question to a final decision in this session; for they who were interested in it, affirmed that they had yet many important witnesses to introduce. Alderman Newnham, therefore, by the consent of Mr. Wilberforce, moved that "the further consideration of the subject be deferred to the next session." On this occasion, Mr. William Smith remarked, that though the decision on the great question was thus to be adjourned, he hoped the examinations at least would be permitted to go on. He had not heard any good reason why they might not be carried on for some weeks longer. It was known that the hearing of evidence was, at all times thinly attended. If, therefore, the few members who did attend, were willing to give up their time a little longer, why should other members complain of an inconvenience in the suffering of which they took no share? He thought that by this the examination of witnesses on the part of the merchants might be finished, and of consequence the business brought into a very desirable state of forwardness against the ensuing session. These observations had not the desired effect, and the motion of Mr. Alderman Newnham was carried without a division. Thus the great question, for the elucidation of which all the new evidences were to be heard at the very first examination, in order that it might be decided by the 9th of June, was, by the intrigue of our opponents, deferred to another year.
Finally, on June 9th, when it was expected that new insights would have been gathered on the proposals, it turned out that only two witnesses had been fully heard. The hearings continued until the 23rd. On that day, the order for the house to convene, which had been extended, remained in effect, resulting in a large turnout of members. A motion was proposed to dismiss the matter entirely, but it did not pass. It became clear, however, that it would be impossible to reach a final decision this session, as those involved insisted they had many important witnesses still to call. Alderman Newnham, with Mr. Wilberforce's consent, proposed that "the further consideration of the subject be postponed until the next session." On this occasion, Mr. William Smith pointed out that while the decision on the major issue would be delayed, he hoped the hearings could continue. He had not heard any good reason why they could not go on for a few more weeks. It was known that the evidence hearings were always sparsely attended. So, if the few members who did show up were willing to spend a bit more time, why should others complain about an inconvenience they weren't experiencing? He believed that by doing this, the examination of witnesses from the merchants could be completed, putting the matter in a much better position for the upcoming session. These comments did not have the intended effect, and Alderman Newnham's motion passed without a vote. Thus, the major question, for which all new evidence was supposed to be heard at the very first session in order to decide by June 9th, was postponed to the following year due to the strategies of our opponents.
The order of the day for going into the further consideration of the Slave Trade having been discharged, Sir William Dolben rose to state, that it was his intention to renew his bill of the former year, relative to the conveyance of the unhappy Africans from their own country to the West Indies, and to propose certain alterations in it. He made a motion accordingly, which was adopted; and he and Mr. Wilberforce were desired to prepare the same.
The agenda for further discussion on the Slave Trade was closed, and Sir William Dolben stood up to say that he planned to reintroduce his bill from last year concerning the transportation of the unfortunate Africans from their homeland to the West Indies, along with some proposed changes. He made a motion to this effect, which was approved; he and Mr. Wilberforce were asked to draft the revised bill.
This bill he introduced soon afterwards, and it passed; but not without opposition. It was a matter, however, of great pleasure to find that the worthy baronet was enabled by the assistance of Captain (afterwards Admiral) Macbride, and other naval officers in the house, to carry such clauses, as provided in some degree for the comfort of the poor seamen who were seduced into this wicked trade. They could not, indeed, provide against the barbarity of their captains; but they secured them a space under the half deck in which to sleep. They prescribed a form of muster-rolls, which they were to see and sign in the presence of the clearing officer. They regulated their food, both as to kind and quantity; and they preserved them from many of the impositions to which they had been before exposed.
This bill he introduced shortly after, and it passed; though not without some pushback. It was really gratifying to see that the honorable baronet, with the help of Captain (later Admiral) Macbride and other naval officers in the house, was able to include provisions that offered some comfort to the poor sailors who had been lured into this dreadful trade. They couldn’t fully protect them from the cruelty of their captains, but they did ensure they had a space under the half deck to sleep. They set up a standard for muster-rolls that they had to see and sign in front of the clearing officer. They regulated their food, both in type and amount; and they shielded them from many of the abuses they had faced before.
From the time when Mr. Wilberforce gave his first notice this session to the present, I had been variously employed, but more particularly in the composition of a new work. It was soon perceived to be the object of our opponents, to impress upon the public the preference, of regulation to abolition. I attempted, therefore, to show the fallacy and wickedness of this notion. I divided the evils belonging to the Slave Trade into two kinds. These I enumerated in their order. With respect to those of the first kind, I proved that they were never to be remedied by any acts of the British parliament. Thus, for instance, what bill could alter the nature of the human passions? What bill could prevent fraud and violence in Africa, while the Slave Trade existed there? What bill could prevent the miserable victims of the trade from rising, when on board the ships, if they saw an opportunity, and felt a keen sense of their oppression? Those of the second I stated to admit of a remedy, and after making accurate calculations on the subject of each, I showed that those merchants who were to do them away effectually, would be ruined by their voyages. The work was called An Essay on the Comparative Efficiency of Regulation or Abolition as applied to the Slave Trade.
From the moment Mr. Wilberforce made his first announcement this session to now, I had been busy with various tasks, especially working on a new project. It became clear that our opponents aimed to persuade the public that regulation was better than abolition. Therefore, I tried to expose the falsehood and immorality of this idea. I divided the harms caused by the Slave Trade into two categories. I listed them in order. For the first category, I demonstrated that they could never be solved by any acts of the British parliament. For example, what law could change human emotions? What law could stop fraud and violence in Africa while the Slave Trade continued there? What law could prevent the unfortunate victims on the ships from rebelling if they saw a chance and deeply felt their oppression? The second category, I argued, could be remedied, and after doing careful calculations on each issue, I showed that merchants attempting to eliminate these harms would ultimately fail because of their voyages. The work was titled An Essay on the Comparative Efficiency of Regulation or Abolition as applied to the Slave Trade.
The committee, also, in this interval, brought out their famous print of the plan and section of a slave-ship, which was designed to give the spectator an idea of the sufferings of the Africans in the Middle Passage, and this so familiarly, that he might instantly pronounce upon the miseries experienced there. The committee at Plymouth had been the first to suggest the idea; but that in London had now improved it. As this print seemed to make an instantaneous impression of horror upon all who saw it, and as it was therefore very instrumental, in consequence of the wide circulation given it, in serving the cause of the injured Africans, I have given the reader a copy of it in the annexed plate, and I will now state the ground or basis upon which it was formed.
The committee also released their well-known print depicting the plan and layout of a slave ship, meant to show viewers the suffering of Africans during the Middle Passage, in a way that made it easy for them to grasp the agonies endured there. The committee in Plymouth had originated the idea, but the one in London had since enhanced it. This print had an immediate impact of horror on everyone who saw it and became a key tool in raising awareness for the plight of the injured Africans due to its widespread distribution. I've included a copy of it in the attached plate, and now I will explain the foundation upon which it was created.
It must be obvious that it became the committee to select some one ship, which had been engaged in the Slave Trade, with her real dimensions, if they meant to make a fair representation of the manner of the transportation. When Captain Parrey, of the royal navy, returned from Liverpool, to which place Government had sent him, he brought with him the admeasurement of several vessels which had been so employed, and laid them on the table of the House of Commons. At the top of his list stood the ship Brookes. The committee, therefore, in choosing a vessel on this occasion, made use of the ship Brookes; and this they did, because they thought it less objectionable to take the first that came, than any other. The vessel, then, in the plate is the vessel now mentioned, and the following is her admeasurement as given in by Captain Parrey.
It should be clear that the committee needed to choose a specific ship that was involved in the Slave Trade, including its actual dimensions, if they wanted to accurately represent how transportation was carried out. When Captain Parrey from the royal navy returned from Liverpool, where the government had sent him, he brought with him the measurements of several ships that had been used for this purpose and presented them to the House of Commons. At the top of his list was the ship Brookes. Therefore, the committee, in this instance, chose the ship Brookes because they believed it was less controversial to select the first one available than to pick another. The vessel depicted in the illustration is indeed the Brookes, and here are her measurements as provided by Captain Parrey.
Ft. | In. | |
Length of the lower deck, gratings, and bulk heads included at A A | 100 | 0 |
Breadth of beam on the lower deck inside, B B | 25 | 4 |
Depth of hold ooo, from ceiling to ceiling | 10 | 0 |
Height between decks from deck to deck | 5 | 8 |
Length of the men's room, C C, on the lower deck | 46 | 0 |
Breadth of the men's room, C C, on the lower deck | 25 | 4 |
Length of the platform, D D, in the men's room | 46 | 0 |
Breadth of the platform in the men's room, on each side | 6 | 0 |
Length of the boys' room, E E | 13 | 9 |
Breadth of the boys' room | 25 | 0 |
Breadth of platform, F F, in boys' room | 6 | 0 |
Length of women's room, G G | 28 | 6 |
Breadth of women's room | 23 | 6 |
Length of platform, H H, in women's room | 28 | 6 |
Breadth of platform in women's room | 6 | 0 |
Length of the gun-room, I I, on the lower deck | 10 | 6 |
Breadth of the gun-room on the lower deck | 12 | 0 |
Length of the quarter-deck, K K | 33 | 6 |
Breadth of the quarter-deck | 19 | 6 |
Length of the cabin, L L | 14 | 0 |
Height of the cabin | 6 | 2 |
Length of the half-deck, M M | 16 | 6 |
Height of the half-deck | 6 | 2 |
Length of the platform, N N, on the half-deck | 16 | 6 |
Breadth of the platform on the half-deck | 6 | 0 |
Upper deck, P P |
The committee, having proceeded thus far, thought that they should now allow certain dimensions for every man, woman, and child; and then see how many persons, upon such dimensions and upon the admeasurements just given, could be stowed in this vessel. They allowed, accordingly, to every man slave 6 ft. by 1 ft. 4in. for room, to every woman 5 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in., to every boy 5 ft. by 1 ft. 2 in., and to every girl 4 ft. 6 in. by 1 ft. They then stowed them, and found them as in the annexed plate, that is, they found, (deducting the women stowed in z of figures 6 and 7, which spaces, being half of the half-deck, were allowed by Sir William Dolben's last bill to the seamen,) that only 450 could be stowed in her; and the reader will find, if he should think it worthwhile to count the figures in the plate, that, on making the deduction mentioned, they will amount to this number.
The committee, having progressed this far, decided that they should now allocate specific space for every man, woman, and child; then see how many people, based on these specifications and the measurements previously given, could fit into this vessel. They allowed each male slave 6 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in. for space, each female 5 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in., each boy 5 ft. by 1 ft. 2 in., and each girl 4 ft. 6 in. by 1 ft. They then packed them in and found, as shown in the attached plate, that (after deducting the women counted in figures 6 and 7, which areas, being half of the half-deck, were permitted by Sir William Dolben's last bill to the seamen) only 450 could be accommodated in her; and the reader will see, if they decide to count the figures in the plate, that, after making the mentioned deduction, they will total this number.
The committee then thought it right to inquire how many
slaves the act of Sir William Dolben allowed this vessel to carry,
and they found the number to be 454; that is, they found it
allowed her to carry four more than could be put in without
trespassing upon the room allotted to the rest; for we see that
the bodies of the slaves, except just at the head of the vessel,
already touch each other, and that no deduction has been made
for tubs or stanchions to support the platforms and decks.
The committee decided to check how many slaves the act of Sir William Dolben allowed this ship to carry, and they found the number to be 454. This means they discovered that the act allowed her to carry four more than what could fit without infringing on the space designated for others. The bodies of the slaves are already touching each other, except right at the front of the ship, and no adjustments have been made for tubs or supports for the platforms and decks.
Such was the picture which the committee were obliged to draw, if they regarded mathematical accuracy, of the room allotted to the slaves in this vessel. By this picture was exhibited the nature of the Elysium which Mr. Norris and others had invented for them during their transportation from their own country. By this picture were seen also the advantages of Sir William Dolben's bill; for many, on looking at the plate, considered the regulation itself as perfect barbarism. The advantages, however, obtained by it were considerable; for the Brookes was now restricted to 450 slaves, whereas it was proved that she carried 609 in a former voyage.
This was the image the committee had to present, if they wanted to be mathematically accurate, of the room assigned to the slaves on this ship. This image showed the kind of paradise that Mr. Norris and others had imagined for them during their transport from their homeland. It also highlighted the benefits of Sir William Dolben's bill; many people, upon seeing the illustration, viewed the regulation itself as outright barbaric. However, the benefits gained from it were significant; the Brookes was now limited to carrying 450 slaves, while it was proven that she had transported 609 on a previous voyage.
The committee, at the conclusion of the session of parliament, made a suitable report. It will be unnecessary to detail this, for obvious reasons. There was, however, one thing contained in it, which ought not to be omitted. It stated, with appropriate concern, the death of the first controversial writer, and of one of the most able and indefatigable labourers in their cause. Mr. Ramsay had been for some time indisposed. The climate of the West Indies, during a residence of twenty years, and the agitation in which his mind had been kept for the last four years of his life, in consequence of the virulent attacks on his word and character by those interested in the continuance of the trade, had contributed to undermine his constitution. During his whole illness he was cheerful and composed; nor did he allow it to hinder him, severe as it was, from taking any opportunity which offered, of serving those unhappy persons for whose injuries he had so deeply felt. A few days only before he died, I received from him probably the last letter he ever wrote, of which the following is an extract:
The committee, at the end of the parliamentary session, made a proper report. It’s not necessary to go into detail about it, for obvious reasons. However, there was one important thing mentioned that shouldn’t be left out. It expressed, with appropriate concern, the death of the first controversial writer and one of the most skilled and tireless advocates for their cause. Mr. Ramsay had been unwell for some time. The climate of the West Indies, after twenty years of living there, along with the stress his mind endured during the last four years of his life due to vicious attacks on his work and character from those benefiting from the trade, had weakened his health. Throughout his illness, he stayed cheerful and composed; he didn’t let it stop him, despite how serious it was, from seizing any chance to help those unfortunate individuals whose suffering he cared about so deeply. Just a few days before he passed away, I received from him what was probably the last letter he ever wrote, of which the following is an excerpt:
"My health has certainly taken a most alarming turn; and, if some considerable alteration does not take place for the better in a very little time, it will be all over with me: I mean as to the present life. I have lost all appetite, and suffer grievously from an almost continual pain in my stomach, which leaves me no enjoyment of myself, but such as I can collect from my own reflections, and the comforts of religion. I am glad the bill for the abolition is in such forwardness. Whether it goes through the house or not, the discussion attending it will have a most beneficial effect. The whole of this business I think now to be in such a train, as to enable me to bid farewell to the present scene with the satisfaction of not having lived in vain, and of having done something towards the improvement of our common nature; and this at no little expense of time and reputation. The little I have now written is my utmost effort; yet yesterday I thought it necessary to write an answer to a scurrilous libel in The Diary by one Scipio. On my own account he should have remained unnoticed; but our great cause must be kept unsullied."
"My health has definitely taken a serious turn for the worse; and if I don’t see a significant improvement soon, it’ll be the end for me in this life. I have lost all my appetite and am suffering from almost constant stomach pain, which makes it hard to enjoy life, except for the comfort I find in my own thoughts and my faith. I'm glad that the bill for abolition is making good progress. Whether it passes in the House or not, the discussions around it will have a very positive impact. I believe this whole issue is moving in such a way that I can say goodbye to this life knowing I haven’t lived in vain and have contributed to the betterment of humanity, even at a considerable cost to my time and reputation. The little I’ve written here is my best effort; yet just yesterday, I felt it was necessary to respond to a nasty piece in The Diary by someone named Scipio. I would have preferred to ignore him, but we must keep our noble cause untarnished."
Mr. Ramsay was a man of active habit, of diligence and perseverance in his undertakings, and of extraordinary application. He was of mild and humble manners. He possessed a strong understanding, with great coolness and courage. Patriotism and public spirit were striking traits in his character. In domestic life he was amiable: in the ministry, exemplary and useful; and he died to the great regret of his parishioners; but most of all to that of those who moved with him in his attempts to bring about the important event of the abolition of the Slave Trade.
Mr. Ramsay was a man of active habits, hard work, and determination in his efforts, and he was extraordinarily dedicated. He had a gentle and humble demeanor. He had a strong mind, along with great composure and bravery. Patriotism and a sense of community were prominent features of his character. In his personal life, he was kind; in his ministry, he was exemplary and helpful; and he died to the great sorrow of his parishioners, especially those who worked alongside him in the crucial fight to end the Slave Trade.
CHAPTER XXV.
Continuation from July 1789 to July 1790.—Author travels to Paris to promote the abolition in France; attends the committees of the Friends of the Negroes.—Counter-attempts of the committee of White Colonists.—An account of the deputies of Colour.—Meeting at the Duke de la Rochefoucauld's.—Mirabeau espouses the cause; canvasses the National Assembly.—Distribution of the section of the slave-ship there.—Character of Brissot.—Author leaves Paris and returns to England.—Examination of merchants' and planters' evidence resumed in the House of Commons.—Author travels in search of evidence in favour of the abolition; opposition to the hearing of it.—This evidence is at length introduced.—Renewal of Sir William Dolben's bill.—Distribution of the section of the slave-ship in England; and of Cowper's Negro's Complaint; and of Wedgewood's Cameos.
Continuation from July 1789 to July 1790.—The author travels to Paris to promote the abolition in France; attends the meetings of the Friends of the Negroes.—Counter-attacks from the committee of White Colonists.—A report on the deputies of Color.—Meeting at the Duke de la Rochefoucauld's.—Mirabeau supports the cause; lobbies the National Assembly.—Distribution of the section of the slave ship there.—Description of Brissot's character.—The author leaves Paris and goes back to England.—Examination of merchants' and planters' testimonies resumes in the House of Commons.—The author travels to find evidence in support of the abolition; faces opposition to its presentation.—This evidence is finally introduced.—Renewal of Sir William Dolben's bill.—Distribution of the section of the slave ship in England; and of Cowper's Negro's Complaint; and of Wedgewood's Cameos.
We usually find, as we give ourselves up to reflection, some little mitigation of the afflictions we experience; and yet of the evils which come upon us, some are often so heavy as to overpower the sources of consolation for a time, and to leave us wretched. This was nearly our situation at the close of the last session of parliament. It would be idle not to confess that circumstances had occurred which wounded us deeply. Though we had foiled our opponents at their own weapons, and had experienced the uninterrupted good wishes and support of the public, we had the great mortification to see the enthusiasm of members of parliament beginning to cool; to see a question of humanity and justice (for such it was when it was delivered into their hands) verging towards that of commercial calculation; and finally to see regulation, as it related to it, in the way of being substituted for abolition; but most of all were we affected, knowing as we did the nature and the extent of the sufferings belonging to the Slave Trade, that these should be continued to another year. This last consideration almost overpowered me. It had fallen to my lot, more than to that of any other person, to know these evils, and I seemed almost inconsolable at the postponement of the question. I wondered how members of parliament, and these Englishmen, could talk as they did on this subject; how they could bear for a moment to consider their fellow-man as an article of trade; and how they should not count even the delay of an hour, which occasioned so much misery to continue, as one of the most criminal actions of their lives.
We often find that when we reflect on things, it helps lighten the burdens we face. Yet, some problems can feel so overwhelming that they overshadow any comfort we might find, leaving us feeling miserable. This was almost our situation at the end of the last parliamentary session. It would be pointless to deny that events had deeply hurt us. Even though we had beaten our opponents at their own game and had the unwavering support of the public, it was incredibly disheartening to see the initial enthusiasm of the members of parliament starting to fade. What should have been a matter of humanity and justice (as it truly was when presented to them) was turning into a matter of financial interest. Worst of all, we were affected by the fact that the horrific sufferings caused by the Slave Trade would extend into another year. This last point nearly overwhelmed me. I had learned more about these horrors than anyone else, and the delay in addressing this issue left me feeling almost inconsolable. I couldn't understand how members of parliament, especially those from England, could speak about this topic the way they did; how they could treat fellow human beings as mere commodities; and how they could fail to see even a single hour's delay, which caused immense suffering, as one of the most disgraceful actions of their lives.
It was in vain, however, to sink under our burdens. Grief could do no good; and if our affairs had taken an unfavourable turn, the question was, how to restore them. It was sufficiently obvious that, if our opponents were left to themselves, or without any counteracting evidence, they would considerably soften down the propositions, if not invalidate them in the minds of many. They had such a power of selection of witnesses, that they could bring men forward who might say with truth that they had seen but very few of the evils complained of, and these in an inferior degree. We knew, also, from the example of the Liverpool delegates, how interest and prejudice could blind the eyes, and how others might be called upon to give their testimony, who would dwell upon the comforts of the Africans when they came into our power; on the sprinkling of their apartments with frankincense; on the promotion of music and the dance among them; and on the health and festivity of their voyages. It seemed, therefore, necessary that we should again be looking out for evidence on the part of the abolition. Nor did it seem to me to be unreasonable, if our opponents were allowed to come forward in a new way, because it was more constitutional, that we should be allowed the same privilege. By these means the evidence, of which we had now lost the use, might be restored; indifference might be fanned into warmth; commercial calculation might be overpowered by justice; and abolition, rising above the reach of the cry of regulation, might eventually triumph.
It was pointless to just give in to our burdens. Grieving wouldn't help, and if our situation had taken a turn for the worse, the real question was how to improve it. It was clear that if we let our opponents go unchecked, without any opposing evidence, they would significantly downplay their claims, if not completely convince many that they were wrong. They had such a knack for choosing witnesses that they could easily bring forward people who would honestly say they had seen very few of the issues being complained about, and those to a lesser extent. We were also aware, from the example of the Liverpool delegates, how self-interest and bias could cloud judgment, and that others might be called to testify about the advantages the Africans experienced once they came under our control; about how their living spaces were filled with frankincense; about the promotion of music and dance among them; and about the health and joy of their journeys. Therefore, it seemed necessary for us to start looking for evidence in support of abolition again. I didn't think it was unreasonable that if our opponents were given a chance to present their case in a new way, because it was more in line with the constitution, we should be granted the same opportunity. This way, the evidence we had lost could be reclaimed; indifference could be stirred into action; financial interests could be outweighed by principles of justice; and abolition, rising above the constraints of regulation, could ultimately succeed.
I communicated my ideas to the committee, and offered to go round the kingdom to accomplish this object. The committee had themselves been considering what measures to take, and as each in his own mind had come to conclusions similar with my own, my proposal was no sooner made than adopted.
I shared my ideas with the committee and offered to travel around the kingdom to achieve this goal. The committee had also been thinking about what actions to take, and since each of them had reached similar conclusions, my proposal was quickly accepted.
I had not been long upon this journey when I was called back. Mr. Wilberforce, always solicitous for the good of this great cause, was of opinion that, as commotions had taken place in France, which then aimed at political reforms, it was possible that the leading persons concerned in them might, if an application were made to them judiciously, be induced to take the Slave Trade into their consideration, and incorporate it among the abuses to be done away. Such a measure, if realized, would not only lessen the quantity of human suffering, but annihilate a powerful political argument against us. He had a conference, therefore, with the committee on this subject; and, as they accorded with his opinion, they united with him in writing a letter to me, to know if I would change my journey, and proceed to France.
I hadn’t been on this journey for long when I was called back. Mr. Wilberforce, always concerned about the welfare of this important cause, believed that since there were political reforms happening in France, it was possible that the key players involved might, if approached thoughtfully, be persuaded to consider the Slave Trade as one of the issues to address. If this were to happen, it would not only reduce human suffering but also eliminate a strong political argument against us. He held a meeting with the committee about this, and since they agreed with him, they joined him in writing a letter to me, asking if I would change my plans and head to France instead.
As I had no object in view but the good of the cause, it was immaterial to me where I went, if I could but serve it; and therefore, without any further delay, I returned to London.
As I had no intention other than to support the cause, it didn't matter to me where I went as long as I could help; so, without wasting any more time, I went back to London.
As accounts had arrived in England of the excesses which had taken place in the city of Paris, and of the agitated state of the provinces through which I was to pass, I was desired by several of my friends to change my name. To this I could not consent; and, on consulting the committee, they were decidedly against it.
As reports came into England about the excesses happening in Paris and the unrest in the provinces I was meant to travel through, several of my friends urged me to change my name. I couldn't agree to that, and when I talked it over with the committee, they were strongly opposed to it.
I was introduced as quickly as possible, on my arrival at Paris, to the friends of the cause there, to the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, the Marquis de Condorcet, Messieurs Pétion de Villeneuve, Clavière, and Brissot, and to the Marquis de la Fayette. The latter received me with peculiar marks of attention. He had long felt for the wrongs of Africa, and had done much to prevent them. He had a plantation in Cayenne, and had devised a plan, by which the labourers upon it should pass by degrees from slavery to freedom! With this view he had there laid it down as a principle, that all crimes were equal, whether they were committed by Blacks or Whites, and ought equally to be punished. As the human mind is of such a nature, as to be acted upon by rewards as well as punishments, he thought it unreasonable, that the slaves should have no advantage from a stimulus from the former. He laid it down therefore as another principle, that temporal profits should follow virtuous action. To this he subjoined a reasonable education to be gradually given. By introducing such principles, and by making various regulations for the protection and comforts of the slaves, he thought he could prove to the planters, that there was no necessity for the Slave Trade; that the slaves upon all their estates would increase sufficiently by population; that they might be introduced gradually, and without detriment, to a state of freedom; and that then the real interests of all would be most promoted. This system he had began to act upon two years before I saw him. He had also, when the society was established in Paris, which took the name of "The Friends of the Negroes," enrolled himself a member of it.
I was introduced as quickly as possible when I arrived in Paris to the supporters of the cause there, including the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, the Marquis de Condorcet, Messieurs Pétion de Villeneuve, Clavière, and Brissot, as well as the Marquis de la Fayette. He welcomed me with special attention. He had long been aware of the injustices faced by Africa and had worked hard to address them. He owned a plantation in Cayenne and had come up with a plan to allow the laborers there to gradually transition from slavery to freedom! To support this, he established a principle that all crimes should be treated equally, regardless of whether they were committed by Blacks or Whites, and should be punished the same. Acknowledging that people's minds can be influenced by both rewards and punishments, he believed it was unreasonable for the slaves not to benefit from incentives. He proposed another principle: that people should receive tangible rewards for virtuous actions. He also suggested providing a proper education gradually. By implementing such principles and creating various rules for the protection and well-being of the slaves, he believed he could show the planters that there was no need for the Slave Trade; that the slave population on their estates would grow naturally; that they could be gradually and safely transitioned to freedom; and that this would be in the best interest of everyone involved. He had started acting on this system two years before I met him. Additionally, when the society known as "The Friends of the Negroes" was established in Paris, he became a member.
The first public steps taken after my arrival in Paris were at a committee of the Friends of the Negroes, which was but thinly attended. None of those mentioned, except Brissot, were present. It was resolved there, that the committee should solicit an audience of Mr. Necker; and that I should wait upon him, accompanied by a deputation consisting of the Marquis de Condorcet, Monsieur de Bourge, and Brissot de Warville: secondly, that the committee should write to the president of the National Assembly, and request the favour of him to appoint a day for hearing the cause of the Negroes; and thirdly, that it should be recommended to the committee in London to draw up a petition to the National Assembly of France, praying for the abolition of the Slave Trade by that country. This petition, it was observed, was to be signed by as great a number of the friends to the cause in England, as could be procured. It was then to be sent to the committee at Paris, who would take it in a body to the place of its destination.
The first public actions I took after arriving in Paris were at a meeting of the Friends of the Negroes, which had a low turnout. None of the people mentioned, except for Brissot, were there. It was decided that the committee would seek a meeting with Mr. Necker, and I would go see him with a delegation made up of the Marquis de Condorcet, Monsieur de Bourge, and Brissot de Warville. Secondly, the committee would write to the president of the National Assembly to request that he schedule a day to hear the case of the Negroes. Thirdly, it was suggested that the committee in London prepare a petition to the National Assembly of France, asking for the abolition of the Slave Trade in that country. It was noted that this petition should be signed by as many supporters of the cause in England as possible. It would then be sent to the committee in Paris, who would deliver it collectively to its intended destination.
I found great delicacy as a stranger in making my observations upon these resolutions, and yet I thought I ought not to pass them over wholly in silence, but particularly the last. I therefore rose up, and stated that there was one resolution, of which I did not quite see the propriety; but this might arise from my ignorance of the customs, as well as of the genius and spirit of the French people. It struck me that an application from a little committee in England to the National Assembly of France was not a dignified measure, nor was it likely to have weight with such a body. It was, besides, contrary to all the habits of propriety in which I had been educated. The British Parliament did not usually receive petitions from the subjects of other nations. It was this feeling which had induced me thus to speak.
I felt it was important to approach my observations on these resolutions with caution, considering I was a stranger. However, I believed I couldn’t ignore them entirely, especially the last one. So, I stood up and pointed out that there was one resolution that I didn’t quite understand the reasoning behind. This might just be due to my lack of knowledge about the customs and the character of the French people. It seemed to me that a request from a small committee in England to the National Assembly of France wasn’t a respectful approach, and it probably wouldn’t carry much weight with such an esteemed body. Additionally, this went against all the norms I was raised with. The British Parliament typically didn’t accept petitions from people of other nations. This was the sentiment that led me to speak up.
To these observations it was replied, that the National Assembly of France would glory in going contrary to the example of other nations in a case of generosity and justice, and that the petition in question, if it could be obtained, would have an influence there, which the people of England, unacquainted with the sentiments of the French nation, would hardly credit.
To these comments, it was answered that the National Assembly of France would take pride in acting differently from other countries in matters of generosity and justice. It was also stated that if the petition in question could be obtained, it would have an influence there that the people of England, who were unaware of the feelings of the French nation, would find hard to believe.
To this I had only to reply, that I would communicate the measure to the committee in London, but that I could not be answerable for the part they would take in it.
To this, I just had to say that I would let the committee in London know about the decision, but I couldn’t be responsible for how they would respond to it.
By an answer received from Mr. Necker, relative to the first of these resolutions, it appeared that the desired interview had been obtained; but he granted it only for a few minutes, and this principally to show his good-will to the cause: for he was then so oppressed with business in his own department, that he had but little time for any other. He wrote to me, however, the next day, and desired my company to dinner. He then expressed a wish to me, that any business relative to the Slave Trade might be managed by ourselves as individuals, and that I would take the opportunity of dining with him occasionally for this purpose. By this plan, he said, both of us would save time. Madame Necker, also, promised to represent her husband, if I should call in his absence, and to receive me, and converse with me on all occasions in which this great cause of humanity and religion might be concerned.
By a response I got from Mr. Necker about the first of these resolutions, it seemed that the meeting I wanted had been arranged; however, he only granted it for a few minutes, mainly to show his support for the cause. He was so overwhelmed with work in his own department that he hardly had time for anything else. The following day, he wrote to me and invited me to dinner. He mentioned that he preferred that any matters regarding the Slave Trade be handled by us individually, and asked if I could take the opportunity to dine with him periodically for this purpose. He said this approach would save us both time. Madame Necker also promised to represent her husband if I dropped by when he wasn't there, and to welcome me and discuss any matters related to this important cause of humanity and religion whenever necessary.
With respect to the other resolutions, nothing ever came of them; for we waited daily for an answer from the president during the whole of his presidency, but we never received any; and the committee in London, when they had read my letter, desired me unequivocally to say, that they did not see the propriety of the petition which it had been recommended to them to obtain.
With regard to the other resolutions, nothing ever happened with them; we waited every day for a response from the president throughout his entire term, but we never got one; and the committee in London, after reading my letter, clearly asked me to say that they didn't see the point of the petition that they had been advised to obtain.
At the next meeting it was resolved, that a letter should be written to the new president for the same purpose as the former. This, it was said, was now rendered essentially necessary; for the merchants, planters, and others interested in the continuance of the Slave Trade, were so alarmed at the enthusiasm of the French people in favour of the new order of things, and of any change recommended to them, which had the appearance of prompting the cause of liberty, that they held daily committees to watch and to thwart the motions of the friends of the Negroes. It was therefore thought proper, that the appeal to the Assembly should be immediate on this subject, before the feelings of the people should cool, or before they, who were thus interested, should poison the minds by calculations of loss and gain. The silence of the former president was already attributed to the intrigues of the planters' committee. No time therefore was to be lost. The letter was accordingly written, but as no answer was ever returned to it, they attributed this second omission to the same cause.
At the next meeting, it was decided that a letter should be sent to the new president for the same reason as the previous one. It was said that this had become essential; the merchants, planters, and others invested in the continuation of the Slave Trade were alarmed by the enthusiasm of the French people for the new political order and any suggested changes that seemed to promote the cause of liberty. They were holding daily meetings to monitor and undermine the efforts of those advocating for the rights of Black people. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to address the Assembly about this issue right away, before public sentiment cooled or those with a vested interest could sway opinions with arguments about profit and loss. The inaction of the former president was already blamed on the intrigues of the planters' committee. Time was of the essence. The letter was written, but since no response ever came, they attributed this lack of reply to the same reasons.
I do not really know whether interested persons ever did, as was suspected, intercept the letters of the committee to the two presidents as now surmised; or whether they ever dissuaded them from introducing so important a question for discussion, when the nation was in such a heated state; but certain it is, that we had many, and I believe barbarous, enemies to encounter. At the very next meeting of the committee, Clavière produced anonymous letters which he had received, and in which it was stated that, if the society of the Friends of the Negroes did not dissolve itself, he and the rest of them would be stabbed. It was said that no less than three hundred persons had associated themselves for this purpose. I had received similar letters myself; and on producing mine, and comparing the handwriting in both it appeared that the same persons had written.
I honestly don’t know if the interested parties actually intercepted the committee's letters to the two presidents, as was suspected, or if they ever convinced them not to bring up such an important issue for discussion when the country was so tense. But what’s clear is that we faced many, and I believe brutal, enemies. At the very next committee meeting, Clavière brought forward anonymous letters he received threatening that if the Friends of the Negroes society didn’t disband, he and the others would be stabbed. It was claimed that around three hundred people had banded together for this purpose. I had received similar letters myself, and when I showed mine and compared the handwriting, it turned out that both sets were written by the same individuals.
In a few days after this, the public prints were filled with the most malicious representations of the views of the committee. One of them was, that they were going to send twelve thousand muskets to the Negroes in St. Domingo, in order to promote an insurrection there. This declaration was so industriously circulated, that a guard of soldiers was sent to search the committee-room; but these were soon satisfied when they found only two or three books and some waste paper. Reports equally unfounded and wicked were spread also in the same papers relative to myself. My name was mentioned at full length, and the place of my abode hinted at. It was stated at one time, that I had proposed such wild and mischievous plans to the committee in London relative to the abolition of the Slave Trade, that they had cast me out of their own body, and that I had taken refuge in Paris, where I now tried to impose equally on the French nation. It was stated at another, that I was employed by the British government as a spy, and that it was my object to try to undermine the noble constitution which was then forming for France. This latter report, at this particular time, when the passions of men were so inflamed, and when the stones of Paris had not been long purified from the blood of Foulon and Berthier, might have cost me my life; and I mentioned it to General la Fayette, and solicited his advice. He desired me to make a public reply to it: which I did. He desired me also to change my lodging to the Hotel de Yorck, that I might be nearer to him; and to send to him if there should be any appearance of a collection of people about the hotel, and I should have aid from the military in his quarter. He said, also, that he would immediately give in my name to the Municipality; and that he would pledge himself to them, that my views were strictly honourable.
In a few days after this, the newspapers were filled with the most malicious portrayals of the committee's intentions. One claim was that they were going to send twelve thousand muskets to the Black people in St. Domingo to incite an uprising there. This rumor was so widely circulated that a squad of soldiers was sent to search the committee room; however, they quickly became satisfied when they found only two or three books and some scrap paper. Equally baseless and malicious rumors about me were also spread in the same publications. My name was mentioned in full, and my location was ominously hinted at. At one point, it was said that I proposed such outlandish and harmful plans to the committee in London regarding the abolition of the Slave Trade that they expelled me from their ranks, and that I had taken refuge in Paris, where I was now trying to deceive the French people as well. At another point, it was claimed that I was employed by the British government as a spy, aiming to undermine the noble constitution being formed for France. This latter rumor, particularly at a time when people's emotions were running high and when the streets of Paris had barely been cleansed of the blood of Foulon and Berthier, could have cost me my life; I mentioned it to General la Fayette and sought his advice. He advised me to publicly address the claims, which I did. He also suggested that I change my accommodations to the Hotel de Yorck so I could be closer to him and to inform him if a crowd gathered near the hotel, as he could arrange military support in his area. He said he would immediately submit my name to the Municipality and that he would vouch for the fact that my intentions were entirely honorable.
On dining one day at the house of the Marquis de la Fayette, I met the deputies of colour. They had arrived only the preceding day from St. Domingo, I was desired to take my seat at dinner in the midst of them. They were six in number; of a sallow or swarthy complexion, but yet it was not darker than that of some of the natives of the south of France. They were already in the uniform of the Parisian National Guards; and one of them wore the cross of St. Louis. They were men of genteel appearance and modest behaviour. They seemed to be well informed, and of a more solid cast than those whom I was in the habit of seeing daily in this city. The account which they gave of themselves was this. The white people of St. Domingo consisting of less than ten thousand persons, had deputies then sitting in the National Assembly. The people of colour in the same island greatly exceeded the whites in number. They amounted to thirty thousand, and were generally proprietors of lands. They were equally free by law with the former, and paid their taxes to the mother-country in an equal proportion. But in consequence of having sprung from slaves they had no legislative power, and moreover were treated with great contempt. Believing that the mother-country was going to make a change in its political constitution, they had called a meeting on the island, and this meeting had deputed them to repair to France, and to desire the full rights of citizens, or that the free people of colour might be put upon an equality with the whites. They (the deputies) had come in consequence. They had brought with them a present of six millions of livres to the National Assembly, and an appointment to General la Fayette to be commander-in-chief over their constituents, as a distinct body. This command, they said, the general had accepted, though he had declined similar honours from every town in France, except Paris, in order to show that he patronized their cause.
On one occasion while dining at the Marquis de la Fayette's house, I met the representatives of people of color. They had arrived just the day before from St. Domingo, and I was asked to sit down for dinner with them. There were six of them; they had a sallow or dark complexion, but it wasn't darker than that of some of the inhabitants of southern France. They were already dressed in the uniform of the Parisian National Guards, and one of them wore the cross of St. Louis. They presented themselves as well-mannered and humble men. They seemed knowledgeable and more substantial than the people I usually encountered in the city. They shared their story: the white population of St. Domingo, which numbered less than ten thousand, currently had representatives in the National Assembly. In contrast, the people of color on the island outnumbered the whites significantly, totaling thirty thousand, and were generally landowners. They were legally free like the whites and paid taxes to the mother country in equal amounts. However, due to their descent from enslaved individuals, they had no legislative power and were treated with considerable disrespect. Believing that the mother country was about to change its political structure, they organized a meeting on the island, which sent them to France to request full citizenship rights or to have free people of color placed on equal footing with whites. They had come for this reason. They brought with them a gift of six million livres for the National Assembly, along with an appointment for General la Fayette to be the commander-in-chief of their group as a distinct entity. They mentioned that the general had accepted this command, although he had turned down similar distinctions from towns across France, except for Paris, to demonstrate his support for their cause.
I was now very anxious to know the sentiments which these gentlemen entertained on the subject of the Slave Trade. If they were with us, they might be very useful to us; not only by their votes in the Assembly, but by the knowledge of facts which they would be able to adduce there in our favour. If they were against us, it became me to be upon my guard against them, and to take measures accordingly. I therefore stated to them at once the nature of my errand to France, and desired their opinion upon it. This they gave me without reserve. They broke out into lavish commendations of my conduct, and called me their friend. The Slave Trade, they said, was the parent of all the miseries in St. Domingo, not only on account of the cruel treatment it occasioned to the slaves, but on account of the discord which it constantly kept up between the whites and people of colour, in consequence of the hateful distinctions it introduced. These distinctions could never be obliterated while it lasted. Indeed both the trade and the slavery must fall, before the infamy, now fixed upon a skin of colour, could be so done away, that whites and blacks could meet cordially, and look with respect upon one another. They had it in their instructions, in case they should obtain a seat in the Assembly, to propose, an immediate abolition of the Slave Trade, and an immediate amelioration of the state of slavery also, with a view to its final abolition in fifteen years.
I was really eager to find out what these gentlemen thought about the Slave Trade. If they were on our side, they could be very helpful, not just with their votes in the Assembly but also with the information they could present in our support. If they were against us, I needed to be cautious and prepare myself. So, I immediately shared my purpose for going to France and asked for their opinions on it. They responded openly and enthusiastically, praising my actions and calling me their friend. They explained that the Slave Trade was the root of all the suffering in St. Domingo, not only because of the brutal treatment of the enslaved people but also due to the ongoing conflict it caused between whites and people of color because of the hateful divisions it created. These divisions would never disappear as long as the trade continued. In fact, both the trade and slavery had to end before the disgrace associated with skin color could be erased, allowing whites and blacks to meet respectfully and cordially. They indicated in their instructions that if they secured a seat in the Assembly, they would propose an immediate end to the Slave Trade and seek to improve the conditions of slavery with the goal of completely abolishing it in fifteen years.
But time was flying apace; I had now been nearly seven weeks in Paris, and had done nothing. The thought of this made me uneasy, and I saw no consoling prospect before me. I found it even difficult to obtain a meeting of the Friends of the Negroes. The Marquis de la Fayette had no time to attend. Those of the committee, who were members of the National Assembly, were almost constantly engaged at Versailles. Such of them as belonged to the Municipality, had enough to do at the Hotel deVille. Others were employed either in learning the use of arms, or in keeping their daily and nightly guards. These circumstances made me almost despair of doing anything for the cause at Paris, at least in any reasonable time. But a new circumstance occurred, which distressed me greatly; for I discovered, in the most satisfactory manner, that two out of the six at the last committee were spies. They had come into the society for no other reason than to watch and report its motions; and they were in direct correspondence with the slave-merchants at Havre de Grace. This matter I brought home to them afterwards, and I had the pleasure of seeing them excluded from all our future meetings.
But time was flying by; I had now been in Paris for nearly seven weeks and hadn’t accomplished anything. The thought of this made me anxious, and I saw no uplifting prospects ahead. I even found it hard to arrange a meeting with the Friends of the Negroes. The Marquis de la Fayette was too busy to attend. Those on the committee who were members of the National Assembly were almost always tied up at Versailles. Those who were part of the Municipality had plenty to keep them busy at the Hotel de Ville. Others were either learning to use weapons or were on guard duty day and night. These circumstances made me nearly lose hope of doing anything for the cause in Paris within a reasonable timeframe. But then a new situation arose that greatly upset me; I discovered, in a very convincing way, that two out of the six in the last committee were spies. They had joined the group solely to observe and report on its activities, and they were in direct contact with the slave traders in Havre de Grace. I later confronted them about this, and I was pleased to see them excluded from all our future meetings.
From this time I thought it expedient to depend less upon the committee, and more upon my own exertions; and I formed the resolution of going among the members of the National Assembly myself, and of learning from their own mouths the hope I ought to entertain relative to the decision of our question. In the course of my endeavours I obtained a promise from the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, the Comte de Mirabeau the Abbé Siéyes, Monsieur Bergasse, and Monsieur Pétion de Villeneuvé, five of the most approved members of the National Assembly, that they would meet me if I would fix a day. I obtained a similar promise from the Marquis de Condorcet, and Clavière and Brissot, as members selected from the committee of the Friends of the Negroes. And Messieurs de Roveray and Du Monde, two Genevese gentlemen at Versailles, men of considerable knowledge and interest, and who had heard of our intended meeting, were to join us at their own request. The place chosen was the house of the Bishop of Chartres at Versailles.
From that point on, I decided it was best to rely less on the committee and more on my own efforts. I made up my mind to personally connect with the members of the National Assembly and to hear directly from them what hope I should have regarding the outcome of our issue. During my efforts, I secured promises from the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, Comte de Mirabeau, Abbé Siéyes, Monsieur Bergasse, and Monsieur Pétion de Villeneuvé—five respected members of the National Assembly—that they would meet with me if I arranged a date. I also received a similar promise from Marquis de Condorcet, Clavière, and Brissot, who were members of the committee of the Friends of the Negroes. Additionally, Messieurs de Roveray and Du Monde, two well-informed Genevese gentlemen in Versailles who had heard about our planned meeting, requested to join us. The chosen location was the Bishop of Chartres' house in Versailles.
I was now in hope that I should soon bring the question to some issue; and on the 4th of October I went to dine with the Bishop of Chartres to fix the day. We appointed the 7th. But how soon, frequently, do our prospects fade! From the conversation which took place at dinner, I began to fear that our meeting would not be realised. About three days before, the officers of the Garde du Corps had given the memorable banquet, recorded in the annals of the revolution, to the officers of the regiment of Flanders, which then lay at Versailles. This was a topic on which the company present dwelt. They condemned it as a most fatal measure in these heated times; and were apprehensive that something would grow immediately out of it, which might endanger the king's safety. In passing afterwards through the streets of Versailles my fears increased. I met several of that regiment in groups. Some were brandishing their swords. Others were walking arm in arm, and singing tumultuously. Others were standing and conversing earnestly together. Among the latter I heard one declare with great vehemence, "that it should not be; that the revolution must go on." On my arrival at Paris in the evening, the Palais Royal was full of people; and there were movements and buzzings among them, as if something was expected to happen. The next day, when I went into the streets, it was obvious what was going to take place. Suffice it to say, that the next evening the king and queen were brought prisoners into Paris. After this, things were in such an unsettled state for a few days, and the members of the National Assembly were so occupied in the consideration of the event itself, and of the consequences which might attend it, that my little meeting, of which it had cost me so much time and trouble to procure the appointment, was entirely prevented.
I was hopeful that I would soon resolve the issue, and on October 4th, I went to dinner with the Bishop of Chartres to set a date. We chose the 7th. But how quickly our hopes can fade! During dinner, I started to worry that our meeting might not happen. Just three days earlier, the officers of the Garde du Corps had hosted a memorable banquet, which is noted in the revolution's history, for the officers of the Flanders regiment, who were stationed in Versailles. This became a topic the guests discussed, condemning it as a disastrous move during these heated times, fearing it would lead to something that could threaten the king’s safety. As I walked through the streets of Versailles afterward, my worries grew. I saw several members of that regiment in groups; some were waving their swords, others were walking arm in arm and singing loudly, while some were standing by, having serious conversations. Among them, I heard one passionately declare, “It can’t happen; the revolution must continue.” When I got to Paris that evening, the Palais Royal was crowded and buzzing, as if something big was about to happen. The next day, it became clear what was going to unfold. To put it simply, by the following evening, the king and queen were taken prisoner in Paris. After that, things were so unstable for a few days, and the members of the National Assembly were so focused on the event and its potential consequences, that my small meeting, which had taken so much time and effort to arrange, was completely cancelled.
I had now to wait patiently till a new opportunity should occur. The Comte de Mirabeau, before the departure of the king, had moved, and carried the resolution, that "the Assembly was inseparable from his majesty's person." It was expected, therefore, that the National Assembly would immediately transfer its sittings to Paris. This took place on the 19th. It was now more easy for me to bring persons together, than when I had to travel backward and forward to Versailles. Accordingly, by watching my opportunities, I obtained the promise of another meeting. This was held afterwards at the Duke de la Rochefoucauld's. The persons before mentioned were present; except the Comte de Mirabeau, whose occupations at that moment made it utterly impossible for him to attend.
I now had to wait patiently for a new opportunity to come up. The Comte de Mirabeau, before the king left, had proposed and won the resolution that "the Assembly was inseparable from his majesty's person." It was expected, therefore, that the National Assembly would quickly move its meetings to Paris. This happened on the 19th. It was now easier for me to gather people together than when I had to travel back and forth to Versailles. By keeping an eye out for my chances, I secured the promise of another meeting. This was later held at the Duke de la Rochefoucauld's place. The previously mentioned individuals were there, except for the Comte de Mirabeau, whose commitments at that moment made it impossible for him to attend.
The duke opened the business in an appropriate manner; and concluded, by desiring each person to give his opinion frankly and unequivocally as to what might be expected of the National Assembly relative to the great measure of the abolition of the Slave Trade.
The duke started the meeting in a proper way and finished by asking everyone to share their thoughts honestly and clearly about what the National Assembly might do regarding the significant issue of ending the Slave Trade.
The Abbé Siéyes rose up, and said it would probably bring the business within a shorter compass if, instead of discussing this proposition at large, I were to put to the meeting my own questions. I accordingly accepted this offer, and began by asking those present "how long it was likely that the present National Assembly would sit?" After some conversation, it was replied that "it would sit till it had completed the constitution, and interwoven such fixed principles into it, that the legislature which should succeed it might have nothing more to do than to proceed on the ordinary business of the state. Its dissolution would probably not take place till the month of March."
The Abbé Siéyes stood up and suggested that it might be more efficient if, instead of discussing this proposal in detail, I posed my own questions to the meeting. I agreed to this suggestion and started by asking those present, "How long do you think the current National Assembly will continue its session?" After some discussion, they responded that "it will remain in session until it has completed the constitution and incorporated such fundamental principles into it that the next legislature will only need to handle the regular affairs of the state. Its dissolution is likely to happen around March."
I then asked them, "whether it was their opinion that the National Assembly would feel itself authorized to take up such a foreign question (if I might be allowed the expression) as that of the abolition of the Slave Trade." The answer to this was, "that the object of the National Assembly was undoubtedly the formation of a constitution for the French people. With respect to foreign possessions, it was very doubtful whether it were the real interest of France to have any colonies at all; but while it kept such colonies under its dominion, the assembly would feel that it had the right to take up this question; and that the question itself would naturally spring out of the bill of rights, which had already been adopted as the basis of the constitution."
I then asked them, "do you think the National Assembly would consider addressing a foreign issue like the abolition of the Slave Trade?" They replied, "the main goal of the National Assembly is clearly to create a constitution for the French people. Regarding foreign territories, it's quite uncertain if having colonies is actually in France's best interest; but as long as it controls those colonies, the assembly believes it has the right to tackle this issue, and the topic will likely arise from the declaration of rights that has already been established as the foundation of the constitution."
The next question I proposed was, "whether they were of opinion that the National Assembly would do more wisely, in the present situation of things, to determine upon the abolition of the Slave Trade now, or to transfer it to the legislature, which was to succeed it in the month of March."
The next question I asked was, "whether they thought the National Assembly would be wiser, given the current circumstances, to decide on abolishing the Slave Trade now, or to pass it on to the legislature that would take over in March."
This question gave birth to a long discussion, during which much eloquence was displayed; but the unanimous answer, with the reasons for it, may be conveyed in substance as follows:—"It would be most wise," it was said, "in the present Assembly, to introduce the question to the notice of the nation, and this as essentially connected with the bill of rights, but to transfer the determination of it, in a way the best calculated to ensure success, to the succeeding legislature. The revolution was of more importance to Frenchmen than the abolition of the Slave Trade. To secure this was their first object, and more particularly because the other would naturally flow from it; but the revolution might be injured by the immediate determination of the question. Many persons in the large towns of Bourdeaux, Marseilles, Rouen, Nantes, and Havre, who were now friends to it, might be converted into enemies. It would also be held up by those who wished to produce a counter-revolution, (and the ignorant and prejudiced might believe it,) that the Assembly had made a great sacrifice to England by thus giving her an opportunity of enlarging her trade. The English House of Commons had taken up the subject, but had done nothing; and though they, who were then present, were convinced of the sincerity of the English minister who had introduced it, and that the trade must ultimately fall in England, yet it would not be easy to persuade many bigoted persons in France of these truths. It would, therefore, be most wise in the Assembly only to introduce the subject as mentioned; but if extraordinary circumstances should arise, such as a decree that the deputies of Colour should take their seats in the Assembly, or that England should have begun this great work, advantage might be taken of them, and the abolition of the Slave Trade might be resolved upon in the present session."
This question sparked a lengthy discussion, where many spoke passionately; however, the overall consensus, along with the reasons behind it, can be summed up as follows: “It would be wise,” they said, “for the current Assembly to bring this issue to the nation’s attention, as it is closely linked to the bill of rights, but to defer the decision, in a way that maximizes success, to the next legislature. The revolution was of greater significance to the French people than ending the Slave Trade. Achieving this was their top priority, particularly since the latter would naturally follow from it; however, deciding the issue right away could harm the revolution. Many people in major cities like Bordeaux, Marseilles, Rouen, Nantes, and Havre, who currently supported it, could turn against it. Those who wanted to instigate a counter-revolution could use this to claim, wrongly, that the Assembly had made a significant concession to England by giving them a chance to expand their trade. The English House of Commons had taken up the matter but hadn’t acted; and although those present believed in the sincerity of the English minister who raised it, and knew that the trade would eventually decline in England, it wouldn’t be easy to convince many prejudiced individuals in France of these facts. Therefore, it would be wise for the Assembly to only introduce the topic as described; but if extraordinary circumstances arose, such as a decree allowing deputies of Color to take their seats in the Assembly, or if England initiated this important work, then they could seize the opportunity and propose the abolition of the Slave Trade during this session.”
The last question I proposed was this:—"If the determination of this great question should be proposed to the next legislature, would it be more difficult to carry it then than now?"
The last question I asked was this:—"If this important question were brought up in the next legislature, would it be harder to get it approved then than it is now?"
This question also produced much conversation; but the answer was unanimous, "that there would be no greater difficulty in the one than in the other case; for that the people would daily more and more admire their constitution; that this constitution would go down to the next legislature, from whence would issue solid and fixed principles, which would be resorted to as a standard for decision on all occasions. Hence the Slave Trade, which would be adjudged by it also, could not possibly stand. Add to which, that the most virtuous members in the present would be chosen into the new legislature, which, if the constitution were but once fairly established, would not regard the murmurs of any town or province." After this a desultory conversation took place, in which some were of opinion that it would be proper, on the introduction of the subject into the Assembly, to move for a committee of inquiry, which should collect facts and documents against the time when it should be taken up with a view to its final discussion.
This question sparked a lot of discussion; however, the answer was unanimous: there wouldn't be any greater challenge in one case than in the other. The people would increasingly appreciate their constitution, which would carry over to the next legislature. From there, solid and established principles would emerge, serving as a benchmark for decisions in all situations. Therefore, the Slave Trade, which would also be evaluated by these principles, couldn’t possibly stand. Moreover, the most virtuous members from the current group would be elected into the new legislature, which, once the constitution was properly established, wouldn’t pay attention to the complaints from any town or province. After this, a somewhat scattered conversation occurred, where some believed that when the topic was introduced in the Assembly, it would be appropriate to propose a committee to gather facts and documents in preparation for its eventual discussion.
As it now appeared to me that nothing material would be done with respect to our cause till after the election of the new legislature, I had thoughts of returning to England to resume my journey in quest of evidence; but I judged it right to communicate first with the Comte de Mirabeau and the Marquis de la Fayette, both of whom would have attended the meeting just mentioned, if unforeseen circumstances had not prevented them.
As it seemed to me that nothing significant would happen regarding our cause until after the election of the new legislature, I considered returning to England to continue my search for evidence. However, I thought it was important to first talk to the Comte de Mirabeau and the Marquis de la Fayette, both of whom would have been at the meeting I just mentioned if unexpected circumstances hadn't kept them away.
On conversing with the first, I found that he differed from those whom I had consulted. He thought that the question, on account of the nature and urgency of it, ought to be decided in the present legislature. This was so much his opinion, that he had made a determination to introduce it there himself; and had been preparing for his motion. He had already drawn up the outlines of a speech for the purpose; but was in want of circumstantial knowledge to complete it. With this knowledge he desired me to furnish him. He then put his speech into my hand, and wished me to take it home and peruse it. He wrote down, also, some questions, and he gave them to me directly afterwards, and begged I would answer them at my leisure.
While talking to the first person, I realized he had a different perspective from those I had talked to before. He believed that due to the nature and urgency of the issue, it should be addressed in the current legislature. He felt so strongly about this that he decided to introduce it himself and had been preparing for his motion. He had already drafted the main points of a speech for this purpose but needed more detailed information to finish it. He asked me to provide that information. Then he handed me his speech and asked me to take it home and read it over. He also wrote down some questions and gave them to me afterward, requesting that I answer them when I had time.
On conversing with the latter, he said, "that he believed with those of the meeting that there would be no greater difficulty in carrying the question in the succeeding than in the present legislature; but this consideration afforded an argument for the immediate discussion of it; for it would make a considerable difference to suffering humanity whether it were to be decided now or then. This was the moment to be taken to introduce it; nor did he think that they ought to be deterred from doing it by any supposed clamours from some of the towns in France. The great body of the people admired the constitution, and would support any decisions which were made in strict conformity to its principles. With respect to any committee of inquiry, he deprecated it. The Slave Trade, he said, was not a trade. It dishonoured the name of commerce. It was piracy. But if so, the question which it involved was a question of justice only; and it could not be decided, with propriety by any other standard." I then informed him that the Comte de Mirabeau had undertaken to introduce it into the Assembly. At this he expressed his uneasiness. "Mirabeau," says he, "is a host in himself; and I should not be surprised if by his own eloquence and popularity only he were to carry it; and yet I regret that he has taken the lead in it. The cause is so lovely that even ambition, abstractedly considered, is too impure to take it under its protection, and not to sully it. It should have been placed in the hands of the most virtuous man in France. This man is the Duc de la Rochefoucauld. But you cannot alter things now. You cannot take it out of his hands. I am sure he will be second to no one on this occasion."
When talking with the latter, he said, "I believe, like others in the meeting, that there will be no greater challenge in getting the question passed in the next legislature than in this one; but this point supports the need for immediate discussion, as it would significantly impact suffering humanity whether it's decided now or later. This is the right time to bring it up; I don’t think we should be discouraged by any supposed outcry from some towns in France. Most people appreciate the constitution and will back any decisions made in strict accordance with its principles. Regarding any committee for investigation, I oppose it. The Slave Trade, he said, isn’t a trade. It tarnishes the name of commerce. It’s piracy. But if that's the case, the issue at hand is purely one of justice, and it can only be rightly judged by that standard." I then told him that Comte de Mirabeau had taken it upon himself to introduce it in the Assembly. Upon hearing this, he expressed concern. "Mirabeau," he said, "is a force in himself; I wouldn’t be surprised if he were able to push it through with just his charisma and popularity; yet I wish he hadn't taken the lead on this. The cause is so noble that even ambition, in its pure form, isn't worthy of protecting it without tainting it. It should have been given to the most virtuous man in France, which is the Duc de la Rochefoucauld. But we can’t change things now. You can't take it out of his hands. I’m sure he will be second to no one on this occasion."
On my return to my hotel, I perused the outlines of the speech which the Comte de Mirabeau had lent me. It afforded a masterly knowledge of the evils of the trade, as drawn from reason only. It was put together in the most striking and affecting manner. It contained an almost irresistible appeal to his auditors by frequent references to the ancient system of things in France, and to their situation and prospects under the new. It flowed at first gently like a river in a level country; but it grew afterwards into a mountain-torrent, and carried everything before it. On looking at the questions which he had written down for me, I found them consist of three. 1. What are the different ways of reducing to slavery the inhabitants of that part of Africa which is under the dominion of France? 2. What is the state of society there with respect to government, industry, and the arts? 3. What are the various evils belonging to the transportation of the Africans from their own country?
On my way back to my hotel, I looked over the outlines of the speech that the Comte de Mirabeau had lent me. It provided a deep understanding of the issues surrounding the trade, based purely on reason. It was assembled in a very striking and impactful way. It included an almost irresistible appeal to his listeners by frequently referring to the old system in France and their current situation and future under the new one. It started off smoothly, like a river in flat land, but later surged like a mountain torrent, sweeping everything along with it. When I checked out the questions he had written down for me, I saw there were three. 1. What are the different ways to enslave the inhabitants of that part of Africa under French control? 2. What is the state of society there regarding government, industry, and the arts? 3. What are the various problems associated with transporting Africans from their homeland?
It was peculiarly agreeable to me to find, on reading the first two questions, that I had formed an acquaintance with Monsieur Geoffroy de Villeneuve, who had been aide-du-camp to the Chevalier de Boufflers at Goree; but who was then at his father's house in Paris. This gentleman had entertained Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom; and had accompanied them up the Senegal, when under the protection of the French government in Africa. He had confirmed to me the testimony which they had given before the privy council: but he had a fund of information on this subject, which went far beyond what these possessed, or I had ever yet collected from books or men. He had travelled all over the kingdom of Cayor on foot; and had made a map of it. His information was so important, that I had been with him for almost days together to take it down. I determined, therefore, to arrange the facts which I had obtained from him, of which I had now a volume, that I might answer the two first questions, which had been proposed to me; for it was of great importance to the Comte de Mirabeau, that he should be able to appeal, in behalf of the statements in his speech to the Assembly, to an evidence on the spot.
It was oddly pleasing for me to discover, after reading the first two questions, that I had met Monsieur Geoffroy de Villeneuve, who had served as aide-de-camp to the Chevalier de Boufflers at Goree, but was then staying at his father's house in Paris. This gentleman had hosted Dr. Spaarman and Mr. Wadstrom and had traveled with them up the Senegal while under the protection of the French government in Africa. He confirmed the statements they had made before the privy council, but he had a wealth of information on this topic that far exceeded what they knew or what I had ever gathered from books or people. He had walked all over the kingdom of Cayor and had created a map of it. His insights were so valuable that I had spent nearly entire days with him documenting them. I decided to organize the facts I had gathered from him, which now filled a volume, so I could address the first two questions presented to me. It was crucial for Comte de Mirabeau that he could reference on-site evidence to support the claims in his speech to the Assembly.
In the course of my correspondence with the Comte, which continued with but little intermission for six weeks, many circumstances took place, which were connected with the cause, and which I shall now detail in their order.
During my exchanges with the Comte, which went on with only brief pauses for six weeks, many events occurred that were related to the cause, and I will now share them in order.
On waiting upon Mr. Necker, at his own request, he gave me the pleasing intelligence, that the committee of finances, which was then composed of members of the National Assembly, had resolved, though they had not yet promulgated their resolution, upon a total abolition of all the bounties then in existence in favour of the Slave Trade.
Upon meeting with Mr. Necker, at his request, he shared the good news that the finance committee, which was made up of members of the National Assembly, had decided—though they hadn't announced it yet—to completely abolish all the bounties that were currently in place for the Slave Trade.
The Deputies of Colour now began to visit me at my own hotel. They informed me, that they had been admitted, since they had seen me, into the National Assembly. On stating their claims, the president assured them, that they might take courage; for that the assembly knew no distinction between Blacks and Whites, but considered all men as having equal rights. This speech of the president, they said, had roused all the White Colonists in Paris. Some of these had openly insulted them. They had held also a meeting on the subject of this speech; at which they had worked themselves up so as to become quite furious. Nothing but intrigue was now going forward among them to put off the consideration of the claims of the free People of Colour. They, the deputies, had been flattered by the prospect of a hearing no less than six times; and, when the day arrived, something had constantly occurred to prevent it.
The Deputies of Color began to visit me at my hotel. They told me that since we last met, they had been admitted into the National Assembly. When they presented their claims, the president encouraged them, saying that the assembly did not recognize any distinction between Blacks and Whites, and considered all men to have equal rights. They said this statement from the president had angered all the White Colonists in Paris, some of whom had openly insulted them. They also held a meeting to discuss this speech, during which they became quite furious. There was now nothing but scheming among them to delay the discussion of the claims from the free People of Color. The deputies had been promised a hearing no less than six times, but whenever the day came, something always happened to prevent it.
At a subsequent interview, they appeared to be quite disheartened; and to be grievously disappointed as to the object of their mission. They were now sure, that they should never be able to make head against the intrigues and plots of the White Colonists. Day after day had been fixed as before for the hearing of their cause. Day after day it had been deferred in like manner. They were now weary with waiting. One of them, Ogé, could not contain himself, but broke out with great warmth—"I begin," says he, "not to care whether the National Assembly will admit us or not. But let it beware of the consequences. We will no longer continue to be beheld in a degraded light. Dispatches shall go directly to St. Domingo; and we will soon follow them. We can produce as good soldiers on our estates, as those in France. Our own arms shall make us independent and respectable. If we are once forced to desperate measures, it will be in vain that thousands will be sent across the Atlantic to bring us back to our former state." On hearing this, I entreated the deputies, to wait with patience. I observed to them, that in a great revolution, like that of France, things, but more particularly such as might be thought external, could not be discussed either so soon or so rapidly as men full of enthusiasm would wish. France would first take care of herself. She would then, I had no doubt, extend her care to her Colonies. Was not this a reasonable conclusion, when they, the deputies, had almost all the first men in the Assembly in their favour? I entreated them therefore to wait patiently; as well as upon another consideration, which was, that by an imprudent conduct they might not only ruin their own cause in France, but bring indescribable misery upon their native land.
At a later interview, they seemed pretty downcast and were seriously disappointed with the purpose of their mission. They were now convinced that they would never be able to stand up against the schemes and plots of the White Colonists. Day after day was set for the hearing of their case, and day after day it was postponed in the same way. They were exhausted from waiting. One of them, Ogé, couldn’t hold back any longer and exclaimed passionately, “I’m starting to not care whether the National Assembly accepts us or not. But they should be wary of the consequences. We will not continue to be seen as lesser beings. Messages will go directly to St. Domingo, and we will follow soon after. We can create just as good soldiers on our estates as those in France. Our own weapons will make us independent and respected. If we are forced into desperate actions, it will be pointless for thousands to be sent across the Atlantic to try to bring us back to our previous state.” Hearing this, I urged the deputies to wait patiently. I pointed out that during a significant revolution, like the one in France, matters—especially those that might be considered external—could not be discussed as quickly or easily as people driven by enthusiasm would want. France would first focus on itself. Then, I had no doubt, it would extend its attention to its Colonies. Wasn’t that a reasonable conclusion, considering they, the deputies, had nearly all the key figures in the Assembly on their side? I therefore urged them to be patient, also considering that reckless actions could not only jeopardize their cause in France but could also bring unimaginable suffering to their homeland.
By this time a large packet, for which I had sent, from England arrived. It consisted of above a thousand of the plan and section of a slave-ship, with an explanation in French. It contained, also, about five hundred coloured engravings, made from two views, which Mr. Wadstrom had taken in Africa. The first of these represented the town of Joal, and the king's military on horseback returning to it, after having executed the great pillage, with their slaves. The other represented the village of Bain; from whence ruffians were forcing a poor woman and her children to sell them to a ship, which was then lying in the Roads. Both these scenes Mr. Wadstrom had witnessed. I had collected, also, by this time, one thousand of my Essays on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, which had been translated into the French language. These I now wished to distribute, as preparatory to the motion of Mirabeau, among the National Assembly. This distribution was afterwards undertaken and effected by the Archbishop of Aix, the Bishop of Chartres, the Marquis de la Fayette, the Duc de la Rochefoucauld, the Comte de Mirabeau, Monsieur Necker, the Marquis de Condorcet, Messieurs Pétion de Villeneuve, Bergasse, Clavière and Brissot, and by the Marchioness de la Fayette, Madame Necker, and Madame de Poivre, the latter of whom was the widow of the late intendant of the Isle of France.
By this time, a large package I had requested from England arrived. It included over a thousand plans and sections of a slave ship, along with an explanation in French. It also contained about five hundred colored engravings, made from two views that Mr. Wadstrom had taken in Africa. The first showed the town of Joal, with the king's military on horseback returning after a major raid, bringing their slaves. The second depicted the village of Bain, where ruffians were forcing a poor woman and her children to sell them to a ship that was anchored nearby. Mr. Wadstrom had witnessed both these scenes. By this time, I had also collected a thousand of my Essays on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, which had been translated into French. I wanted to distribute these as a precursor to Mirabeau's motion among the National Assembly. This distribution was later handled and carried out by the Archbishop of Aix, the Bishop of Chartres, the Marquis de la Fayette, the Duc de la Rochefoucauld, the Comte de Mirabeau, Monsieur Necker, the Marquis de Condorcet, Messieurs Pétion de Villeneuve, Bergasse, Clavière, and Brissot, along with the Marchioness de la Fayette, Madame Necker, and Madame de Poivre, who was the widow of the late intendant of the Isle of France.
This distribution had not been long begun, before I witnessed its effects. The virtuous Abbé Gregoire, and several members of the National Assembly, called upon me. The section of the slave-ship, it appeared, had been the means of drawing them towards me. They wished for more accurate information concerning it. Indeed, it made its impression upon all who saw it. The Bishop of Chartres once told me, that, when he first espoused our cause, he did it at once; for it seemed obvious to him that no one could, under the Christian dispensation, hold another as his slave; and it was no less obvious, where such an unnatural state existed, that there would be great abuses; but that, nevertheless, he had not given credit to all the tales which had been related of the Slave Trade, till he had seen this plate; after which there was nothing so barbarous which might not readily be believed. The Archbishop of Aix, when I first showed him the same plate, was so struck with horror, that he could scarcely speak: and when Mirabeau first saw it, he was so impressed by it, that he ordered a mechanic to make a model of it in wood, at a considerable expense. This model he kept afterwards in his dining-room. It was a ship in miniature, about a yard long, and little wooden men and women, which were painted black to represent the slaves, were seen stowed in their proper places.
This distribution hadn’t been going on long before I saw its effects. The virtuous Abbé Gregoire and several members of the National Assembly visited me. It seemed that the section of the slave ship had drawn them to me. They wanted more detailed information about it. Indeed, it left an impression on everyone who saw it. The Bishop of Chartres once told me that when he first supported our cause, he did so immediately because it seemed clear to him that no one could, under the Christian faith, own another person as a slave; and it was equally obvious that where such an unnatural condition existed, there would be great abuses. However, he hadn’t believed all the stories told about the Slave Trade until he saw this plate; after that, anything could be believed to be true. The Archbishop of Aix, when I first showed him the same plate, was so horrified that he could hardly speak. When Mirabeau first saw it, he was so affected that he had a carpenter make a wooden model of it at considerable cost. He later displayed this model in his dining room. It was a miniature ship, about a yard long, with little wooden men and women painted black to represent the slaves, all packed into their designated spots.
But while the distribution of these different articles thus contributed to make us many friends, it called forth the extraordinary exertions of our enemies. The merchants and others interested in the continuance of the Slave Trade wrote letters to the Archbishop of Aix, beseeching him not to ruin France; which he would inevitably do, if, as then president, he were to grant a day for hearing the question of the abolition. Offers of money were made to Mirabeau from the same quarter, if he would totally abandon his motion. An attempt was made to establish a colonial committee, consisting of such planters as were members of the National Assembly, upon whom it should devolve to consider and report upon all matters relating to the Colonies, before they could be determined there. Books were circulated in abundance in opposition to mine. Resort was again had to the public papers, as the means of raising a hue and cry against the principles of the Friends of the Negroes. I was again denounced as a spy; and as one sent by the English minister to bribe members in the Assembly to do that in a time of public agitation, which in the settled state of France they could never have been prevailed upon to accomplish. And as a proof that this was my errand, it was requested of every Frenchman to put to himself the following question, "How it happened that England, which had considered the subject coolly and deliberately for eighteen months, and this in a state of internal peace and quietness, had not abolished the Slave Trade?"
But while distributing these various items helped us make many friends, it also triggered a strong response from our enemies. Merchants and others who wanted the Slave Trade to continue wrote letters to the Archbishop of Aix, pleading with him not to ruin France, which he would definitely do if, as president at the time, he allowed a hearing on the abolition. Offers of money were made to Mirabeau from the same group if he would completely drop his motion. There was an attempt to set up a colonial committee made up of planters who were members of the National Assembly, responsible for considering and reporting on all matters related to the Colonies before any decisions could be made. Many books were circulated opposing mine. The public papers were again used to incite outrage against the principles of the Friends of the Negroes. I was once more labeled as a spy, accused of being sent by the English minister to bribe Assembly members to act during a time of public unrest in ways they would never have done in a stable France. As proof of this alleged mission, every Frenchman was asked to consider the question, "How is it possible that England, which has coolly and thoroughly analyzed the issue for eighteen months in a time of internal peace, has not abolished the Slave Trade?"
The clamour which was now made against the abolition pervaded all Paris, and reached the ears of the king; Mr. Necker had a long conversation with him upon it; the latter sent for me immediately. He informed me that His Majesty was desirous of making himself master of the question, and had expressed a wish to see my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade; he desired to have two copies of it, one in French, and the other in English, and he would then take his choice as to which of them he would read; he (Mr. Necker) was to present them. He would take with him, also, at the same time, the beautiful specimens of the manufactures of the Africans, which I had lent to Madame Necker out of the cabinet of Monsieur Geoffroy de Villeneuve and others; as to the section of the slave-ship, he thought it would affect His Majesty too much, as he was then indisposed. All these articles, except the latter, were at length presented; the king bestowed a good deal of time upon the specimens; he admired them, but particularly those in gold. He expressed his surprise at the state of some of the arts in Africa. He sent them back on the same day on which he had examined them, and commissioned Mr. Necker to return me his thanks, and to say that he had been highly gratified with what he had seen; and with respect to the Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, that he would read it with all the seriousness which such a subject deserved.
The uproar against the abolition spread throughout Paris and reached the king. Mr. Necker had a lengthy discussion with him about it, and afterward, the king called for me right away. He told me that His Majesty wanted to understand the issue and had requested to see my Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade; he wanted two copies, one in French and the other in English, so he could choose which one to read. Mr. Necker was to present them. He would also take the beautiful samples of African crafts that I had lent to Madame Necker from Monsieur Geoffroy de Villeneuve’s cabinet and others; as for the section about the slave ship, he thought it would be too upsetting for His Majesty since he was currently unwell. In the end, all these items, except for that last one, were presented. The king spent a good amount of time looking at the samples; he admired them, especially the golden ones. He was surprised by the advancement of some arts in Africa. He sent them back on the same day he had examined them, instructing Mr. Necker to thank me and say that he was very pleased with what he had seen. Regarding the Essay on the Impolicy of the Slave Trade, he would read it with the seriousness the subject deserves.
My correspondence with the Comte de Mirabeau was now drawing near to its close. I had sent him a letter every other day for a whole month, which contained from sixteen to twenty pages; he usually acknowledged the receipt of each; hence many of his letters came into my possession: these were always interesting, on account of the richness of the expressions they contained. Mirabeau even in his ordinary discourse was eloquent; it was his peculiar talent to use such words, that they who heard them were almost led to believe that he had taken great pains to cull them for the occasion. But this his ordinary language was the language also of his letters; and as they show a power of expression, by which the reader may judge of the character of the eloquence of one, who was then undoubtedly the greatest orator in France, I have thought it not improper to submit one of them to his perusal in the annexed noteA. I could have wished, as far as it relates to myself, that it had been less complimentary. It must be observed, however, that I had already written to him more than two hundred pages with my own hand; and as this was done at no small expense, time, and trouble, and solely to qualify him for the office of doing good, he could not but set some value upon my labours.
My communication with the Comte de Mirabeau was coming to an end. I had sent him a letter every other day for a whole month, each consisting of sixteen to twenty pages; he usually acknowledged receipt of each letter, so I received many of his responses. These replies were always interesting because of the richness of his expressions. Even in everyday conversation, Mirabeau was eloquent; he had a unique talent for choosing words that made listeners feel he had carefully selected them for the moment. This same eloquence was evident in his letters, and they demonstrate a level of expression that reveals the character of someone who was undeniably the greatest orator in France at the time. I thought it fitting to share one of his letters for you to read in the attached noteA. Personally, I wished it had been less flattering towards me. However, it should be noted that I had already written over two hundred pages by hand, which took considerable expense, time, and effort, all to help him in his role of doing good, so he had to value my efforts.
A: Je fais toujours mille remercimens plus empressés et plus affectueux à Monsieur Clarkson pour la vertueuse profusion de ses lumières, de ses recherches, et de ses travaux. Comme ma motion, et tous ses développemens sont entièrement prêts, j'attends avec une vive impatience ses nouvelles lettres, afin d'achever de classer les faits et les raisonnemens de Monsieur Clarkson, et, cette déduction entièrement finie, de commencer à manoeuvrer en tactique le succès douteux de cette périlleuse proposition. J'aurai l'honneur de le recevoir Dimanche depuis onze heures, et même dix du matin jusqu'à midi, non seulement avec un vif plaisir, mais avec une sensible reconnaissance. 25thDécembre, 1789.
A: I always extend a thousand more eager and heartfelt thanks to Mr. Clarkson for the generous outpouring of his insights, research, and work. Since my motion and all its developments are completely prepared, I eagerly await his latest letters to finalize the organization of Mr. Clarkson's facts and reasoning, and once this deduction is fully completed, to begin tactically handling the uncertain success of this risky proposal. I will have the honor of welcoming him on Sunday from eleven o'clock, and even from ten in the morning until noon, not only with great pleasure but with deep gratitude. 25thDecember, 1789.
When our correspondence was over, I had some conversation with him relative to fixing a day for the motion. But he judged it prudent, previously to this, to sound some of the members of the Assembly on the subject of it. This he did, but he was greatly disappointed at the result; there was not one member, out of all those with whom he conversed, who had not been canvassed by the planters' committee; and though most of them had been proof against all its intrigues and artifices, yet many of them hesitated respecting the abolition at that moment. There was a fear in some that they should injure the revolution by adopting it; others, who had no such fears, wished for the concurrence of England in the measure, and suggested the propriety of a deputation there for that purpose previously to the discussion of the question in France. While others maintained that, as England had done nothing, after having had it so long under consideration, it was fair to presume that she judged it impolitic to abandon the Slave Trade; but if France were to give it up, and England to continue it, how would humanity be the gainer?
When we finished our correspondence, I talked to him about setting a date for the motion. However, he thought it was wise to first gauge the opinions of some Assembly members on the matter. He did this, but he was very disappointed with the outcome; not a single member he spoke to had not already been approached by the planters' committee. While most of them resisted all their schemes and tactics, many hesitated about abolishing it at that time. Some worried that adopting it would harm the revolution; others, who weren’t concerned about that, wanted support from England for the measure and suggested sending a delegation there before discussing the issue in France. Meanwhile, others argued that since England hadn't taken any action after considering it for so long, it was reasonable to assume that she believed it was unwise to abandon the Slave Trade. But if France were to give it up while England continued it, how would that benefit humanity?
While the Comte de Mirabeau was continuing his canvass among the members of the National Assembly, relative to his motion, attempts were again made in the public papers to mislead them; emancipation was now stated to be the object of the friends of the negroes. This charge I repelled, by addressing myself to Monsieur Beauvet. I explained to him the views of the different societies which had taken up the cause of the Africans; and I desired him to show my letter to the planters. I was obliged also to answer publicly a letter by Monsieur Mosneron de Laung. This writer professed to detail the substance of the privy council report. He had the injustice to assert that three things had been distinctly proved there: First, that slavery had always existed in Africa; Secondly, that the natives were a bloody people, addicted to human sacrifice, and other barbarous customs; and, Thirdly, that their soil was incapable of producing any proper articles for commerce. From these premises he argued, as if they had been established by the unanimous and uncontradicted testimony of the witnesses; and he drew the conclusion, that not only had England done nothing in consequence, but that she never would do anything which should affect the existence of this trade.
While the Comte de Mirabeau was still campaigning among the members of the National Assembly regarding his proposal, there were again efforts in the public papers to mislead them; it was now claimed that the goal of those supporting the rights of Black people was emancipation. I countered this accusation by addressing Monsieur Beauvet. I clarified for him the perspectives of the various societies advocating for the Africans, and I asked him to share my letter with the planters. I also felt the need to publicly respond to a letter from Monsieur Mosneron de Laung. This writer claimed to summarize the key points of the privy council report. He unfairly asserted that three things were clearly proven there: First, that slavery had always existed in Africa; Second, that the natives were a violent people, prone to human sacrifice and other barbaric practices; and Third, that their land was unable to produce any suitable goods for trade. Based on these ideas, he concluded as if they had been established by the unanimous and unquestioned testimony of the witnesses; he stated that not only had England done nothing as a result, but that she would never do anything that would impact the continuation of this trade.
But these letters had only just made their appearance in the public papers, when I was summoned to England; parliament, it appeared, had met, and I was immediately to leave Paris. Among those of whom I had but just time to take leave, were the deputies of colour. At this, my last conference with them, I recommended moderation and forbearance, as the best gifts I could leave them; and I entreated them rather to give up their seats in the Assembly, than on that account to bring misery on their country; for that with patience their cause would ultimately triumph. They replied, that I had prescribed to them a most difficult task; they were afraid that neither the conduct of the white colonists nor of the National Assembly could be much longer borne; they thanked me, however, for my advice. One of them gave me a trinket, by which I might remember him; and as for himself, he said he should never forget one, who had taken such a deep interest in the welfare of his motherA. I found, however, notwithstanding all I said, that there was a spirit of dissatisfaction in them, which nothing but a redress of their grievances could subdue; and that, if the planters should persevere in their intrigues, and the National Assembly in delay, a fire would be lighted up in St. Domingo, which could not easily be extinguished. This was afterwards realized: for Ogé, in about three months from this time, left his companions, to report to his constituents in St. Domingo the state of their mission; when hearing, on his arrival in that island, of the outrageous conduct of the whites of the committee of Aquin, who had begun a persecution of the people of colour, for no other reason than that they had dared to seek the common privileges of citizens, and of the murder of Ferrand and Labadie, he imprudently armed his slaves. With a small but faithful band he rushed upon superior numbers, and was defeated; taking refuge at length in the Spanish part of St. Domingo, he was given up, and his enemies, to strike terror into the people of colour, broke him upon the wheel. From this time reconciliation between the parties became impossible; a bloody war commenced, and with it all those horrors which it has been our lot so frequently to deplore. It must be remembered, however, that the Slave Trade, by means of the cruel distinctions it occasioned, was the original cause; and though the revolution of France afforded the occasion, it was an occasion which would have been prevented, if it had not been for the intrigues and injustice of the whites.
But these letters had just started appearing in the public papers when I was called back to England; Parliament had met, and I had to leave Paris immediately. Among those I barely had time to say goodbye to were the deputies of color. In this last meeting with them, I urged moderation and patience as the best gifts I could leave behind, and I begged them to consider stepping down from their seats in the Assembly rather than bringing suffering to their country for that reason. I assured them that with patience, their cause would ultimately succeed. They replied that I was asking them to take on a very difficult task; they were concerned that they could not tolerate the actions of the white colonists or the National Assembly for much longer. However, they thanked me for my advice. One of them gave me a keepsake to remember him by, and he said he would never forget someone who had taken such a deep interest in the welfare of his motherA. I realized, despite everything I said, that there was a growing sense of dissatisfaction among them that could only be calmed by addressing their grievances. If the planters continued their scheming and the National Assembly persisted in delaying action, a fire would be ignited in St. Domingo that wouldn’t be easily extinguished. This prediction came true, as Ogé, about three months later, left his companions to report back to his constituents in St. Domingo on the state of their mission. Upon arriving on the island and hearing about the outrageous behavior of the white members of the Aquin committee, who had begun persecuting people of color simply for seeking equal rights, and about the murders of Ferrand and Labadie, he foolishly armed his slaves. With a small but loyal group, he attacked stronger forces and was defeated. Ultimately, he sought refuge in the Spanish part of St. Domingo but was captured, and his enemies, in a bid to instill fear in the people of color, executed him by breaking him on the wheel. From that point on, reconciliation between the factions was impossible; a bloody war erupted, along with all the horrors we have often lamented. It’s important to remember, though, that the Slave Trade, due to the cruel distinctions it created, was the root cause; and while the revolution in France provided the opportunity, it was an opportunity that could have been avoided if it weren’t for the schemes and injustices of the whites.
A: Africa.
Africa.
Another upon whom I had time to call was the amiable bishop of Chartres. When I left him, the Abbé Siéyes, who was with him, desired to walk with me to my hotel; he there presented me with a set of his works, which he sent for while he staid with me; and, on parting, he made use of this complimentary expression, in allusion, I suppose, to the cause I had undertaken,—"I am pleased to have been acquainted with the friend of man."
Another person I had a chance to visit was the friendly bishop of Chartres. When I left him, the Abbé Siéyes, who was with him, wanted to walk with me to my hotel. He then gave me a set of his works, which he sent for while he was with me. As we parted, he used this kind remark, likely referring to the cause I had taken up: "I’m glad to have met the friend of humanity."
It was necessary that I should see the Comte de Mirabeau and the Marquis de la Fayette before I left Paris, I had written to each of them to communicate the intelligence of my departure, as soon as I received it. The comte, it appeared had nearly canvassed the Assembly; he could count upon three hundred members, who, for the sake of justice, and without any consideration of policy or of consequences, would support his motion. But alas! what proportion did this number bear to twelve hundred! About five hundred more would support him, but only on one condition, which was, if England would give an unequivocal proof of her intention to abolish the trade. The knowledge of these circumstances, he said, had induced him to write a letter to Mr. Pitt. In this he had explained how far he could proceed without his assistance, and how far with it. He had frankly developed to him the mind and temper of the Assembly on this subject; but his answer must be immediate, for the white colonists were daily gaining such an influence there, that he forsaw that it would be impossible to carry the measure, if it were long delayed. On taking leave of him he desired me to be the bearer of the letter, and to present it to Mr. Pitt.
It was essential for me to see the Comte de Mirabeau and the Marquis de la Fayette before I left Paris. I had written to each of them to inform them of my departure as soon as I got the news. The comte had almost gathered the support of the Assembly; he could count on three hundred members who, for the sake of justice and without any regard for politics or consequences, would back his proposal. But, sadly, how does that number compare to twelve hundred? About five hundred more would support him, but only if England provided a clear sign of its intention to end the trade. He mentioned that this knowledge had prompted him to write a letter to Mr. Pitt. In it, he detailed how far he could go without assistance and how far he could go with it. He had honestly explained the feelings and attitudes of the Assembly on this matter; however, he needed a quick response, as the white colonists were gaining so much influence there that he feared it would be impossible to push the measure through if it was delayed too long. When I said goodbye, he asked me to deliver the letter and present it to Mr. Pitt.
On conversing with the Marquis de la Fayette, he lamented deeply the unexpected turn which the cause of the Negroes had lately taken in the Assembly. It was entirely owing to the daily intrigues of the White Colonists. He feared they would ruin everything. If the Deputies of Colour had been heard on their arrival, their rights would have been acknowledged. But now there was little probability that they would obtain them. He foresaw nothing but desolation in St. Domingo. With respect to the abolition of the Slave Trade, it might be yet carried; but not unless England would concur in the measure. On this topic he enlarged with much feeling. He hoped the day was near at hand, when two great nations, which had been hitherto distinguished only for their hostility, one toward the other, would unite in so sublime a measure; and that they would follow up their union by another, still more lovely, for the preservation of eternal and universal peace. Thus their future rivalships might have the extraordinary merit of being rivalships in good. Thus the revolution of France, through the mighty aid of England, might become the source of civilization, of freedom, and of happiness to the whole world. No other nations were sufficiently enlightened for such an union, but all other nations might be benefited by it.
While talking to the Marquis de la Fayette, he expressed deep concern about the unexpected direction the issue of the Black people had taken in the Assembly. It was entirely due to the constant scheming of the White Colonists. He was worried they would ruin everything. If the Deputies of Color had been allowed to speak upon their arrival, their rights would have been recognized. But now, it seemed unlikely they would achieve that. He only saw destruction ahead for St. Domingo. As for the abolition of the Slave Trade, it might still happen, but only if England agreed to it. He spoke passionately on this subject. He hoped the day was coming soon when two great nations, which had previously only been known for their animosity toward each other, would come together for such a noble cause; and that they would follow this alliance with another even more beautiful, aimed at achieving lasting global peace. This way, their future rivalries could instead be rivalries in goodness. Thus, the revolution in France, supported by England, could become a source of civilization, freedom, and happiness for the entire world. No other nations were enlightened enough for such an alliance, but all nations could benefit from it.
The last person whom I saw was Brissot. He accompanied me to my carriage. With him, therefore, I shall end my French account; and I shall end it in no way so satisfactory to myself, as in a very concise vindication of his character, from actual knowledge, against the attacks of those who have endeavoured to disparage it; but who never knew him. Justice and truth, I am convinced, demand some little declaration on this subject at my hands. Brissot then was a man of plain and modest appearance. His habits, contrary to those of his countrymen in general, were domestic. In his own family he set an amiable example, both as a husband and as a father. On all occasions he was a faithful friend. He was particularly watchful over his private conduct. From the simplicity of his appearance, and the severity of his morals, he was called "The Quaker;" at least in all the circles which I frequented. He was a man of deep feeling. He was charitable to the poor as far as a slender income permitted him. But his benevolence went beyond the usual bounds. He was no patriot in the ordinary acceptation of the word; for he took the habitable globe as his country and wished to consider every foreigner as his brother.
The last person I saw was Brissot. He walked with me to my carriage. Therefore, I’ll wrap up my account of France with him, and I can’t do it in a way that satisfies me more than with a brief defense of his character, based on what I know, against those who have tried to undermine it but never actually knew him. I believe justice and truth require me to say a little about this. Brissot was a man who looked plain and modest. Unlike many of his countrymen, he had domestic habits. In his family, he set a kind example as both a husband and a father. He was always a loyal friend. He was particularly careful about his personal conduct. Because of his simple appearance and strict morals, he was nicknamed "The Quaker," at least in the circles I moved in. He was a man with deep feelings. He was as charitable to the poor as his limited income allowed. But his kindness extended beyond the usual limits. He wasn’t a patriot in the typical sense; he considered the whole world his country and wanted to see every foreigner as his brother.
I left France, as it may be easily imagined, much disappointed, that my labours, which had been of nearly six months continuance, should have had no better success; nor did I see, in looking forward, any circumstances that were consoling with respect to the issue of them there; for it was impossible that Mr. Pitt, even if he had been inclined to write to Mirabeau, circumstanced as matters then were with respect to the hearing of evidence, could have given him a promise, at least of a speedy abolition; and, unless his answer had been immediate, it would have arrived, seeing that the French planters were daily profiting by their intrigues, too late to be effectual.
I left France feeling very disappointed, knowing that my efforts, which had lasted almost six months, didn’t yield better results. Looking ahead, I didn’t see any reassuring signs about how things would go; it was unlikely that Mr. Pitt, even if he wanted to contact Mirabeau given the situation with the evidence hearings, could have made any promises, especially not one about a quick abolition. Unless his response was immediate, it would have arrived too late to be useful, considering the French planters were daily benefiting from their schemes.
I had but just arrived in England, when Mr. Wilberforce made a new motion in the House of Commons on the subject of the Slave Trade. In referring to the transactions of the last session, he found that twenty-eight days had been allotted to the hearing of witnesses against the abolition, and that eleven persons only had been examined in that time. If the examinations were to go on in the same manner, they might be made to last for years. He resolved, therefore, to move, that, instead of hearing evidence in future in the house at large, members should hear it in an open committee above stairs; which committee should sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the house itself. This motion he made; and in doing it he took an opportunity of correcting an erroneous report; which was, that he had changed his mind on this great subject. This was, he said, so far from being the case, that the more he contemplated the trade, the more enormous he found it, and the more he felt himself compelled to persevere in endeavours for its abolition.
I had just arrived in England when Mr. Wilberforce made a new proposal in the House of Commons regarding the Slave Trade. In discussing the events from the previous session, he noted that twenty-eight days had been set aside to hear witnesses against abolition, and only eleven people had been examined during that time. If things continued this way, those hearings could drag on for years. He decided to propose that, instead of hearing evidence in the full house, members should listen to it in an open committee upstairs, which would meet regardless of any adjournments of the house itself. He presented this motion and took the chance to correct a false rumor that he had changed his mind on this important issue. He stated that, on the contrary, the more he thought about the trade, the more outrageous he found it, and the more he felt compelled to keep pushing for its abolition.
One would have thought that a motion, so reasonable and so constitutional, would have met with the approbation of all; but it was vehemently opposed by Mr. Gascoyne, Alderman Newnham, and others. The plea set up was, that there was no precedent for referring a question of such importance to a committee. It was now obvious, that the real object of our opponents in abandoning decision by the privy council evidence was delay. Unable to meet us there, they were glad to fly to any measure, which should enable them to put off the evil day. This charge was fixed upon them in unequivocal language by Mr. Fox; who observed besides, that if the members of the house should then resolve to hear evidence in a committee of the whole house as before, it would amount to a resolution, that the question of the abolition of the Slave Trade should be put by, or at least that it should never be decided by them. After a long debate, the motion of Mr. Wilberforce was voted without a division; and the examination of witnesses proceeded in behalf of those who were interested in the continuance of the trade.
One would think that a motion so reasonable and constitutional would have received everyone's approval; however, it was strongly opposed by Mr. Gascoyne, Alderman Newnham, and others. Their argument was that there was no precedent for referring such an important question to a committee. It became clear that our opponents' true aim in avoiding a decision by the privy council was to delay the process. Unable to confront us there, they were eager to adopt any measure that would allow them to postpone the inevitable. Mr. Fox clearly expressed this accusation, noting that if the members of the house decided to hear evidence in a committee of the whole house as before, it would imply a resolution to set aside the question of abolishing the Slave Trade, or at least that it would never be addressed by them. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Wilberforce’s motion was passed without a vote against it, and the examination of witnesses continued for those who supported the ongoing trade.
This measure having been resolved upon, by which despatch in the examinations was promoted, I was alarmed lest we should be called upon for our own evidence, before we were fully prepared. The time which I had originally allotted for the discovery of new witnesses, had been taken up, if not wasted, in France. In looking over the names of the sixteen, who were to have been examined by the committee of privy council, if there had been time, one had died, and eight, who were sea-faring people, were out of the kingdom. It was time, therefore, to stir immediately in this business. Happily, on looking over my letters, which I found on my arrival in England, the names of several had been handed to me, with the places of their abode, who could give me information on the subject of our question. All these I visited with the utmost despatch. I was absent only three weeks. I had travelled a thousand miles in this time, had conversed with seventeen persons, and had prevailed upon three to be examined.
This measure had been decided upon to speed up the examinations, and I was worried that we might be asked for our own testimony before we were fully ready. The time I had originally set aside to find new witnesses was mostly used up, if not wasted, in France. When I reviewed the names of the sixteen people who were supposed to be questioned by the committee of privy council, if time had allowed, one had passed away, and eight others, who were sailors, were out of the country. It was clear that I needed to act quickly on this matter. Fortunately, as I went through my letters that I found when I arrived in England, several names and their addresses were given to me of people who could provide information on our issue. I made it a priority to visit all of them as quickly as possible. I was gone for just three weeks, during which I traveled a thousand miles, spoke with seventeen people, and managed to convince three of them to be questioned.
I had scarcely returned with the addition of these witnesses to my list, when I found it necessary to go out again upon the same errand. This second journey arose in part from the following circumstances. There was a matter in dispute relative to the mode of obtaining slaves in the rivers of Calabar and Bonny. It was usual, when the slave-ships lay there, for a number of canoes to go into the inland country. These went in a fleet. There might be from thirty to forty armed natives in each of them. Every canoe, also, had a four or a six-pounder (cannon) fastened to her bow. Equipped in this manner they departed; and they were usually absent from eight to fourteen days. It was said that they went to fairs, which were held on the banks of these rivers, and at which there was a regular show of slaves. On their return they usually brought down from eight hundred to a thousand of these for the ships. These lay at the bottom of the canoes; their arms and legs having been first bound by the ropes of the country. Now the question was, how the people, thus going up these rivers, obtained their slaves?
I had just come back with these witnesses added to my list when I realized I needed to head out again for the same reason. This second trip was partly due to the following situation. There was a disagreement about how slaves were obtained in the rivers of Calabar and Bonny. When the slave ships anchored there, a number of canoes would head into the inland areas, often in a group. Each canoe might have around thirty to forty armed locals. Every canoe also carried a four or six-pound cannon mounted at the front. They left like this and typically stayed away for about eight to fourteen days. It was rumored that they attended fairs along the banks of these rivers, where there was a regular display of slaves. Upon their return, they usually brought back between eight hundred to a thousand slaves for the ships. These individuals were packed in the bottom of the canoes, their arms and legs bound with ropes. Now the question was, how did the people making these trips up the rivers acquire their slaves?
It was certainly a very suspicious circumstance, that such a number of persons should go out upon these occasions; and that they should be armed in such a manner. We presumed, therefore, that, though they might buy many of the slaves, whom they brought down, at the fairs which have been mentioned, they obtained others by violence, as opportunity offered. This inference we pressed upon our opponents, and called upon them to show what circumstances made such warlike preparations necessary on these excursions. To this they replied readily, "The people in the canoes," said they, "pass through the territories of different petty princes; to each of whom, on entering his territory, they pay a tribute or toll. This tribute has been long fixed; but attempts frequently have been made to raise it. They who follow the trade cannot afford to submit to these unreasonable demands; and therefore they arm themselves in case of any determination on the part of these petty princes to enforce them." This answer we never judged to be satisfactory. We tried therefore, to throw light upon the subject, by inquiring if the natives who went upon these expeditions usually took with them as many goods as would amount to the number of the slaves they were accustomed to bring back with them. But we could get no direct answer, from any actual knowledge, to this question. All had seen the canoes go out and return; but no one had seen them loaded, or had been on board them. It appeared, however, from circumstantial evidence, that though the natives on these occasions might take some articles of trade with them, it was impossible from appearances that they could take them in the proportion mentioned. We maintained, then, our inference as before; but it was still uniformly denied.
It was definitely a suspicious situation that so many people would go out on these occasions, especially armed the way they were. We assumed that while they might buy many of the slaves they brought down at the fairs mentioned, they likely acquired others through violence when the opportunity arose. We pressed this point with our opponents and asked them to explain why such military preparations were necessary during these excursions. They quickly responded, saying, "The people in the canoes pass through the territories of various local princes, and they pay a tribute or toll to each one upon entering their land. This tribute has been established for a long time, but there have been many attempts to increase it. Those who are involved in this trade can’t afford to give in to these unreasonable demands, so they arm themselves in case any of these local princes decide to enforce them." We never found this answer satisfying. So, we tried to clarify the issue by asking if the natives typically brought enough goods on these trips to match the number of slaves they usually returned with. However, we couldn't get a definitive answer based on actual knowledge. Everyone had seen the canoes go out and come back, but no one had seen them loaded or had been onboard. It seemed, based on indirect evidence, that while the natives might take some trade goods with them on these occasions, it was unlikely they could carry them in the amounts they claimed. We maintained our original conclusion, but it was still consistently rejected.
How then were we to decide this important question? for it was said that no white man was ever permitted by the natives to go up in these canoes. On mentioning accidentally the circumstances of the case, as I have now stated them, to a friend, immediately on my return from my last journey, he informed me that he himself had been in company, about a year before, with a sailor, a very respectable-looking man, who had been up these rivers. He had spent half an hour with him at an inn. He described his person to me; but he knew nothing of his name, or of the place of his abode. All he knew was, that he was either going, or that he belonged to, some ship of war in ordinary; but he could not tell at what port. I might depend upon all these circumstances if the man had not deceived him; and he saw no reason why he should.
How were we supposed to solve this important question? It was said that the locals never allowed any white man to go up in these canoes. When I casually mentioned the details of the situation, as I’ve just explained, to a friend right after returning from my last trip, he told me that about a year earlier, he had been with a sailor, a very respectable-looking guy, who had traveled up these rivers. He had spent half an hour with him at an inn. He described what the sailor looked like to me, but he didn’t know his name or where he lived. All he knew was that the sailor was either planning to go or was part of some naval ship that was inactive; however, he couldn’t say which port it was based in. I could count on all these details unless the man had misled him, and he didn’t see why he would have.
I felt myself set on fire, as it were, by this intelligence, deficient as it was; and I seemed to determine instantly that I would, if it were possible, find him out. For if our suspicions were true that the natives frequently were kidnapped in these expeditions, it would be of great importance to the cause of the abolition to have them confirmed; for as many slaves came annually from these two rivers, as from all the coast of Africa besides. But how to proceed on so blind an errand was the question. I first thought of trying to trace the man by letter; but this might be tedious. The examinations were now going on rapidly. We should soon be called upon for evidence ourselves; besides, I knew nothing of his name. I then thought it to be a more effectual way to apply to Sir Charles Middleton, as comptroller of the navy, by whose permission I could board every ship of war in ordinary in England, and judge for myself. But here the undertaking seemed very arduous, and the time it would consume became an objection in this respect, that I thought I could not easily forgive myself, if I were to fail in it. My inclination, however, preponderated this way. At length I determined to follow it; for, on deliberate consideration, I found that I could not employ my time more advantageously to the cause; for as other witnesses must be found out somewhere, it was highly probable that, if I should fail in the discovery of this man, I should, by moving among such a number of sea-faring people, find others who could give their testimony in our favour.
I felt like I was on fire with this information, even though it was lacking; and I instantly decided that I would, if possible, track him down. If our suspicions were right that the locals were often kidnapped during these missions, confirming it would be crucial for the abolition cause, since as many slaves came each year from these two rivers as from the entire coast of Africa combined. But how to go about such a blind mission was the real question. I initially thought about trying to track the man down through letters, but that could take a long time. The investigations were moving quickly now. We would soon be called to give our own testimony; plus, I didn’t even know his name. I then figured it might be more effective to approach Sir Charles Middleton, the comptroller of the navy, since with his permission, I could board any warship in England and see for myself. But this seemed like a very challenging task, and the time it would take became a concern because I thought I wouldn’t easily forgive myself if I failed. However, my inclination leaned this way. Eventually, I decided to go for it; upon careful consideration, I realized I couldn't spend my time more effectively for the cause. Since other witnesses would need to be found, it was very likely that if I couldn’t locate this man, by mingling among so many seafaring people, I would come across others who could support our case.
I must now inform the reader, that ships of war in ordinary, in one of which this man was reported to be, are those which are out of commission, and which are laid up in the different rivers and waters in the neighbourhood of the king's dock-yards. Every one of these has a boatswain, gunner, carpenter, and assistants on board. They lie usually in divisions of ten or twelve; and a master in the navy has a command over every division.
I need to let the reader know that ships of war in ordinary, where this man was reported to be, are those that are out of commission and are moored in various rivers and waters near the king's dockyards. Each of these ships has a boatswain, gunner, carpenter, and their assistants on board. They typically group in divisions of ten or twelve, and a navy officer has command over each division.
At length I began my journey. I boarded all the ships of war lying in ordinary at Deptford, and examined the different persons in each. From Deptford I proceeded to Woolwich, where I did the same. Thence I hastened to Chatham, and then, down the Medway, to Sheerness. I had now boarded above a hundred and sixty vessels of war. I had found out two good and willing evidences among them; but I could gain no intelligence of him who was the object of my search.
At last, I started my journey. I got on all the warships at dock in Deptford and checked out the different people on each. From Deptford, I went to Woolwich, where I did the same. Then I rushed to Chatham, and after that, down the Medway to Sheerness. By this point, I had boarded over a hundred and sixty warships. I found two good and willing witnesses among them, but I couldn't get any information about the person I was searching for.
From Chatham I made the best of my way to Portsmouth harbour. A very formidable task presented itself here; but the masters' boats were ready for me, and I continued my pursuit. On boarding the Pegase, on the second day, I discovered a very respectable person in the gunner of that ship. His name was George Millar. He had been on board the Canterbury slaveship at the dreadful massacre at Calabar. He was the only disinterested evidence living, of whom I had yet heard. He expressed his willingness to give, his testimony, if his presence should be thought necessary in London. I then continued my pursuit for the remainder of the day. On the next day I resumed and finished it for this quarter. I had now examined the different persons in more than a hundred vessels in this harbour, but I had not discovered the person I had gone to seek.
From Chatham, I made my way to Portsmouth harbor. A challenging task awaited me there, but the masters' boats were ready, and I continued my search. When I boarded the Pegase on the second day, I found a very respectable man serving as the gunner on that ship. His name was George Millar. He had been on the Canterbury slave ship during the horrific massacre at Calabar. He was the only unbiased witness alive that I had heard of so far. He said he would be willing to give his testimony if his presence was needed in London. I then continued my search for the rest of the day. The next day, I resumed and completed it for this quarter. I had now interviewed various individuals from over a hundred vessels in this harbor, but I still hadn't found the person I was looking for.
Matters now began to look rather disheartening, I mean as far as my grand object was concerned. There was but one other port left, and this was between two and three hundred miles distant. I determined, however, to go to Plymouth. I had already been more successful in this tour, with respect to obtaining general evidences than in any other of the same length; and the probability was, that as I should continue to move among the same kind of people, my success would be in a similar proportion according to the number visited. These were great encouragements to me to proceed. At length I arrived at the place of my last hope. On my first day's expedition I boarded forty vessels, but found no one in these who had been on the coast of Africa in the Slave Trade. One or two had been there in king's ships; but they had never been on shore. Things were now drawing near to a close; and, notwithstanding my success as to general evidence in this journey, my heart began to beat. I was restless and uneasy during the night. The next morning I felt agitated again between the alternate pressure of hope and fear; and in this state I entered my boat. The fifty-seventh vessel, which I boarded in this harbour was the Melampus frigate. One person belonging to it, on examining him in the captain's cabin, said he had been two voyages to Africa; and I had not long discoursed with him before I found, to my inexpressible joy, that he was the man. I found, too, that he unravelled the question in dispute precisely as our inferences had determined it. He had been two expeditions up the river Calabar in the canoes of the natives. In the first of these, they came within a certain distance of a village. They then concealed themselves under the bushes, which hung over the water from the banks. In this position they remained during day-light; but at night they went up to it armed, and seized all the inhabitants, who had not time to make their escape. They obtained forty-five persons in this manner. In the second, they were out eight or nine days, when they made a similar attempt, and with nearly similar success. They seized men, women, and children, as they could find them in the huts. They then bound their arms, and drove them before them to the canoes. The name of the person, thus discovered on board the Melampus, was Isaac Parker. On inquiring into his character from the master of the division, I found it highly respectable. I found, also, afterwards, that he had sailed with Captain Cook, with great credit to himself, round the world. It was also remarkable that my brother, on seeing him in London, when he went to deliver his evidence, recognised him as having served on board the Monarch man-of-war, and as one of the most exemplary men in that ship.
Things were starting to feel pretty discouraging, at least in terms of my main goal. There was just one more port left, and it was about two to three hundred miles away. Still, I decided to head to Plymouth. I had already had more success on this trip in gathering general evidence than in any other trip of similar length; and since I would continue to interact with the same types of people, I figured my success would likely follow the same trend based on the number of people I talked to. These were strong motivators for me to keep going. Finally, I reached the place of my last hope. On my first day, I boarded forty ships, but found no one who had been to the coast of Africa for the Slave Trade. A couple had been there on king's ships, but they’d never gone ashore. Things were coming to a close; and despite my overall success in gathering evidence during this journey, I felt anxious. I was restless and uneasy throughout the night. The next morning, I felt tense again, caught between hope and fear, as I got into my boat. The fifty-seventh ship I boarded at this harbor was the Melampus frigate. One person on board, when questioned in the captain's cabin, mentioned he had been on two trips to Africa. I didn't talk to him long before I discovered, to my immense joy, that he was the right person. He explained the situation exactly as our findings indicated. He had gone up the Calabar River twice in native canoes. On the first trip, they approached a village, then hid under the bushes overhanging the water. They stayed there during the day and at night armed themselves and captured the villagers who couldn’t escape in time. They managed to take forty-five people this way. On the second trip, they were out for eight or nine days and made a similar attempt with nearly the same level of success. They captured men, women, and children as they found them in the huts, bound their hands, and herded them to the canoes. The name of the person I discovered on the Melampus was Isaac Parker. When I asked about his reputation from the division commander, I found it to be very respectable. Later, I learned he had sailed with Captain Cook and earned great respect as he circumnavigated the globe. Interestingly, my brother recognized him when he saw him in London to provide his testimony, remembering him as one of the most outstanding men on board the Monarch man-of-war.
I returned now in triumph. I had been out only three weeks, and I had found out this extraordinary person, and five respectable witnesses besides. These, added to the three discovered in the last journey, and to those provided before, made us more formidable than at any former period; so that the delay of our opponents, which we had looked upon as so great an evil, proved in the end truly serviceable to our cause.
I came back feeling victorious. I had only been away for three weeks, and I had discovered this amazing person, along with five other credible witnesses. These, combined with the three found on the last trip, and those we had before, made us stronger than ever before; so the time our opponents took, which we thought was such a huge setback, actually ended up being really beneficial to our cause.
On going into the committee-room of the House of Commons on my return, I found that the examinations were still going on in the behalf of those who were interested in the continuance of the trade; and they went on beyond the middle of April, when it was considered that they had closed. Mr. Wilberforce moved accordingly, on the 23rd of the same month, that Captain Thomas Wilson, of the royal navy, and that Charles Berns Wadstrom and Henry Hew Dalrymple, Esqrs., do attend as witnesses on the behalf of the abolition. There was nothing now but clamour from those on the opposite side of the question. They knew well that there were but few members of the House of Commons, who had read the privy council report. They knew, therefore, that if the question were to be decided by evidence, it must be decided by that which their own witnesses had given before parliament. But this was the evidence only on one side. It was certain, therefore, if the decision were to be made upon this basis, that it must be entirely in their favour. Will it then be believed that in an English House of Commons there could be found persons, who could move to prevent the hearing of any other witnesses on this subject; and, what is more remarkable, that they should charge Mr. Wilberforce, because he proposed the hearing of them, with the intention solely of delay? Yes, such persons were found; but happily only among the friends of the Slave Trade. Mr. Wilberforce, in replying to them, could not help observing that it was rather extraordinary that they, who had occasioned the delay of a whole year, should charge him with that of which they themselves had been so conspicuously guilty. He then commented for some time on the injustice of their motion. He stated, too, that he would undertake to remove from disinterested and unprejudiced persons many of the impressions which had been made by the witnesses against the abolition; and he appealed to the justice and honour of the house in behalf of an injured people; under the hope that they would not allow a decision to be made till they had heard the whole of the case. These observations, however, did not satisfy all those who belonged to the opposite party. Lord Penrhyn contended for a decision without a moment's delay. Mr. Gascoyne relented; and said, he would allow three weeks to the abolitionists, during which their evidence might be heard. At length, the debate ended; in the course of which Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox powerfully supported Mr. Wilberforce; when the motion was negatived without any attempt at a division.
Upon entering the committee room of the House of Commons upon my return, I found that the hearings were still ongoing for those who wanted the trade to continue; these continued past mid-April, after which it was believed they had concluded. Mr. Wilberforce made a motion on the 23rd of that month for Captain Thomas Wilson of the royal navy, as well as Charles Berns Wadstrom and Henry Hew Dalrymple, Esqs., to appear as witnesses in support of abolition. At this point, the only response from the opposing side was loud outcry. They were well aware that very few members of the House of Commons had read the privy council report. Thus, they knew that if the question was to be decided based on evidence, it would have to rely solely on what their own witnesses had previously given before parliament. But this evidence represented only one side of the argument. It was clear that if the decision was made on this basis, it would entirely favor them. Can we really believe that within an English House of Commons there were individuals who would move to block the hearing of any other witnesses on this issue? What’s even more surprising is that they accused Mr. Wilberforce, for wanting to hear those witnesses, of intending only to delay the process. Yes, such individuals existed, but thankfully only among the supporters of the Slave Trade. In response, Mr. Wilberforce pointed out that it was rather remarkable that those who had caused a year-long delay would accuse him of the very thing they were so blatantly guilty of. He then spent some time discussing the unfairness of their motion. He also stated that he could assure the removal of many of the misconceptions created by the witnesses against abolition from unbiased individuals; and he appealed to the justice and honor of the House on behalf of an oppressed people, hoping they wouldn't make a decision until they had heard the entire case. However, these comments did not appease all those from the opposing party. Lord Penrhyn insisted on a decision without delay. Mr. Gascoyne softened his position and allowed three weeks for the abolitionists to present their evidence. Eventually, the debate concluded, during which Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox strongly backed Mr. Wilberforce, and the motion was defeated without any attempt at a vote.
The witnesses in behalf of the abolition of the Slave Trade now took possession of the ground which those in favour of it had left. But what was our surprise, when only three of them had been heard, to find that Mr. Norris should come forward as an evidence! This he did to confirm what he had stated to the privy council as to the general question; but he did it more particularly, as it appeared afterwards, in the justification of his own conduct: for the part which he had taken at Liverpool, as it related to me, had become a subject of conversation with many. It was now well known what assistance he had given me there in my pursuit; how he had even furnished me with clauses for a bill, for the abolition of the trade; how I had written to him, in consequence of his friendly co-operation, to come up as an evidence in our favour; and how at that moment he had accepted the office of a delegate on the contrary side. The noise which the relation and repetition of these and other circumstances had made, had given him, I believe, considerable pain. His friends, too, had urged some explanation as necessary. But how short-sighted are they who do wrong! By coming forward in this imprudent manner, he fixed the stain only the more indelibly on himself; for he thus imposed upon me the cruel necessity of being examined against him; and this necessity was the more afflicting, to me, because I was to be called upon not to state facts relative to the trade, but to destroy his character as an evidence in its support. I was to be called upon, in fact, to explain all those communications which have been stated to have taken place between us on this subject. Glad indeed should I have been to have declined this painful interference. But no one would hear of a refusal. The Bishop of London, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Wilberforce considered my appearance on this occasion as an imperious duty to the cause of the oppressed. It may be perhaps sufficient to say that I was examined; that Mr. Norris was present all the time; that I was cross-examined by counsel; and, that after this time, Mr. Norris seemed to have no ordinary sense of his own degradation; for he never afterwards held up his head or looked the abolitionists in the face, or acted with energy as a delegate, as on former occasions.
The witnesses supporting the abolition of the Slave Trade now took the stage after those in favor of it had left. But we were surprised when only three of them had spoken, and Mr. Norris stepped forward as a witness! He did this to back up what he had told the privy council regarding the overall issue; but he was particularly, as it turned out later, trying to justify his own actions. The role he played in Liverpool regarding me had become a topic of discussion among many. It was now well known how much help he gave me there in my efforts; how he even provided me with clauses for a bill to abolish the trade; how I had written to him, thanks to his friendly cooperation, asking him to come as a witness in our favor; and how, at that moment, he had chosen to serve as a delegate on the opposite side. The chatter around these and other events had caused him, I believe, considerable distress. His friends also insisted he needed to explain himself. But how short-sighted are those who do wrong! By stepping forward in such an unwise way, he only made the stain on himself more permanent; he forced me into the painful position of having to testify against him. This was especially painful for me because I was to discuss not just the trade itself but to undermine his credibility as a witness supporting it. I would have loved to decline this uncomfortable involvement. But no one would consider a refusal. The Bishop of London, Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Wilberforce saw my participation as an urgent duty to the cause of the oppressed. It’s enough to say that I was questioned; Mr. Norris was present the entire time; I was cross-examined by a lawyer; and after that, Mr. Norris seemed to really feel his own disgrace; he never held his head high again, couldn’t look the abolitionists in the eye, or acted with the same energy as a delegate that he had before.
The hearing of evidence continued to go on in behalf of the abolition of the trade. No less than twenty-four witnesses altogether were heard in this session. And here it may not be improper to remark, that during the examination of our own witnesses, as well as the cross-examination of those of our opponents, no counsel were ever employed. Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. William Smith undertook this laborious department; and as they performed it with great ability, so they did it with great liberality towards those who were obliged to come under their notice, in the course of this fiery ordeal.
The presentation of evidence continued in support of ending the trade. A total of twenty-four witnesses were heard in this session. It's worth noting that during the questioning of our witnesses and the cross-examination of those from the opposition, no lawyers were hired. Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. William Smith took on this demanding role, and they handled it with both skill and generosity toward those who had to come under their scrutiny during this challenging process.
The bill of Sir William Dolben was now to be renewed. On this occasion the enemies of the abolition became again conspicuous; for on the 26th of May, they availed themselves of a thin house to propose an amendment, by which they increased the number of the slaves to the tonnage of the vessel. They increased it, too, without taking into the account, as had hitherto been done, the extent of the superficies of the vessels which were to carry them. This was the third indecorous attempt against what were only reasonable and expected proceedings in the present session. But their advantage was of no great duration; for the very next day, the amendment was rejected on the report by a majority of ninety-five to sixty-nine, in consequence, principally, of the private exertions of Mr. Pitt. Of this bill, though it was renewed in other years besides the present, I shall say no more in this History; because it has nothing to do with the general question. Horrible as it yet left the situation of the poor slaves in their transportation, (which the plate has most abundantly shown,) it was the best bill which could be then obtained; and it answered to a certain degree the benevolent wishes of the worthy baronet who introduced it: for if we could conclude, that these voyages were made more comfortable to the injured Africans, in proportion as there was less mortality in them, he had undoubtedly the pleasure of seeing the end, at least partially, obtained; though he must always have felt a great drawback from it, by reflecting that the survivors, however their sufferings might have been a little diminished, were reserved for slavery.
The bill from Sir William Dolben was about to be renewed. On this occasion, the opponents of abolition once again made their presence known; on May 26th, they took advantage of a sparsely attended session to propose an amendment that increased the number of slaves based on the tonnage of the vessel. They did this without considering, as had been done in the past, the size of the ships that would carry them. This was the third inappropriate attempt to undermine what were only reasonable and expected actions during this session. However, their advantage didn't last long; the very next day, the amendment was rejected by a majority of ninety-five to sixty-nine, mainly due to the private efforts of Mr. Pitt. Although this bill was renewed in other years as well, I won’t mention it further in this History because it’s not relevant to the broader issue. Horrible as it still left the plight of the poor slaves during their transport (which the evidence has clearly shown), it was the best bill that could be secured at the time. It did meet, to some extent, the kind intentions of the honorable baronet who proposed it. If we could argue that these journeys were made more bearable for the suffering Africans as mortality rates decreased, he surely found some satisfaction in seeing at least partial success. Still, he must have felt a significant sense of loss knowing that the survivors, even if their suffering had been lessened, were still doomed to slavery.
The session was now near its close; and we had the sorrow to find, though we had defeated our opponents in the three instances which have been mentioned, that the tide ran decidedly against us, upon the general question, in the House of Commons. The same statements which had struck so many members with panic in the former sessions, such as that of emancipation, of the ruin and massacre of the planters, and of indemnification to the amount of seventy millions, had been industriously kept up, and this by a personal canvass among them. But this hostile disposition was still unfortunately increased by considerations of another sort. For the witnesses of our opponents had taken their ground first. No less than eleven of them had been examined in the last sessions. In the present, two-thirds of the time had been occupied by others on the same side. Hence the impression upon this ground also was against us; and we had yet had no adequate opportunity of doing it away. A clamour was also raised, where we thought it least likely to have originated. They (the planters), it was said, had produced persons in elevated life, and of the highest character, as witnesses; whereas we had been obliged to take up with those of the lowest condition. This idea was circulated directly after the introduction of Isaac Parker, before mentioned, a simple mariner, and who was now contrasted with the admirals on the other side of the question. This outcry was not only ungenerous, but unconstitutional. It is the glory of the English law, that it has no scale of veracity which it adapts to persons, according to the station which they may be found to occupy in life. In our courts of law, the poor are heard as well as the rich; and if their reputation be fair, and they stand proof against the cross-examinations they undergo, both the judge and the jury must determine the matter in dispute by their evidence. But the House of Commons was now called upon by our opponents, to adopt the preposterous maxim of attaching falsehood to poverty, or of weighing truth by the standard of rank and riches.
The session was coming to an end, and we were disappointed to see that, even though we had beaten our opponents in the three cases mentioned, the overall sentiment in the House of Commons was clearly against us. The same arguments that had panicked so many members in earlier sessions—like emancipation, the devastation and slaughter of plantation owners, and compensation claims of seventy million—had been aggressively promoted, especially through personal outreach. Unfortunately, this antagonistic attitude was further fueled by other factors. Our opponents' witnesses had already taken the lead, with eleven of them being examined in the last sessions. In this session, two-thirds of the time had been taken up by others on their side. Consequently, the impression on this front was also unfavorable to us, and we hadn’t had a suitable opportunity to counter it. There was also a commotion from an unexpected source. It was claimed that the planters had presented people of high status and reputation as witnesses, while we were left with those from lower social standings. This notion quickly spread after the introduction of Isaac Parker, a simple sailor who was now being compared to the admirals on the other side of the debate. This outcry was not only unfair but also unconstitutional. It's a point of pride in English law that it does not judge truth based on a person’s status in life. In our courts, the voices of the poor are heard alongside those of the rich; if their reputations are solid and they withstand cross-examinations, both the judge and jury must base their decisions on their testimonies. Yet now, our opponents were urging the House of Commons to adopt the absurd notion that poverty equates to dishonesty or that truth should be measured by social rank and wealth.
But though we felt a considerable degree of pain in finding this adverse disposition among so many members of the Lower House, it was some consolation to us to know that our cause had not suffered with their constituents,—the people. These were still warmly with us. Indeed, their hatred of the trade had greatly increased. Many circumstances had occurred in this year to promote it. The committee, during my absence in France, had circulated the plate of the slave-ship throughout all England. No one saw it but he was impressed. It spoke to him in a language which was at once intelligible and irresistible. It brought forth the tear of sympathy in behalf of the sufferers, and it fixed their sufferings in his heart. The committee, too, had been particularly vigilant during the whole of the year with respect to the public papers. They had suffered no statement in behalf of those interested in the continuance of the trade to go unanswered. Dr. Dickson, the author of the Letters on Slavery, before mentioned, had come forward again with his services on this occasion; and, by his active co-operation with a sub-committee appointed for the purpose, the coast was so well cleared of our opponents, that, though they were seen the next year again, through the medium of the same papers, they appeared only in sudden incursions, as it were, during which they darted a few weapons at us; but they never afterward ventured upon the plain to dispute the matter, inch by inch, or point by point, in an open and manly manner.
But even though we felt a significant amount of pain seeing so many members of the Lower House against us, it was somewhat comforting to know that our cause hadn’t suffered with the people, our supporters. They were still strongly with us. In fact, their dislike of the trade had grown a lot. Several events had occurred this year to boost this sentiment. While I was away in France, the committee had circulated the image of the slave ship all over England. Anyone who saw it was moved. It communicated to them in a way that was both clear and powerful. It brought tears of sympathy for the victims, and it made their suffering stick in people's hearts. The committee had also been especially vigilant throughout the year regarding public writings. They made sure no statement supporting the continuation of the trade went unanswered. Dr. Dickson, the author of the Letters on Slavery, mentioned earlier, returned to offer his help. With his active collaboration with a sub-committee formed for this purpose, we effectively cleared the coast of our opponents. Though they resurfaced the following year again in the same papers, they only made brief, sudden attacks, throwing a few jabs at us; they never dared to engage openly and thoroughly to dispute the issue, inch by inch, or point by point.
But other circumstances occurred to keep up a hatred of the trade among the people in this interval, which, trivial as they were, ought not to be forgotten. The amiable poet Cowper had frequently made the Slave Trade the subject of his contemplation. He had already severely condemned it in his valuable poem The Task. But now he had written three little fugitive pieces upon it. Of these, the most impressive was that which he called The Negro's Complaint, and of which the following is a copy:—
But other events happened during this time that fueled the public's hatred of the trade, which, though seemingly minor, should not be overlooked. The kind poet Cowper had often reflected on the Slave Trade. He had already strongly criticized it in his important poem The Task. Now, he had written three short pieces about it. The most striking of these was the one he titled The Negro's Complaint, and here is a copy:—
Afric's coast I left forlorn,
To increase a stranger's treasures,
O'er the raging billows borne;
Men from England bought and sold me,
Paid my price in paltry gold;
But, though theirs they have enroll'd me,
Minds are never to be sold.
What are England's rights, I ask,
Me from my delights to sever,
Me to torture, me to task?
Fleecy locks and black complexion
Cannot forfeit Nature's claim;
Skins may differ, but affection
Dwells in black and white the same.
Make the plant, for which we toil?
Sighs must fan it, tears must water,
Sweat of ours must dress the soil.
Think, ye masters, iron-hearted,
Lolling at your jovial boards,
Think, how many backs have smarted
For the sweets your cane affords.
Is there one, who rules on high;
Has he bid you buy and sell us,
Speaking from his throne, the sky?
Ask him, if your knotted scourges,
Fetters, blood-extorting screws,
Are the means, which duty urges
Agents of his will to use?
Strewing yonder sea with wrecks,
Wasting towns, plantations, meadows,
Are the voice with which he speaks.
He, foreseeing what vexations
Afric's sons should undergo,
Fixed their tyrants' habitations
Where his whirlwinds answer—No.
Ere our necks received the chain;
By the miseries, which we tasted
Crossing, in your barks, the main;
By our sufferings, since you brought us
To the man-degrading mart,
All-sustained by patience, taught us
Only by a broken heart:
Till some reason you shall find
Worthier of regard, and stronger,
Than the colour of our kind.
Slaves of gold! whose sordid dealings
Tarnish all, your boasted powers,
Prove that you have human feelings,
Ere you proudly question ours.
This little piece Cowper presented in manuscript to some of his friends in London; and these, conceiving it to contain a powerful appeal in behalf of the injured Africans, joined in printing it. Having ordered it on the finest hot-pressed paper, and folded it up in a small and neat form, they gave it the printed title of A Subject for Conversation at the Tea-table. After this, they sent many thousand copies of it in franks into the country. From one it spread to another, till it travelled almost over the whole island. Falling at length into the hands of the musician, it was set to music; and it then found its way into the streets, both of the metropolis and of the country, where it was sung as a ballad; and where it gave a plain account of the subject, with an appropriate feeling, to those who heard it.
This short piece was presented by Cowper in manuscript to some of his friends in London, who believed it contained a strong appeal for the injured Africans and decided to print it. They ordered it on the best hot-pressed paper, folded it neatly into a small format, and titled it A Subject for Conversation at the Tea-table. After that, they sent thousands of copies out to the countryside. From one place, it spread to another until it circulated nearly all over the island. Eventually, it reached a musician who set it to music, and then it found its way into the streets, both in the city and the countryside, where it was sung as a ballad and conveyed a clear account of the subject with the right emotion to those who listened.
Nor was the philanthropy of the late Mr. Wedgewood less instrumental in turning the popular feeling in our favour. He made his own manufactory contribute to this end. He took the seal of the committee, as exhibited in Chap. XX., for his model; and he produced a beautiful cameo, of a less size, of which the ground was a most delicate white, but the Negro, who was seen imploring compassion in the middle of it, was in his own native colour. Mr. Wedgewood made a liberal donation of these, when finished, among his friends. I received from him no less than five hundred of them myself. They, to whom they were sent, did not lay them up in their cabinets, but gave them away likewise. They were soon, like The Negro's Complaint, in different parts of the kingdom. Some had them inlaid in gold on the lid of their snuff-boxes. Of the ladies, several wore them in bracelets, and others had them fitted up in an ornamental manner as pins for their hair. At length the taste for wearing them became general; and thus fashion, which usually confines itself to worthless things, was seen for once in the honourable office of promoting the cause of justice, humanity, and freedom.
Nor was the philanthropy of the late Mr. Wedgewood any less important in shifting public sentiment in our favor. He made his own factory contribute to this goal. He used the seal of the committee, as shown in Chap. XX., as his model; and he created a beautiful cameo, slightly smaller in size, with a delicate white background, featuring a Black man imploring compassion in his natural skin tone. Mr. Wedgewood generously donated these once they were finished to his friends. I personally received no less than five hundred of them. Those who received them did not just keep them stored away but also gave them out. They quickly spread, similar to The Negro's Complaint, to different parts of the country. Some had them inlaid in gold on the lids of their snuff boxes. Several ladies wore them as bracelets, while others had them stylishly made into hairpins. Eventually, the trend of wearing them became widespread; and thus, fashion, which typically focuses on trivial things, was seen for once in the honorable role of promoting justice, humanity, and freedom.
I shall now only state that the committee took as members within its own body, in the period of time which is included in this chapter, the Reverend Mr. Ormerod, chaplain to the Bishop of London, and Captain James Bowen, of the royal navy; that they elected the Honourable Nathaniel Curzon (afterwards Lord Scarsdale), Dr. Frossard, of Lyons, and Benjamin Garlike, Esq., then secretary to the English embassy at the Hague, honorary and corresponding members; and that they concluded their annual labours with a suitable report, in which they noticed the extraordinary efforts of our opponents to injure our cause in the following manner:—"In the progress of this business, a powerful combination of interest has been excited against us. The African trader, the planter, and the West India merchant, have united their forces to defend the fortress, in which their supposed treasures lie. Vague calculations and false alarms have been thrown out to the public, in order to show that the constitution, and even the existence, of this free and opulent nation depend on its depriving the inhabitants of a foreign country of those rights and of that liberty which we ourselves so highly and so justly prize. Surely, in the nature of things, and in the order of Providence, it cannot be so. England existed as a great nation long before the African commerce was known amongst us, and it is not to acts of injustice and violence that she owes her present rank in the scale of nations."
I will now simply mention that during the time covered in this chapter, the committee included as members the Reverend Mr. Ormerod, chaplain to the Bishop of London, and Captain James Bowen of the royal navy. They elected the Honourable Nathaniel Curzon (later Lord Scarsdale), Dr. Frossard from Lyons, and Benjamin Garlike, Esq., who was then the secretary to the English embassy in The Hague, as honorary and corresponding members. They wrapped up their annual work with a suitable report, in which they highlighted the extraordinary efforts of our opponents to undermine our cause in the following way:—"During this process, a strong coalition of interests has been formed against us. The African trader, the plantation owner, and the West India merchant have joined forces to protect the fortress where they believe their treasures are hidden. Misleading calculations and false alarms have been spread to the public, claiming that the constitution, and even the survival, of this free and wealthy nation depends on denying the inhabitants of a foreign country those rights and freedoms that we so deeply and rightly value. Surely, by the very nature of things and the order of Providence, it can't be true. England was a powerful nation long before African trade became known to us, and it is not through acts of injustice and violence that she has achieved her current standing among nations."
CHAPTER XXVI.
—Continuation from July, 1790, to July, 1791.—Author travels again throughout the kingdom; object of his journey.—Motion in the House of Commons to resume the hearing of evidence in favour of the abolition; list of all those examined on this side of the question; machinations of interested persons, and cruel circumstances of the times previously to the day of decision.—Motion at length made for stopping all further importation of Slaves from Africa; debates upon it; motion lost.—Resolutions of the committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.—Establishment of the Sierra Leone Company.
—Continuation from July 1790 to July 1791.—The author travels again throughout the kingdom; the purpose of the journey.—A motion in the House of Commons is made to resume the hearing of evidence in support of the abolition; a list of all those examined on this side of the issue; schemes by interested parties and the harsh circumstances of the times leading up to the day of decision.—Finally, a motion is made to stop all further importation of slaves from Africa; debates occur over it; the motion is defeated.—Resolutions from the committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.—Formation of the Sierra Leone Company.
It was a matter of deep affliction to us to think, that the crimes and sufferings inseparable from the Slave Trade were to be continued to another year. And yet it was our duty, in the present moment, to acquiesce in the postponement of the question. This postponement was not now for the purpose of delay, but of securing victory. The evidence, on the side of the abolition, was, at the end of the last session, but half finished. It was impossible, for the sake of Africa, that we could have then closed it. No other opportunity might offer in parliament for establishing an indelible record in her favour, if we were to neglect the present. It was our duty, therefore, even to wait to complete it, and to procure such a body of evidence, as should not only bear us out in the approaching contest, but such as, if we were to fail, would bear out our successors also. It was possible, indeed, if the inhabitants of our islands were to improve in civilization, that the poor slaves might experience gradually an improved treatment with it; and so far testimony now might not be testimony for ever; but it was utterly impossible, while the Slave Trade lasted, and the human passion continued to be the same, that there should be any change for the better in Africa; or that any modes, less barbarous, should come into use for procuring slaves. Evidence, therefore, if once collected on this subject, would be evidence for posterity. In the midst of these thoughts another journey occurred to me as necessary for this purpose; and I prayed, that I might have strength to perform it in the most effectual manner; and that I might be daily impressed, as I travelled along, with the stimulating thought, that the last hope for millions might possibly rest upon my own endeavours.
It was deeply distressing for us to consider that the crimes and suffering tied to the Slave Trade would continue for another year. Yet, in this moment, we had to accept the delay of the issue. This delay wasn't meant to put things off, but to secure a victory. The evidence for abolition was only half complete by the end of the last session. For Africa's sake, we couldn't have wrapped it up then. If we let this moment slip by, we might not get another chance in Parliament to create a lasting record in her favor. Thus, it was our responsibility to wait and gather enough evidence that would not only support us in the upcoming battle but also serve our successors if we failed. It was possible that as the people in our islands became more civilized, the treatment of the poor slaves might gradually improve. So, the testimony we have now might not last forever; however, while the Slave Trade continued and human passions remained unchanged, there could be no positive change in Africa or less cruel methods of obtaining slaves. Therefore, any evidence gathered on this subject would benefit future generations. Amidst these thoughts, I felt another journey was necessary for this purpose, and I hoped to have the strength to carry it out effectively. As I traveled, I wished to be consistently reminded of the motivating thought that the last hope for millions could potentially rest on my efforts.
The committee highly approved of this journey; Mr. Wilberforce saw the absolute necessity of it also, and had prepared a number of questions, with great ingenuity, to be put to such persons as might have information to communicate. These I added to those in the tables, which have been already mentioned, and they made together a valuable collection on the subject.
The committee was fully on board with this journey; Mr. Wilberforce recognized how crucial it was too and had come up with several thoughtful questions to ask people who might have useful information. I combined these with the questions already mentioned in the tables, creating a valuable collection on the topic.
This tour was the most vexatious of any I had yet undertaken; many still refused to come forward to be examined, and some on the most frivolous pretences, so that I was disgusted, as I journeyed on, to find how little men were disposed to make sacrifices for so great a cause. In one part of it I went over nearly two thousand miles, receiving repeated refusals; I had not secured one witness within this distance; this was truly disheartening. I was subject to the whims and caprice of those whom I solicited on these occasions[A]; to these I was obliged to accommodate myself. When at Edinburgh, a person who could have given me material information declined seeing me, though he really wished well to the cause; when I had returned southward as far as York, he changed his mind, and he would then see me; I went back that I might not lose him. When I arrived, he would give me only private information. Thus I travelled, backwards and forwards, four hundred miles to no purpose. At another place a circumstance almost similar happened, though with a different issue. I had been for two years writing about a person, whose testimony was important. I had passed once through the town in which he lived, but he would not then see me; I passed through it now, but no entreaties of his friends could make him alter his resolution. He was a man highly respectable as to situation in life, but of considerable vanity. I said therefore to my friend, on leaving the town, You may tell him that I expect to be at Nottingham in a few days, and though it be a hundred and fifty miles distant, I will even come back to see him if he will dine with me on my return. A letter from my friend announced to me, when at Nottingham, that his vanity had been so gratified by the thought of a person coming expressly to visit him from such a distance, that he would meet me according to my appointment; I went back; we dined together; he yielded to my request; I was now repaid, and I returned towards Nottingham in the night. These circumstances I mention, and I feel it right to mention them, that the reader may be properly impressed with the great difficulties we found in collecting a body of evidence in comparison with our opponents. They ought never to be forgotten; for if with the testimony, picked up as it were under all these disadvantages, we carried our object against those who had almost numberless witnesses to command, what must have been the merits of our cause! No person can indeed judge of the severe labour and trials in these journeys. In the present, I was out four months; I was almost over the whole island; I intersected it backwards and forwards both in the night and in the day; I travelled nearly seven thousand miles in this time, and I was able to count upon twenty new and willing evidences.
This tour was the most frustrating of any I had undertaken so far; many still refused to come forward for questioning, some for the most trivial reasons, which left me feeling disheartened as I traveled on, realizing how unwilling people were to make sacrifices for such an important cause. At one point, I traveled nearly two thousand miles, receiving repeated refusals; I hadn’t secured a single witness in that distance, which was truly discouraging. I had to deal with the unpredictable whims of those I approached during these times; I had to adapt to their preferences. When I was in Edinburgh, someone who could have provided valuable information declined to meet, even though he genuinely supported the cause. After I traveled south to York, he changed his mind and agreed to see me; I went back to ensure I wouldn’t miss him. When I arrived, he would only share information privately. So, I traveled back and forth, four hundred miles to no avail. In another instance, a similar situation occurred, but with a different outcome. I had spent two years writing about a person whose testimony was crucial. I had passed through the town where he lived once, but he wouldn’t see me then; I went through it again, but no amount of persuasion from his friends could change his mind. He was a highly respected man in society, but quite vain. So, I told my friend as I left the town, “You can let him know that I expect to be in Nottingham in a few days, and even though it’s a hundred and fifty miles away, I’ll come back to see him if he’ll have dinner with me when I return.” A letter from my friend later informed me, while I was in Nottingham, that his vanity had been so flattered by the thought of someone traveling all that way just to see him that he would meet me as promised; I went back, we had dinner, and he agreed to my request; I felt rewarded and headed back toward Nottingham that night. I mention these circumstances, and I think it’s important to highlight them so that the reader understands the significant challenges we faced in gathering a body of evidence compared to our opponents. These challenges should never be forgotten; for if, despite gathering testimony under such difficult conditions, we achieved our goal against those with virtually endless witnesses at their disposal, it underscores the strength of our cause! No one can truly appreciate the intense labor and struggles involved in these journeys. During this particular one, I was out for four months; I covered almost the entire island; I traversed it back and forth, both night and day; I traveled nearly seven thousand miles during that time, and only managed to secure twenty new and willing witnesses.
Having now accomplished my object, Mr. Wilberforce moved on the 4th of February in the House of Commons, that a committee be appointed to examine further witnesses in behalf of the abolition of the Slave Trade, This motion was no sooner made, than Mr. Cawthorne rose, to our great surprise, to oppose it. He took upon himself to decide that the House had heard evidence enough. This indecent motion was not without its advocates. Mr. Wilberforce set forth the injustice of this attempt, and proved, that out of eighty-one days which had been given up to the hearing of evidence, the witnesses against the abolition had occupied no less than fifty-seven. He was strenuously supported by Mr. Burke, Mr. Martin, and other respectable members. At length the debate ended in favour of the original motion, and a committee was appointed accordingly.
Having now achieved my goal, Mr. Wilberforce proposed on February 4th in the House of Commons that a committee be formed to hear more witnesses in support of the abolition of the Slave Trade. No sooner was this motion made than Mr. Cawthorne surprisingly stood up to oppose it. He took it upon himself to decide that the House had heard enough evidence. This outrageous motion did have its supporters. Mr. Wilberforce highlighted the injustice of this effort and demonstrated that out of eighty-one days dedicated to hearing evidence, witnesses against abolition had taken up no less than fifty-seven. He received strong support from Mr. Burke, Mr. Martin, and other respected members. Eventually, the debate concluded in favor of the original motion, and a committee was appointed accordingly.
The examinations began again on February 7th, and continued till April 5th, when they were finally closed. In this, as in the former session, Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. William Smith principally conducted them; and indeed it was necessary that they should have been present at these times; for it is perhaps difficult to conceive the illiberal manner in which our witnesses were treated by those on the other side of the question. Men who had left the trade upon principle, and who had come forward, against their apparent interest, to serve the cause of humanity and justice, were looked upon as mercenaries and culprits, or as men of doubtful and suspicious character; they were brow-beaten; unhandsome questions were put to them; some were kept for four days under examination. It was however highly to their honour that they were found in no one instance to prevaricate, nor to waver as to the certainty of their facts.
The examinations started again on February 7th and went on until April 5th, when they finally wrapped up. Just like in the previous session, Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. William Smith mostly led them; it was crucial for them to be present during these times because it’s hard to imagine the unfair way our witnesses were treated by those on the opposing side. People who had left the trade on principle and came forward, against their own interests, to support the cause of humanity and justice were seen as mercenaries and wrongdoers or as people of questionable and suspicious character. They faced intimidation; inappropriate questions were directed at them; some were kept under examination for four days. However, it was very commendable that they did not waver in their honesty or the accuracy of their facts even once.
But this treatment, hard as it was for them to bear, was indeed good for the cause; for, coming thus pure out of the fire, they occasioned their own testimony, when read, to bear stronger marks of truth than that of the generality of our opponents; nor was it less superior when weighed by other considerations. For the witnesses, against the abolition were principally interested; they, who were not, had been hospitably received at the planters' tables. The evidence, too, which they delivered, was almost wholly negative. They had not seen such and such evils; but this was no proof that the evils did not exist. The witnesses, on the other hand, who came up in favour of the abolition, had no advantage in making their several assertions. In some instances they came up against their apparent interest, and, to my knowledge, suffered persecution for so doing. The evidence also which they delivered was of a positive nature. They gave an account of specific evils, which had come under their own eyes; these evils were never disproved; they stood therefore on a firm basis, as on a tablet of brass. Engraved there in affirmative characters, a few of them were of more value than all the negative and airy testimony which had been advanced on the other side of the question.
But this treatment, tough as it was for them to endure, was actually beneficial for the cause; coming out of the fire so pure, their testimony, when read, showed stronger signs of truth than that of most of our opponents. It was also superior when considered from other angles. The witnesses against abolition had a personal stake in the matter; those who didn’t were welcomed at the planters' tables. Additionally, the evidence they provided was mostly negative. They claimed not to have seen certain evils, but that didn’t prove those evils didn’t exist. On the other hand, the witnesses who supported abolition had no personal advantage in their statements. In some cases, they went against their evident interests and, to my knowledge, faced persecution for it. Their evidence was positive; they recounted specific evils they had witnessed firsthand, and these evils were never disproven. Therefore, their accounts stood on solid ground, like inscriptions on a bronze tablet. Engraved there in affirmative terms, a few of their accounts were worth more than all the negative and flimsy testimony presented by the opposition.
That the public may judge, in some measure, of the respectability of the witnesses in favour of the abolition, and that they may know also to whom Africa is so much indebted for her deliverance, I shall subjoin their names in the three following lists. The first will contain those who were examined by the privy council only; the second those who were examined by the privy council and the House of Commons also; and the third those who were examined-by the House of Commons only.
That the public can assess, to some extent, the credibility of the witnesses supporting abolition, and to understand who Africa owes so much for her freedom, I will include their names in the following three lists. The first list will have those who were examined by the privy council only; the second will include those examined by both the privy council and the House of Commons; and the third will consist of those examined by the House of Commons only.
LIST I.
LIST I.
- Andrew Spaarman, physician, botanist, and successor to Linnaeus, traveller on discovery in Africa for the king of Sweden.
- Rev. Isham Baggs, chaplain for two voyages to Africa in H.M. ship Grampus.
- Captain James Bowen, of the royal navy, one voyage to Africa.
- Mr. William James, a master in the royal navy, three voyages, as mate of a slave-vessel.
- Mr. David Henderson, gunner of H.M. ship Centurion, three voyages to Africa.
- Harry Gandy, two voyages to Africa, as captain of a slave-vessel.
- Thomas Eldred, two voyages there, as mate.
- James Arnold, three voyages there, as surgeon and surgeon's mate.
- Thomas Deane, two voyages there, as captain of a wood and ivory ship.
LIST II.
List II.
- Major-General Rooke, commander of Goree, in Africa.
- Henry Hew Dalrymple, Esq., lieutenant of the 75th regiment at Goree, and afterwards in all the West Indian islands.
- Thomas Willson, Esq., naval commander at Goree.
- John Hills, Esq., captain of H.M. ship Zephyr, on the African station.
- Sir George Yonge, two voyages as lieutenant, and two as captain, of a ship of war, on the African station.
- Charles Berns Wadstrom, Esq., traveller on discovery in Africa for the King of Sweden.
- Rev. John Newton, five voyages to Africa in a slave-vessel, and resident eighteen months there.
- Captain John Ashley Hall, in the merchant service, two voyages in a slave-vessel as a mate.
- Alexander Falconbridge, four voyages in a slave-vessel as surgeon and surgeon's mate.
- Captain John Samuel Smith, of the royal navy, on the West India station.
LIST III.
List III.
- Anthony Pantaleo How, Esq., employed by government as a botanist in Africa.
- Sir Thomas Bolton Thompson, two voyages as a lieutenant, and two as commander of a ship of war on the African station.
- Lieutenant John Simpson, of the marines, two voyages in a ship of war on the African station.
- Lieutenant Richard Storey, of the royal navy, four years on the slave employ all over the coast.
- Mr. George Miller, gunner of H.M. ship Pegase, one voyage in a slave-ship.
- "Mr. James Morley, gunner of H.M. ship Medway, six voyages in a slave-ship.
- Mr. Henry Ellison, gunner of H.M. ship Resistance, eleven years in the Slave Trade.
- Mr. James Towne, carpenter of H.M. ship Syren, two voyages in a slave-ship.
- Mr. John Douglas, boatswain of H.M. ship Russell, one voyage in a slave-ship.
- Mr. Isaac Parker, shipkeeper of H.M. ship Melampus, two voyages in a slaveship.
- Thomas Trotter, Esq., M.D., one voyage as surgeon of a slave-ship.
- Mr. Isaac Wilson, one voyage as surgeon of a slave-ship.
- Mr. Ecroyde Claxton, one voyage as surgeon of a slave-ship.
- James Kiernan, Esq., resident four years on the banks of the Senegal.
- Mr. John Bowman, eleven years in the slave-employ as mate, and as a factor in the interior of Africa.
- Mr. William Dove, one voyage for slaves, and afterwards resident in America.
- Major-General Tottenham, two years resident in the West Indies.
- Captain Giles, 19th regiment, seven years quartered in the West Indies.
- Captain Cook, 89th regiment, two years quartered in the West Indies.
- Lieutenant Baker Davison, 79th regiment, twelve years quartered in the West Indies.
- Captain Hall, of the royal navy, five years on the West India station.
- Captain Thomas Lloyd, of the royal navy, one year on the West India station.
- Captain Alexander Scott, of the royal navy, one voyage to Africa and the West Indies.
- Mr. Ninian Jeffreys, a master in the royal navy, five years mate of a West Indiaman, and for two years afterwards in the islands in a ship-of-war.
- Rev. Thomas Gwynn Rees, chaplain of H.M. ship Princess Amelia, in the West Indies.
- Rev. Robert Boucher Nicholls, dean of Middleham, many years resident in the West Indies.
- Hercules Ross, Esq., twenty-one years a merchant in the West Indies.
- Mr. Thomas Clappeson, fifteen years in the West Indies as a wharfinger and pilot.
- Mr. Mark Cook, sixteen years in the West Indies, first in the planting business, and then as clerk and schoolmaster.
- Mr. Henry Coor, a millwright for fifteen years in the West Indies.
- Rev. Mr. Davies, resident fourteen years in the West Indies.
- Mr. William Duncan, four years in the West Indies, first as a clerk, and then as an overseer.
- Mr. William Fitzmaurice, fifteen years, first as a book-keeper, and then as an overseer, in the West Indies.
- Mr. Robert Forster, six years first in a store, then as second master and pilot of a ship-of-war in the West Indies.
- Mr. Robert Ross, twenty-four years, first as a book-keeper, then as an overseer, and afterwards as a planter, in the West Indies.
- Mr. John Terry, fourteen years an overseer or manager in the West Indies.
- Mr. Matthew Terry, twelve years resident, first as a book-keeper and overseer, then as a land-surveyor in the king's service, and afterwards as a colony surveyor, in the West Indies.
- George Woodward, Esq., an owner and mortgagee of property, and occasionally a resident in the West Indies.
- Mr. Joseph Woodward, three years resident in the West Indies.
- Henry Botham, Esq., a director of sugar-works both in the East and West Indies.
- Mr. John Giles, resident twelve years in the West Indies and America.
- J. Harrison, Esq., M.D., twenty-three years resident, in the medical line, in the West Indies and America.
- Robert Jackson, Esq., M.D., four years resident in the West Indies in the medical line, after which he joined his regiment, in the same profession, in America.
- Thomas Woolrich, Esq., twenty years a merchant in the West Indies, but in the interim was twice in America.
- Rev. James Stuart, two years in the West Indies, and twenty in America.
- George Baillie, Esq., one year in the West Indies, and twenty-five in America.
- William Beverley, Esq., eighteen years in America.
- John Clapham, Esq., twenty years in America.
- Robert Crew, Esq., a native of America, and long resident there.
- John Savage, Esq., forty-six years resident in America.
The evidence having been delivered on both sides, and then printed, it was judged expedient by Mr. Wilberforce, seeing that it filled three folio volumes, to abridge it. This abridgement was made by the different friends of the cause. William Burgh, Esq., of York; Thomas Babington, Esq., of Rothley Temple; the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, of Yoxall Lodge; Mr. Campbell Haliburton, of Edinburgh; George Harrison, with one or two others of the committee, and myself, were employed upon it. The greater share, however, of the labour, fell upon Dr. Dickson. That no misrepresentation of any person's testimony might be made, Matthew Montagu, Esq., and the Honourable E.J. Elliott, members of Parliament, undertook to compare the abridged manuscripts with the original text, and to strike out or correct whatever they thought to be erroneous, and to insert whatever they thought to have been omitted. The committee for the abolition, when the work was finished, printed it at their own expense, Mr. Wilberforce then presented it to the House of Commons, as a faithful abridgement of the whole evidence. Having been received as such, under the guarantee of Mr. Montague and Mr. Elliott, the committee sent it to every individual member of that House.
After both sides presented their evidence and it was printed, Mr. Wilberforce thought it would be wise to shorten it since it filled three large volumes. This abridgment was created by various supporters of the cause, including William Burgh, Esq., from York; Thomas Babington, Esq., from Rothley Temple; the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, from Yoxall Lodge; Mr. Campbell Haliburton, from Edinburgh; George Harrison, along with a couple of others from the committee, and myself. However, most of the work fell to Dr. Dickson. To ensure that no one's testimony was misrepresented, Matthew Montagu, Esq., and the Honorable E.J. Elliott, both members of Parliament, took on the task of comparing the abridged manuscripts with the original text, correcting anything they believed was incorrect, and adding anything they thought had been left out. Once the committee for abolition completed the work, they printed it at their own expense, and Mr. Wilberforce presented it to the House of Commons as an accurate abridgment of all the evidence. Once it was accepted as such, with the assurance of Mr. Montagu and Mr. Elliott, the committee sent it to every individual member of that House.
The book having been thus presented, and a day fixed for the final determination of the question, our feelings became almost insupportable; for we had the mortification to find, that our cause was going down in estimation, where it was then most important that it should have increased in favour. Our opponents had taken advantage of the long delay which the examination of evidence had occasioned, to prejudice the minds of many of the members of the House of Commons against us. The old arguments of emancipation, massacre, ruin, and indemnification, had been kept up; but, as the day of final decision approached, they had been increased. Such was our situation at this moment, when the current was turned still more powerfully against us by the peculiar circumstances of the times. It was, indeed, the misfortune of this great cause to be assailed by every weapon which could be turned against it. At this time, Thomas Paine had published his Rights of Man. This had been widely circulated. At this time, also, the French revolution had existed nearly two years. The people of England had seen, during this interval, a government as it were dissected. They had seen an old constitution taken down, and a new one put up, piece by piece, in its stead. The revolution, therefore, in conjunction with the book in question, had had the effect of producing dissatisfaction among thousands; and this dissatisfaction was growing, so as to alarm a great number of persons of property in the kingdom, as well as the government itself. Now will it be believed that our opponents had the injustice to lay hold of these circumstances, at this critical moment, to give a death-blow to the cause of the abolition? They represented the committee, though it had existed before the French revolution, or the Rights of Man were heard of, as a nest of Jacobins; and they held up the cause, sacred as it was, and though it had the support of the minister, as affording an opportunity of meeting for the purpose of overthrowing the state. Their cry succeeded. The very book of the abridgment of the evidence was considered by many members as poisonous as that of the Rights of Man. It was too profane for many of them to touch; and they who discarded it, discarded the cause also.
The book was presented, and a day was set for the final decision on the matter, making our feelings almost unbearable; we were frustrated to notice that our cause was losing support at a time when it was crucial for it to gain favor. Our opponents seized the lengthy delay caused by the examination of evidence to sway many members of the House of Commons against us. The old arguments of emancipation, violence, destruction, and compensation were kept alive, but as the day of the final decision drew closer, they intensified. This was our situation at that moment when the tide turned even more strongly against us due to the peculiar circumstances of the times. Unfortunately for this important cause, it was attacked with every possible weapon. At this time, Thomas Paine had released his Rights of Man, which circulated widely. Additionally, the French Revolution had been ongoing for nearly two years. During this period, the people of England witnessed their government being effectively dismantled. They saw an old constitution taken apart and a new one built piece by piece in its place. Thus, the revolution, together with the book, fueled discontent among thousands, which grew to the point of alarming many property owners and the government itself. Can it be believed that our opponents had the audacity to exploit these circumstances at such a crucial moment to deal a fatal blow to the abolition cause? They portrayed the committee, even though it had existed before the French Revolution and the Rights of Man were known, as a group of radicals; and they presented the cause, which was sacred and supported by the minister, as an opportunity to conspire against the state. Their claims were effective. The very book summarizing the evidence was seen by many members as just as dangerous as the Rights of Man. It was too controversial for many of them to handle; those who rejected it, rejected the cause as well.
But these were not the only circumstances which were used as means, at this critical moment, to defeat us. News of the revolution, which had commenced in St. Domingo, in consequence of the disputes between the whites and the people of colour, had, long before this, arrived in England. The horrible scenes which accompanied it, had been frequently published as so many arguments against our cause. In January, new insurrections were announced as having happened in Martinique. The negroes there were described as armed, and the planters as having abandoned their estates for fear of massacre. Early in the month of March, insurrections in the smaller French islands were reported. Every effort was then made to represent these as the effects of the new principles of liberty, and of the cry for abolition. But what should happen, just at this moment, to increase the clamour against us? Nothing less than an insurrection in Dominica.—Yes!—An insurrection in a British island. This was the very event for our opponents. "All the predictions of the planters had now become verified. The horrible massacres were now realizing at home." To give this news still greater effect, a meeting of our opponents was held at the London Tavern. By a letter read there, it appeared that "the ruin of Dominica was now at hand." Resolutions were voted, and a memorial presented to government, "immediately to despatch such a military force to the different islands, as might preserve the whites from destruction, and keep the negroes in subjection during the present critical state of the slave bill." This alarm was kept up till the 7th of April, when another meeting took place, to receive the answer of government to the memorial. It was there resolved that, "as it was too late to send troops to the islands, the best way of preserving them would be to bring the question of the Slave Trade to an immediate issue; and that it was the duty of the government, if they regarded the safety of the islands, to oppose the abolition of it." Accounts of all these proceedings were inserted in the public papers. It is needless to say that they were injurious to our cause. Many looked upon the abolitionists as monsters. They became also terrified themselves. The idea with these was, that unless the discussion on this subject was terminated, all would be lost. Thus, under a combination of effects, arising from the publication of the Rights of Man, the rise and progress of the French revolution, and the insurrections of the negroes in the different islands, no one of which events had anything to do with the abolition of the Slave Trade, the current was turned against us; and in this unfavourable frame of mind many members of parliament went into the House, on the day fixed for the discussion, to discharge their duty with respect to this great question.
But these weren’t the only factors used at this critical moment to defeat us. News of the revolution that started in St. Domingo due to the conflicts between whites and people of color had already reached England long before this. The horrifying scenes that accompanied it were frequently published as arguments against our cause. In January, new uprisings were announced in Martinique. The blacks there were reported as armed, while the plantation owners had fled their estates for fear of being killed. Early in March, insurrections in the smaller French islands were reported. Every effort was then made to portray these as the consequences of new ideas about liberty and the call for abolition. But what could happen just at that moment to intensify the outcry against us? Nothing less than an insurrection in Dominica. Yes! An insurrection in a British island. This was exactly what our opponents needed. "All the planters' predictions had now come true. The terrible massacres were now happening at home." To amplify the impact of this news, a meeting of our opponents was held at the London Tavern. A letter read there indicated that "the ruin of Dominica was imminent." Resolutions were passed, and a memorial was presented to the government, calling for "the immediate dispatch of military forces to the different islands to protect the whites from destruction and keep the blacks in check during the current critical situation with the slave bill." This alarm was maintained until April 7th, when another meeting was held to receive the government's response to the memorial. It was resolved there that, "since it was too late to send troops to the islands, the best way to protect them would be to bring the issue of the Slave Trade to an immediate vote; and it was the government’s duty, if they cared about the islands’ safety, to oppose its abolition." Accounts of all these events were published in the newspapers. Needless to say, they harmed our cause. Many saw the abolitionists as monsters and became terrified themselves. The belief among them was that unless the discussion on this issue ended, everything would be lost. Thus, under a combination of effects stemming from the publication of the Rights of Man, the rise and progress of the French revolution, and the uprisings of blacks in the various islands—none of which had any relation to the abolition of the Slave Trade—the tide turned against us; and in this unfavorable state of mind, many members of parliament entered the House on the day set for the discussion to fulfill their duty regarding this great question.
On the 18th of April, Mr. Wilberforce made his motion. He began by expressing a hope, that the present debate, instead of exciting asperity and confirming prejudice, would tend to produce a general conviction of the truth of what in fact was incontrovertible; that the abolition of the Slave Trade was indispensably required of them, not only by morality and religion, but by sound policy. He stated that he should argue the matter from evidence. He adverted to the character, situation, and means of information of his own witnesses; and having divided his subject into parts, the first of which related to the manner of reducing the natives of Africa to a state of slavery, he handled it in the following manner:—
On April 18th, Mr. Wilberforce made his motion. He started by expressing hope that the current debate, instead of causing bitterness and reinforcing biases, would lead to a shared understanding of the undeniable truth; that the abolition of the Slave Trade was absolutely necessary, not just for moral and religious reasons, but for sound policy as well. He mentioned that he would base his argument on evidence. He talked about the character, situation, and sources of information of his witnesses, and having broken his topic into parts, he tackled the first part, which dealt with how the people of Africa were enslaved, in the following way:—
He would begin, he said, with the first boundary of the trade. Captain Wilson and Captain Hills, of His Majesty's navy, and Mr. Dalrymple, of the land service, had concurred in stating, that in the country contiguous to the river Senegal, when slave-ships arrived there, armed parties were regularly sent out in the evening, who scoured the country, and brought in their prey. The wretched victims were to be seen in the morning bound back to back in the huts on shore, whence they were conveyed, tied hand and foot, to the slave-ships. The design of these ravages was obvious, because, when the Slave Trade was stopped, they ceased. Mr. Kiernan spoke of the constant depredations by the Moors to procure slaves. Mr. Wadstrom confirmed them. The latter gentleman showed also that they were excited by presents of brandy, gunpowder, and such other incentives; and that they were not only carried on by one community against another, but that the kings were stimulated to practise them in their territories, and on their own subjects: and in one instance a chieftain, who, when intoxicated, could not resist the demands of the slave merchants, had expressed, in a moment of reason, a due sense of his own crime, and had reproached his Christian seducers. Abundant also were the instances of private rapine. Individuals were kidnapped, whilst in their fields and gardens. There was an universal feeling of distrust and apprehension there. The natives never went any distance from home without arms; and when Captain Wilson asked them the reason of it, they pointed to a slave-ship then lying within sight.
He said he would start with the first boundary of the trade. Captain Wilson and Captain Hills from His Majesty's navy, along with Mr. Dalrymple from the land service, all agreed that in the area near the Senegal River, when slave ships arrived, armed groups would regularly go out in the evening to scour the land and capture people. The unfortunate victims could be seen in the morning tied back to back in huts on shore, from where they were taken, bound hand and foot, to the slave ships. The purpose of these raids was clear: when the Slave Trade was stopped, they also ended. Mr. Kiernan talked about the ongoing attacks by the Moors to capture slaves. Mr. Wadstrom confirmed this. He also showed that these raids were fueled by gifts of brandy, gunpowder, and other incentives, and that they weren’t just a case of one community attacking another; even kings were encouraged to carry them out on their own lands and subjects. In one case, a chieftain, who was unable to resist the slave traders' demands while drunk, later expressed guilt about his actions and reprimanded his Christian deceivers. There were also many instances of individual abductions. People were kidnapped while working in their fields and gardens. The atmosphere was filled with distrust and fear. The locals never traveled far from home without weapons. When Captain Wilson asked them why, they pointed to a slave ship that was in sight.
On the windward coast, it appeared from Lieutenant Story and Mr. Bowman, that the evils just mentioned existed, if possible, in a still higher degree. They had seen the remains of villages, which had been burnt, whilst the fields of corn were still standing beside them, and every other trace of recent desolation. Here an agent was sent to establish a settlement in the country, and to send to the ships such slaves as he might obtain. The orders he received from his captain were, that "he was to encourage the chieftains by brandy and gunpowder to go to war, to make slaves." This he did. The chieftains performed their part in return. The neighbouring villages were surrounded and set on fire in the night. The inhabitants were seized when making their escape; and, being brought to the agent, were by him forwarded to his principal on the coast. Mr. How, a botanist in the service of Government, stated, that on the arrival of an order for slaves from Cape Coast Castle, while he was there, a native chief immediately sent forth armed parties, who brought in a supply of all descriptions in the night.
On the windward coast, it seemed to Lieutenant Story and Mr. Bowman that the problems they mentioned were even worse than before. They had seen the remains of villages that had been burned, while the fields of corn still stood nearby, along with other signs of recent destruction. An agent was sent to set up a settlement in the area and to send whatever slaves he could collect to the ships. The orders he received from his captain were to "encourage the chieftains with brandy and gunpowder to go to war and take slaves." And that’s exactly what he did. The chieftains held up their end as well. Neighboring villages were surrounded and set on fire at night. The inhabitants were captured as they tried to escape and were brought to the agent, who then sent them to his superior on the coast. Mr. How, a government botanist, stated that when an order for slaves arrived from Cape Coast Castle while he was there, a local chief immediately dispatched armed groups that brought in a supply of all kinds during the night.
But he would now mention one or two instances of another sort, and these merely on account of the conclusion, which was to be drawn from them. When Captain Hills was in the river Gambia, he mentioned accidentally to a Black pilot, who was in the boat with him, that he wanted a cabin-boy. It so happened that some youths were then on the shore with vegetables to sell. The pilot beckoned to them to come on board; at the same time giving Captain Hills to understand, that he might take his choice of them; and when Captain Hills rejected the proposal with indignation, the pilot seemed perfectly at a loss to account for his warmth; and drily observed, that the slave-captains would not have been so scrupulous. Again, when General Rooke commanded at Goree, a number of the natives, men, women, and children, came to pay him a friendly visit. All was gaiety and merriment. It was a scene to gladden the saddest, and to soften the hardest, heart. But a slave-captain was not so soon thrown off his guard. Three English barbarians of this description had the audacity jointly to request the general, to seize the whole unsuspicious multitude and sell them. For this they alleged the precedent of a former governor. Was not this request a proof of the frequency of such acts of rapine? for how familiar must such have been to slave-captains, when three of them dared to carry a British officer of rank such a flagitious proposal! This would stand in the place of a thousand instances. It would give credibility to every other act of violence stated in the evidence, however enormous it might appear.
But now he would like to mention one or two other examples, mainly because of the conclusions that can be drawn from them. When Captain Hills was on the Gambia River, he casually told a Black pilot, who was with him on the boat, that he needed a cabin boy. At that moment, some young people were on the shore selling vegetables. The pilot signaled for them to come on board, indicating to Captain Hills that he could choose any of them. When Captain Hills rejected the offer with anger, the pilot seemed totally confused by his reaction and dryly noted that slave captains wouldn’t have been so picky. Again, when General Rooke was in command at Goree, a number of locals—men, women, and children—came to pay him a friendly visit. It was a cheerful and lively scene, one that could brighten the gloomiest day and soften the toughest heart. But a slave captain wasn’t so easily caught off guard. Three English men of this type audaciously asked the general to capture the entire unsuspecting group and sell them. They claimed it was based on the actions of a previous governor. Wasn’t this request a clear sign of how common such acts of robbery were? How familiar must this have been for slave captains if three of them felt bold enough to present such a disgraceful proposal to a British officer of rank! This alone would be proof enough of countless similar acts. It would lend credibility to every other reported act of violence mentioned in the evidence, no matter how outrageous it might seem.
But he would now have recourse for a moment to circumstantial evidence. An adverse witness, who had lived on the Gold Coast, had said that the only way in which children could he enslaved, was by whole families being sold when the principals had been condemned for witchcraft. But he said at the same time, that few were convicted of this crime, and that the younger part of a family in these cases was sometimes spared. But if this account were true, it would follow that the children in the slave-vessels would be few indeed. But it had been proved, that the usual proportion of these was never less than a fourth of the whole cargo on the coast, and also, that the kidnapping of children was very prevalent there.
But he would now rely for a moment on circumstantial evidence. A witness, who had lived on the Gold Coast, stated that the only way children could be enslaved was if entire families were sold when the adults had been convicted of witchcraft. However, he also mentioned that few were actually found guilty of this crime and that sometimes the younger members of a family were spared in such cases. If this account were true, it would mean that the number of children on slave ships would be very low. However, it had been proven that the usual proportion of children was never less than a fourth of the total cargo on the coast, and that the abduction of children was quite common there.
All these atrocities, he said, were fully substantiated by the evidence; and here he should do injustice to his cause, if he were not to make a quotation from the speech of Mr. B. Edwards in the Assembly of Jamaica, who, though he was hostile to his propositions, had yet the candour to deliver himself in the following manner there. "I am persuaded," says he, "that Mr. Wilberforce has been rightly informed as to the manner in which slaves are generally procured. The intelligence I have collected from my own negroes abundantly confirms his account; and I have not the smallest doubt, that in Africa the effects of this trade are precisely such as he has represented them. The whole, or the greatest part, of that immense continent is a field of warfare and desolation; a wilderness, in which the inhabitants are wolves towards each other. That this scene of oppression, fraud, treachery, and bloodshed, if not originally occasioned, is in part (I will not say wholly) upheld by the Slave Trade, I dare not dispute. Every man in the Sugar Islands may be convinced that it is so, who will enquire of any African negroes, on their first arrival, concerning the circumstances of their captivity. The assertion that it is otherwise, is mockery and insult."
All these atrocities, he said, were fully backed by the evidence; and here he would do a disservice to his cause if he didn’t quote Mr. B. Edwards from the Assembly of Jamaica, who, despite being against his proposals, had the decency to say the following. "I believe," he said, "that Mr. Wilberforce has been accurately informed about how slaves are generally obtained. The information I’ve gathered from my own enslaved people strongly supports his account, and I have no doubt that in Africa, the consequences of this trade are exactly as he described. The entirety, or at least the majority, of that vast continent is a battleground of warfare and ruin; a wilderness where the inhabitants act like wolves towards one another. I can’t argue that this situation of oppression, deceit, betrayal, and violence, if it wasn't originally caused by, is at least partly (though I won’t say entirely) sustained by the Slave Trade. Anyone in the Sugar Islands who asks African enslaved people about the circumstances of their capture can see that it’s true. To say otherwise is mockery and an insult."
But it was not only by acts of outrage that the Africans were brought into bondage. The very administration of justice was turned into an engine for that end. The smallest offence was punished by a fine equal to the value of a slave. Crimes were also fabricated; false accusations were resorted to; and persons were sometimes employed to seduce the unwary into practices with a view to the conviction and the sale of them.
But it wasn't just through violent acts that Africans were forced into slavery. The justice system itself became a tool for that purpose. Even minor offenses were punished with fines that equaled the worth of a slave. Crimes were also invented; false accusations were used; and sometimes, people were hired to trick the unsuspecting into actions that would lead to their arrest and sale.
It was another effect of this trade, that it corrupted the morals of those who carried it on. Every fraud was used to deceive the ignorance of the natives by false weights and measures, adulterated commodities, and other impositions of a like sort. These frauds were even acknowledged by many who had themselves practised them, in obedience to the orders of their superiors. For the honour of the mercantile character of the country, such a traffic ought immediately to be suppressed.
It was another result of this trade that it corrupted the morals of those involved in it. Every trick was used to fool the natives' ignorance with false weights and measures, fake products, and other similar scams. Many who had actually practiced these tricks acknowledged them, following the orders of their superiors. For the sake of the country's mercantile reputation, this kind of trade should be stopped immediately.
Yet these things, however clearly proved by positive testimony, by the concession of opponents, by particular inference, by general reasoning, by the most authentic histories of Africa, by the experience of all countries and of all ages,—these things, and (what was still more extraordinary) even the possibility of them, were denied by those who had been brought forward on the other side of the question. These, however, were chiefly persons who had been trading-governors of forts in Africa, or who had long commanded ships in the Slave Trade. As soon as he knew the sort of witnesses which was to be called against him, he had been prepared to expect much prejudice. But his expectations had been greatly surpassed by the testimony they had given. He did not mean to impeach their private characters, but they certainly showed themselves under the influence of such gross prejudices, as to render them incompetent judges of the subject they came to elucidate. They seemed (if he might so say) to be enveloped by a certain atmosphere of their own; and to see, as it were, through a kind of African medium. Every object which met their eyes came distorted and turned from its true direction. Even the declarations, which they made on other occasions, seemed wholly strange to them. They sometimes not only forgot what they had seen, but what they had said; and when to one of them his own testimony to the privy council was read, he mistook it for that of another, whose evidence he declared to be "the merest burlesque in the world."
Yet these things, no matter how clearly proven by solid evidence, acknowledgments from opponents, specific deductions, general reasoning, the most reliable histories of Africa, and the experiences from all countries and all times—these things, and even the mere possibility of them, were denied by those who were brought in to argue the opposite side. These individuals were mainly former trading governors of forts in Africa or those who had long commanded ships in the Slave Trade. Once he learned about the kind of witnesses that would be called against him, he expected a lot of bias. However, his expectations were far exceeded by the testimony they provided. He did not intend to question their personal integrity, but they undeniably displayed such strong biases that it made them unfit to judge the topic they were meant to clarify. They seemed, if he could put it that way, to be surrounded by a specific mindset; seeing things through a kind of African haze. Every object they encountered appeared distorted and deviated from its true nature. Even the statements they made on different occasions seemed entirely foreign to them. They sometimes not only forgot what they had witnessed but also what they had expressed; and when one of them had his own testimony to the privy council read back to him, he confused it with someone else's and dismissed it as "the silliest joke in the world."
But the House must be aware that there was not only an African medium, but an African logic. It seemed to be an acknowledged axiom in this, that every person who offered a slave for sale had a right to sell him, however fraudulently he might have obtained him. This had been proved by the witnesses who opposed him. "It would have stopped my trade," said one of them, "to have asked the broker how he came by the person he was offering me for sale."—"We always suppose," said another, "the broker has a right to sell the person he offers us."—"I never heard of such a question being asked," said a third; "a man would be thought a fool who should put such a question."—He hoped the House would see the practical utility of this logic. It was the key-stone which held the building together. By means of it, slave-captains might traverse the whole coast of Africa, and see nothing but equitable practices. They could not, however, be wholly absolved, even if they availed themselves of this principle to its fullest extent; for they had often committed depredations themselves; especially when they were passing by any part of the coast, where they did not mean to continue or to go again. Hence it was (as several captains of the navy and others had declared on their examination), that the natives, when at sea in their canoes, would never come near the men-of-war, till they knew them to be such. But finding this, and that they were not slave-vessels, they laid aside their fears, and came and continued on board with unsuspecting cheerfulness. With respect to the miseries of the Middle Passage, he had said so much on a former occasion, that he would spare the feelings of the committee as much as he could. He would therefore simply state that the evidence, which was before them, confirmed all those scenes of wretchedness which he had then described: the same suffering from a state of suffocation, by being crowded together; the same dancing in fetters; the same melancholy singing; the same eating by compulsion; the same despair; the same insanity; and all the other abominations which characterized the trade. New instances however had occurred, where these wretched men had resolved on death to terminate their woes. Some had destroyed themselves by refusing sustenance, in spite of threats and punishments. Others had thrown themselves into the sea; and more than one, when in the act of drowning, were seen to wave their hands in triumph, "exulting" (to use the words of an eye-witness) "that they had escaped." Yet these and similar things, when viewed through the African medium he had mentioned, took a different shape and colour. Captain Knox, an adverse witness, had maintained, that slaves lay during the night in tolerable comfort. And yet he confessed, that in a vessel of one hundred and twenty tons, in which he had carried two hundred and ninety slaves, the latter had not all of them room to lie on their backs. How comfortably, then, must they have lain in his subsequent voyages! for he carried afterwards, in a vessel of a hundred and eight tons, four hundred and fifty; and in a vessel of one hundred and fifty tons, no less than six hundred slaves. Another instance of African deception was to be found in the testimony of Captain Frazer, one of the most humane captains in the trade. It had been said of him, that he had held hot coals to the mouth of a slave, to compel him to eat. He was questioned on this point; but not admitting, in the true spirit of African logic, that he who makes another commit a crime is guilty of it himself, he denied the charge indignantly, and defied a proof. But it was said to him, "Did you never order such a thing to be done?" His reply was, "Being sick in my cabin, I was informed that a man-slave would neither eat, drink, nor speak. I desired the mate and surgeon to try to persuade him to speak. I desired that the slaves might try also. When I found he was still obstinate, not knowing whether it was from sulkiness or insanity, I ordered a person to present him with a piece of fire in one hand, and a piece of yam in the other, and to tell me what effect this had upon him. I learnt that he took the yam and began to eat it, but he threw the fire overboard." Such was his own account of the matter. This was eating by duresse, if anything could be called so. The captain, however, triumphed in his expedient; and concluded by telling the committee, that he sold this very slave at Grenada for forty pounds. Mark here the moral of the tale, and learn the nature and the cure of sulkiness.
But the House needs to recognize that there was not just an African medium, but also an African way of thinking. It seemed to be a widely accepted principle that anyone who offered a slave for sale had the right to sell them, regardless of how fraudulently they may have acquired them. This was demonstrated by witnesses who opposed him. "It would have ruined my trade," said one of them, "if I had asked the broker how he got the person he was trying to sell to me." — "We always assume," said another, "that the broker has the right to sell the person he's offering us." — "I’ve never heard of anyone asking such a question," said a third; "a person would be considered a fool for asking that." — He hoped the House would recognize the practical importance of this reasoning. It was the foundational principle that held everything together. Because of it, slave captains could sail the entire coast of Africa and see nothing but fair practices. However, they could not fully absolve themselves, even if they used this principle to its maximum extent, as they often committed acts of violence themselves; especially when they were passing by parts of the coast where they didn’t intend to stay or return. This is why (as several navy captains and others stated during their testimonies) the natives, when at sea in their canoes, would never approach the warships until they recognized them. But once they realized these were not slave ships, they relaxed their fears and came aboard with carefree enthusiasm. Regarding the horrors of the Middle Passage, he had said enough on a previous occasion, so he would try to spare the committee's feelings as much as possible. He would simply state that the evidence before them confirmed all the scenes of misery he had previously described: the same suffocation from being overcrowded; the same forced dancing in shackles; the same sorrowful singing; the same compelled eating; the same despair; the same madness; and all the other atrocities that characterized the trade. However, there were new instances where these unfortunate individuals chose death to escape their suffering. Some had starved themselves despite threats and punishments. Others had jumped into the sea; and more than one, while drowning, was seen to wave their hands in triumph, "celebrating" (to use the words of an eyewitness) "that they had escaped." Yet these and similar events, when viewed through the African perspective he referenced, took on a different appearance and significance. Captain Knox, a witness against him, claimed that the slaves lay reasonably comfortably at night. Yet he admitted that on a ship of one hundred and twenty tons, where he carried two hundred and ninety slaves, not all of them had enough room to lie on their backs. How comfortably, then, could they have been during his later voyages, where he transported four hundred and fifty in a one hundred and eight-ton vessel and six hundred in a one hundred and fifty-ton ship? Another example of African misrepresentation was found in Captain Frazer's testimony, who was considered one of the most humane captains in the trade. It was alleged that he held hot coals to a slave's mouth to force him to eat. When questioned about this, he indignantly denied the charge and challenged anyone to prove it, not accepting, in line with African logic, that making someone else commit a crime made him equally guilty. But he was asked, "Did you never order such a thing to be done?" He responded, "While I was sick in my cabin, I was told that a male slave wouldn’t eat, drink, or speak. I asked the mate and surgeon to try to persuade him to talk. I also asked the other slaves to try. When I found he was still stubborn, not knowing whether it was out of sulkiness or madness, I instructed someone to offer him a piece of fire in one hand and a piece of yam in the other, and let me know what happened. I learned that he took the yam and started to eat it, but he threw the fire overboard." This was his own version of the story. This was indeed eating under duress, if anything could be termed that way. However, the captain took pride in his method; he concluded by telling the committee that he sold this very slave in Grenada for forty pounds. Notice here the moral of the story, and understand the nature and cure of sulkiness.
But upon whom did the cruelties, thus arising out of the prosecution of this barbarous traffic, fall? Upon a people with feeling and intellect like ourselves. One witness had spoken of the acuteness of their understandings; another, of the extent of their memories; a third, of their genius for commerce: a fourth, of their proficiency in manufactures at home. Many had admired their gentle and peaceable disposition, their cheerfulness, and their hospitality. Even they who were nominally slaves, in Africa lived a happy life. A witness against the abolition had described them as sitting and eating with their masters in the true style of patriarchal simplicity and comfort. Were these, then, a people incapable of civilization? The argument that they were an inferior species had been proved to be false.
But who suffered from the brutalities that came from this savage trade? A people with feelings and intelligence just like ours. One witness noted how sharp their understanding was; another talked about how good their memories were; a third mentioned their talent for business; and a fourth highlighted their skills in local manufacturing. Many admired their kind and peaceful nature, their joyfulness, and their hospitality. Even those who were considered slaves in Africa lived happy lives. A witness against abolition described them as sitting and eating with their masters in true patriarchal simplicity and comfort. So, were these really a people incapable of civilization? The argument that they were an inferior race has been proven false.
He would now go to a new part of the subject. An opinion had gone forth that the abolition of the trade would be the ruin of the West India Islands. He trusted he should prove that the direct contrary was the truth; though, had he been unable to do this, it would have made no difference as to his own vote. In examining, however, this opinion; he should exclude the subject of the cultivation of new lands by fresh importations of slaves. The impolicy of this measure, apart from its inhumanity, was indisputably clear. Let the committee consider the dreadful mortality which attended it. Let them look to the evidence of Mr. Woolrich, and there see a contrast drawn between the slow, but sure, progress of cultivation carried on in the natural way, and the attempt to force improvements, which, however flattering the prospect at first, soon produced a load of debt, and inextricable embarrassments. He might even appeal to the statements of the West Indians themselves, who allowed that more than twenty millions were owing to the people of this country, to show that no system could involve them so deeply as that on which they had hitherto gone. But he would refer them to the accounts of Mr. Irving, as contained in the evidence. Waving, then, the consideration of this part of the subject, the opinion in question must have arisen from a notion, that the stock of slaves, now in the islands, could not be kept up by propagation; but that it was necessary, from time to time, to recruit them with imported Africans. In direct refutation of this position he should prove: First, that, in the condition and treatment of the Negroes, there were causes sufficient to afford us reason to expect a considerable decrease, but particularly that their increase had not been a serious object of attention: Secondly, that this decrease was in fact, notwithstanding, very trifling; or rather, he believed, he might declare it had now actually ceased: and, Thirdly, he should urge many direct and collateral facts and arguments, constituting on the whole an irresistible proof, that even a rapid increase might henceforth be expected.
He would now move on to a new part of the topic. There was a belief that ending the trade would ruin the West Indies. He hoped to show that the exact opposite was true; although, if he failed to do so, it wouldn’t change how he would vote. However, while examining this belief, he would set aside the issue of growing new land through the importation of more slaves. The unreasonableness of this idea, aside from its cruelty, was clearly apparent. The committee should consider the terrible death rates associated with it. They should look at the evidence from Mr. Woolrich, which highlighted the contrast between the slow but steady progress of natural cultivation and the push for improvements, which, no matter how promising they seemed at first, quickly led to heavy debt and complicated problems. He could even reference statements from the West Indians themselves, who acknowledged that they owed over twenty million to people in this country, to demonstrate that no approach could tie them up financially as much as the one they had been following. But he would point them to Mr. Irving’s accounts in the evidence. Setting aside this aspect of the topic, the opinion in question likely stemmed from the belief that the current population of slaves in the islands could not be sustained through natural growth alone, and that they needed to be regularly supplemented with imported Africans. To directly counter this argument, he would prove: First, that due to the conditions and treatment of the enslaved people, there were sufficient reasons to expect a significant decrease, but especially that their growth had not been given serious attention; Second, that this decrease was actually very minimal; or rather, he believed he could confidently say that it had essentially stopped; and Third, he would present many direct and supporting facts and arguments that together would provide compelling evidence that even a rapid increase could now be anticipated.
He wished to treat the West Indians with all possible candour: but he was obliged to confess, in arguing upon these points, that whatever splendid instances there might be of kindness towards their slaves, there were some evils of almost universal operation, which were necessarily connected with the system of slavery. Above all, the state of degradation to which they were reduced, deserved to be noticed, as it produced an utter inattention to them as moral agents; they were kept at work under the whip like cattle; they were left totally ignorant of morality and religion; there was no regular marriage among them; hence promiscuous intercourse, early prostitution, and excessive drinking, were material causes of their decrease. With respect to the instruction of the slaves in the principles of religion, the happiest effects had resulted, particularly in Antigua, where, under the Moravians and Methodists, they had so far profited, that the planters themselves confessed their value as property had been raised one-third by their increased habits of regularity and industry.
He wanted to be completely honest with the West Indians, but he had to admit, while discussing these issues, that despite some impressive examples of kindness towards their slaves, there were significant problems almost universally connected to slavery. Most importantly, the degrading state they were subjected to deserved attention, as it led to a complete disregard for them as moral individuals; they were forced to work under the whip like animals; they were left entirely ignorant of morality and religion; there was no formal marriage among them, leading to casual sex, early prostitution, and heavy drinking, which were major factors in their decline. Regarding the education of the slaves in religious principles, there had been very positive outcomes, especially in Antigua, where, under the Moravians and Methodists, they had benefited so much that the planters themselves admitted their value as property had increased by one-third due to their improved habits of regularity and hard work.
Whatever might have been said to the contrary, it was plainly to be inferred from the evidence that the slaves were not protected by law. Colonial statutes had indeed been passed, but they were a dead letter; since, however ill they were treated, they were not considered as having a right to redress. An instance of astonishing cruelty by a Jew had been mentioned by Mr. Ross; it was but justice to say, that the man was held in detestation for it, but yet no one had ever thought of calling him to a legal account. Mr. Ross conceived a master had a right to punish his slave in whatever manner he might think proper; the same was declared by numberless other witnesses. Some instances indeed had lately occurred of convictions. A master had wantonly cut the mouth of a child, of six months old, almost from ear to ear. But did not the verdict of the jury show, that the doctrine of calling masters to an account was entirely novel, as it only pronounced him "Guilty, subject to the opinion of the court, if immoderate correction of a slave by his master be a crime indictable!" The court determined in the affirmative; and what was the punishment of this barbarous act?—A fine of forty shillings currency, equivalent to about twenty-five shillings sterling.
Whatever anyone might say otherwise, it was clear from the evidence that slaves were not protected by the law. Colonial laws had indeed been created, but they were effectively useless; no matter how poorly they were treated, they were not seen as having the right to seek justice. Mr. Ross mentioned an example of shocking cruelty by a Jewish man; it’s fair to say that the man was widely detested for it, yet no one ever considered holding him legally accountable. Mr. Ross believed that a master had the right to punish his slave in any way he deemed appropriate, and this was echoed by many other witnesses. Some recent cases had resulted in convictions. A master had cruelly cut the mouth of a six-month-old child nearly from ear to ear. But didn’t the jury’s verdict indicate that the idea of holding masters accountable was completely new? They merely declared him "Guilty, subject to the opinion of the court, if excessive punishment of a slave by his master is a crime indictable!" The court ruled in the affirmative, and what was the punishment for this horrific act? A fine of forty shillings in currency, roughly equivalent to about twenty-five shillings in sterling.
The slaves were but ill off in point of medical care. Sometimes four or five, and even eight or nine thousand of them, were under the care of one medical man; which, dispersed on different and distant estates, was a greater number than he could possibly attend to.
The slaves received very poor medical care. At times, four or five, and even eight or nine thousand of them, were under the care of just one doctor; and since they were spread out over different and distant estates, it was way more than he could possibly manage.
It was also in evidence that they were in general under-fed; they were supported partly by the produce of their own provision-ground, and partly by an allowance of flour and grain from their masters. In one of the islands, where provision-ground did not answer one year in three, the allowance to a working Negro was but from five to nine pints of grain per week: in Dominica, where it never failed, from six to seven quarts: in Nevis and St. Christopher's, where there was no provision-ground, it was but eleven pints. Add to this, that it might be still less, as the circumstances of their masters might become embarrassed, and in this case both an abridgment of their food and an increase of their labour would follow.
It was clear that they were generally underfed; they were partly supported by the crops from their own gardens and partly by an allowance of flour and grain from their masters. On one of the islands, where gardens failed one year out of three, a working Black person received only five to nine pints of grain per week. In Dominica, where crops never failed, it was six to seven quarts. In Nevis and St. Christopher's, where there were no gardens, it was just eleven pints. Additionally, this amount might be even less if their masters faced financial difficulties, leading to both a reduction in their food and an increase in their labor.
But the great cause of the decrease of the slaves was in the non-residence of the planters. Sir George Yonge, and many others, had said, they had seen the slaves treated in a manner which their owners would have resented if they had known it. Mr. Orde spoke in the strongest terms of the misconduct of managers. The fact was, that these in general sought to establish their characters by producing large crops at a small immediate expense; too little considering how far the slaves might suffer from ill-treatment and excessive labour. The pursuit of such a system was a criterion for judging of their characters, as both Mr. Long and Mr. Ottley had confessed.
But the main reason for the drop in the number of slaves was the absence of the planters. Sir George Yonge and many others claimed they had witnessed the slaves being treated in ways their owners would have found unacceptable if they had known. Mr. Orde spoke very strongly about the poor behavior of the managers. The reality was that these managers generally aimed to improve their reputations by producing large yields with minimal immediate costs; they didn’t consider how much the slaves might suffer from mistreatment and excessive labor. Following such a system was a way to judge their character, as both Mr. Long and Mr. Ottley had admitted.
But he must contend, in addition to this, that the object of keeping up the stock of slaves by breeding had never been seriously attended to. For this he might appeal both to his own witnesses and to those of his opponents, but he would only notice one fact. It was remarkable that, when owners and managers were asked about the produce of their estates, they were quite at home as to the answer; but when they were asked about the proportion of their male and female slaves, and their infants, they knew little about the matter. Even medical men were adepts in the art of planting, but when they were asked the latter questions, as connected with breeding and rearing, they seemed quite amazed, and could give no information upon the subject of them.
But he has to deal with the fact that the goal of increasing the slave population through breeding was never really taken seriously. He could reference both his own witnesses and those of his opponents, but he'll focus on one point. It was striking that when owners and managers were asked about the productivity of their estates, they had no trouble answering. However, when it came to questions about the ratio of their male and female slaves, as well as their infants, they were largely clueless. Even doctors were skilled in the practice of farming, but when they were asked about breeding and raising, they seemed completely taken aback and couldn’t provide any information on the topic.
Persons, however, of great respectability had been called as witnesses who had not seen the treatment of the Negroes as he had now described it. He knew what was due to their characters, but yet he must enter a general protest against their testimony. "I have often," says Mr. Ross, "attended both governors and admirals upon tours in the island of Jamaica, but it was not likely that these should see much distress upon these occasions. The white people and drivers would take care not to harrow up the feelings of strangers of distinction by the exercise of the whip, or the infliction of punishments, at that particular time; and, even if there were any disgusting objects, it was natural to suppose that they would then remove them." But in truth these gentlemen had given proofs that they were under the influence of prejudice. Some of them had declared the abolition would ruin the West Indies; but this, it was obvious, must depend upon the practicability of keeping up the stock without African supplies; and yet, when they were questioned upon this point, they knew nothing about it; hence they had formed a conclusion without premises. Their evidence, too, extended through a long series of years; they had never seen one instance of ill-treatment in the time, and yet, in the same breath, they talked of the amended situation of the slaves, and that they were now far better off than formerly. One of them, to whom his country owed much, stated that a master had been sentenced to death for the murder of his own slave; but his recollection must have failed him, for the murder of a slave was not then a capital crime. A respectable governor also had delivered an opinion to the same effect; but, had he looked into the statute-book of the island, he would have found his error.
However, respected individuals had been called as witnesses who had not seen the treatment of the Black people as he had just described. He acknowledged their characters, but still felt the need to protest against their testimony. "I have often," said Mr. Ross, "accompanied both governors and admirals on tours in Jamaica, but it’s not surprising they didn’t witness much hardship during these visits. The white people and drivers made sure not to upset distinguished visitors by using the whip or administering punishments at that time; and even if there were any upsetting scenes, it was likely they were removed beforehand." In reality, these gentlemen showed they were biased. Some claimed that abolishing slavery would ruin the West Indies; however, this obviously depended on the feasibility of maintaining the workforce without African supplies. When questioned about this, they had no knowledge, so they reached a conclusion without any basis. Their testimonies spanned many years, yet they had never witnessed a single instance of mistreatment and simultaneously claimed that the situation for the slaves had improved and they were now much better off than before. One of them, to whom his country owed a lot, asserted that a master had been sentenced to death for the murder of his own slave; but he must have been mistaken, as killing a slave wasn’t a capital offense at that time. A reputable governor also expressed a similar opinion; however, if he had checked the laws of the island, he would have recognized his mistake.
It had been said that the slaves were in a better state than the peasantry of this country; but when the question was put to Mr. Ross, did he not answer, "that he would not insult the latter by a comparison!"
It was said that the slaves were in a better situation than the peasantry of this country; but when Mr. Ross was asked about it, didn't he reply, "that he would not disrespect the latter by making a comparison!"?
It had been said again, that the Negroes were happier as slaves than they would be if they were to be made free. But how was this reconcilable with facts? If a Negro under extraordinary circumstances had saved money enough, did he not always purchase his release from this situation of superior happiness by the sacrifice of his last shilling? Was it not also notorious, that the greatest reward which a master thought he could bestow upon his slave for long and faithful services was his freedom.
It has been said again that Black people were happier as slaves than they would be if they were free. But how does this match up with reality? If a Black person, under special circumstances, managed to save enough money, didn't they always buy their freedom from this supposedly superior happiness by giving up their last penny? Isn’t it also well-known that the highest reward a master believed he could give his slave for long and loyal service was their freedom?
It had been said again, that Negroes, when made free, never returned to their own country. But was not the reason obvious? If they could even reach their own homes in safety, their kindred and connexions might be dead. But would they subject themselves to be kidnapped again; to be hurried once more on board a slave-ship, and again to endure and survive the horrors of the passage? Yet the love of their native country had been proved beyond a doubt; many of the witnesses had heard them talk of it in terms of the strongest affection. Acts of suicide, too, were frequent in the islands, under the notion that these afforded them the readiest means of getting home. Conformably with this, Captain Wilson had maintained that the funerals, which in Africa were accompanied with lamentations and cries of sorrow, were attended, in the West Indies with every mark of joy.
It had been said again that Black people, when they became free, never went back to their own country. But wasn’t the reason obvious? Even if they could safely reach their homes, their family and connections might be gone. Would they really put themselves at risk of being kidnapped again, hurried back on a slave ship, and forced to endure the horrors of that journey? Yet their love for their homeland was clear; many witnesses had heard them speak of it with deep affection. Suicides were also common in the islands, as some believed it was the quickest way to return home. In line with this, Captain Wilson had argued that funerals in Africa were filled with wailing and sorrow, while in the West Indies, they were marked by signs of joy.
He had now, he said, made good his first proposition—that in the condition of the slaves there were causes, which should lead us to expect, that there would be a considerable decrease among them. This decrease in the island of Jamaica was but trifling, or, rather, it had ceased some years ago; and if there was a decrease, it was only on the imported slaves. It appeared from the privy council report, that from 1698 to 1730 the decrease was three and a-half per cent.; from 1730 to 1755 it was two and a-half per cent.; from 1755 to 1768 it was lessened to one and three-quarters; and from 1768 to 1788 it was not more than one per cent. This last decrease was not greater than could be accounted for from hurricanes and consequent famines, and from the number of imported Africans who perished in the seasoning. The latter was a cause of mortality, which, it was evident, would cease with the importations. This conclusion was confirmed in part by Dr. Anderson, who, in his testimony to the Assembly of Jamaica, affirmed that there was a considerable increase on the properties of the island, and particularly in the parish in which he resided.
He now claimed to have validated his first argument—that the conditions of the slaves had factors that would likely lead to a significant decrease in their population. However, this decline in Jamaica was minimal or had actually stopped several years ago; and if there was a decrease, it was only among the newly imported slaves. According to the report from the privy council, from 1698 to 1730, the decrease was three and a half percent; from 1730 to 1755, it was two and a half percent; from 1755 to 1768, it reduced to one and three-quarters percent; and from 1768 to 1788, it was no more than one percent. This last decrease was no greater than could be explained by hurricanes and subsequent famines, as well as the number of imported Africans who died during the acclimatization process. The latter was a cause of death that would clearly end with the cessation of imports. This conclusion was partly supported by Dr. Anderson, who, in his testimony to the Assembly of Jamaica, asserted that there was a substantial increase in the properties of the island, especially in the parish where he lived.
He would now proceed to establish his second proposition, that from henceforth a very considerable increase might be expected. This he might support by a close reasoning upon the preceding facts; but the testimony of his opponents furnished him with sufficient evidence. He could show, that wherever the slaves were treated better than ordinary, there was uniformly an increase in their number. Look at the estates of Mr. Willock, Mr. Ottley, Sir Ralph Payne, and others. In short, he should weary the committee, if he were to enumerate the instances of plantations, which were stated in the evidence to have kept up their numbers only from a little variation in their treatment. A remedy also had been lately found for a disorder, by which vast numbers of infants had been formerly swept away. Mr. Long, also, had laid it down, that whenever the slaves should bear a certain proportion to the produce, they might be expected to keep up their numbers; but this proportion they now exceeded. The Assembly of Jamaica had given it also as their opinion, "that when once the sexes should become nearly equal in point of number, there was no reason to suppose, that the increase of the Negroes by generation would fall short of the natural increase of the labouring poor in Great Britain." But the inequality, here spoken of, could only exist in the case of the African Negroes, of whom more males were imported than females; and this inequality would be done away soon after the trade should cease.
He would now move on to establish his second point, that from now on, a significant increase could be anticipated. He could back this up with detailed reasoning based on the earlier facts, but the statements from his opponents provided him with enough evidence. He could demonstrate that in places where slaves were treated better than usual, there was consistently an increase in their numbers. Just look at the estates of Mr. Willock, Mr. Ottley, Sir Ralph Payne, and others. In short, he would bore the committee if he were to list all the plantations mentioned in the evidence that maintained their numbers simply due to a slight change in their treatment. A solution had also recently been found for a disease that had, in the past, wiped out many infants. Mr. Long had also stated that whenever the number of slaves reached a certain ratio to the production, they could be expected to maintain their population; and this ratio was now being surpassed. The Assembly of Jamaica had also expressed the opinion that "once the sexes were nearly equal in number, there was no reason to believe that the increase of the Negroes through generation would be less than the natural increase of the laboring poor in Great Britain." However, the inequality mentioned could only apply to African Negroes, who had more males imported than females; this inequality would be resolved soon after the trade ceased.
But the increase of the Negroes, where their treatment was better than ordinary, was confirmed in the evidence by instances in various parts of the world. From one end of the continent of America to the other, their increase had been undeniably established; and this to a prodigious extent, though they had to contend with the severe cold of the winter, and in some parts with noxious exhalations in the summer. This was the case, also, in the settlement of Bencoolen in the East Indies. It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Botham, that a number of Negroes, who had been imported there in the same disproportion of the sexes as in West Indian cargoes, and who lived under the same disadvantages, as in the islands, of promiscuous intercourse and general prostitution, began, after they had been settled a short time, annually to increase.
But the growth of the Black population, where they were treated better than usual, was supported by evidence from various parts of the world. From one end of the American continent to the other, their population increase was clearly established; and this was on a massive scale, even though they had to face the harsh cold of winter and, in some areas, harmful fumes during the summer. This was also true in the settlement of Bencoolen in the East Indies. According to Mr. Botham's evidence, a number of Black individuals who had been brought there with the same gender imbalance as in West Indian shipments, and who faced the same challenges as in the islands, such as casual relationships and widespread prostitution, began to increase annually after they had settled for a short time.
But to return to the West Indies.—A slave-ship had been, many years ago, wrecked near St. Vincent's. The slaves on board, who escaped to the island, were without necessaries; and, besides, were obliged to maintain a war with the native Caribbs: yet they soon multiplied to an astonishing number; and, according to Mr. Ottley, they were now on the increase. From Sir John Dalrymple's evidence it appeared that the domestic slaves in Jamaica, who were less worked than those in the field, increased; and from Mr. Long, that the free Blacks and Mulattoes there increased also.
But to return to the West Indies. A slave ship had been wrecked near St. Vincent many years ago. The slaves on board who escaped to the island were without essentials and had to fight against the native Carib people. Nevertheless, they quickly multiplied to an incredible number, and according to Mr. Ottley, their population was still growing. From Sir John Dalrymple's evidence, it seemed that domestic slaves in Jamaica, who were not worked as hard as those in the fields, also increased. Mr. Long noted that the free Blacks and Mulattoes there were growing as well.
But there was an instance which militated against these facts (and the only one in the evidence), which he would now examine. Sir Archibald Campbell had heard that the Maroons in Jamaica, in the year 1739, amounted to three thousand men fit to carry arms. This supposed their whole number to have been about twelve thousand; but in the year 1782, after a real muster by himself, he found, to his great astonishment, that the fighting men did not then amount to three hundred. Now the fact was, that Sir Archibald Campbell's first position was founded upon rumour only, and was not true; for, according to Mr. Long, the Maroons were actually numbered in 1749, when they amounted to about six hundred and sixty in all, having only a hundred and fifty men fit to carry arms. Hence, if when mustered by Sir Archibald Campbell he found three hundred fighting men, they must from 1749 to 1782 have actually doubled their population.
But there was one instance that contradicted these facts (and it was the only one in the evidence), which he would now examine. Sir Archibald Campbell had heard that the Maroons in Jamaica, in 1739, numbered about three thousand men capable of bearing arms. This suggested that their total population was around twelve thousand; however, in 1782, after a proper muster conducted by himself, he discovered, to his great surprise, that the fighting men did not even reach three hundred. The truth was, Sir Archibald Campbell's initial claim was based solely on rumors and was not accurate; according to Mr. Long, the Maroons were actually counted in 1749, at which point they numbered around six hundred and sixty in total, with only one hundred and fifty men capable of bearing arms. Therefore, if Sir Archibald Campbell found three hundred fighting men during his muster, they must have actually doubled their population between 1749 and 1782.
Was it possible, after these instances, to suppose that the Negroes could not keep up their numbers, if their natural increase were made a subject of attention? The reverse was proved by sound reasoning. It had been confirmed by unquestionable facts. It had been shown, that they had increased in every situation, where there was the slightest circumstance in their favour. Where there had been any decrease, it was stated to be trifling; though no attention appeared to have been paid to the subject. This decrease had been gradually lessening; and, whenever a single cause of it had been removed (many still remaining), it had altogether ceased. Surely these circumstances formed a body of proof which was irresistible.
Was it possible, after these examples, to think that Black people couldn't maintain their population if their natural growth was given proper attention? The opposite was proven by solid reasoning. This was backed up by undeniable facts. It was shown that they had increased in every situation where there was even the slightest advantage for them. Where there had been any decline, it was described as minor, even though it seemed like no one had really focused on the issue. This decline had been slowly decreasing; and whenever a single cause for it was removed (with many still in place), it completely stopped. Clearly, these circumstances provided overwhelming evidence.
He would now speak of the consequences of the abolition of the Slave Trade in other points of view; and first, as to its effects upon our marine. An abstract of the Bristol and Liverpool muster-rolls had been just laid before the House. It appeared from this, that in three hundred and fifty slave-vessels, having on board twelve thousand two hundred and sixty-three persons, two thousand six hundred and forty-three were lost in twelve months; whereas in four hundred and sixty-two West Indiamen, having on board seven thousand six hundred and forty persons, one hundred and eighteen only were lost in seven months. This rather exceeded the losses stated by Mr. Clarkson. For their barbarous usage on board these ships, and for their sickly and abject state in the West Indies, he would appeal to Governor Parry's letter; to the evidence of Mr. Ross; to the assertion of Mr. B. Edwards, an opponent; and to the testimony of Captains Sir George Yonge and Thompson, of the Royal Navy. He would appeal, also, to what Captain Hall, of the Navy, had given in evidence. This gentleman, after the action of the 12th of April, impressed thirty hands from a slave-vessel, whom he selected with the utmost care from a crew of seventy; and he was reprimanded by his admiral, though they could scarcely get men to bring home the prizes, for introducing such wretches to communicate disorders to the fleet. Captain Smith of the Navy had also declared, that when employed to board Guineamen to impress sailors, although he had examined near twenty vessels, he never was able to get more than two men, who were fit for service; and these turned out such inhuman fellows, although good seamen, that he was obliged to dismiss them from the ship.
He would now discuss the consequences of ending the Slave Trade from different perspectives; first, regarding its impact on our shipping industry. A summary of the Bristol and Liverpool crew lists had just been presented to the House. It showed that in three hundred and fifty slave ships, carrying twelve thousand two hundred and sixty-three people, two thousand six hundred and forty-three were lost in just twelve months; while in four hundred and sixty-two West Indiamen, with seven thousand six hundred and forty people on board, only one hundred and eighteen were lost over seven months. This was even more than the losses reported by Mr. Clarkson. For their brutal treatment on these ships and their sickly and miserable conditions in the West Indies, he would refer to Governor Parry's letter, the evidence of Mr. Ross, the claims of Mr. B. Edwards, who was against the trade, and the testimony of Captains Sir George Yonge and Thompson from the Royal Navy. He would also mention what Captain Hall from the Navy had testified. After the battle on April 12th, this captain took thirty crew members from a slave ship, chosen carefully from a crew of seventy; he was reprimanded by his admiral, even though they struggled to find people to bring the captured ships home, for bringing such "wretches" on board who could spread diseases to the fleet. Captain Smith from the Navy also stated that when he was tasked with boarding slave ships to press sailors, despite examining nearly twenty vessels, he could only find two men who were fit for duty; however, these turned out to be such inhumane individuals, even though they were good sailors, that he had to send them away from the ship.
But he hoped the committee would attend to the latter part of the assertion of Captain Smith. Yes: this trade, while it injured the constitutions of our sailors, debased their morals. Of this, indeed, there was a barbarous illustration in the evidence. A slave-ship had struck on some shoals, called the Morant Keys, a few leagues from the east end of Jamaica. The crew landed in their boats, with arms and provisions, leaving the slaves on board in their irons. This happened in the night. When morning came, it was discovered that the Negroes had broken their shackles, and were busy in making rafts; upon which afterwards they placed the women and children. The men attended upon the latter, swimming by their side, whilst they drifted to the island where the crew were. But what was the sequel? From an apprehension that the Negroes would consume the water and provisions, which had been landed, the crew resolved to destroy them as they approached the shore. They killed between three and four hundred. Out of the whole cargo only thirty-three were saved, who, on being brought to Kingston, were sold. It would, however, be to no purpose, he said, to relieve the Slave Trade from this act of barbarity. The story of the Morant Keys was paralleled by that of Captain Collingwood; and were you to get rid of these, another, and another, would still present itself, to prove the barbarous effects of this trade on the moral character.
But he hoped the committee would pay attention to the latter part of Captain Smith's statement. Yes, this trade not only harmed the health of our sailors but also degraded their morals. There was a brutal example of this in the evidence. A slave ship ran aground on some shoals known as the Morant Keys, a few leagues from the east end of Jamaica. The crew landed in their boats with weapons and supplies, leaving the slaves onboard in shackles. This happened at night. When morning came, it was discovered that the enslaved people had broken their chains and were busy making rafts; they later placed the women and children on those rafts. The men swam alongside them as they drifted toward the island where the crew was. But what happened next? Out of fear that the enslaved people would consume the water and supplies that had been brought ashore, the crew decided to kill them as they approached the shore. They killed between three and four hundred. Out of the entire cargo, only thirty-three were saved and were sold when they arrived in Kingston. However, he argued, it would be pointless to absolve the Slave Trade of this act of cruelty. The tale of the Morant Keys was similar to that of Captain Collingwood, and even if you got rid of these instances, more examples would still emerge to illustrate the brutal impact of this trade on moral character.
But of the miseries of the trade there was no end. Whilst he had been reading out of the evidence the story of the Morant Keys, his eye had but glanced on the opposite page, and it met another circumstance of horror. This related to what were called the refuse-slaves. Many people in Kingston were accustomed to speculate in the purchase of those, who were left after the first day's sale. They then carried them out into the country, and retailed them. Mr. Ross declared, that he had seen these landed in a very wretched state, sometimes in the agonies of death, and sold as low as for a dollar, and that he had known several expire in the piazzas of the vendue-master. The bare description superseded the necessity of any remark. Yet these were the familiar incidents of the Slave Trade.
But the suffering from the trade seemed endless. While he was reading about the evidence concerning the Morant Keys, his eyes accidentally glanced at the opposite page and encountered another horrific story. This was about what were known as the refuse-slaves. Many people in Kingston often speculated in buying those who were left over after the first day of sales. They would then take them out to the countryside and resell them. Mr. Ross stated that he had seen these individuals arrive in a very dire condition, sometimes on the brink of death, and sold for as little as a dollar, noting that he had witnessed several die in the piazzas of the auctioneer. The mere description made any further commentary unnecessary. Yet these were the routine horrors of the Slave Trade.
But he would go back to the seamen. He would mention another cause of mortality, by which many of them lost their lives. In looking over Lloyd's list, no less than six vessels were cut off by the irritated natives in one year, and the crews massacred. Such instances were not unfrequent. In short, the history of this commerce was written throughout in characters of blood.
But he would return to the sailors. He would bring up another reason for death, which caused many of them to lose their lives. Reviewing Lloyd's list, no fewer than six ships were taken out by angry locals in one year, and the crews were killed. Such occurrences were not uncommon. In short, the story of this trade was written in blood.
He would next consider the effects of the abolition on those places where it was chiefly carried on. But would the committee believe, after all the noise which had been made on this subject, that the Slave Trade composed but a thirtieth part of the export trade of Liverpool, and that of the trade of Bristol it constituted a still less proportion? For the effects of the abolition on the general commerce of the kingdom, he would refer them to Mr. Irving; from whose evidence it would appear, that the medium value of the British manufactures, exported to Africa, amounted only to between four and five hundred thousand pounds annually. This was but a trifling sum. Surely the superior capital, ingenuity, application, and integrity of the British manufacturer would command new markets for the produce of his industry, to an equal amount, when this should be no more. One branch, however, of our manufactures, he confessed, would suffer from the abolition; and that was the manufacture of gunpowder; of which the nature of our connexion with Africa drew from us as much as we exported to all the rest of the world besides.
He would next look at the effects of the abolition on the places where it primarily took place. But would the committee really believe, after all the commotion surrounding this issue, that the Slave Trade made up only about one-thirtieth of Liverpool's export trade, and an even smaller percentage of Bristol's trade? Regarding the effects of abolition on the overall commerce of the country, he would point them to Mr. Irving; from his evidence, it seemed that the average value of British goods exported to Africa was only between four and five hundred thousand pounds each year. This was a small amount. Surely the superior capital, creativity, dedication, and integrity of British manufacturers would open up new markets for their products that would match this amount once it was no longer an option. However, he admitted that one area of our manufacturing would be negatively impacted by the abolition, and that was gunpowder production; due to our connections with Africa, we took in as much gunpowder as we exported to the rest of the world combined.
He hastened, however, to another part of the argument. Some had said, "We wish to put an end to the Slave Trade, but we do not approve of your mode. Allow more time. Do not displease the legislatures of the West India islands. It is by them that those laws must be passed, and enforced, which will secure your object." Now he was directly at issue with these gentlemen. He could show, that the abolition was the only certain mode of amending the treatment of the slaves, so as to secure their increase: and that the mode which had been offered to him, was at once inefficacious and unsafe. In the first place, how could any laws, made by these legislatures, be effectual, whilst the evidence of Negroes was in no case admitted against White men? What was the answer from Grenada? Did it not state, "that they who were capable of cruelty, would in general be artful enough to prevent any but slaves from being witnesses of the fact?" Hence it had arisen, that when positive laws had been made, in some of the islands, for the protection of the slaves, they had been found almost a dead letter. Besides, by what law would you enter into every man's domestic concerns, and regulate the interior economy of his house and plantation? This would be something more than a general excise. Who would endure such a law? And yet on all these and innumerable other minutiae must depend the protection of the slaves, their comforts, and the probability of their increase. It was universally allowed, that the Code Noir had been utterly neglected in the French islands, though there was an officer appointed by the crown to see it enforced. The provisions of the Directorio had been but of little more avail in the Portuguese settlements, or the institution of a Protector of the Indians, in those of the Spaniards. But what degree or protection the slaves would enjoy might be inferred from the admission of a gentleman, by whom this very plan of regulation had been recommended, and who was himself no ordinary person, but a man of discernment and legal resources. He had proposed a limitation of the number of lashes to be given by the master or overseer for one offence. But, after all, he candidly confessed, that his proposal was not likely to be useful, while the evidence of slaves continued inadmissible against their masters. But he could even bring testimony to the inefficacy of such regulations. A wretch in Barbados had chained a Negro girl to the floor, and flogged her till she was nearly expiring. Captain Cook and Major Fitch, hearing her cries, broke open the door and found her. The wretch retreated from their resentment, but cried out exultingly, "that he had only given her thirty-nine lashes (the number limited by law) at any one time; and that he had only inflicted this number three times since the beginning of the night," adding, "that he would prosecute them for breaking open his door; and that he would flog her to death for all any one, if he pleased; and that he would give her the fourth thirty-nine before morning."
He hurried on to a different part of the argument. Some had said, "We want to end the Slave Trade, but we don't agree with your approach. Give it more time. Don't upset the legislatures of the West Indian islands. They are the ones who must pass and enforce the laws that will achieve your goal." Now he was directly at odds with these gentlemen. He could show that abolishing slavery was the only sure way to improve the treatment of the slaves, ensuring they would thrive; and that the alternative offered to him was both ineffective and risky. First of all, how could any laws made by these legislatures be effective when the testimony of Black people was never allowed against White men? What was the response from Grenada? Didn't it state, "those who are capable of cruelty will generally be clever enough to ensure that only slaves witness their actions?" This is why, when strict laws were made in some of the islands to protect the slaves, they ended up being practically useless. Moreover, under what law would you intrude into every person’s family matters and control the daily running of their home and plantation? This would be far more than a general tax. Who would accept such a law? Yet, the protection of the slaves, their welfare, and the likelihood of their growth depended on all these and countless other details. It was widely recognized that the Code Noir had been completely ignored in the French islands, despite there being an officer appointed by the crown to enforce it. The provisions of the Directorio had little effect in the Portuguese settlements, just as the institution of a Protector of the Indians had in Spain's territories. But the level of protection that slaves would receive could be inferred from the comments of a gentleman who had proposed this very regulatory plan; he was no ordinary person but someone with discernment and legal expertise. He suggested limiting the number of lashes that a master or overseer could give for a single offense. However, he openly admitted that his proposal wouldn’t likely be effective as long as slave testimony remained inadmissible against their masters. He could even provide evidence of how such regulations failed. A cruel man in Barbados had chained a Black girl to the floor and whipped her until she was nearly unconscious. Captain Cook and Major Fitch, hearing her cries, broke down the door and found her. The man fled from their anger but shouted triumphantly, "I only gave her thirty-nine lashes (the legal limit) at one time, and I've only done that three times since the night began," adding, "I'll take legal action against you for breaking my door, and I'll beat her to death if I want, and I’ll give her another thirty-nine before morning."
But this plan of regulation was not only inefficacious, but unsafe. He entered his protest against the fatal consequences which might result from it. The Negroes were creatures like ourselves; but they were uninformed, and their moral character was debased. Hence they were unfit for civil rights. To use these properly they must be gradually restored to that level, from which they had been so unjustly degraded. To allow them an appeal to the laws, would be to awaken in them a sense of the dignity of their nature. The first return of life, after a swoon, was commonly a convulsion, dangerous at once to the party himself and to all around him. You should first prepare them for the situation, and not bring the situation to them. To be under the protection of the law was in fact to be a freeman; and to unite slavery and freedom in one condition was impracticable. The abolition, on the other hand, was exactly such an agent as the case required. All hopes of supplies from the coast being cut off, breeding would henceforth become a serious object of attention; and the care of this, as including better clothing, and feeding, and milder discipline, would extend to innumerable particulars, which an act of assembly could neither specify nor enforce. The horrible system, too, which many had gone upon, of working out their slaves in a few years, and recruiting their gangs with imported Africans, would receive its death-blow from the abolition of the trade. The opposite would force itself on the most unfeeling heart. Ruin would stare a man in the face, if he were not to conform to it. The non-resident owners would then express themselves in the terms of Sir Philip Gibbs, "that he should consider it as the fault of his manager, if he were not to keep up the number of his slaves." This reasoning concerning the different tendencies of the two systems was self-evident; but facts were not wanting to confirm it. Mr. Long had remarked, that all the insurrections and suicides in Jamaica had been found among the imported slaves, who, not having lost the consciousness of civil rights, which they had enjoyed in their own country, could not brook the indignities to which they were subjected in the West Indies. An instance in point was afforded also by what had lately taken place in the island of Dominica. The disturbance there had been chiefly occasioned by some runaway slaves from the French islands. But what an illustration was it of his own doctrine to say, that the slaves of several persons, who had been treated with kindness, were not among the number of the insurgents on that occasion!
But this regulation plan was not only ineffective, but also unsafe. He expressed his concern about the deadly consequences it could bring. The Black people were just like us, but they were uneducated, and their moral character was compromised. Because of that, they were not ready for civil rights. To use those rights properly, they needed to be gradually brought back to the level from which they were unjustly lowered. Allowing them access to the law would spark in them a sense of their own dignity. The first signs of life after fainting often come with convulsions, which can be dangerous both for the person involved and for those around. You should prepare them for the situation rather than just thrusting the situation upon them. Being protected by the law essentially meant being free; trying to combine slavery and freedom in one condition was not feasible. On the other hand, abolition was exactly what was needed. With all hopes of supplies from the coast cut off, breeding would now become a serious focus, and the related care, including better clothing, feeding, and gentler discipline, would involve countless details that a legislative act couldn’t specify or enforce. The horrific system that many had used, of exhausting their slaves in a few years and replenishing their groups with imported Africans, would be ended by the abolition of the trade. The opposite scenario would be impossible to ignore. A man would have to confront destruction if he didn’t adapt to it. Non-resident owners would then express themselves like Sir Philip Gibbs, saying they would consider it the fault of their manager if the number of their slaves wasn’t maintained. This reasoning about the contrasting effects of the two systems was obvious, but there were plenty of facts to support it. Mr. Long noted that all the uprisings and suicides in Jamaica occurred among the imported slaves, who, not having lost their sense of civil rights enjoyed in their homeland, couldn’t tolerate the indignities they faced in the West Indies. A relevant example was what recently happened in the island of Dominica, where the disturbance was mainly caused by some runaway slaves from the French islands. But how telling it was for his argument that the slaves of several individuals, who were treated kindly, did not join the rebels during that incident!
But when persons coolly talked of putting an end to the Slave Trade through the medium of the West India legislatures, and of gradual abolition, by means of regulations, they surely forgot the miseries which this horrid traffic occasioned in Africa during every moment of its continuance. This consideration was conclusive with him, when called upon to decide whether the Slave Trade should be tolerated for a while, or immediately abolished. The divine law against murder was absolute and unqualified. Whilst we were ignorant of all these things, our sanction of them might, in some measure, be pardoned. But now, when our eyes were opened, could we tolerate them for a moment, unless we were ready at once to determine, that gain should be our god, and, like the heathens of old, were prepared to offer up human victims at the shrine of our idolatry?
But when people casually talked about ending the Slave Trade through the West India legislatures and about gradual abolition through some regulations, they clearly forgot the suffering this terrible trade caused in Africa every moment it lasted. This thought was decisive for him when he had to decide whether to allow the Slave Trade for a while or to end it immediately. The divine law against murder was absolute and unquestionable. While we were unaware of all these things, our approval of them could somewhat be forgiven. But now, when we were aware, could we accept them for even a moment, unless we were ready to declare that profit should be our god and, like the ancient heathens, were prepared to sacrifice human beings at the altar of our greed?
This consideration precluded also the giving heed for an instant to another plea, namely, that if we were to abolish the trade it would be proportionably taken up by other nations. But, whatever other nations did, it became Great Britain, in every point of view, to take a forward part. One half of this guilty commerce had been carried on by her subjects. As we had been great in crime we should be early in our repentance. If Providence had showered his blessings upon us in unparalleled abundance, we should show ourselves grateful for them by rendering them subservient to the purposes for which they were intended. There would be a day of retribution, wherein we should have to give an account of all those talents, faculties, and opportunities with which we have been intrusted. Let it not then appear that our superior power had been employed to oppress our fellow-creatures, and our superior light to darken the creation of God. He could not but look forward with delight to the happy prospects which opened themselves to his view in Africa, from the abolition of the Slave Trade, when a commerce, justly deserving that name, should be established with her; not like that, falsely so called, which now subsisted, and which all who were interested for the honour of the commercial character (though there were no superior principle) should hasten to disavow. Had this trade indeed been ever so profitable, his decision would have been in no degree affected by that consideration. "Here's the smell of blood on the hand still, and all the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten it."
This viewpoint also meant that we couldn't even consider another argument: that if we eliminated the trade, other nations would take over. But no matter what other countries did, Great Britain had a responsibility to lead the way. Half of this shameful trade had been conducted by our own people. Since we had sinned greatly, we needed to repent early. If Providence had blessed us with extraordinary abundance, we should show our gratitude by using those blessings for their intended purposes. There would come a day of reckoning when we would have to account for all the talents, abilities, and opportunities given to us. Let it not be said that our power was used to oppress our fellow humans, and our knowledge to darken God's creation. He couldn't help but look forward with joy to the promising future for Africa after the abolition of the Slave Trade, when a legitimate form of trade could be established with her—not the fake trade that currently existed, which everyone concerned about the honor of commerce (even without higher principles) should be quick to reject. Even if this trade had been very profitable, it wouldn't have changed his decision. “There’s still the smell of blood on the hands, and all the perfumes of Arabia can’t sweeten it.”
He doubted whether it was not almost an act of degrading condescension to stoop to discuss the question in the view of commercial interest. On this ground, however, he was no less strong than on every other. Africa abounded with productions of value, which she would gladly exchange for our manufactures, when these were not otherwise to be obtained: and to what an extent her demand might then grow, exceeded almost the powers of computation. One instance already existed of a native king, who being debarred by his religion the use of spirituous liquors, and therefore not feeling the irresistible temptation to acts of rapine which they afforded to his countrymen, had abolished the Slave Trade throughout all his dominions, and was encouraging an honest industry.
He questioned whether it was almost degrading to lower himself to discuss the issue in terms of commercial interest. However, on this point, he was just as strong as on any other. Africa had plenty of valuable resources that she would eagerly trade for our manufactured goods when those items weren't available otherwise: and the extent to which her demand could potentially grow was almost beyond calculation. There was already an example of a native king who, being prohibited by his religion from using alcoholic beverages, thus not experiencing the strong temptation to engage in acts of theft that they presented to his countrymen, had abolished the Slave Trade throughout all his territories and was promoting honest work.
For his own part, he declared that, interested as he might be supposed to be in the final event of the question, he was comparatively indifferent as to the present decision of the House upon it. Whatever they might do, the people of Great Britain, he was confident, would abolish the Slave Trade when, as would then soon happen, its injustice and cruelty should be fairly laid before them. It was a nest of serpents, which would never have existed so long but for the darkness in which they lay hid. The light of day would now be let in on them, and they would vanish from the sight. For himself, he declared he was engaged in a work which he would never abandon; the consciousness of the justice of his cause would carry him forward, though he were alone; but he could not but derive encouragement from considering with whom he was associated. Let us not, he said, despair; it is a blessed cause, and success ere long will crown our exertions. Already we have gained one victory; we have obtained for these poor creatures the recognition of their human natureA, which, for a while, was most shamefully denied them. This is the first fruits of our efforts; let us persevere, and our triumph will be complete. Never, never, will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name; till we have released ourselves from the load of guilt under which we at present labour; and till we have extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarcely believe had been suffered to exist so long, a disgrace and a dishonour to our country.
For his part, he stated that, as interested as he might be in the outcome of the matter, he was relatively indifferent to the House's current decision on it. Whatever they chose, he was confident that the people of Great Britain would abolish the Slave Trade when its injustice and cruelty were inevitably brought to light. It was a nest of serpents that had existed for so long only because it was hidden in darkness. The light of day would now shine on them, and they would disappear from view. He declared that he was engaged in a fight he would never abandon; the conviction of his cause would push him forward, even if he were alone. However, he couldn’t help but feel encouraged by the company he was keeping. "Let’s not despair," he said; "this is a noble cause, and we will soon see our efforts rewarded with success. We have already won one victory; we've gained recognition for these poor souls' humanity, which had been shamefully denied to them for a time. This is the first result of our efforts; let’s keep pushing, and our triumph will be complete. We will never, ever give up until we have erased this stain from the Christian name; until we have freed ourselves from the guilt we currently bear; and until we have eliminated all traces of this bloody trade, which future generations, looking back at these enlightened times, will hardly believe was allowed to exist for so long—a disgrace and a dishonor to our country."
A: This point was actually obtained by the evidence before the House of Commons; for, after this, we heard no more of them as an inferior race.
A: This point was actually supported by the evidence presented to the House of Commons; because, after this, we didn't hear about them as a lower race anymore.
He then moved, that the chairman be instructed to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the further importation of slaves into the British colonies in the West Indies.
He then proposed that the chairman be directed to seek permission to introduce a bill to stop the further importation of slaves into the British colonies in the West Indies.
Colonel Tarleton immediately rose up, and began by giving an historical account of the trade from the reign of Elizabeth to the present time. He then proceeded to the sanction which parliament had always given it; hence it could not then be withdrawn without a breach of faith: hence, also, the private property embarked in it was sacred; nor could it be invaded, unless an adequate compensation were given in return.
Colonel Tarleton immediately stood up and started by providing a historical overview of the trade from the time of Elizabeth to the present day. He then moved on to the approval that parliament had always granted it; therefore, it couldn’t be taken back without violating trust: thus, the private property involved was protected; it couldn’t be interfered with unless fair compensation was offered in exchange.
They who had attempted the abolition of the trade were led away by a mistaken humanity; the Africans themselves had no objection to its continuance.
Those who tried to end the trade were misguided by a false sense of compassion; the Africans themselves had no problem with it continuing.
With respect to the middle passage, he believed the mortality there to be on an average only five in the hundred; whereas in regiments sent out to the West Indies, the average loss in the year was about ten and a half per cent.
Regarding the middle passage, he thought the death rate there was only about five in a hundred, while in regiments sent to the West Indies, the average loss in a year was around ten and a half percent.
The Slave Trade was absolutely necessary, if we meant to carry on our West India commerce; for many attempts had been made to cultivate the lands in the different islands by white labourers, but they had always failed.
The Slave Trade was absolutely necessary if we wanted to continue our West India trade, because many efforts had been made to cultivate the lands on the various islands using white laborers, but those always failed.
It had also the merit of keeping up a number of seamen in readiness for the state. Lord Rodney had stated this as one of its advantages on the breaking out of a war. Liverpool alone could supply nine hundred and ninety-three seamen annually.
It also had the benefit of maintaining a number of sailors ready for the state. Lord Rodney mentioned this as one of its advantages when war broke out. Liverpool alone could provide nine hundred and ninety-three sailors each year.
He would now advert to the connexions dependent upon the African trade. It was the duty of the House to protect the planters, whose lives had been, and were then, exposed to imminent, dangers, and whose property had undergone an unmerited, depreciation. To what could this depreciation, and to what could the late insurrection at Dominica be imputed, which had been saved from horrid carnage and midnight-butchery only by the adventitious arrival of two British regiments? They could only be attributed to the long delayed question of the abolition of the Slave Trade; and if this question were to go much longer unsettled, Jamaica would be endangered also.
He would now refer to the connections related to the African trade. It was the responsibility of the House to protect the planters, whose lives had been, and were still, at serious risk, and whose property had suffered an unfair drop in value. What could account for this drop in value, and what could the recent rebellion in Dominica be blamed on, which had been saved from horrific bloodshed and late-night slaughter only by the unexpected arrival of two British regiments? These issues could only be linked to the long-delayed question of abolishing the Slave Trade; and if this question remained unresolved for much longer, Jamaica would also be at risk.
To members of landed property he would observe, that the abolition would lessen the commerce of the country, and increase the national debt and the number of their taxes. The minister, he hoped, who patronized this wild scheme had some new pecuniary resource in store to supply the deficiencies it would occasion.
To landowners, he would point out that the abolition would reduce the country's trade, increase the national debt, and raise their taxes. He hoped that the minister supporting this reckless plan had some new financial resources lined up to cover the shortfalls it would create.
To the mercantile members he would speak thus: "A few ministerial men in the house had been gifted with religious inspiration, and this had been communicated to other eminent personages in it: these enlightened philanthropists had discovered that it was necessary, for the sake of humanity, and for the honour of the nation, that the merchants concerned in the African trade should be persecuted, notwithstanding the sanction of their trade by Parliament, and notwithstanding that such persecution must aggrandize the rivals of Great Britain." Now how did this language sound? It might have done in the twelfth century, when all was bigotry and superstition; but let not a mistaken humanity, in these enlightened times, furnish a colourable pretext for any injurious attack on property or character.
To the business members, he would say this: "A few government officials in this house have been inspired by their faith, and they’ve shared this vision with other prominent figures here: these well-meaning philanthropists have realized that for the sake of humanity and the dignity of the nation, the merchants involved in the African trade should be targeted, despite the fact that Parliament has approved their trade, and even though such targeting would only empower Britain’s rivals." Now, how does that sound? It might have made sense in the twelfth century, when everything was about intolerance and ignorance; but let’s not allow misguided compassion in these modern times to create a false justification for harming people’s property or reputation.
These things being considered, he should certainly oppose the measure in contemplation. It would annihilate a trade, whose exports amounted to eight hundred thousand pounds annually, and which employed a hundred and sixty vessels, and more than five thousand seamen. It would destroy also the West India trade, which was of the annual value of six millions; and which employed one hundred and sixty thousand tons of shipping, and seamen in proportion. These were objects of too much importance to the country to be hazarded on an unnecessary speculation.
Considering these points, he should definitely oppose the proposed measure. It would wipe out a trade that generated eight hundred thousand pounds each year and employed one hundred sixty ships and over five thousand sailors. It would also ruin the West India trade, which was worth six million annually and employed one hundred sixty thousand tons of shipping, along with a proportional number of sailors. These were issues of too much significance to the country to risk on an unnecessary gamble.
Mr. Grosvenor then rose. He complimented the humanity of Mr. Wilberforce, though he differed from him on the subject of his motion. He himself had read only the privy council report, and he wished for no other evidence. The question had then been delayed two years; had the abolition been so clear a point as it was said to be, it could not have needed either so much evidence or time.
Mr. Grosvenor then stood up. He praised Mr. Wilberforce's compassion, even though he disagreed with him about his motion. He had only read the privy council report and didn't want to see any other evidence. The question had been postponed for two years; if the abolition were as obvious as people claimed, it wouldn't have needed so much evidence or time.
He had heard a good deal about kidnapping, and other barbarous practices. He was sorry for them. But these were the natural consequences of the laws of Africa; and it became us as wise men to turn them to our own advantage. The Slave Trade was certainly not an amiable trade. Neither was that of a butcher; but yet it was a very necessary one.
He had heard a lot about kidnapping and other brutal practices. He felt sympathy for them. But these were the natural results of the laws of Africa, and as wise individuals, it was our duty to make the best of these situations. The Slave Trade was definitely not a kind trade. Nor was that of a butcher; but it was still a very necessary one.
There was great reason to doubt the propriety of the present motion. He had twenty reasons for disapproving it. The first was, that the thing was impossible. He needed not, therefore to give the rest. Parliament, indeed might relinquish the trade. But to whom? To foreigners, who would continue it, and without the humane regulations which were applied to it by his countrymen.
There was a good reason to question the appropriateness of the current motion. He had twenty reasons to oppose it. The first was that the idea was unfeasible. He didn't need to state the others. Parliament might choose to give up the trade. But to whom? To foreigners, who would keep it going, and without the humane regulations that his fellow countrymen applied to it.
He would give advice to the House on this subject, in the words which the late Alderman Beckford used a different occasion:—"Meddle, not with troubled waters; they will be found to be bitter waters; and the waters of affliction." He again admitted, that the Slave Trade was not an amiable trade; but he would not gratify his humanity at the expense of the interests of his country; and he thought we should not too curiously inquire into the unpleasant circumstances which attended it.
He would advise the House on this topic, using the words of the late Alderman Beckford from a different occasion: "Don't get involved with troubled waters; they will turn out to be bitter waters and waters of suffering." He also acknowledged that the Slave Trade was not a noble trade, but he wouldn't satisfy his compassion at the cost of his country's interests, and he believed we shouldn't look too closely into the unpleasant circumstances surrounding it.
Mr. James Martin succeeded Mr. Grosvenor. He said he had been long aware how much self-interest could pervert the judgment; but he was not apprized of the full power of it, till the Slave Trade became a subject of discussion. He had always conceived that the custom of trafficing in human beings had been incautiously begun, and without any reflection upon it; for he never could believe that any man, under the influence of moral principles, could suffer himself knowingly to carry on a trade replete with fraud, cruelty, and destruction; with destruction indeed, of the worst kind, because it subjected the sufferers to a lingering death. But he found now, that even such a trade as this could be sanctioned.
Mr. James Martin took over from Mr. Grosvenor. He said he had long been aware of how much self-interest can mess with judgment; however, he didn't realize its full impact until the Slave Trade became a topic of discussion. He had always thought that the practice of trading in human beings started off carelessly and without much thought; he never believed that anyone with a sense of morality could knowingly engage in a trade filled with fraud, cruelty, and destruction—especially a kind of destruction that led to a slow and painful death for the victims. But now he saw that even such a trade could be justified.
It was well observed, in the petition from the University of Cambridge against the Slave Trade, "that a firm belief in the providence of a benevolent Creator assured them that no system, founded on the oppression of one part of mankind, could be beneficial to another." He felt much concern, that in an assembly of the representatives of the country, boasting itself zealous, not only for the preservation of its own liberties, but for the general rights of mankind, it should be necessary to say a single word upon such a subject; but the deceitfulness of the human heart was such, as to change the appearances of truth, when it stood in opposition to self-interests. And he had to lament that even among those, whose public duty it was to cling to the universal and eternal principles of truth, justice, and humanity, there were found some who could defend that which was unjust, fraudulent, and cruel.
It was well stated in the petition from the University of Cambridge against the Slave Trade that "a strong belief in the guidance of a kind Creator taught them that no system based on the oppression of one part of humanity could benefit another." He felt deeply troubled that in a gathering of the representatives of a country that prided itself on being committed not only to its own freedoms but also to the fundamental rights of all people, it was necessary to address such a topic at all; however, the deceitfulness of the human heart had a way of distorting the truth when it conflicted with personal interests. He regretted that even among those whose public duty was to uphold the universal and timeless principles of truth, justice, and humanity, there were some who could justify what was unjust, fraudulent, and cruel.
The doctrines he had heard that evening ought to have been reserved for times the most flagrantly profligate and abandoned. He never expected then to learn that the everlasting laws of righteousness were to give way to imaginary, political, and commercial expediency; and that thousands of our fellow-creatures were to be reduced to wretchedness, that individuals might enjoy opulence, or government a revenue.
The ideas he heard that evening should have been saved for the most wildly indulgent and reckless times. He never expected to find out that the timeless principles of righteousness would be sacrificed for fake political and commercial convenience; and that thousands of our fellow human beings would be brought down to misery so that individuals could live in wealth or the government could collect taxes.
He hoped that the House, for the sake of its own character, would explode these doctrines with all the marks of odium they deserved; and that all parties would join in giving a death-blow to this execrable trade. The royal family would, he expected, from their known benevolence, patronize the measure. Both Houses of Parliament were now engaged in the prosecution of a gentleman accused of cruelty and oppression in the East. But what were these cruelties, even if they could be brought home to him, when compared in number and degree to those which were every day and every hour committed in the abominable traffic which was now under their discussion! He considered, therefore, both Houses of Parliament as pledged upon this occasion. Of the support of the bishops he could have no doubt; because they were to render Christianity amiable, both by their doctrine and their example. Some of the inferior clergy had already manifested a laudable zeal in behalf of the injured Africans. The University of Cambridge had presented a petition to that House worthy of itself. The sister-university had, by one of her representatives, given sanction to the measure. Dissenters of various denominations, but particularly the Quakers, (who, to their immortal honour, had taken the lead in it,) had vied with those of the Established Church in this amiable contest. The first counties, and some of the largest trading towns, in the kingdom had espoused the cause. In short, there had never been more unanimity in the country, than in this righteous attempt.
He hoped that the House, for the sake of its own reputation, would completely reject these ideas with all the contempt they deserved; and that all parties would come together to put an end to this awful trade. He expected the royal family, known for their kindness, would support the measure. Both Houses of Parliament were currently involved in prosecuting a gentleman accused of cruelty and oppression in the East. But what were these cruelty allegations, even if they could be proven, compared to the countless horrors that were happening every day and every hour in the disgusting trade they were discussing? He believed both Houses of Parliament were committed to this cause. He was confident of the bishops' support, as they were supposed to make Christianity appealing through both their teachings and their actions. Some of the lower clergy had already shown admirable enthusiasm for helping the injured Africans. The University of Cambridge had submitted a petition to that House that was worthy of its reputation. The sister university had, through one of its representatives, endorsed the measure. Dissenters from various denominations, especially the Quakers (who, to their everlasting honor, had taken the lead), had competed with members of the Established Church in this noble effort. The leading counties and some of the largest trading cities in the country had backed the cause. In short, there had never been more unity in the country than in this just endeavor.
With such support, and with so good a cause, it would be impossible to fail. Let but every man stand forth who had at any time boasted of himself as an Englishman, and success would follow. But if he were to be unhappily mistaken as to the result, we must give up the name of Englishmen. Indeed, if we retained it, we should be the greatest hypocrites in the world; for we boasted of nothing more than of our own liberty; we manifested the warmest indignation at the smallest personal insult; we professed liberal sentiments towards other nations: but to do these things, and to continue such a traffic, would be to deserve the hateful character before mentioned. While we could hardly bear the sight of anything resembling slavery, even as a punishment, among ourselves, how could we consistently entail an eternal slavery upon others?
With such support and such a worthy cause, failure would be impossible. If every man who has ever been proud to call himself an Englishman stood up, success would surely follow. But if we were to mistakenly believe otherwise, we would have to give up the title of Englishmen. In fact, if we kept that title, we would be the biggest hypocrites on the planet; we bragged about nothing more than our own freedom, showed the strongest outrage at the slightest personal insult, and claimed to have open-minded views towards other nations. Yet to act this way while continuing such a trade would make us deserving of the awful reputation mentioned earlier. While we can hardly stand the sight of anything resembling slavery, even as a punishment, how can we justify imposing lasting slavery on others?
It had been frequently, but most disgracefully, said, that "we should not be too eager in setting the example: let the French begin it." Such a sentiment was a direct libel upon the ancient, noble, and generous character of this nation. We ought, on the other hand, under the blessings we enjoyed, and under the high sense we entertained of our own dignity as a people, to be proudly fearful, lest other nations should anticipate our design, and obtain the palm before us. It became us to lead. And if others should not follow us, it would belong to them to glory in the shame of trampling under foot the laws of reason, humanity, and religion.
It has often, but quite shamefully, been said that "we shouldn’t be too eager to set the example: let the French start it." This attitude is a direct insult to the ancient, noble, and generous spirit of our nation. Instead, given the blessings we enjoy and our strong sense of dignity as a people, we should be proudly cautious, worried that other nations might get ahead of us and receive the credit first. It is our role to lead. And if others choose not to follow, it will be on them to take pride in the disgrace of ignoring reason, humanity, and morality.
This motion, he said, came strongly recommended to them. The honourable member who introduced it was justly esteemed for his character. He was the representative, too of a noble county, which had been always ready to take the lead in every public measure for the good of the community, or for the general benefit of mankind; of a county, too, which had had the honour of producing a Saville. Had his illustrious predecessor been alive, he would have shown the same zeal on the same occasion. The preservation of the unalienable rights of all his fellow-creatures was one of the chief characteristics of that excellent citizen. Let every member in that House imitate him in the purity of their conduct and in the universal rectitude of their measures, and they would pay the same tender regard to the rights of other countries as to those of their own; and, for his part, he should never believe those persons to be sincere who were loud in their professions of love of liberty, if he saw that love confined to the narrow circle of one community, which ought to be extended to the natural rights of every inhabitant of the globe.
This motion, he said, was strongly recommended to them. The honorable member who introduced it was well-respected for his character. He also represented a noble county that has always been ready to take the lead in any public measure for the good of the community or for the general benefit of humanity; a county that has the honor of having produced a Saville. If his distinguished predecessor were alive today, he would have shown the same enthusiasm on this occasion. The preservation of the unalienable rights of all his fellow beings was one of the key qualities of that remarkable citizen. Let every member in that House emulate him in the integrity of their actions and in the universal fairness of their measures, and they would then show equal respect for the rights of other countries as they do for their own; and for his part, he could never believe that those who loudly profess love for liberty are sincere if that love is limited to the narrow confines of one community, which should be extended to the natural rights of every person in the world.
But we should be better able to bring ourselves up to this standard of rectitude, if we were to put ourselves into the situation of those whom we oppressed. This was the rule of our religion. What should we think of those who should say, that it was their interest to injure us? But he hoped we should not deceive ourselves so grossly as to imagine that it was our real interest to oppress any one. The advantages to be obtained by tyranny were imaginary, and deceitful to the tyrant; and the evils they caused to the oppressed were grievous, and often insupportable.
But we would be better able to hold ourselves to this standard of goodness if we put ourselves in the shoes of those we oppressed. This was the principle of our faith. What would we think of those who claimed it was in their best interest to harm us? But he hoped we wouldn't fool ourselves into thinking it was really in our best interest to oppress anyone. The benefits gained from tyranny are fake and misleading to the oppressor, while the suffering inflicted on the oppressed is severe and often unbearable.
Before he sat down, he would apologize if he had expressed himself too warmly on this subject. He did not mean to offend any one. There were persons connected with the trade, some of whom he pitied on account of the difficulty of their situation. But he should think most contemptibly of himself as a man if he could talk on this traffic without emotion. It would be a sign to him of his own moral degradation. He regretted his inability to do justice to such a cause; but if, in having attempted to forward it, he had shown the weakness of his powers, he must console himself with the consideration, that he felt more solid comfort in having acted up to sound public principles, than he could have done from the exercise of the most splendid talents, against the conviction of his conscience.
Before he sat down, he would apologize if he had spoken too passionately about this topic. He didn't mean to offend anyone. There were people involved in the trade, some of whom he felt sorry for because of how difficult their situation was. But he would think very poorly of himself as a person if he could discuss this issue without feeling emotional. That would be a sign of his own moral decline. He regretted his inability to do justice to such an important cause; however, if, in trying to support it, he had shown the limits of his abilities, he had to comfort himself with the idea that he felt more genuine satisfaction in standing by strong public principles than he would have felt by exercising the most extraordinary talents while going against his conscience.
Mr. Burdon rose, and said he was embarrassed to know how to act. Mr. Wilberforce had in a great measure met his ideas. Indeed he considered himself as much in his hands; but he wished to go gradually to the abolition of the trade. He wished to give time to the planters to recruit their stocks. He feared the immediate abolition might occasion a monopoly among such of them as were rich, to the detriment of the less affluent. We ought, like a judicious physician, to follow nature, and to promote a gradual recovery.
Mr. Burdon stood up and said he felt awkward about how to proceed. Mr. Wilberforce had largely aligned with his views. In fact, he felt quite reliant on him; however, he wanted to take a gradual approach to abolishing the trade. He wanted to allow the plantation owners time to replenish their resources. He worried that immediate abolition might lead to a monopoly for the wealthier ones, harming those who were less well-off. We should, like a wise doctor, follow the natural course and encourage a slow recovery.
Mr. Francis rose next. After complimenting Mr. Wilberforce, he stated that personal considerations might appear to incline him to go against the side which he was about to take, namely, that of strenuously supporting his motion. Having himself an interest in the West Indies, he thought that what he should submit to the House would have the double effect of evidence, and argument; and he stated most unequivocally his opinion, that the abolition of the Slave Trade would tend materially to the benefit of the West Indies.
Mr. Francis stood up next. After praising Mr. Wilberforce, he mentioned that personal reasons might seem to lead him to oppose the stance he was about to take, which was to strongly support his motion. Since he had a vested interest in the West Indies, he believed that what he would present to the House would serve as both evidence and argument; and he clearly stated his belief that the abolition of the Slave Trade would greatly benefit the West Indies.
The arguments urged by the honourable mover were supported by the facts, which he had adduced from the evidence, more strongly than any arguments had been supported in any speech he had ever heard. He wished, however, that more of these facts had been introduced into the debate; for they were apt to have a greater effect upon the mind than mere reasonings, however just and powerful. Many had affirmed that the Slave Trade was politic and expedient; but it was worthy of remark, that no man had ventured to deny that it was criminal. Criminal, however, he declared it to be in the highest degree; and he believed it was equally impolitic. Both its inexpediency and injustice had been established by the honourable mover. He dwelt much on the unhappy situation of the negroes in the West Indies, who were without the protection of government or of efficient laws, and subject to the mere caprice of men, who were at once the parties, the judges, and the executioners.
The arguments presented by the honorable speaker were backed by the facts he brought up from the evidence, more convincingly than any arguments he had ever heard in a speech before. He wished, though, that more of these facts had been included in the debate; because they tend to have a bigger impact on people's minds than just reasoning, no matter how sound and powerful. Many have argued that the Slave Trade was practical and beneficial; but it’s worth noting that no one has dared to say it wasn’t criminal. He declared it to be highly criminal and believed it to be equally unwise. Both its unreasonableness and unfairness had been proven by the honorable speaker. He emphasized the dire situation of the enslaved people in the West Indies, who were without the protection of government or proper laws, and were subject to the whims of individuals who were simultaneously the offenders, the judges, and the executioners.
He instanced an overseer, who, having thrown a negro into a copper of boiling cane-juice, for a trifling offence, was punished merely by the loss of his place, and by being obliged to pay the value of the slave. He stated another instance of a girl of fourteen, who was dreadfully whipped for coming too late to her work. She fell down motionless after it; and was then dragged along the ground, by the legs, to an hospital; where she died. The murderer, though tried, was acquitted by a jury of his peers, upon the idea, that it was impossible a master could destroy his own property. This was a notorious fact. It was published in the Jamaica Gazette; and it had even happened since the question of the abolition had been started.
He gave an example of an overseer who, after throwing a Black person into a pot of boiling sugar cane juice for a minor offense, was only fired and had to pay the value of the slave. He mentioned another case of a fourteen-year-old girl who was severely whipped for arriving late to work. She collapsed and became motionless afterward, and was then dragged by her legs to a hospital, where she died. The overseer, although tried, was acquitted by a jury of his peers because they believed a master couldn’t possibly kill his own property. This was a well-known fact. It was reported in the Jamaica Gazette; and it even happened after the issue of abolition had been raised.
The only argument used against such cruelties, was the master's interest in the slave; but he urged the common cruelty to horses, in which their drivers had an equal interest with the drivers of men in the colonies, as a proof that this was no security. He had never heard an instance of a master being punished for the murder of his slave. The propagation of the slaves was so far from being encouraged, that it was purposely checked, because it was thought more profitable and less troublesome to buy a full grown negro, than to rear a child. He repeated that his interest might have inclined him to the other side of the question; but he did not choose to compromise between his interest and his duty; for, if he abandoned his duty, he should not be happy in this world; nor should he deserve happiness in the next.
The only argument against such cruelty was the master's interest in the slave, but he pointed out the common cruelty towards horses, where drivers had the same interest as those managing slaves in the colonies, showing that this was no real protection. He had never heard of a master being punished for killing their slave. The increase in the slave population was not encouraged; in fact, it was deliberately limited because it was seen as more profitable and less hassle to buy an adult slave rather than raise a child. He emphasized that his interests might have led him to a different conclusion, but he didn't want to compromise between his interests and his duty; because if he neglected his duty, he wouldn’t find happiness in this life nor would he deserve it in the next.
Mr. Pitt rose; but he said it was only to move, seeing that justice could not be done to the subject this evening, that the further consideration of the question might be adjourned to the next.
Mr. Pitt stood up; however, he stated it was just to propose that, since the matter couldn't be adequately addressed tonight, the further discussion of the question should be postponed until the next meeting.
Mr. Cawthorne and Colonel Tarleton both opposed this motion, and Colonel Phipps and Lord Carhampton supported it.
Mr. Cawthorne and Colonel Tarleton both opposed this motion, while Colonel Phipps and Lord Carhampton supported it.
Mr. Fox said, the opposition to the adjournment was uncandid and unbecoming. They who opposed it well knew that the trade could not bear discussion. Let it be discussed; and, although there were symptoms of predetermination in some, the abolition of it must be carried. He would not believe that there could be found in the House of Commons men of such hard hearts and inaccessible understandings, as to vote an assent to its continuance, and then go home to their families, satisfied with their vote, after they had been once made acquainted with the subject.
Mr. Fox said that the opposition to the adjournment was insincere and inappropriate. Those who opposed it knew very well that the trade couldn’t handle open discussion. Let’s discuss it; and although some showed signs of having already made up their minds, the abolition of it must go through. He wouldn’t believe there were people in the House of Commons with such cold hearts and closed minds that they would vote to keep it going and then go home to their families feeling good about that vote after having been informed on the subject.
Mr. Pitt agreed with Mr. Fox, that from a full discussion of the subject there was every reason to augur that the abolition would be adopted. Under the imputations, with which this trade was loaded, gentlemen should remember, they could not do justice to their own characters, unless they stood up, and gave their reasons for opposing the abolition of it. It was unusual also to force any question of such importance to so hasty a decision. For his own part, it was his duty, from the situation in which he stood, to state fully his own sentiments on the question; and, however exhausted both he and the House might be, he was resolved it should not pass without discussion, as long as he had strength to utter a word upon it. Every principle that could bind a man of honour and conscience, would impel him to give the most powerful support he could to the motion for the abolition.
Mr. Pitt agreed with Mr. Fox that, after a thorough discussion of the topic, there was every reason to believe that the abolition would be approved. Given the accusations associated with this trade, they should remember that they couldn’t uphold their own reputations unless they spoke up and explained their reasons for opposing the abolition. It was also unusual to rush to a decision on such an important matter. For his part, he felt it was his duty, given his position, to clearly express his own views on the issue; and even though both he and the House might feel exhausted, he was determined that it would not be passed without discussion as long as he had the strength to say a word about it. Every principle that could compel a person of honor and conscience would drive him to give the strongest support he could to the motion for abolition.
The motion of Mr. Pitt was assented to, and the House was adjourned accordingly.
The motion by Mr. Pitt was approved, and the House was adjourned as a result.
On the next day the subject was resumed. Sir William Yonge rose, and said, that, though he differed from the honourable mover, he had much admired his speech of the last evening. Indeed the recollection of it made him only the more sensible of the weakness of his own powers; and yet, having what he supposed to be irrefragable arguments in his possession, he felt emboldened to proceed.
On the following day, the topic was brought up again. Sir William Yonge stood up and said that, although he disagreed with the honorable speaker, he had really admired his speech from the previous evening. In fact, remembering it made him even more aware of his own limitations; however, believing he had solid arguments to support his position, he felt encouraged to continue.
And, first, before he could vote for the abolition, he wished to be convinced, that, whilst Britain were to lose, Africa would gain. As for himself, he hated a traffic in men, and joyfully anticipated its termination at no distant period under a wise system of regulation: but he considered the present measure as crude and indolent; and as precluding better and wiser measures, which were already in train. A British Parliament should attain not only the best ends, but by the wisest means.
And first, before he could vote for the abolition, he wanted to be convinced that while Britain would lose, Africa would gain. Personally, he hated the trade in humans and looked forward to its end in the near future through a smart system of regulation. However, he saw the current proposal as unrefined and lazy, preventing better and more thoughtful solutions that were already being developed. A British Parliament should achieve not only the best outcomes but also through the smartest methods.
Great Britain might abandon her share of this trade, but she could not abolish it. Parliament was not an assembly of delegates from the powers of Europe, but of a single nation. It could not therefore suppress the trade; but would eventually aggravate those miseries incident to it, which every enlightened man must acknowledge, and every good man must deplore. He wished the traffic for ever closed. But other nations were only waiting for our decision, to seize the part we should leave them. The new projects of these would be intemperate; and, in the zeal of rivalship, the present evils of comparatively sober dealing would be aggravated beyond all estimate in this new and heated auction of bidders for life and limb. We might, indeed, by regulation give an example of new principles of policy and of justice; but if we were to withdraw suddenly from this commerce, like Pontius Pilate, we should wash our hands, indeed, but we should not be innocent as to the consequences.
Great Britain might stop her involvement in this trade, but she couldn't just eliminate it. Parliament wasn't a gathering of delegates from various European powers; it was made up of a single nation. Therefore, it couldn't just shut down the trade. Instead, it would eventually worsen the suffering associated with it, which every informed person must recognize and every decent person must lament. He wished the trade to be permanently ended. However, other nations were just waiting for our decision to take the part we would leave behind. Their new plans would be reckless, and in the fervor of competition, the current issues stemming from relatively cautious dealings would be intensified beyond measure in this new and heated competition for lives and well-being. We might, of course, set an example of new principles of policy and justice through regulation, but if we were to suddenly pull out of this commerce, like Pontius Pilate, we would indeed wash our hands, but we would not be innocent of the consequences.
On the first agitation of this business, Mr. Wilberforce had spoken confidently of other nations following our example. But had not the National Assembly of France referred the Slave Trade to a select committee, and had not that committee rejected the measure of its abolition? By the evidence it appeared, that the French and Spaniards were then giving bounties to the Slave Trade; that Denmark was desirous of following it; that America was encouraging it; and that the Dutch had recognized its necessity, and recommended its recovery. Things were bad enough indeed as they were, but he was sure this rivalship would make them worse.
On the first stir of this issue, Mr. Wilberforce had spoken confidently about other countries following our lead. But hadn't the National Assembly of France referred the Slave Trade to a select committee, and didn't that committee dismiss the idea of abolishing it? The evidence showed that the French and Spanish were offering rewards for the Slave Trade; that Denmark wanted to follow suit; that America was promoting it; and that the Dutch had acknowledged its necessity and suggested restoring it. Things were already pretty bad, but he was certain that this competition would make them worse.
He did not admit the disorders imputed to the trade in all their extent. Pillage and kidnapping could not be general, on account of the populousness of the country; though too frequent instances of it had been proved. Crimes might be falsely imputed. This he admitted; but only partially. Witchcraft, he believed, was the secret of poisoning, and therefore deserved the severest punishment. That there should be a number of convictions for adultery, where polygamy was a custom, was not to be wondered at; but he feared, if a sale of these criminals were to be done away, massacre would be the substitute.
He did not acknowledge the issues associated with the trade in their entirety. Robbery and kidnapping couldn't be widespread because of the country's large population, although there had been too many instances of them. Some crimes might be falsely attributed, and he accepted that, but only to a degree. He believed that witchcraft was a form of poisoning and therefore deserved the harshest punishment. It was not surprising to see many convictions for adultery in a place where polygamy was common; however, he worried that if the sale of these offenders were discontinued, the alternative would be mass killings.
An honourable member had asked on a former day, "Is it an excuse for robbery to say that another would hare committed it?" But the Slave Trade did not necessarily imply robbery. Not long since Great Britain sold her convicts, indirectly at least, to slavery; but he was no advocate for the trade. He wished it had begun, and that it might soon terminate. But the means were not adequate to the end proposed.
An honorable member had asked on a previous day, "Is it a valid excuse for robbery to say that someone else would have done it?" However, the Slave Trade didn't automatically mean robbery. Not too long ago, Great Britain sold its convicts, at least indirectly, into slavery; but he wasn’t in favor of the trade. He wished it had never started and hoped it would end soon. But the means were not sufficient to achieve the intended goal.
Mr. Burke had said on a former occasion, "that in adopting measure we must prepare to pay the price of our virtue." He was ready to pay his share of that price; but the effect of the purchase must be first ascertained. If they did not estimate this, it was not benevolence, but dissipation. Effects were to be duly appreciated; and though statesmen might rest everything on a manifesto of causes, the humbler moralist, meditating peace and good will towards men, would venture to call such statesmen responsible for consequences.
Mr. Burke had said before, "that when we take action, we have to be ready to pay for our values." He was willing to pay his part of that cost, but they needed to understand the impact of their decision first. If they didn't consider this, it was not kindness, but wastefulness. Results needed to be properly understood; and while politicians might base everything on a statement of reasons, a simpler moral thinker, reflecting on peace and goodwill towards others, would dare to hold those politicians accountable for the outcomes.
In regard to the colonies, a sudden abolition would be oppression. The legislatures there should be led, and not forced, upon this occasion. He was persuaded they would act wisely to attain the end pointed out to them. They would see that a natural increase of their negroes might be effected by an improved system of legislation; and that in the result the Slave Trade would be no longer necessary.
In relation to the colonies, an abrupt end to slavery would be oppressive. The local governments should be guided, not coerced, in this matter. He believed they would make wise decisions to reach the goal set for them. They would realize that a natural growth in their enslaved population could happen through better laws, and eventually, the Slave Trade would become unnecessary.
A sudden abolition, also, would occasion dissatisfaction there. Supplies were necessary for some time to come. The negroes did not yet generally increase by birth. The gradation of ages was not yet duly filled. These and many defects might be remedied, but not suddenly.
A sudden end to it would cause discontent there. Supplies would be needed for a while longer. The black population wasn't generally increasing through birth yet. The age distribution wasn't properly balanced. These issues and many others could be fixed, but not overnight.
It would cause, also, distress there. The planters, not having their expected supplies, could not discharge their debts; hence their slaves would be seized and sold. Nor was there any provision in this case against the separation of families, except as to the mother and infant child. These separations were one of the chief outrages complained of in Africa. Why, then, should we promote them in the West Indies? The confinement on board a slave-ship had been also bitterly complained of; but, under distraint for the debt of a master, the poor slave might linger in a gaol twice or thrice the time of the Middle Passage.
It would also cause distress there. The planters, not receiving their expected supplies, couldn't pay off their debts; as a result, their slaves would be seized and sold. There was no protection in this situation against families being separated, except for the mother and her infant child. These separations were one of the main grievances reported in Africa. So, why should we encourage them in the West Indies? The confinement on board a slave ship had also been heavily criticized; but, due to the debt of a master, the poor slave could spend two or three times longer in jail than the time spent during the Middle Passage.
He again stated his abhorrence of the Slave Trade; but as a resource, though he hoped but a temporary one, it was of such consequence to the existence of the country, that it could not suddenly be withdrawn. The value, of the imports and exports between Great Britain and the West Indies, including the excise and customs, was between seven and eight millions annually; and the tonnage of the ships employed about an eighth of the whole tonnage of these kingdoms.
He again expressed his disgust for the Slave Trade; however, as a resource, even though he hoped it would be temporary, it was so crucial to the country's existence that it couldn't be suddenly removed. The value of imports and exports between Great Britain and the West Indies, including taxes and duties, was between seven and eight million pounds annually, and the shipping involved accounted for about one-eighth of the total tonnage of these kingdoms.
He complained that in the evidence the West Indian planters had been by no means spared. Cruel stories had been hastily and lightly told against them. Invidious comparisons had been made to their detriment; but it was well known that one of our best comic writers, when he wished to show benevolence in its fairest colours, had personified it in the character of the West Indian. He wished the slave might become as secure as the apprentice in this country; but it was necessary that the alarms concerning the abolition of the Slave Trade should, in the mean time, be quieted; and he trusted that the good sense and true benevolence of the House would reject the present motion.
He complained that the evidence had not held back from criticizing West Indian planters. Cruel stories had been quickly and carelessly spread against them. Unfair comparisons had been made that harmed their reputation; however, it was well known that one of our best comedy writers, when he wanted to portray benevolence in its most positive light, had personified it through the character of a West Indian. He wished for the slave to have the same security as the apprentice in this country; but it was essential to calm the fears surrounding the abolition of the Slave Trade in the meantime, and he hoped that the good sense and genuine kindness of the House would dismiss the current motion.
Mr. Matthew Montagu rose and said a few words in support of the motion; and after condemning the trade in the strongest manner, he declared, that as long as he had life he would use every faculty of his body and mind in endeavouring to promote its abolition.
Mr. Matthew Montagu stood up and said a few words in support of the motion; and after strongly condemning the trade, he declared that as long as he lived, he would use every ability of his body and mind to work towards its abolition.
Lord John Russell succeeded Mr. Montagu. He said, that although slavery was repugnant to his feelings, he must vote against the abolition as visionary and delusive. It was a feeble attempt, without the power, to serve the cause of humanity. Other nations would take up the trade. Whenever a bill of wise regulation should be brought forward, no man would be more ready than himself to lend his support. In this way the rights of humanity might be asserted without injury to others. He hoped he should not incur censure by his vote; for, let his understanding be what it might, he did not know that he had, notwithstanding the assertions of Mr. Fox, an inaccessible heart.
Lord John Russell took over from Mr. Montagu. He stated that, even though slavery went against his principles, he had to vote against its abolition because he believed it was unrealistic and misleading. He felt it was a weak attempt, lacking the necessary power, to support the cause of humanity. Other countries would simply continue the trade. Whenever a bill for sensible regulation came up, he would be more than willing to back it. This way, the rights of humanity could be upheld without harming others. He hoped his vote wouldn’t bring criticism upon him; for, no matter what others thought, he didn’t believe he had, despite Mr. Fox’s claims, a heart that was beyond reach.
Mr. Stanley (agent for the islands) rose next. He felt himself called upon, he said, to refute the many calumnies which had for years been propagated against the planters, (even through the medium of the pulpit, which should have been employed to better purposes,) and which had at length produced the mischievous measure, which was now under the discussion of the House. A cry had been sounded forth, and from one end of the kingdom to the other, as if there had never been a slave from Adam to the present time. But it appeared to him to have been the intention of Providence, from the very beginning, that one set of men should be slaves to another. This truth was as old as it was universal. It was recognised in every history, under every government, and in every religion. Nor did the Christian religion itself if the comments of Dr. Halifax, Bishop of Gloucester, on a passage of St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians were true, show more repugnance to slavery than any other.
Mr. Stanley (the agent for the islands) spoke next. He felt it was necessary to address the many falsehoods that had been spread about the planters for years, even using the pulpit, which should have been used for better purposes, and which ultimately led to the harmful measure now being discussed in the House. A cry had been raised, echoing from one end of the kingdom to the other, as if there had never been slavery at any time. But he believed it was part of Providence’s plan from the very beginning that one group of people would be enslaved by another. This truth is as ancient as it is universal. It appears in every history, under every government, and within every religion. Moreover, the Christian religion itself, if the comments of Dr. Halifax, Bishop of Gloucester, regarding a passage from St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians are accurate, does not oppose slavery any more than any other religion does.
He denied that the slaves were procured in the manner which had been described. It was the custom of all savages to kill their prisoners; and the Africans ought to be thankful that they had been carried safe into the British colonies.
He rejected the idea that the slaves were obtained in the way it had been described. It was customary for all uncivilized people to kill their captives; and the Africans should be grateful that they were brought safely to the British colonies.
As to the tales of misery in the Middle Passage, they were gross falsehoods; and as to their treatment in the West Indies, he knew personally that it was, in general, indulgent and humane.
As for the stories of suffering during the Middle Passage, they were complete lies; and regarding their treatment in the West Indies, he personally knew that it was generally kind and compassionate.
With regard to promoting their increase by any better mode of treatment, he wished gentlemen would point it out to him. As a planter he would thank them for it. It was absurd to suppose that he and others were blind to their own interest. It was well known that one Creole slave was worth two Africans; and their interest, therefore, must suggest to them, that the propagation of slaves was preferable to the purchase of imported negroes, of whom one half very frequently died in the seasoning.
As for finding a better way to increase their numbers, he wished that someone would tell him. As a plantation owner, he would appreciate it. It was ridiculous to think that he and others were oblivious to their own interests. It was widely recognized that one Creole slave was worth two Africans; therefore, it would be in their best interest to grow their own slave population instead of buying imported Africans, of whom often half perished during acclimatization.
He then argued the impossibility of beasts doing the work of the plantations. He endeavoured to prove that the number of these adequate to this purpose could not be supplied with food; and after having made many other observations, which, on account of the lowness of his voice, could not be heard, he concluded by objecting to the motion.
He then argued that it was impossible for animals to do the work on the plantations. He tried to prove that there weren’t enough of them to meet this need and that they couldn’t be provided with enough food. After making several other points, which couldn’t be heard because of how quietly he spoke, he wrapped up by opposing the motion.
Mr. William Smith rose. He wondered how the last speaker could have had the boldness to draw arguments from scripture in support of the Slave Trade. Such arguments could be intended only to impose on those who never took the trouble of thinking for themselves. Could it be thought for a moment, that the good sense of the House could be misled by a few perverted or misapplied passages, in direct opposition to the whole tenor, and spirit of Christianity; to the theory, he might say, of almost every religion, which had ever appeared in the world? Whatever might have been advanced, every body must feel that the Slave Trade could not exist an hour, if that excellent maxim, "to do to others as we would wish that others should do to us," had its proper influence on the conduct of men.
Mr. William Smith stood up. He was amazed that the last speaker had the audacity to use scripture to justify the Slave Trade. Such arguments seemed meant only to deceive those who never bothered to think for themselves. Could anyone seriously believe that the good judgment of the House could be swayed by a few twisted or misapplied passages that contradicted the entire essence and spirit of Christianity, and even the principles of nearly every religion that has ever existed? No matter what was said, everyone must recognize that the Slave Trade couldn't last even an hour if the fundamental principle, "treat others as you would like to be treated," guided people's actions.
Nor was Mr. Stanley more happy in his argument of the antiquity and universality of slavery. Because a practise had existed, did it necessarily follow that it was just? By this argument every crime might be defended from the time of Cain. The slaves of antiquity, however were in a situation far preferable to that of the negroes in the West Indies. A passage in Macrobius, which exemplified this in the strongest manner, was now brought to his recollection. "Our ancestors," says Macrobius, "denominated the master, father of the family, and the slave, domestic, with the intention of removing all odium from the condition of the master, and all contempt from that of the servant." Could this language be applied to the present state of West India slavery?
Mr. Stanley was also not convincing in his argument about the age and universality of slavery. Just because a practice has been around does not mean it is right. By that logic, any crime could be justified back to the time of Cain. However, slaves in ancient times were in a much better situation than the Black people in the West Indies. A quote from Macrobius, which illustrated this point very clearly, came to mind. "Our ancestors," says Macrobius, "called the master the father of the family, and the slave domestic, to remove any stigma from the master's status and any disrespect from the servant's." Can this language really apply to the current state of slavery in the West Indies?
It had been complained of by those who supported the trade, that they laboured under great disadvantages by being obliged to contend against the most splendid abilities which the House could boast. But he believed they laboured under one, which was worse and for which no talents could compensate; he meant the impossibility of maintaining their ground fairly on any of those principles, which every man within those walls had been accustomed, from his infancy, to venerate as sacred. He and his friends, too, laboured under some disadvantages. They had been charged with fanaticism. But what had Mr. Long said, when he addressed himself to those planters, who were desirous of attempting improvements on their estates? He advised them "not to be diverted by partial views, vulgar prejudices, or the ridicule which might spring from weak minds, from a benevolent attention to the public good." But neither by these nor by other charges were he or his friends to be diverted from the prosecution of their purpose. They were convinced of the rectitude and high importance of their object; and were determined never to desist from pursuing it, till it should be attained.
It had been pointed out by those who supported the trade that they faced serious disadvantages by having to compete against the best talents that the House could showcase. However, he believed they faced an even bigger issue that no amount of skill could make up for: the difficulty of operating fairly on any of the principles that everyone in that room had been raised to regard as sacred. He and his friends also faced some challenges. They had been accused of being fanatics. But what had Mr. Long said when he spoke to those planters who wanted to make improvements on their estates? He advised them "not to be swayed by narrow views, common prejudices, or the ridicule that might come from narrow-minded individuals, but to keep their focus on the public good." Yet neither these accusations nor any others would distract him or his friends from their mission. They were convinced of the righteousness and great importance of their goal and were determined to keep pursuing it until they achieved it.
But they had to struggle with difficulties far more serious. The West Indian interest which opposed them, was a collected body; of great power, affluence, connexions, and respectability.
But they had to deal with challenges that were much more serious. The West Indian interests that opposed them were a unified group with significant power, wealth, connections, and respectability.
Artifice had also been employed. Abolition and emancipation had been so often confounded, and by those who knew better, that it must have been purposely done, to throw an odium on the measure which was now before them.
Artifice had also been used. Abolition and emancipation had been mixed up so often, even by those who should have known better, that it must have been done on purpose to cast a negative light on the measure that was now in front of them.
The abolitionists had been also accused as the authors of the late insurrection in Dominica. A revolt had certainly taken place in that island. But revolts there had occured frequently before. Mr. Stanley himself, in attempting to fix this charge upon them, had related circumstance which amounted to their entire exculpation. He had said that all was quiet there till the disturbances in the French islands; when some negroes from the latter had found their way to Dominica, and had excited the insurrection in question. He had also said, that the negroes in our own islands hated the idea of the abolition; for they thought, as no new labourers were to come in, they should be subjected to increased hardships. But if they and their masters hated this same measure, how was this coincidence of sentiment to give birth to insurrections?
The abolitionists were also accused of being behind the recent uprising in Dominica. A revolt did happen on that island, but there had been revolts there before. Mr. Stanley, in trying to pin this blame on them, provided details that completely cleared them of responsibility. He mentioned that everything was peaceful until the chaos in the French islands, when some enslaved people from there made their way to Dominica and sparked the insurrection. He also noted that the enslaved people in our islands opposed the idea of abolition because they feared that without new laborers coming in, they would face even harsher conditions. But if both they and their masters disliked this same plan, how could they share such similar views and still lead to uprisings?
Other fallacies, also, had been industriously propogated. Of the African trade, it had been said, that the exports amounted to a million annually; whereas, from the report on the table, it had on an average amounted to little more than half a million; and this included the articles for the purchase of African produce which were of the value of 140,000l.
Other fallacies had also been actively spread. Regarding the African trade, it was claimed that the exports reached a million each year; however, from the report on the table, it actually averaged just over half a million, and this number included items worth 140,000l. for buying African produce.
The East Indian Trade, also, had been said to depend on the West Indian and the African. In the first place, it had but very little connexion with the former at all. Its connexion with the latter was principally on account of the saltpetre which it furnished for making gunpowder. Out of nearly three millions of pounds in weight of the latter article, which had been exported in a year from this country, one-half had been sent to Africa alone; for the purposes, doubtless, of maintaining peace, and encouraging civilization among its various tribes! Four or five thousand persons were said, also, to depend for their bread in manufacturing guns for the African trade; and these, it was pretended, could not make guns of another sort.—But where lay the difficulty?—One of the witnesses had unravelled it. He had seen the negroes maimed by the bursting of these guns. They killed more from the butt than from the muzzle. Another had stated, that on the sea-coast the natives were afraid to fire a trade-gun.
The East Indian trade was said to rely on the West Indian and African trades. Firstly, it hardly had any connection with the former at all. Its link to the latter was mainly due to the saltpeter it supplied for making gunpowder. Out of nearly three million pounds of this product exported from the country in a year, half went to Africa alone, supposedly to maintain peace and promote civilization among its various tribes! Four or five thousand people were said to depend on producing guns for the African trade, and it was claimed they couldn’t make any other types of guns. But what was the issue? One of the witnesses figured it out. He had seen the Africans injured by the explosions of these guns. They caused more injuries from the back than from the front. Another witness mentioned that on the coast, the locals were afraid to fire a trade gun.
In the West Indian commerce, two hundred and forty thousand tons of shipping were stated to be employed. But here deception intruded itself again. This statement included every vessel, great and small, which went from the British West Indies to America, and to the foreign islands; and what was yet more unfair, all the repeated voyages of each throughout the year. The shipping, which could only fairly be brought into this account, did but just exceed half that which had been mentioned.
In West Indian trade, it was reported that two hundred and forty thousand tons of shipping were in use. However, this was misleading. This figure included every ship, large and small, that traveled from the British West Indies to America and other islands; what made it even more deceiving was that it counted all the trips each ship made throughout the year. The actual shipping that should have been included in this calculation was just a little over half of what was stated.
In a similar manner had the islands themselves been overrated. Their value had been computed, for the information of the privy council, at thirty-six millions; but the planters had estimated them at seventy. The truth, however, might possibly lie between these extremes. He by no means wished to depreciate their importance; but he did not like that such palpable misrepresentations should go unnoticed.
In a similar way, the islands themselves had been overrated. Their value had been estimated, for the privy council's information, at thirty-six million; but the planters had figured them to be worth seventy. The reality, however, might actually fall somewhere in between these two numbers. He certainly didn’t want to downplay their significance; he just didn't like that such obvious misrepresentations were being overlooked.
An honourable member (Colonel Tarleton) had disclaimed every attempt to interest the feelings of those present, but had desired to call them to reason and accounts. He also desired (though it was a question of feeling, if any one ever was,) to draw the attention of the committee to reason and accounts—to the voice of reason instead of that of prejudice, and to accounts in the place of idle apprehensions. The result, he doubted not, would be a full persuasion, that policy and justice were inseparable upon this, as upon every other occasion.
An honorable member (Colonel Tarleton) had rejected any attempts to engage the emotions of those present, but he wanted to appeal to their sense of reason and accountability. He also aimed to draw the committee’s attention to reason and accountability—prioritizing logic over bias, and focusing on facts instead of baseless fears. He was confident that the outcome would lead to a strong belief that policy and justice go hand in hand, just as they do in every other situation.
The same gentleman had enlarged on the injustice of depriving the Liverpool merchants of a business, on which were founded their honour and their fortunes. On what part of it they founded their honour he could not conjecture, except from those passages in the evidence, where it appeared, that their agents in Africa had systematically practised every fraud and villany, which the meanest and most unprincipled cunning could suggest, to impose on the ignorance of those with whom they traded.
The same gentleman emphasized the unfairness of taking away the business from the Liverpool merchants, which was the foundation of their reputation and wealth. He couldn't figure out how their honor was tied to it, except for the parts of the evidence that showed their agents in Africa regularly engaged in every trick and deceit that the lowest and most unscrupulous minds could think of, to take advantage of the ignorance of those they traded with.
The same gentleman had also lamented, that the evidence had not been taken upon oath. He himself lamented it too. Numberless facts had been related by eye-witnesses, called in support of the abolition, so dreadfully atrocious, that they appeared incredible; and seemed rather, to use the expression of Ossian, like "the histories of the days of other times." These procured for the trade a species of acquittal, which it could not have obtained, had the committee been authorised to administer an oath. He apprehended, also, in this case, that some other persons would have been rather more guarded in their testimony. Captain Knox would not then perhaps have told the committee, that six hundred slaves could have had comfortable room at night in his vessel of about one hundred and forty tons; when there could have been no more than five feet six inches in length, and fifteen inches in breadth, to about two-thirds of his number.
The same gentleman had also expressed regret that the evidence wasn’t taken under oath. He felt the same way. Numerous facts had been shared by eyewitnesses, called in to support the abolition, so shockingly terrible that they seemed unbelievable; they seemed more like, to borrow Ossian’s words, “the stories of another time.” These testimonies gave the trade a kind of acquittal that it wouldn’t have received if the committee had been allowed to administer oaths. He also feared that some other individuals would have been a bit more careful in their statements. Captain Knox might not have claimed to the committee that six hundred slaves could have comfortably fit in his ship of about one hundred and forty tons, when there would have been only five feet six inches in length and fifteen inches in width available for about two-thirds of that number.
The same gentleman had also dwelt upon the Slave Trade as a nursery for seamen. But it had appeared by the muster-rolls of the slave-vessels, then actually on the table of the house, that more than a fifth of them died in the service, exclusive of those who perished when discharged in the West Indies; and yet he had been instructed by his constituents to maintain this false position. His reasoning, too, was very curious; for, though numbers might die, yet as one half who entered were landsmen, seamen were continually forming. Not to dwell on the expensive cruelty of forming these seamen by the yearly destruction of so many hundreds, this very statement was flatly contradicted by the evidence. The muster-rolls from Bristol stated the proportion of landsmen in the trade there at one twelfth, and the proper officers of Liverpool itself at but a sixteenth of the whole employed. In the face again of the most glaring facts, others had maintained that the mortality in these vessels did not exceed that of other trades in the tropical climates. But the same documents, which proved that twenty-three per cent were destroyed in this wasting traffic, proved that in West India ships only about one and a half per cent were lost, including every casualty. But the very men, under whose management this dreadful mortality had been constantly occurring, had coolly said, that much of it might be avoided by proper regulations. How criminal then were they, who, knowing this, had neither publicly proposed, nor in their practice adopted, a remedy!
The same gentleman had also argued that the Slave Trade was a training ground for sailors. However, the muster rolls of the slave ships, which were currently under review, showed that more than a fifth of the crew died while serving, not including those who died after being released in the West Indies. Despite this, he had been told by his constituents to uphold this inaccurate claim. His reasoning was quite odd; he stated that even though many died, half of those entering the trade were landsmen, meaning new sailors were always being trained. Not to mention the costly cruelty of creating these sailors through the yearly loss of so many lives, this very claim was directly contradicted by the evidence. The muster rolls from Bristol indicated that the proportion of landsmen in the trade there was one-twelfth, while the proper officials in Liverpool reported it as only one-sixteenth of the entire workforce. Despite having the most apparent facts, some still claimed that the death rate on these ships was no worse than other trades in tropical climates. However, the same documents that showed twenty-three percent were lost in this brutal business also showed that in West India ships, only about one and a half percent were lost, accounting for all types of accidents. Yet, the very people overseeing this horrific death rate casually claimed that much of it could be prevented with proper regulations. How criminal, then, were those who, knowing this, failed to propose or implement a solution!
The average loss of the slaves on board, which had been calculated by Mr. Wilberforce at twelve and a half per cent., had been denied. He believed this calculation, taking in all the circumstances connected with it, to be true; but that for years not less than one-tenth had so perished, he would challenge those concerned in the traffic to disprove. Much evidence had been produced on the subject; but the voyages had been generally selected. There was only one who had disclosed the whole account. This was Mr. Anderson of London, whose engagements in this trade had been very inconsiderable. His loss had only amounted to three per cent.; but, unfortunately for the slave-traders of Liverpool, his vessel had not taken above three-fourths of that number in proportion to the tonnage which they had stated to be necessary to the very existence of their trade.
The average loss of slaves on board, which Mr. Wilberforce calculated to be twelve and a half percent, was disputed. He believed this calculation, taking all related circumstances into account, to be accurate; however, he would challenge anyone involved in the trade to disprove that at least one-tenth had perished over the years. A lot of evidence had been presented on this topic, but the voyages were typically chosen selectively. Only one person had revealed the complete details. This was Mr. Anderson from London, whose involvement in the trade had been minimal. His loss was only about three percent; however, unfortunately for the slave traders in Liverpool, his ship had carried only about three-fourths of the number they claimed was necessary for the very survival of their trade.
An honourable member (Mr. Grosvenor) had attributed the protraction of this business to those who had introduced it. But from whom did the motion for further evidence (when that of the privy council was refused) originate, but from the enemies of the abolition? The same gentleman had said, it was impossible to abolish the trade; but where was the impossibility of forbidding the further importation of slaves into our own colonies? and beyond this the motion did not extend.
An honorable member (Mr. Grosvenor) had blamed the delay of this issue on those who brought it up. But who was it that initiated the call for more evidence (after the privy council's was denied), if not the opponents of abolition? That same gentleman claimed it was impossible to end the trade, but what was so impossible about banning the further importation of slaves into our colonies? The motion didn't go beyond that.
The latter argument had also been advanced by Sir William Yonge and others. But allowing it its full force, would there be no honour in the dereliction of such a commerce? Would it be nothing publicly to recognise great and just principles? Would our example be nothing!—Yes: every country would learn, from our experiment, that American colonies could be cultivated without the necessity of continual supplies equally expensive and disgraceful.
The latter argument had also been made by Sir William Yonge and others. But if we consider it fully, would there be no honor in abandoning such a trade? Would it mean nothing to publicly acknowledge great and just principles? Would our example count for nothing? Yes: every country would see from our experience that American colonies could thrive without the constant need for expensive and dishonorable supplies.
But we might do more than merely lay down principles or propose examples. We might, in fact, diminish the evil itself immediately by no inconsiderable part,—by the whole of our own supply; and here he could not at all agree with the honourable baronet, in what seemed to him a commercial paradox, that the taking away from an open trade by far the largest customer, and the lessening of the consumption of the article, would increase both the competition and the demand, and of course all those mischiefs, which it was their intention to avert.
But we could do more than just establish principles or suggest examples. In fact, we could immediately reduce the problem significantly—by cutting our own supply completely; and here he couldn't agree at all with the honorable baronet, who presented a puzzling economic argument that taking away the biggest customer from an open market, and decreasing the use of the product, would somehow boost both competition and demand, along with all those issues that they intended to prevent.
That the civilization of the Africans was promoted, as had been asserted, by their intercourse with the Europeans, was void of foundation, as had appeared from the evidence. In manners and dishonesty they had indeed assimilated with those who frequented their coasts. But the greatest industry and the least corruption of morals were in the interior, where they were out of the way of this civilizing connexion.
That the African civilization was improved, as claimed, by their interaction with Europeans was unfounded, as the evidence showed. In terms of behavior and dishonesty, they had indeed adapted to those who visited their shores. However, the highest level of work ethic and the least moral corruption were found in the interior, where they were away from this so-called civilizing connection.
To relieve Africa from famine, was another of the benign reasons which had been assigned for continuing the trade. That famines had occurred there, he did not doubt; but that they should annually occur, and with such arithmetical exactness as to suit the demands of the Slave Trade, was a circumstance most extraordinary; so wonderful, indeed, that, could it once be proved, he should consider it as a far better argument in favour of the divine approbation of that trade, than any which had ever yet been produced.
To alleviate famine in Africa was another of the kind reasons given for continuing the trade. He had no doubt that famines had happened there; however, the idea that they occurred every year, and so predictably to meet the needs of the Slave Trade, was truly remarkable. In fact, if it could be proven, he would see it as a much stronger argument for the divine approval of that trade than any that had ever been presented before.
As to the effect of the abolition on the West Indies, it would give weight to every humane regulation which had been made; by substituting a certain and obvious interest, in the place of one depending upon chances and calculation. An honourable member (Mr. Stanley) had spoken of the impossibility of cultivating the estates there without further importations of negroes; and yet, of all the authorities he had brought to prove his case, there was scarcely one which might not be pressed to serve more or less effectually against him. Almost every planter he had named had found his negroes increase under the good treatment he had professed to give them; and it was an axiom, throughout the whole evidence, that, wherever they were well used, importations were not necessary. It had been said, indeed, by some adverse witnesses, that in Jamaica all possible means had been used to keep up the stock by breeding; but how preposterous was this, when it was allowed that the morals of the slaves had been totally neglected, and that the planters preferred buying a larger proportion of males than females!
Regarding the impact of abolition on the West Indies, it would strengthen every humane regulation that had been established by replacing an uncertain and speculative interest with a clear and obvious one. An honorable member (Mr. Stanley) mentioned the impossibility of cultivating the estates there without additional imports of enslaved people; however, of all the sources he cited to support his argument, hardly any could not be used more or less effectively against him. Almost every planter he listed had seen their enslaved population grow under the good treatment they claimed to provide, and it was a common understanding throughout the evidence that when they are treated well, no further imports are needed. Some opposing witnesses did claim that in Jamaica, every possible effort had been made to maintain the enslaved population through breeding, but this seems ridiculous considering that the ethics of the enslaved were completely ignored and that the planters preferred to purchase a larger proportion of males over females!
The misfortune was, that prejudice, and not reason, was the enemy to be subdued. The prejudices of the West Indians on these points were numerous and inveterate. Mr. Long himself had characterised them on this account, in terms which he should have felt diffident in using. But Mr. Long had shown his own prejudices also: for he justified the chaining of the Negroes on board the slave-vessels, on account of "their bloody, cruel, and malicious dispositions." But hear his commendation of some of the Aborigines of Jamaica, "who had miserably perished in caves, whither they had retired to escape the tyranny of the Spaniards. These," says he, "left a glorious monument of their having disdained to survive the loss of their liberty and their country." And yet this same historian could not perceive that this natural love of liberty might operate as strongly and as laudably in the African Negro, as in the Indian of Jamaica.
The unfortunate reality was that prejudice, not reason, was the obstacle to overcome. The biases held by West Indians on these matters were many and deeply rooted. Mr. Long himself described them in ways he should have been embarrassed to use. But Mr. Long also displayed his own prejudices, as he justified the chaining of the Africans on slave ships because of "their bloody, cruel, and malicious dispositions." Yet he praised some of the Indigenous people of Jamaica "who had miserably perished in caves, where they went to escape the tyranny of the Spaniards. These," he states, "left a glorious monument of their refusal to survive the loss of their freedom and their homeland." And yet this same historian failed to see that this natural love of freedom could be just as strong and admirable in the African as it was in the Jamaican Indian.
He was concerned to acknowledge that these prejudices were yet further strengthened by resentment against those who had taken an active part in the abolition of the Slave Trade. But it was never the object of these to throw a stigma on the whole body of the West Indians; but to prove the miserable effects of the trade. This it was their duty to do; and if, in doing this, disgraceful circumstances had come out, it was not their fault; and it must never be forgotten that they were true.
He was worried to admit that these biases were even more reinforced by anger toward those who actively participated in ending the Slave Trade. However, it was never their intention to tarnish the reputation of all West Indians; rather, it was to highlight the terrible consequences of the trade. It was their responsibility to do this, and if, in the process, embarrassing details emerged, it wasn't their fault; and it must always be remembered that they were honest.
That the slaves were exposed to great misery in the islands, was true as well from inference as from facts: for what might not be expected from the use of arbitrary power, where the three characters of party, judge, and executioner were united! The slaves, too, were more capable on account of their passions, than the beasts in the field, of exciting the passions of their tyrants. To what a length the ill-treatment of them might be carried, might be learnt from, the instance which General Tottenham mentioned to have seen in the year 1780 in the streets of Bridge Town, Barbados: "A youth about nineteen (to use his own words in the evidence), entirely naked, with an iron collar about his neck, having five long projecting spikes. His body both before and behind was covered with wounds. His belly and thighs were almost cut to pieces, with running ulcers all over them; and a finger might have been laid in some of the weals. He could not sit down, because his hinder part was mortified; and it was impossible for him to lie down, on account of the prongs of his collar." He supplicated the General for relief. The latter asked who had punished him so dreadfully? The youth answered, his master had done it. And because he could not work, this same master, in the same spirit of perversion, which extorts from Scripture a justification of the Slave Trade, had fulfilled the apostolic maxim, that he should have nothing to eat. The use he meant to make of this instance was to show the unprotected state of the slaves. What must it be, where such an instance could pass not only unpunished, but almost unregarded! If, in the streets of London, but a dog were to be seen lacerated like this miserable man, how would the cruelty of the wretch be execrated, who had thus even abused a brute!
That the enslaved people suffered immense misery in the islands was evident both from observation and from facts: what could possibly be expected from the use of unchecked power, where the roles of party, judge, and executioner were combined? The enslaved individuals, driven by their emotions, were more capable than the animals in the fields of provoking the emotions of their oppressors. The extent of the mistreatment they endured could be observed in a case that General Tottenham described witnessing in 1780 in the streets of Bridgetown, Barbados: "A youth about nineteen years old (to quote his own words in the testimony), completely naked, with an iron collar around his neck, featuring five long spikes. His body was covered in wounds, both front and back. His belly and thighs were nearly shredded, with running sores all over them; a finger could have fit in some of the welts. He couldn’t sit down because his backside was rotting, and lying down was impossible due to the spikes of his collar." He begged the General for help. The General asked who had inflicted such a horrific punishment on him. The youth replied that it was his master. And because he could not work, this same master, in a twisted interpretation of Scripture that justified the Slave Trade, upheld the biblical principle that he should have no food. The General intended to use this example to illustrate the vulnerable situation of the enslaved. What must it be like when such an incident could go not only unpunished but also almost unnoticed? If, in the streets of London, a dog were found tortured like this poor man, how would people condemn the cruelty of the person who had so abused even a brute?
The judicial punishments also inflicted upon the Negro showed the low estimation, in which, in consequence of the strength of old customs and deep-rooted prejudices, they were held. Mr. Edwards, in his speech to the Assembly at Jamaica, stated the following case, as one which had happened in one of the rebellions there. Some slaves surrounded the dwelling-house of their mistress. She was in bed with a lovely infant. They deliberated upon the means of putting her to death in torment. But in the end one of them reserved her for his mistress; and they killed her infant with an axe before her face. "Now," says Mr. Edwards, (addressing himself to his audience) "you will think that no torments were too great for such horrible excesses. Nevertheless I am of a different opinion. I think that death, unaccompanied with cruelty, should be the utmost exertion of human authority over our unhappy fellow-creatures." Torments, however, were always inflicted in these cases. The punishment was gibbeting alive, and exposing the delinquents to perish by the gradual effects of hunger, thirst, and parching sun; in which situation they were known to suffer for nine days, with a fortitude scarcely credible, never uttering a single groan. But horrible as the excesses might have been, which occasioned these punishments, it must be remembered, that they were committed by ignorant savages, who had been dragged from all they held most dear; whose patience had been exhausted by a cruel and loathsome confinement during their transportation; and whose resentment had been wound up to the highest pitch of fury by the lash of the driver.
The judicial punishments also imposed on Black individuals showed how poorly they were regarded, a consequence of strong old customs and deep-seated prejudices. Mr. Edwards, in his speech to the Assembly in Jamaica, recounted a case from one of the rebelling events there. Some slaves surrounded their mistress's house while she was in bed with a beautiful baby. They discussed ways to kill her painfully, but in the end, one of them decided to spare her and killed her baby with an axe right in front of her. "Now," Mr. Edwards said to his audience, "you might think that no punishment is too harsh for such horrific acts. However, I see it differently. I believe that death, without cruelty, should be the maximum extent of our authority over our unfortunate fellow humans." Yet, torture was always inflicted in these situations. The punishment often involved being put in a gibbet alive, left to die slowly from hunger, thirst, and the scorching sun; they were known to endure this for nine days with an almost unbelievable strength, never making a sound. But as terrible as the actions that led to these punishments were, it should be remembered that they were committed by ignorant individuals who had been torn from everything they loved most; their patience had been worn thin by brutal and disgusting confinement during transport; and their anger had been pushed to the breaking point by the whip of their captor.
But he would now mention another instance, by way of contrast, out of the evidence. A child on board a slave-ship, of about ten months old, took sulk and would not eat. The captain flogged it with a cat; swearing that he would make it eat, or kill it. From this and other ill-treatment the child's legs swelled. He then ordered some water to be made hot to abate the swelling. But even his tender mercies were cruel; for the cook, on putting his hand into the water, said it was too hot. Upon this the captain swore at him, and ordered the feet to be put in. This was done. The nails and skin came off. Oiled cloths were then put round them. The child was at length tied to a heavy log. Two or three days afterwards, the captain caught it up again; and repeated that he would made it eat, or kill it. He immediately flogged it again, and in a quarter of an hour it died. But, after the child was dead, whom should the barbarian select to throw it overboard, but the wretched mother? In vain she started from the office. He beat her, till he made her take up the child and carry it to the side of the vessel. She then dropped it into the sea, turning her head the other way that she might not see it. Now it would naturally be asked, was not this captain also gibbeted alive? Alas! although the execrable barbarity of the European exceeded that of the Africans before mentioned, almost as much as his opportunities of instruction has been greater than theirs, no notice whatsoever was taken of this horrible action; and a thousand similar cruelties had been committed in this abominable trade with equal impunity: but he would say no more. He would vote for the abolition, not only as it would do away all the evils complained of in Africa and the Middle Passage; but as it would be the most effectual means of ameliorating the condition of those unhappy persons, who were still to continue slaves in the British colonies.
But now he would mention another example, for comparison, from the evidence. A child on a slave ship, around ten months old, became withdrawn and refused to eat. The captain whipped it with a cat-o'-nine-tails, swearing that he would force it to eat or kill it. From this and other abuse, the child's legs became swollen. He then ordered some water to be heated to reduce the swelling. But even his supposedly gentle approach was cruel; when the cook tested the water, he said it was too hot. The captain yelled at him and insisted that the child's feet be put in. This was done, and the nails and skin came off. Oiled cloths were then wrapped around them. Eventually, the child was tied to a heavy log. Two or three days later, the captain picked it up again and reiterated that he would make it eat or kill it. He immediately whipped it again, and within a quarter of an hour, it died. After the child was dead, who did the barbarian choose to throw it overboard but the poor mother? She desperately tried to escape from the task. He beat her until she finally picked up the child and carried it to the side of the ship. She then dropped it into the sea, turning her head away so she wouldn’t have to see it. Now, one might naturally ask, wasn’t this captain also hanged alive? Sadly, although the dreadful cruelty of the European outweighed that of the Africans mentioned before, almost as much as his chances of learning were greater than theirs, absolutely no action was taken against this horrific act; and a thousand similar atrocities had been committed in this ghastly trade with complete impunity. But he would say no more. He would vote for the abolition, not only because it would eliminate all the issues faced in Africa and the Middle Passage, but also because it would be the most effective way to improve the situation of those unfortunate people who would still remain enslaved in the British colonies.
Mr. Courtenay rose. He said, he could not but consider the assertion of Sir William Yonge as a mistake, that the Slave Trade, if abandoned by us, would fall into the hands of France. It ought to be recollected, with what approbation the motion for abolishing it, made by the late Mirabeau, had been received; although the situation of the French colonies might then have presented obstacles to carrying the measure into immediate execution. He had no doubt, if parliament were to begin, so wise and enlightened a body as the National Assembly would follow the example. But even if France were not to relinquish the trade, how could we, if justice required its abolition, hesitate as to our part of it?
Mr. Courtenay stood up. He said he couldn’t help but see Sir William Yonge’s claim as a mistake, that if we abandoned the Slave Trade, it would just end up in France’s hands. It should be remembered how well the motion to abolish it, put forward by the late Mirabeau, was received; even though the situation in the French colonies might have made it hard to implement the measure right away. He was sure that if Parliament took the lead, a wise and enlightened body like the National Assembly would follow suit. But even if France didn’t give up the trade, how could we hesitate to do our part if justice demanded its abolition?
The trade, it had been said, was conducted upon the principles of humanity. Yes: we rescued the Africans from what we were pleased to call their wretched situation in their own; country, and then we took credit for our humanity; because, after having killed one half of them in the seasoning, we substituted what we were again pleased to call a better treatment than that which they would have experienced at home.
The trade was supposedly based on the principles of humanity. Yes, we saved Africans from what we liked to call their terrible situation in their own country, and then we took pride in our humanity; because, after killing half of them during the seasoning process, we replaced it with what we again liked to refer to as better treatment than what they would have faced at home.
It had been stated that the principle of war among savages was a general massacre. This was not true. They frequently adopted the captives into their own families; and, so far from massacring the women and children, they often gave them the protection which the weakness of their age and sex demanded.
It was said that the principle of war among uncivilized people was total slaughter. This wasn't accurate. They often welcomed the captives into their families, and instead of killing the women and children, they usually provided the protection that was needed due to their vulnerability.
There could be no doubt, that the practice of kidnapping; prevailed in Africa. As to witchcraft, it had been made a crime in the reign of James the First in this country, for the purpose of informations; and how much more likely were informations to take place in Africa, under the encouragement afforded by the Slave Trade! This trade, it had been said, was sanctioned by twenty-six acts of parliament. He did not doubt but fifty-six might be found, by which parliament had sanctioned witchcraft of the existence of which we had now no belief whatever....
There was no doubt that kidnapping was a common practice in Africa. As for witchcraft, it had been made illegal during the reign of James the First in this country in order to address accusations; and it was much more likely that false accusations would happen in Africa, given the support provided by the Slave Trade! This trade was said to be approved by twenty-six acts of parliament. He believed that fifty-six could be found that showed parliament had endorsed witchcraft, which we no longer believe in at all...
It had been said by Mr. Stanley that the pulpit had been used as an instrument of attack on the Slave Trade. He was happy to learn it had been so well employed; and he hoped the Bishops would rise up in the House of Lords, with the virtuous indignation which became them, to abolish a traffic so contrary to humanity, justice, and religion.
Mr. Stanley mentioned that the pulpit had been used as a tool against the Slave Trade. He was pleased to hear that it had been effectively utilized; and he hoped the Bishops would stand in the House of Lords, with the rightful anger that suited them, to put an end to a trade that was so opposed to humanity, justice, and religion.
He entreated every member to recollect, that on his vote that night depended the happiness of millions; and that it was then in his power to promote a measure, of which the benefits would be felt over one whole quarter of the globe; that the seeds of civilization might, by the present bill, be sown all over Africa: and the first principles of humanity be established in regions where they had hitherto been excluded by the existence of this execrable trade.
He urged everyone to remember that the happiness of millions depended on his vote that night; that it was in his hands to support a proposal whose benefits would reach across a large part of the globe; that through this bill, the foundations of civilization could be laid all over Africa; and that the basic principles of humanity could be established in areas where they had been previously denied due to this terrible trade.
Lord Carysfort rose, and said, that the great cause of the abolition had flourished by the manner in which it had been opposed. No one argument of solid weight had been adduced against it. It had been shown, but never disproved, that the colonial laws were inadequate to the protection of the slaves; that the punishments of the latter were most unmerciful; that they were deprived of the right of self-defence against any White man; and, in short, that the system was totally repugnant to the principles of the British constitution.
Lord Carysfort stood up and stated that the strong movement for abolition had thrived because of how it had been challenged. No strong argument had been put forward against it. It had been demonstrated, but never disproven, that the colonial laws failed to protect the slaves; that their punishments were extremely harsh; that they were denied the right to defend themselves against any White person; and, in short, that the system was completely contrary to the principles of the British constitution.
Colonel Phipps followed Lord Carysfort. He denied that this was a question in which the rights of humanity and the laws of nature were concerned. The Africans became slaves in consequence of the constitution of their own governments. These were founded in absolute despotism. Every subject was an actual slave. The inhabitants were slaves to the great men, and the great men were slaves to the prince. Prisoners of war, too, were by law subject to slavery. Such being the case, he saw no more cruelty in disposing of them to our merchants, than to those of any other nation. Criminals, also, in cases of adultery and witchcraft, became slaves by the same laws.
Colonel Phipps followed Lord Carysfort. He argued that this wasn’t a matter concerning the rights of humanity or the laws of nature. The Africans became slaves due to the setup of their own governments, which were based on complete despotism. Every citizen was essentially a slave. The people were slaves to the powerful, and the powerful were slaves to the prince. War prisoners were also legally subjected to slavery. Given this situation, he saw no greater cruelty in selling them to our merchants than to those of any other country. Criminals, too, whether for adultery or witchcraft, became slaves under the same laws.
It had been said, that there were no regulations in the West Indies for the protection of slaves. There were several; though he was ready to admit that more were necessary; and he would go in this respect as far as humanity might require. He had passed ten months in Jamaica, where he had never seen any such acts of cruelty as had been talked of. Those which he had seen were not exercised by the Whites, but by the Blacks. The dreadful stories which had been told, ought no more to fix a general stigma upon the planters, than the story of Mrs. Brownrigg to stamp this polished metropolis with the general brand of murder. There was once a haberdasher's wife (Mrs. Nairne) who locked up her apprentice girl, and starved her to death; but did ever any body think of abolishing haberdashery on this account? He was persuaded the Negroes in the West Indies were cheerful and happy. They were fond of ornaments; but it was not the characteristic of miserable persons to show a taste for finery. Such a taste, on the contrary, implied a cheerful and contented mind. He was sorry to differ from his friend Mr. Wilberforce, but he must oppose his motion.
It had been said that there were no laws in the West Indies to protect slaves. There were several, although he would agree that more were needed, and he would support this to the fullest extent of humanity. He had spent ten months in Jamaica and had never witnessed the acts of cruelty that had been reported. The incidents he did see were not committed by white people, but by black people. The horrible stories that had been circulated shouldn’t reflect poorly on all the planters, just like Mrs. Brownrigg’s case shouldn’t define this polished city with a label of murder. There was once a haberdasher's wife (Mrs. Nairne) who locked her apprentice girl in and starved her to death; but did anyone ever consider banning haberdashery because of that? He was convinced that the Negroes in the West Indies were cheerful and happy. They liked decorations, but it's not typical for unhappy people to have a taste for luxury. In fact, such a preference indicates a cheerful and contented spirit. He regretted having to disagree with his friend Mr. Wilberforce, but he had to oppose his motion.
Mr. Pitt rose, and said, that from the first hour of his having had the honour to sit in parliament down to the present, among all the questions, whether political or personal, in which it had been his fortune to take a share, there had never been one in which his heart was so deeply interested as in the present; both, on account of the serious principles it involved, and the consequences connected with it.
Mr. Pitt stood up and said that from the very first moment he had the honor of being in parliament until now, among all the issues, whether political or personal, that he had been part of, there had never been one that he felt so passionately about as this one; both because of the serious principles it raised and the consequences tied to it.
The present was not a mere question of feeling. The argument, which ought, in his opinion, to determine the committee, was, that the Slave Trade was unjust. It was, therefore, such a trade as it was impossible for him to support, unless it could be first proved to him, that there were no laws of morality binding upon nations; and that it was not the duty of a legislature to restrain its subjects, from invading the happiness of other countries, and from violating; the fundamental principles of justice.
The present was not just a matter of emotions. The main point that should guide the committee, in his view, was that the Slave Trade was unjust. Therefore, it was a trade he could not endorse unless it could first be proven to him that there were no moral laws that applied to nations; and that it was not the responsibility of a legislature to prevent its citizens from infringing on the happiness of other countries and violating the basic principles of justice.
Several had stated the impracticability of the measure before them. They wished to see the trade abolished; but there was some necessity for continuing it, which they conceived to exist. Nay, almost every, one, he believed, appeared to wish that the further importation of slaves might cease, provided, it could be made out that, the population of the West Indies could be maintained without it. He proposed, therefore, to consider the latter point; for, as the impracticability of keeping up the population there appeared to operate as the chief objection, he trusted that, by showing it to be ill founded, he should clear away all other obstacles whatever; so that, having no ground either of justice or necessity to stand upon, there could be no excuse left to the committee for resisting the present motion.
Several people had said that the measure in front of them was impractical. They wanted to see the trade abolished, but they believed there was a need to keep it going. In fact, he thought almost everyone seemed to wish for the end of slave importation, as long as it could be proven that the population of the West Indies could be sustained without it. Therefore, he suggested focusing on that point; because the belief that the population couldn't be maintained there seemed to be the main objection, he hoped that by demonstrating it was unfounded, he could eliminate all other obstacles. Thus, with no basis in justice or necessity to rely on, the committee would have no excuse to oppose the current motion.
He might reasonably, however, hope that they would not reckon any small or temporary disadvantage, which might arise from the abolition, to be a sufficient reason against it. It was surely not any slight degree of expediency, nor any small balance of profit, nor any light shades of probability on the one side, rather than on the other, which would determine them on this question. He asked pardon even for the supposition. The Slave Trade was an evil of such magnitude, that there must be a common wish in the committee at once to put an end to it, if there were no great and serious obstacles. It was a trade, by which multitudes of unoffending nations were deprived of the blessings of civilization, and had their peace and happiness invaded. It ought, therefore, to be no common expediency, it ought to be nothing less than the utter ruin of our islands, which it became those to plead, who took upon them to defend the continuance of it.
He could reasonably hope that they wouldn’t see any small or temporary drawbacks from the abolition as a valid reason against it. Surely, it wasn't a minor matter of expediency, nor a small profit margin, nor slight probabilities leaning one way or the other that would decide this issue. He even apologized for bringing it up. The Slave Trade was such a significant evil that there must be a shared desire in the committee to end it immediately, as long as there weren’t major and serious obstacles. It was a trade that robbed countless innocent nations of the benefits of civilization and disrupted their peace and happiness. Therefore, it should be no trivial matter; defending the continuation of it should require nothing less than the complete destruction of our islands.
He could not help thinking that the West India gentlemen had manifested an over great degree of sensibility as to the point in question; and that their alarms had been unreasonably excited upon it. He had examined the subject carefully for himself: and he would now detail those reasons, which had induced him firmly to believe, not only that no permanent mischief would follow from the abolition, but not even any such temporary inconvenience as could be stated to be a reason for preventing the House from agreeing to the motion before them; on the contrary, that the abolition itself would lay the foundation for the more solid improvement of all the various interests of those colonies.
He couldn't help but think that the West India gentlemen were being overly sensitive about this issue and that their fears were exaggerated. He had looked into the matter carefully on his own, and now he would explain the reasons that led him to strongly believe that not only would there be no lasting harm from the abolition, but also that there wouldn't even be any temporary issues significant enough to justify preventing the House from supporting the motion before them; in fact, he believed that the abolition itself would pave the way for substantial improvement across all the different interests of those colonies.
In doing this he should apply his observations chiefly to Jamaica, which contained more than half the slaves in the British West Indies; and if he should succeed in proving that no material detriment could arise to the population there, this would afford so strong a presumption with respect to the other islands, that the House could no longer hesitate whether they should, or should not, put a stop to this most horrid trade.
In doing this, he should focus his observations mainly on Jamaica, which had more than half the slaves in the British West Indies. If he could prove that there was no significant harm to the population there, this would provide such strong evidence regarding the other islands that the House could no longer hesitate about whether to end this horrific trade.
In the twenty years ending in 1788, the annual loss of slaves in Jamaica (that is, the excess of deaths above the births,) appeared to be one in the hundred. In a preceding period the loss was greater; and, in a period before that greater still; there having been a continual gradation in the decrease through the whole time. It might fairly be concluded, therefore, that (the average logs of the last period being one per cent.) the loss in the former part of it would be somewhat more, and in the latter part somewhat less, than one per cent; insomuch that it might be fairly questioned, whether, by this time, the births and deaths in Jamaica might not be stated as nearly equal. It was to be added, that a peculiar calamity, which swept away fifteen thousand slaves, had occasioned a part of the mortality in the last-mentioned period. The probable loss, therefore, now to be expected, was very inconsiderable indeed.
In the twenty years ending in 1788, the annual loss of slaves in Jamaica (meaning the number of deaths exceeding the number of births) was about one in a hundred. In earlier periods, the loss was higher, and even before that, it was even greater, with a consistent decrease over the entire time. It could be reasonably concluded that, considering the average losses of the last period were one percent, the loss in the earlier part would be slightly more, and in the later part slightly less than one percent; suggesting that by this time, the births and deaths in Jamaica might be nearly equal. It's also worth noting that a specific disaster, which resulted in the death of fifteen thousand slaves, contributed to some of the mortality during that last period. Therefore, the expected loss now was quite negligible.
There was, however, one circumstance to be added, which the West India gentlemen, in stating this matter, had entirely overlooked; and which was so material, as clearly to reduce the probable diminution in the population of Jamaica down to nothing. In all the calculations he had referred to of the comparative number of births and deaths, all the Negroes in the island were included. The newly imported, who died in the seasoning, made apart; but these swelled, most materially, the number of the deaths. Now, as these extraordinary deaths would cease, as soon as the importation ceased, a deduction of them ought to be made from his present calculation.
There was, however, one important point to add that the West India gentlemen completely overlooked when discussing this issue, which was significant enough to effectively bring the estimated decline in Jamaica's population down to nothing. In all the comparisons he referenced regarding the number of births and deaths, every individual classified as Negro in the island was counted. The newly imported individuals who died during the acclimatization process were separated out; however, they significantly increased the overall death count. Since these unusual deaths would stop as soon as the importation stopped, their numbers should be removed from his current calculations.
But the number of those, who thus died in the seasoning, would make up of itself nearly the whole of that one per cent. which had been stated. He particularly pressed an attention to this circumstance; for the complaint of being likely to want hands in Jamaica, arose from the mistake of including the present unnatural deaths, caused by the seasoning, among the natural and perpetual muses of mortality. These deaths, being erroneously taken into the calculations, gave the planters an idea that the numbers could not be kept up. These deaths, which were caused merely by the Slave Trade, furnished the very ground, therefore, on which the continuance of that trade had been thought necessary.
But the number of people who died during the seasoning process would make up nearly the entire one percent that was mentioned. He emphasized the importance of this fact; the complaint about potentially lacking laborers in Jamaica stemmed from mistakenly including these unnatural deaths from seasoning in the normal causes of death. These deaths, which were incorrectly factored into the calculations, led the plantation owners to believe that the labor supply couldn't be maintained. Therefore, these deaths, caused solely by the Slave Trade, provided the basis for believing that the continuation of that trade was necessary.
The evidence as to this point was clear; for it would be found in that dreadful catalogue of deaths, arising from the seasoning and the passage, which the House had been condemned to look into, that one half died. An annual mortality of two thousand slaves in Jamaica might be therefore charged to the importation; which, compared with the whole number on the island, hardly fell short of the whole one per cent. decrease.
The evidence on this point was clear; it could be found in that terrible list of deaths, resulting from the seasoning and the journey, which the House had been forced to examine, that half of the individuals died. An annual death toll of two thousand slaves in Jamaica could therefore be attributed to the importation; compared to the total number on the island, this was just about a one percent decrease.
Joining this with all the other considerations, he would then ask, could the decrease of the slaves in Jamaica be such—could the colonies be so destitute of means—could the planters, when by their own accounts they were establishing daily new regulations for the benefit of the slaves—could they, under all these circumstances, be permitted to plead that total impossibility of keeping up their number, which they had rested on, as being indeed the only possible pretext for allowing fresh importations from Africa? He appealed, therefore, to the sober judgment of all, whether the situation of Jamaica was such, as to justify a hesitation in agreeing to the present motion.
Combining all these factors, he would then ask, could the drop in the number of slaves in Jamaica really be that significant—could the colonies really be so lacking in resources—could the planters, who claimed they were daily implementing new rules for the benefit of the slaves—could they, under all these conditions, still argue that it was completely impossible to maintain their numbers, which was their only valid reason for allowing new imports from Africa? He therefore appealed to everyone’s reasonable judgment on whether Jamaica's situation warranted any hesitation in agreeing to the current motion.
It might be observed, also, that, when the importations should stop, that disproportion between the sexes, which was one of the obstacles to population, would gradually diminish; and a natural order of things be established. Through the want of this natural order, a thousand grievances were created, which it was impossible to define; and which it was in vain to think that, under such circumstances, we could cure. But the abolition, of itself, would work this desirable effect. The West Indians would then feel a near and urgent interest to enter into a thousand little details, which it was impossible for him to describe, but which would have the greatest influence on population. A foundation would thus be laid for the general welfare of the islands; a new system would rise up, the reverse of the old; and eventually both their general wealth and happiness would increase.
It could be noted that when imports stop, the imbalance between the sexes, which was one of the barriers to population growth, would gradually decrease, leading to a natural order. The lack of this natural order created countless grievances that were hard to pinpoint and impossible to solve under those conditions. However, ending it would naturally bring about this positive change. The people in the West Indies would then have a strong and immediate interest in engaging in many small details that are difficult to describe but would greatly impact population growth. This would lay the groundwork for the overall well-being of the islands; a new system would emerge, contrasting with the old one; and ultimately, both their general wealth and happiness would increase.
He had now proved far more than he was bound to do; for, if he could only show that the abolition would not be ruinous, it would be enough. He could give up, therefore, three arguments out of four, through the whole of what he had said, and yet have enough left for his position. As to the Creoles, they would undoubtedly increase. They differed in this entirely from the imported slaves, who were both a burthen and a curse to themselves and others. The measure now proposed would operate like a charm; and, besides stopping all the miseries in Africa and the passage, would produce even more benefit in the West Indies than legal regulations could effect.
He had now proven far more than he needed to; because if he could just show that the abolition wouldn’t be harmful, that would be sufficient. He could therefore abandon three out of four arguments throughout everything he had said, and still have enough to support his position. As for the Creoles, they would definitely increase. They were completely different from the imported slaves, who were both a burden and a curse to themselves and others. The proposed measure would work like magic; and in addition to ending all the sufferings in Africa and during the journey, it would bring even more benefits to the West Indies than legal regulations could achieve.
He would now just touch upon the question of emancipation. A rash emancipation of the slaves would be mischievous. In that unhappy situation, to which our baneful conduct had brought ourselves and them, it would be no justice on either side to give them liberty. They were as yet incapable of it; but their situation might be gradually amended. They might be relieved from everything harsh and severe; raised from their present degraded state; and put under the protection of the law. Till then, to talk of emancipation was insanity. But it was the system of fresh importations, which interfered with these principles of improvement; and it was only the abolition which could establish them. This suggestion had its foundation in human nature. Wherever the incentive of honour, credit, and fair profit appeared, energy would spring up; and when these labourers should have the natural springs of human action afforded them, they would then rise to the natural level of human industry.
He would now briefly discuss the issue of emancipation. A hasty emancipation of the slaves would be harmful. Given the unfortunate situation that our destructive actions have created for both ourselves and them, it wouldn’t be fair to grant them freedom just yet. They still aren’t ready for it; however, their circumstances could improve gradually. They could be freed from all harsh treatment, lifted from their current degrading conditions, and given legal protection. Until then, talking about emancipation would be madness. But it was the ongoing slave imports that disrupted these ideas of improvement, and only the end of this practice could help establish them. This idea is rooted in human nature. Wherever there are incentives like honor, respect, and fair profit, motivation will emerge; and when these workers have access to the natural drivers of human behavior, they will rise to the level of natural human effort.
From Jamaica he would now go to the other islands. In Barbadoes the slaves had rather increased. In St. Kitts the decrease for fourteen years had been but three-fourths per cent.; but here many of the observations would apply, which he had used in the case of Jamaica. In Antigua many had died by a particular calamity. But for this, the decrease would have been trifling. In Nevis and Montserrat there was little or no disproportion of the sexes; so that it might well be hoped, that the numbers would be kept up in these islands. In Dominica some controversy had arisen about the calculation; but Governor Orde had stated an increase of births above the deaths. From Grenada and St. Vincent's no accurate accounts had been delivered in answer to the queries sent them; but they were probably not in circumstances less favourable than in the other islands.
From Jamaica, he would now travel to the other islands. In Barbados, the number of slaves had actually increased. In St. Kitts, the drop over the past fourteen years had been only three-fourths of a percent; however, many of the observations he used for Jamaica would also apply here. In Antigua, many had died due to a specific disaster. Without that, the decrease would have been minimal. In Nevis and Montserrat, there was little to no imbalance in the sexes, so it was reasonable to expect that the population would be maintained in these islands. In Dominica, some debate had arisen about the calculations, but Governor Orde reported more births than deaths. From Grenada and St. Vincent, no accurate reports had been provided in response to the queries sent to them; however, their situations were probably no less favorable than those in the other islands.
On a full review, then, of the state of the Negro population in the West Indies, was there any serious ground of alarm from the abolition of the Slave Trade? Where was the impracticability, on which alone so many had rested their objections? Must we not blush at pretending, that it would distress our consciences to accede to this measure, as far as the question of the Negro population was concerned?
On a complete review of the situation of the Black population in the West Indies, was there any real reason to be alarmed about the abolition of the Slave Trade? Where was the impracticality that so many based their objections on? Shouldn't we be ashamed for pretending that agreeing to this measure would weigh heavily on our consciences, considering the issue of the Black population?
Intolerable were the mischiefs of this trade, both in its origin, and through every stage of its progress. To say that slaves could be furnished us by fair and commercial means was ridiculous. The trade sometimes ceased, as during the late war. The demand was more or less according to circumstances. But how was it possible, that to a demand so exceedingly fluctuating the supply should always exactly accommodate itself? Alas! We made human beings the subject of commerce; we talked of them as such; and yet we would not allow them the common principle of commerce, that the supply must accommodate itself to the consumption. It was not from wars, then, that the slaves were chiefly procured. They were obtained in proportion as they were wanted. If a demand for slaves arose, a supply was forced in one way or other; and it was in vain, overpowered as we then were with positive evidence, as well as the reasonableness of the supposition, to deny that by the Slave Trade we occasioned all the enormities which had been alleged against it.
The issues caused by this trade were unacceptable, from its beginning and during every stage of its development. Claiming that we could obtain slaves through fair and commercial methods was absurd. The trade sometimes came to a halt, like during the recent war. The demand varied based on different situations. But how could it be possible for the supply to always match such an unpredictable demand? Unfortunately, we treated human beings as commodities; we referred to them in that way, yet we wouldn’t accept the basic principle of commerce that supply should match consumption. Therefore, the main source of slaves wasn't wars; they were acquired based on how many were needed. When there was a demand for slaves, a supply was forced through one means or another; and it was pointless, even when faced with clear evidence and reasonable assumptions, to deny that the Slave Trade led to all the horrors that had been claimed against it.
Sir William Yonge had said, that if we were not to take the Africans from their country, they would be destroyed. But he had not yet read that all uncivilized nations destroyed their captives. We assumed, therefore, what was false. The very selling of them implied this; for, if they would sell their captives for profit, why should they not employ them so as to receive a profit also? Nay, many of them, while there was no demand from the slave merchants, were often actually so employed. The trade, too, had been suspended during the war; and it was never said, or thought, that any such consequence had then followed.
Sir William Yonge said that if we didn't take Africans from their homeland, they would be destroyed. But he hadn't considered that all uncivilized nations typically destroyed their captives. So we assumed something that wasn't true. The very act of selling them suggested this; after all, if they were willing to sell their captives for profit, why wouldn't they use them in a way that brought in profits as well? In fact, many of them, when there was no demand from slave traders, were often put to work anyway. The trade had also been paused during the war, and it was never mentioned or thought that any negative consequences came from that.
The honourable baronet had also said, to justification of the Slave Trade, that witchcraft commonly implied poison, and was therefore a punishable crime; but did he recollect that not only the individual accused, but that his whole family, were sold as slaves? The truth was, we stopped the natural progress of civilization in Africa. We cut her off from the opportunity of improvement. We kept her down in a state of darkness, bondage, ignorance, and bloodshed. Was not this an awful consideration for this country? Look at the map of Africa, and see how little useful intercourse had been established on that vast continent! While other countries were assisting and enlightening each other, Africa alone had none of these benefits. We had obtained as yet only so much knowledge of her productions, as to show that there was a capacity for trade, which we checked. Indeed, if the mischiefs there were out of the question, the circumstance of the Middle Passage alone would, in his mind, be reason enough for the abolition. Such a scene as that of the slave-ships passing over with their wretched cargoes to the West Indies, if it could be spread before the eyes of the House, would be sufficient of itself to make them vote in favour of it; but when it could be added, that the interest even of the West Indies themselves rested on the accomplishment of this great event, he could not conceive an act of more imperious duty, than that which was imposed upon the House, of agreeing to the present motion.
The honorable baronet also claimed, to justify the Slave Trade, that witchcraft usually meant poison, which was a punishable crime. But did he remember that not only the accused individual but also his entire family were sold as slaves? The truth is, we halted the natural progress of civilization in Africa. We cut her off from the chance for improvement. We kept her trapped in darkness, bondage, ignorance, and bloodshed. Isn't this a terrible thought for this country? Look at the map of Africa and see how little beneficial interaction has taken place on that vast continent! While other countries were helping and enlightening one another, Africa was left without any of these advantages. We had gained only enough knowledge of her resources to show that there was potential for trade, which we stifled. In fact, if we set aside the harms done there, just the issue of the Middle Passage alone would, in his opinion, be reason enough to end this practice. If we could lay out the scene of the slave ships transporting their miserable cargoes to the West Indies before the House, it would be enough by itself to persuade them to vote in favor of abolition; but when it could also be pointed out that the very interests of the West Indies depended on this significant change, he couldn't imagine a duty more urgent than that which the House had to agree to the current motion.
Sir Archibald Edmonstone rose, and asked whether the present motion went so far as to pledge those who voted for it to a total and immediate abolition.
Sir Archibald Edmonstone stood up and asked if the current motion committed those who voted for it to a complete and immediate abolition.
Mr. Alderman Watson rose next. He defended the Slave Trade as highly beneficial to the country, being one material branch of its commerce. But he could not think of the African trade without connecting it with the West Indian. The one hung upon the other. A third important branch also depended upon it, which was the Newfoundland fishery; the latter could not go on, if it were not for the vast quantity of inferior fish bought up for the Negroes in the West Indies, and which quite unfit for any other market. If, therefore, we destroyed the African, we destroyed the other trades. Mr. Turgot, he said, had recommended in the National Assembly of France the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade. He would, therefore, recommend it to the House to adopt the same measure, and to soften the rigours of slavery by wholesome regulations; but an immediate abolition he could not countenance.
Mr. Alderman Watson spoke next. He argued that the Slave Trade was very beneficial to the country, being a key part of its commerce. However, he couldn’t think about the African trade without connecting it to the West Indian trade. One depended on the other. There was also a third important branch that relied on it, which was the Newfoundland fishery; the latter couldn’t continue without the large quantities of inferior fish purchased for the enslaved people in the West Indies, which were completely unsuitable for any other market. Therefore, if we destroyed the African trade, we would also destroy the other trades. Mr. Turgot, he noted, had recommended in the National Assembly of France the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade. He would recommend that the House adopt the same approach and ease the hardships of slavery with reasonable regulations; but he could not support an immediate abolition.
Mr. Fox at length rose. He observed that some expressions which he had used on the preceding day, had been complained of as too harsh and severe. He had since considered them, but he could not prevail upon himself to retract them; because, if any gentleman, after reading the evidence on the table, and attending to the debate, could avow himself an abettor of this shameful traffic in human flesh, it could only be either from some hardness of heart, or some difficulty of understanding, which he really knew not how to account for.
Mr. Fox finally stood up. He noted that some comments he made the day before had been criticized as too harsh and severe. He had thought about them since, but he couldn’t bring himself to take them back; because if any gentleman, after reviewing the evidence presented and following the discussion, could openly support this shameful trade in human beings, it could only be due to some lack of compassion or some misunderstanding that he honestly couldn't understand.
Some had considered this question as a question of political, whereas, it was a question of personal, freedom. Political freedom was undoubtedly a great blessing; but when it came to be compared with personal, it sunk to nothing. To confound the two, served, therefore, to render all arguments on either perplexing and unintelligible. Personal freedom was the first right of every human being. It was a right, of which he who deprived a fellow-creature was absolutely criminal in so depriving him, and which he who withheld was no less criminal in withholding. He could not, therefore, retract his words with respect to any, who (whatever respect he might otherwise have for them) should, by their vote of that night, deprive their fellow-creatures of so great a blessing. Nay, he would go further. He would say, that if the House, knowing what the trade was by the evidence, did not, by their vote, mark to all mankind their abhorrence of a practice so savage, so enormous, so repugnant to all laws human and divine, they would consign their character to eternal infamy.
Some people had thought of this issue as a political one, when in reality, it was a matter of personal freedom. Political freedom was certainly a significant blessing, but when compared to personal freedom, it meant nothing. Confusing the two made all arguments about either confusing and hard to understand. Personal freedom was the foremost right of every individual. It was a right that anyone who took it away from another person was completely wrong to do so, and anyone who withheld it was equally wrong. Therefore, he could not take back his words regarding anyone who, no matter how much respect he might otherwise have for them, would, by their vote that night, deprive their fellow beings of such a profound blessing. In fact, he would go further. He would say that if the House, understanding the nature of the trade through the evidence presented, did not, with their vote, show to the world their disgust for a practice so brutal, so vast, and so contrary to all human and divine laws, they would tarnish their reputation forever.
That the pretence of danger to our West Indian islands from the abolition of the Slave Trade was totally unfounded, Mr. Wilberforce had abundantly proved; but if there were they who had not been satisfied with that proof, was it possible to resist the arguments of Mr. Pitt on the same subject? It had been shown, on a comparison of the births and deaths in Jamaica, that there was not now any decrease of the slaves. But if there had been, it would have made no difference to him in his vote; for, had the mortality been ever so great there, he should have ascribed it to the system of importing Negroes, instead of that of encouraging their natural increase. Was it not evident that the planters thought it more convenient to buy them fit for work, than to breed them? Why, then, was this horrid trade to be kept up?—To give the planters truly the liberty of misusing their slaves, so as to check population: for it was from ill-usage only that, in a climate so natural to them, their numbers could diminish. The very ground, therefore, on which the planters rested the necessity of fresh importations, namely, the destruction of lives in the West Indies, was itself the strongest argument that could be given, and furnished the most imperious call upon parliament for the abolition of the trade.
The idea that there was a real threat to our West Indian islands from ending the Slave Trade was completely baseless, as Mr. Wilberforce clearly demonstrated. But for those who were still unconvinced, could anyone argue against Mr. Pitt's points on the same issue? When comparing the birth and death rates in Jamaica, it was shown that there was no decline in the slave population. Even if there had been a decline, it wouldn’t have affected his vote; he would have attributed any high mortality to the practice of importing Africans instead of promoting their natural growth. Isn’t it obvious that the planters preferred to purchase slaves who are already able to work rather than raise them? So, why should this terrible trade continue?—To truly allow the planters to mistreat their slaves, which would limit population growth: only through mistreatment could their numbers decrease in a climate that's naturally suited to them. Thus, the very argument the planters used to justify needing more imports—the loss of lives in the West Indies—was, in fact, the strongest reason to call on Parliament to abolish the trade.
Against this trade innumerable were the charges. An honourable member, Mr. Smith, had done well to introduce those tragical stories which had made such an impression upon the House. No one of these had been yet controverted. It had, indeed, been said; that the cruelty of the African captain to the child was too bad to be true; and we had been desired to look at the cross-examination of the witness, as if we should find traces of the falsehood in his testimony there. But his cross-examination was peculiarly honourable to his character; for, after he had been pressed in the closest manner by some able members of the House, the only inconsistency they could fix upon him was, whether the fact had happened on the same day of the same month of the year 1764 or the year 1765.
Against this trade, there were countless accusations. An honorable member, Mr. Smith, did well to share those heartbreaking stories that left such a strong impact on the House. None of these stories have been successfully challenged. It has, in fact, been claimed that the cruelty of the African captain towards the child was too awful to be true; we were urged to examine the witness's cross-examination, as if we might uncover some falsehood in his testimony there. However, his cross-examination actually reflected well on his character; after being pressed closely by some skilled members of the House, the only inconsistency they could pin on him was whether the event occurred on the same day of the same month in the year 1764 or in the year 1765.
But it was idle to talk of the incredibility of such instances. It was not denied that absolute power was exercised by the slave-captains; and if this was granted, all the cruelties charged upon them would naturally follow. Never did he hear of charges so black and horrible as those contained in the evidence on the table. They unfolded such a scene of cruelty, that if the House, with all their present knowledge of the circumstances, should dare to vote for its continuance, they must have nerves of which he had no conception. We might find instances, indeed, in history, of men violating the feelings of nature on extraordinary occasions. Fathers had sacrificed their sons and daughters, and husbands their wives; but to imitate their characters, we ought to have not only nerves as strong as the two Brutuses, but to take care that we had a cause as good; or that we had motives for such a dereliction of our feelings as patriotic as those which historians had annexed to these when they handed them to the notice of the world.
But it was pointless to talk about how unbelievable such instances were. No one denied that absolute power was held by the slave captains; and if we accepted that, all the cruelties attributed to them would naturally follow. He had never heard of accusations as dark and horrifying as those in the evidence on the table. They revealed such a scene of brutality that if the House, with all their current knowledge of the situation, dared to vote for its continuation, they must have nerves he couldn’t even imagine. We could indeed find examples in history of people betraying their natural instincts in extreme situations. Fathers have sacrificed their sons and daughters, and husbands their wives; but to mirror their actions, we would need to have not just nerves as strong as those of the two Brutuses, but also ensure that we had a cause as just; or that our motives for such a betrayal of our feelings were as patriotic as those that historians attributed to these individuals when they presented them to the world.
But what was our motive in the case before us?—to continue a trade which was a wholesale sacrifice of a whole order and race of our fellow-creatures, which carried them away by force from their native country, in order to subject them to the mere will and caprice, the tyranny and oppression of other human beings, for their whole natural lives, them and their posterity for ever!! O most monstrous wickedness! O unparalleled barbarity! And, what was more aggravating, this most complicated scene of robbery and murder which mankind had ever witnessed, had been honoured by the name of trade.
But what was our reason for the situation at hand?—to keep going with a trade that was a complete destruction of an entire group and race of our fellow human beings, which forcibly took them from their homeland to submit them to the whims, cruelty, and oppression of others for their entire lives and for generations to come!! O, what a terrible evil! O, what unmatched brutality! And, what made it even worse was that this most complex act of theft and murder ever seen by humanity had been called trade.
That a number of human beings should be at all times ready to be furnished as fair articles of commerce, just as our occasions might require, was absurd. The argument of Mr. Pitt on this head was unanswerable. Our demand was fluctuating: it entirely ceased at some times: at others it was great and pressing. How was it possible, on every sudden call, to furnish a sufficient return in slaves, without resorting to those execrable means of obtaining them, which were stated in the evidence? These were of three sorts, and he would now examine them.
It was ridiculous to think that there would always be a number of people ready to be supplied as trade goods, just as our needs arose. Mr. Pitt's argument on this issue was unarguable. Our demand changed constantly; sometimes it completely stopped, and at other times it was high and urgent. How could it be possible to provide a sufficient return in slaves right away without using those terrible methods of obtaining them mentioned in the evidence? There were three types, and he would now look into them.
Captives in war, it was urged, were consigned either to death or slavery. This, however, he believed to be false in point of fact. But suppose it were true; did it not become us, with whom it was a custom, founded in the wisest policy, to pay the captives a peculiar respect and civility, to inculcate the same principles in Africa? But we were so far from doing this, that we encouraged wars for the sake of taking, not men's goods and possessions, but men themselves; and it was not the war which was the cause of the Slave Trade, but the Slave Trade which was the cause of the war. It was the practice of the slave-merchants to try to intoxicate the African kings in order to turn them to their purpose. A particular instance occurred in the evidence of a prince, who, when sober, resisted their wishes; but in the moment of inebriety he gave the word for war, attacked the next village, and sold the inhabitants to the merchants.
Captives in war, it was suggested, were either killed or enslaved. However, he believed this to be untrue. But even if it were true, shouldn't we, who have always respected captives as part of our wise policies, teach the same values in Africa? Instead, we were far from doing this; we promoted wars to capture not just people's belongings, but the people themselves. It wasn't the war that caused the Slave Trade, but the Slave Trade that sparked the war. Slave traders often tried to get African kings drunk to achieve their goals. In one case, a prince who resisted their demands when sober ended up declaring war and attacking a neighboring village after being intoxicated, ultimately selling the villagers to the traders.
The second mode was kidnapping. He referred the House to various instances of this in the evidence: but there was one in particular, from which we might immediately infer the frequency of the practice. A black trader had kidnapped a girl and sold her; but he was presently afterwards kidnapped and sold himself; and, when he asked the captain who bought him, "What! do you buy me, who am a great trader?" the only answer was, "Yes, I will buy you, or her, or anybody else, provided any one will sell you;" and accordingly both the trader and the girl were carried to the West Indies, and sold for slaves.
The second method was kidnapping. He pointed the House to various examples of this in the evidence: but there was one in particular that highlighted how common the practice was. A black trader had kidnapped a girl and sold her; but shortly after, he himself was kidnapped and sold. When he asked the captain who bought him, "What! You're buying me, a major trader?" the only response was, "Yes, I'll buy you, or her, or anyone else, as long as someone is willing to sell you;" and as a result, both the trader and the girl were taken to the West Indies and sold as slaves.
The third mode of obtaining slaves was by crimes committed or imputed. One of these was adultery. But was Africa the place, where Englishmen, above all others, were to go to find out and punish adultery? Did it become us to cast the first stone? It was a most extraordinary pilgrimage for a most extraordinary purpose! And yet upon this plea we justified our right of carrying off its inhabitants. The offence alleged next was witchcraft. What a reproach it was to lend ourselves to this superstition!—Yes: we stood by; we heard the trial; we knew the crime to be impossible; and that the accused must be innocent: but we waited in patient silence for his condemnation; and then we lent our friendly aid to the police of the country, by buying the wretched convict, with all his family; whom, for the benefit of Africa, we carried away also into perpetual slavery.
The third way of obtaining slaves was through crimes committed or accused. One of these was adultery. But was Africa really the place where Englishmen, above all others, should go to uncover and punish adultery? Did it make sense for us to cast the first stone? It was a truly bizarre journey for a truly bizarre reason! And still, we used this excuse to justify taking its people. The next alleged offense was witchcraft. What a shame it was to get involved with this superstition!—Yes: we stood by, we listened to the trial; we knew the crime was impossible, and that the accused must be innocent—but we patiently waited for his conviction; and then we offered our help to the local police by purchasing the unfortunate convict and his entire family, whom we also took away into permanent slavery for the so-called benefit of Africa.
With respect to the situation of the slaves in their transportation, he knew not how to give the House a more correct idea of the horrors of it, than by referring them to the printed section of the slave-ship; where the eye might see what the tongue must fall short in describing. On this dismal part of the subject he would not dwell. He would only observe, that the acts of barbarity, related of the slave-captains in these voyages, were so extravagant, that they had been attributed in some instances to insanity. But was not this the insanity of arbitrary power? Who ever read the facts recorded of Nero without suspecting he was mad? Who would not be apt to impute insanity to Caligula—or Domitian—or Caracalla—or Commodus—or Heliogabalus? Here were six Roman emperors, not connected in blood, nor by descent, who, each of them, possessing arbitrary power, had been so distinguished for cruelty, that nothing short of insanity could be imputed to them. Was not the insanity of the masters of slave-ships to be accounted for on the same principles?
With regard to the situation of the slaves during their transport, he didn't know how to give the House a better understanding of the horrors involved than by pointing them to the printed section of the slave ship, where the visual could convey what words could not adequately express. He wouldn’t linger on this grim topic. He would just note that the acts of brutality reported about the slave captains on these voyages were so extreme that in some cases, they were attributed to madness. But wasn't this madness a result of unchecked power? Who has read the accounts of Nero without thinking he was crazy? Who wouldn't be inclined to consider Caligula, or Domitian, or Caracalla, or Commodus, or Heliogabalus as insane? Here were six Roman emperors, not related by blood or lineage, each wielding absolute power, who were so notorious for their cruelty that only madness could explain their actions. Shouldn't we view the insanity of the masters of slave ships in the same light?
Of the slaves in the West Indies it had been said, that they were taken from a worse state to a better. An honourable member, Mr. W. Smith, had quoted some instances out of the evidence to the contrary. He also would quote one or two others. A slave under hard usage had run away. To prevent a repetition of the offence his owner sent for his surgeon, and desired him to cut off the man's leg. The surgeon refused. The owner, to render it a matter of duty in the surgeon, broke it. "Now," says he, "you must cut it off; or the man will die." We might console ourselves, perhaps, that this happened in a French island; but he would select another instance, which had happened in one of our own. Mr. Ross heard the shrieks of a female issuing from an out-house; and so piercing, that he determined to me what was going on. On looking in he perceived a young female tied up to a beam by her wrists, entirely naked, and in the act of involuntary writhing and swinging; while the author of her torture was standing below her with a lighted torch in his hand, which he applied to all the parts of her body as it approached him. What crime this miserable woman had perpetrated he knew not; but the human mind could not conceive a crime warranting such a punishment.
Of the slaves in the West Indies, it was said that they were taken from a worse situation to a better one. An honorable member, Mr. W. Smith, had cited some examples that contradicted this claim. He would also mention a few others. A slave who was being severely mistreated had run away. To prevent this from happening again, his owner called for his surgeon and demanded that he amputate the man’s leg. The surgeon refused. The owner, wanting to make it a duty for the surgeon, broke the leg himself. “Now,” he said, “you have to cut it off, or the man will die.” We might tell ourselves that this happened on a French island, but he would provide another example that occurred in one of our own colonies. Mr. Ross heard the screams of a woman coming from an outbuilding; they were so piercing that he decided to investigate. When he looked inside, he saw a young woman tied up by her wrists to a beam, completely naked, involuntarily writhing and swinging. The person causing her suffering stood below her, holding a lit torch, which he pressed against various parts of her body as it got closer. What crime this unfortunate woman had committed was unknown to him, but no one could imagine any crime that justified such a punishment.
He was glad to see that these tales affected the House. Would they then sanction enormities, the bare recital of which made them shudder? Let them remember that humanity did not consist in a squeamish ear. It did not consist in shrinking and starting at such tales as these; but in a disposition of the heart to remedy the evils they unfolded. Humanity belonged rather to the mind than to the nerves. But, if so, it should prompt men to charitable exertion. Such exertion was necessary in the present case. It was necessary for the credit of our jurisprudence at home, and our character abroad. For what would any man think of our justice, who should see another hanged for a crime, which would be innocence itself, if compared with those enormities, which were allowed in Africa and the West Indies under the sanction of the British parliament?
He was happy to see that these stories impacted the House. Would they then approve of outrageous acts, the very mention of which made them shudder? They should remember that being human isn't about having a sensitive ear. It's not about flinching at stories like these; it's about having the heart to fix the problems they reveal. Humanity is more about the mind than the nerves. But if that’s the case, it should inspire people to take charitable action. Such action was essential in this situation. It was crucial for the reputation of our justice system at home and our standing abroad. For what would anyone think of our justice if they saw someone hanged for a crime that would be considered innocent compared to the atrocities allowed in Africa and the West Indies under the British Parliament's approval?
It had been said, however, in justification of the trade, that the Africans were less happy at home than in the Islands. But what right had we to be judges of their condition? They would tell us a very different tale, if they were asked. But it was ridiculous to say, that we bettered their condition, when we dragged them from everything dear in life to the most abject state of slavery.
It was claimed, though, to justify the trade, that Africans were less happy at home than they were in the Islands. But what right do we have to judge their situation? They would tell us a completely different story if we asked them. It's absurd to say that we improved their lives when we pulled them away from everything they cherished and forced them into the depths of slavery.
One argument had been used, which for a subject so grave was the most ridiculous he had ever heard. Mr. Alderman Watson had declared the Slave Trade to be necessary on account of its connexion with our fisheries. But what was this but an acknowledgment of the manner, in which these miserable beings, were treated? The trade was to be kept up, with all its enormities, in order that there might be persons to consume the refuse fish from Newfoundland, which was too bad for anybody else to eat.
One argument had been made that, given the seriousness of the issue, was the most absurd he had ever heard. Mr. Alderman Watson claimed that the Slave Trade was essential because of its connection to our fishing industry. But what did this really mean other than admitting to the way these unfortunate individuals were treated? The trade was to continue, with all its horrors, just so there would be people to consume the leftover fish from Newfoundland, which was too spoiled for anyone else to eat.
It had been said that England ought not to abolish the Slave Trade, unless other nations would also give it up. But what kind of morality was this? The Trade was defensible upon no other principle than that of a highwayman. Great Britain could not keep it upon these terms. Mere gain was not a motive for a great country to rest on, as a justification of any measure. Honour was its superior; and justice was superior to honour.
It was said that England shouldn't end the Slave Trade unless other countries did the same. But what kind of morality is that? The Trade could only be justified on the same level as that of a robber. Great Britain couldn’t maintain that position. Simply making a profit wasn't a valid reason for a great nation to justify any action. Honor was more important; and justice was more important than honor.
With regard to the emancipation of those in slavery, he coincided with Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Pitt; and upon this principle, that it might be as dangerous to give freedom at once to a man used to slavery, as, in the case of a man who had never seen day-light, to expose him all at once to the full glare of a meridian sun.
In terms of freeing those in slavery, he agreed with Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Pitt, based on the idea that giving freedom to someone who is accustomed to slavery might be just as risky as suddenly exposing someone who has never seen daylight to the harsh brightness of the midday sun.
With respect to the intellect and sensibility of the Africans, it was pride only, which suggested a difference between them and ourselves. There was a remarkable instance to the point in the evidence, and which he would quote. In one of the slave-ships was a person of consequence; a man, once high in a military station, and with a mind not insensible to the eminence of his rank. He had been taken captive and sold; and was then in the hold, confined promiscuously with the rest. Happening in the night to fall asleep, he dreamed that he was in his own country; high in honour and command; caressed by his family and friends; waited on by his domestics; and surrounded with all his former comforts in life. But awaking suddenly, and finding where he was, he was heard to burst into the loudest groans and lamentations on the miserable contrast of his present state; mixed with the meanest of his subjects; and subjected to the insolence of wretches a thousand times lower than himself in every kind of endowment. He appealed to the House, whether this was not as moving a picture of the miserable effects of the Slave Trade, as could be well imagined. There was one way, by which they might judge of it. Let them make the case their own. This was the Christian rule of judging; and, having mentioned Christianity, he was sorry to find that any should suppose, that it had given countenance to such a system of oppression. So far was this from being the case, that he thought it one of the most splendid triumphs of this religion, that it had caused slavery to be so generally abolished on its appearance in the world. It had done this by teaching us, among other beautiful precepts, that, in the sight of their Maker, all mankind were equal. Its influence appeared to have been more powerful in this respect than that of all the ancient systems of philosophy; though even in these, in point of theory, we might trace great liberality and consideration for human rights. Where could be found finer sentiments of liberty than in Demosthenes and Cicero? Where bolder assertions of the rights of mankind, than in Tacitus and Thucydides? But, alas! these were the holders of slaves: It was not so with those who had been converted to Christianity. He knew, however, that what he had been ascribing to Christianity had been imputed by others to the advances which philosophy had made. Each of the two parties took the merit to itself. The philosopher gave it to philosophy, and the divine to religion. He should not, then, dispute with either of them; but, as both coveted the praise, why should they not emulate each other by promoting this improvement in the condition of the human race?
With regard to the intellect and sensitivity of Africans, it was only pride that suggested any differences between them and us. There was a notable example in the evidence that he would cite. On one of the slave ships was a person of importance; a man who had once held a high military position and had a mind that recognized the significance of his rank. He had been captured and sold; and now he was confined in the hold with the others. One night, as he fell asleep, he dreamed he was back in his own country, honored and in command, surrounded by his family and friends, attended by his servants, and enjoying all the comforts of his previous life. But suddenly waking and realizing his situation, he was heard to cry out in loud groans and lamentations over the miserable contrast of his current state; mingling with the lowest of his subjects and subjected to the disrespect of wretches far beneath him in every way. He asked the House whether this wasn’t a deeply moving illustration of the tragic consequences of the Slave Trade that one could imagine. There was one way they could assess it. Let them make the situation personal. This was the Christian way of judging, and in mentioning Christianity, he regretted to hear that anyone thought it endorsed such a system of oppression. Far from that, he felt it was one of the greatest achievements of this religion that it led to the widespread abolition of slavery when it emerged in the world. It accomplished this by teaching us, among other beautiful principles, that all humanity is equal in the eyes of their Creator. Its influence seemed to have been more effective in this regard than all the ancient philosophical systems, although even those had theoretical notions of great freedom and consideration for human rights. Where could one find finer ideas of liberty than in Demosthenes and Cicero? Where bolder claims of human rights than in Tacitus and Thucydides? But, sadly, these were the very people who owned slaves. That was not the case for those who had embraced Christianity. He knew, however, that some attributed what he credited to Christianity to the progress made by philosophy. Each side claimed the credit for itself. The philosophers claimed it for philosophy, and the theologians for religion. He wouldn’t dispute either claim; but since both sought credit, why couldn’t they compete to foster improvement in the condition of humanity?
He would now conclude by declaring, that the whole country, indeed the whole civilized world, must rejoice that such a bill as the present had been moved for, not merely as a matter of humanity, but as an act of justice; for he would put humanity out of the case. Could it be called humanity to forbear committing murder? Exactly upon this ground did the motion stand; being strictly a question of national justice. He thanked Mr. Wilberforce for having pledged himself so strongly to pursue his object till it was accomplished; and, as for himself, he declared, that, in whatever situation he might ever be, he would use his warmest efforts for the promotion of this righteous cause.
He would now finish by stating that the entire country, indeed the whole civilized world, should celebrate the introduction of this bill, not just as a matter of compassion, but as an act of justice; because he would set compassion aside. Could it truly be called compassion to hold back from committing murder? This is precisely the basis of the motion; it is fundamentally a matter of national justice. He expressed gratitude to Mr. Wilberforce for his strong commitment to seeing this goal through to the end; and as for himself, he declared that regardless of his circumstances, he would do everything he could to support this just cause.
Mr. Stanley (the member for Lancashire) rose, and declared that, when he came into the house, he intended to vote against the abolition; but that the impression made both on his feelings and on his understanding was such, that he could not persist in his resolution. He was now convinced that the entire abolition of the Slave Trade was called for equally by sound policy and justice. He thought it right and fair to avow manfully this change in his opinion. The abolition, ho was sure, could not long fail of being carried. The arguments for it were irresistible.
Mr. Stanley, the representative for Lancashire, stood up and said that when he came into the house, he planned to vote against the abolition. However, the impact on his feelings and understanding was so strong that he couldn't stick to his original decision. He was now convinced that completely ending the Slave Trade was necessary for both good policy and justice. He felt it was right to openly admit this change in his viewpoint. He was confident that the abolition would soon succeed. The arguments in favor of it were undeniable.
The Honourable Mr. Ryder said that he came to the house not exactly in the same circumstances as Mr. Stanley, but very undecided on the subject. He was, however, so strongly convinced by the arguments he had heard, that he was become equally earnest for the abolition.
The Honorable Mr. Ryder said that he came to the house not exactly under the same circumstances as Mr. Stanley, but he was very uncertain about the topic. However, he was so strongly convinced by the arguments he had heard that he had become just as passionate about abolishing it.
Mr. Smith (member for Pontefract) said, that he should not trouble the House, at so late an hour, further than to enter his protest, in the most solemn manner, against this trade, which he considered as most disgraceful to the country, and contrary to all the principles of justice and religion.
Mr. Smith (representative for Pontefract) said that he wouldn’t keep the House any longer at such a late hour, other than to formally express his protest against this trade, which he viewed as highly shameful to the country and against all principles of justice and religion.
Mr. Sumner declared himself against the total, immediate, and unqualified abolition, which he thought would wound at least the prejudices of the West Indians, and might do mischief; but a gradual abolition should have his hearty support.
Mr. Sumner stated that he was against the complete, immediate, and unconditional abolition, which he believed would offend the prejudices of the West Indians and could cause harm; however, he would fully support a gradual abolition.
Major Scott declared there was no member in the house, who would give a more independent vote upon this question than himself. He had no concern either in the African or West Indian trades; but in the present state of the finances of the country, he thought it would be a dangerous experiment to risk any one branch of our foreign commerce. As far as regulation would go, he would join in the measure.
Major Scott stated that there was no one in the house who would cast a more independent vote on this issue than he would. He had no stake in either the African or West Indian trades; however, given the current financial situation of the country, he believed it would be a risky move to jeopardize any part of our foreign commerce. He would support the measure as far as regulations are concerned.
Mr. Burke said he would use but few words. He declared that he had for a long time had his mind drawn towards this great subject. He had even prepared a bill for the regulation of the trade, conceiving at that time that the immediate abolition of it was a thing hardly to be hoped for; but when he found that Mr. Wilberforce had seriously undertaken the work, and that his motion was for the abolition, which he approved much more than his own, he had burnt his papers; and made an offering of them in honour of this nobler proposition, much in the same manner as we read, that the curious books were offered up and burnt at the approach of the Gospel. He highly applauded the confessions of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Ryder. It would be a glorious tale for them to tell their constituents, that it was impossible for them, however prejudiced, if sent to hear, discussion in that House, to avoid surrendering up their hearts and judgments at the shrine of reason.
Mr. Burke said he would keep it brief. He mentioned that he had been thinking about this important issue for a long time. He even drafted a bill to regulate the trade, believing at that time that the immediate end of it was unlikely; but when he saw that Mr. Wilberforce was seriously tackling the issue and that his motion was for abolition, which he supported much more than his own proposal, he burned his papers and offered them up in honor of this greater cause, similar to how we read about the curious books being burned as the Gospel approached. He strongly praised the admissions of Mr. Stanley and Mr. Ryder. It would be an inspiring story for them to share with their constituents, that no matter how biased they might be, if they came to listen to debates in that House, they couldn't help but give in to reason with their hearts and minds.
Mr. Drake said, that he would oppose the abolition to the utmost. We had, by a want of prudent conduct, lost America. The House should be aware of being carried away by the meteors with which they had been dazzled. The leaders, it was true, were for the abolition; but the minor orators, the dwarfs, the pigmies, he trusted, would that night carry the question against them. The property of the West Indians was at stake; and, though men might be generous with their own property, they should not be so with the property of others.
Mr. Drake stated that he would strongly oppose the abolition. We had, due to a lack of careful decision-making, lost America. The House should be cautious not to be swayed by the flashy ideas that had caught their attention. It was true that the leaders were in favor of abolition, but he was hopeful that the lesser speakers, the insignificant ones, would prevail against them that night. The property of the West Indians was at risk; and while people might be generous with their own possessions, they shouldn’t be so with the possessions of others.
Lord Sheffield reprobated the overbearing language which had been used by some gentlemen towards others, who differed in opinion from them on a subject of so much difficulty as the present. He protested against a debate, in which he could trace nothing like reason; but, on the contrary, downright phrensy, raised perhaps by the most extraordinary eloquence. The abolition, as proposed, was impracticable. He denied the right of the legislature to pass a law for it. He warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to beware of the day, on which the bill should pass, as the worst he had ever seen.
Lord Sheffield condemned the arrogant language that some gentlemen used toward others who had different opinions on such a difficult issue. He spoke out against a debate where he saw no sign of reason; instead, it was pure madness, possibly fueled by the most extraordinary rhetoric. The proposed abolition was impractical. He challenged the legislature’s right to enact such a law. He cautioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be wary of the day the bill was passed, as it would be the worst he had ever witnessed.
Mr. Milnes declared, that he adopted all those expressions against the Slave Trade, which had been thought so harsh; and that the opinion of the noble lord had been turned in consequence of having become one of the members for Bristol. He quoted a passage from Lord Sheffield's pamphlet; and insisted that the separation of families in the West Indies, there complained of by himself, ought to have compelled him to take the contrary side of the question.
Mr. Milnes stated that he agreed with all the strong statements made against the Slave Trade, which many considered too severe. He mentioned that the noble lord's opinion had shifted because he became one of the representatives for Bristol. He referenced a section from Lord Sheffield's pamphlet and argued that the separation of families in the West Indies, which he himself had criticized, should have led him to take the opposite stance on the issue.
Mr. Wilberforce made a short reply to some arguments in the course of the debate; after which, at half-past three in the morning, the House divided. There appeared for Mr. Wilberforce's motion eighty-eight, and against it one hundred and sixty-three; so that it was lost by a majority of seventy-five votes.
Mr. Wilberforce gave a brief response to some points made during the debate; after that, at 3:30 in the morning, the House split. There were eighty-eight votes in favor of Mr. Wilberforce's motion and one hundred sixty-three against it; therefore, it was defeated by a majority of seventy-five votes.
By this unfavourable division the great contest, in which we had been so long engaged, was decided. We were obliged to give way to superior numbers. Our fall, however, grievous as it was, was rendered more tolerable by the circumstance of having been prepared to expect it. It was rendered more tolerable, also, by other considerations; for we had the pleasure of knowing, that we had several of the most distinguished characters in the kingdom, and almost all the splendid talents of the House of CommonsA, in our favour. We knew, too, that the question had not been carried against us either by evidence or by argument; but that we were the victims of the accidents and circumstances of the times. And as these considerations comforted us, when we looked forward to future operations on this great question, so we found great consolation as to the past, in believing, that, unless human constitutions were stronger than they really were, we could not have done more than we had done towards the furtherance of the cause.
By this unfortunate division, the major conflict we had been involved in for such a long time was settled. We had to concede to larger forces. Our defeat, however painful, was made more bearable by the fact that we had expected it. It was also easier to accept because we took comfort in knowing that we had several prominent figures in the kingdom and almost all the remarkable talents of the House of CommonsA on our side. We also recognized that the issue wasn’t decided against us based on evidence or argument; instead, we were victims of the random events and circumstances of the time. And while these thoughts helped us as we looked ahead to future actions regarding this important issue, they also provided us with considerable comfort about the past. We believed that, unless human constitutions were far stronger than they actually are, we couldn’t have done more than what we had already done to support the cause.
A: It is a pity that no perfect list was ever made of this or of any other division in the House of Commons on this subject. I can give, however, the names of the following, members, as having voted for Mr. Wilberforce's motion at this time.
A: It's unfortunate that a complete list was never created for this or any other division in the House of Commons on this topic. However, I can provide the names of the following members who voted for Mr. Wilberforce's motion at this time.
Mr. Pitt, | Lord Bayham, | Mr. Duncombe, |
Mr. Fox, | Lord Arden, | Mr. Martin, |
Mr. Burke, | Lord Carysfort, | Mr. Milnes, |
Mr. Grey, | Lord Muncaster, | Mr. Steele, |
Mr. Windham, | Lord Barnard, | Mr. Coke, |
Mr. Sheridan, | Lord North, | Mr. Eliott, |
Mr. Whitbread, | Lord Euston, | Mr. Montagu, |
Mr. Courtenay, | General Burgoyne, | Mr. Bastard, |
Mr. Francis, | Hon. R. Fitzpatrick, | Mr. Stanley, |
Mr. Wilberforce, | Sir William Dolben, | Mr. Plumer, |
Mr. Ryder, | Sir Henry Houghton, | Mr. Beaufoy, |
Mr. William Smith, | Sir Edward Lyttleton, | Mr. I.H. Browne, |
Mr. John Smyth, | Sir William Scott, | Mr. G.N. Edwards, |
Mr. Robert Smith, | Mr. Samuel Thornton, | Mr. W.M. Pitt, |
Mr. Powys, | Mr. Henry Thornton, | Mr. Bankes, |
Lord Apsley, | Mr. Robert Thornton, |
The committee for the abolition held a meeting soon after this our defeat. It was the most impressive I ever attended. The looks of all bespoke the feelings of their hearts. Little was said previously to the opening of the business; and, after it was opened, it was conducted with a kind of solemn dignity, which became the occasion. The committee, in the course of its deliberations, came to the following resolutions:—
The abolition committee met shortly after our defeat. It was the most impressive meeting I’ve ever been to. The expressions on everyone's faces revealed their feelings. Not much was said before the meeting started, and once it did, the discussion was carried out with a serious dignity that suited the occasion. During their discussions, the committee arrived at the following resolutions:—
That the thanks of this committee be respectfully given to the illustrious minority of the House of Commons, who lately stood forth the assertors of British justice and humanity, and the enemies of a traffic in the blood of man.
That the thanks of this committee be respectfully given to the distinguished minority of the House of Commons, who recently stood up as defenders of British justice and humanity, and opponents of the trade in human lives.
That our acknowledgments are particularly due to William Wilberforce, Esq., for his unwearied exertions to remove this opprobrium of our national character; and to the right honourable William Pitt, and the right honourable Charles James Fox, for their virtuous and dignified co-operation in the same cause.
That our thanks are especially owed to William Wilberforce, Esq., for his tireless efforts to eliminate this disgrace from our national character; and to the right honourable William Pitt and the right honourable Charles James Fox for their honorable and dignified support of the same cause.
That the solemn declarations of these gentlemen, and of Matthew Montagu and William Smith, Esqrs., that they will not relinquish, but with life, their struggle for the abolition of the Slave Trade, are not only highly honourable to themselves as Britons, as statesmen, and as Christians, but must eventually, as the light of evidence shall be more and more diffused, be seconded by the good wishes of every man not immediately interested in the continuance of that detestable commerce.
That the serious statements made by these gentlemen, along with Matthew Montagu and William Smith, Esqrs., that they will not give up their fight for the abolition of the Slave Trade until death, are not only highly commendable for them as Britons, as politicians, and as Christians, but will ultimately, as more evidence comes to light, be supported by the goodwill of everyone who isn’t directly benefiting from that terrible trade.
And lastly, that anticipating the opposition they should have to sustain from persons trained to a familiarity with the rapine and desolation necessarily attendant on the Slave Trade, and sensible, also, of the prejudices which implicitly arise from long-established usages, this committee consider the late decision in the House of Commons as a delay, rather than a defeat. In addressing a free and enlightened nation on a subject, in which its justice, its humanity, and its wisdom are involved, they cannot despair of final success; and they do hereby, under an increasing conviction of the excellence of their cause, and in conformity to the distinguished examples before them, renew their firm protestation, that they will never desist from appealing to their countrymen, till the commercial intercourse with Africa shall cease to be polluted with the blood of its inhabitants.
And finally, anticipating the opposition they would face from those familiar with the violence and destruction that come with the Slave Trade, and also aware of the biases that arise from long-standing practices, this committee sees the recent decision in the House of Commons as a delay, not a defeat. When addressing a free and aware nation on a matter that involves its justice, humanity, and wisdom, they can't lose hope for ultimate success; and they hereby, with an increasing belief in the righteousness of their cause, and following the notable examples before them, renew their strong commitment to continue appealing to their fellow citizens until trade with Africa is no longer tainted with the blood of its people.
These resolutions were published, and they were followed by a suitable report.
These resolutions were published, and they were accompanied by an appropriate report.
The committee, in order to strengthen themselves for the prosecution of their great work, elected Sir William Dolben, Bart., Henry Thornton, Lewis Alexander Grant, and Matthew Montagu, Esqrs., who were members of parliament, and Truman Harford, Josiah Wedgewood, jun., Esq., and John Clarkson, Esq., of the royal navy, as members of their own body; and they elected the Rev. Archdeacon Plymley (afterwards Corbett) an honorary and corresponding member, in consequence of the great services which he had rendered their cause in the shires of Hereford and Salop, and the adjacent counties of Wales.
The committee, to strengthen themselves for their important work, elected Sir William Dolben, Bart., Henry Thornton, Lewis Alexander Grant, and Matthew Montagu, Esqrs., who were members of parliament, along with Truman Harford, Josiah Wedgewood, Jr., Esq., and John Clarkson, Esq., from the royal navy, as members of their group. They also elected Rev. Archdeacon Plymley (later Corbett) as an honorary and corresponding member due to the significant contributions he had made to their cause in Hereford, Salop, and the nearby counties of Wales.
The several committees, established in the country, on receiving the resolutions and report as before mentioned, testified their sympathy in letters of condolence to that of London on the late melancholy occasion; and expressed their determination to support it as long as any vestiges of this barbarous traffic should remain.
The various committees set up in the country, upon receiving the resolutions and report mentioned earlier, expressed their sympathy in condolence letters to the one in London regarding the recent tragic event; and they stated their commitment to support it as long as any remnants of this brutal trade still exist.
At length the session ended; and though, in the course of it, the afflicting loss of the general question had occurred, there was yet an attempt made by the abolitionists in parliament, which met with a better fate. The Sierra Leone Company received the sanction of the Legislature. The object of this institution was to colonize a small portion of the coast of Africa. They, who were to settle there, were to have no concern in the Slave Trade, but to discourage it as much as possible. They were to endeavour to establish a new species of commerce, and to promote cultivation in its neighborhood by free labour. The persons more generally fixed upon for colonists, were such Negroes, with their wives and families, as chose to abandon their habitations in Nova Scotia. These had followed the British arms in America; and had been settled there, as a reward for their services, by the British government. My brother, just mentioned to have been chosen a member of the committee, and who had essentially served the great cause of the abolition on many occasions, undertook a visit to Nova Scotia, to see if those in question were willing to undergo the change; and in that case to provide transports, and conduct them to Sierra Leone. This object he accomplished. He embarked more than eleven hundred persons in fifteen vessels, of all which he took the command. On landing them he became the first Governor of the new colony. Having laid the foundation of it, he returned to England; when a successor was appointed. From that time many unexpected circumstances, but particularly devastations by the French in the beginning of the war, took place, which contributed to ruin the trading company which was attached to it. It is pleasing, however, to reflect, that though the object of the institution, as far as mercantile profit was concerned, thus failed, the other objects belonging to it were promoted. Schools, places of worship, agriculture, and the habits of civilized life were established. Sierra Leone, therefore, now presents itself as the medium of civilization for Africa. And, in this latter point of view, it is worth all the treasure which has been lost in supporting it; for the Slave Trade, which was the great obstacle to this civilization, being now happily abolished, there is a metropolis, consisting of some hundreds of persons, from which may issue the seeds of reformation to this injured continent; and which, when sown, may be expected to grow into fruit without interruption. New schools may be transplanted from thence into the interior. Teachers, and travellers on discovery, may be sent from thence in various directions, who may return to it occasionally as to their homes. The natives, too, able now to travel in safety, may resort to it from various parts. They may see the improvements which are going on from time to time. They may send their children to it for education; and thus it may become the mediumA of a great intercourse between England and Africa, to the benefit of each other.
At last, the session ended; and although the painful loss of the main question had occurred during it, there was still an effort made by the abolitionists in Parliament that had a better outcome. The Sierra Leone Company received approval from the Legislature. The goal of this institution was to establish a small colony on the coast of Africa. Those who would settle there were to have no involvement in the slave trade and were to discourage it as much as possible. They aimed to create a new type of commerce and promote farming in the area through free labor. The people primarily considered for colonization were Black individuals, along with their wives and families, who chose to leave their homes in Nova Scotia. These individuals had supported the British forces in America and had been settled there as a reward for their services by the British government. My brother, who was recently chosen as a committee member and had significantly contributed to the abolition cause on many occasions, undertook a visit to Nova Scotia to see if those individuals were willing to make the move; if so, he would arrange transportation and lead them to Sierra Leone. He successfully completed this mission. He boarded more than eleven hundred people onto fifteen ships, which he commanded. After landing them, he became the first Governor of the new colony. After laying the foundation, he returned to England, and a successor was appointed. From that point, many unforeseen events, particularly devastation by the French at the start of the war, occurred, contributing to the downfall of the trading company connected to it. However, it is gratifying to note that although the goal of the institution regarding financial profit ultimately failed, its other objectives were advanced. Schools, places of worship, agriculture, and the customs of civilized life were established. Sierra Leone now stands as a center of civilization for Africa. In this regard, it is worth all the resources that have been expended to support it; because the slave trade, which was the main barrier to this civilization, has now been thankfully abolished, a community exists, made up of hundreds of people, from which the seeds of reform can spread to this wounded continent; and, once planted, can be expected to flourish without interruption. New schools can be established there to reach the interior. Educators and explorers can be sent out in various directions, who may return to it periodically as their home base. The local people, now able to travel safely, can come to it from different areas. They can witness the ongoing improvements. They can send their children there for education; and thus, it could become the means of great interaction between England and Africa, benefiting both.
A: To promote this desirable end an association took place last year, called The African Institution, under the patronage of the Duke of Gloucester, as president, and of the Mends to the African cause, particularly of such as were in parliament, and as belonged to the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
A: To support this important goal, an organization was formed last year called The African Institution, chaired by the Duke of Gloucester, along with friends of the African cause, especially those in parliament and members of the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
CHAPTER XXVII.
—Continuation from July 1791 to July 1792.—Author travels round the kingdom again; object of his journey.—People begin to leave off the use of sugar; to form committees; and to send petitions to Parliament.—Motion made in the House of Commons for the immediate abolition of the trade; Debates upon it; Abolition resolved upon, but not to commence till 1796.—Resolution taken to the Lords; latter determine upon hearing evidence; Evidence at length introduced; further hearing of it postponed to the next session.
—Continuation from July 1791 to July 1792.—The author travels around the kingdom again; the purpose of the journey.—People start to give up using sugar; they form committees and send petitions to Parliament.—A motion is made in the House of Commons for the immediate abolition of the trade; debates take place; abolition is decided upon, but won't start until 1796.—The resolution is sent to the Lords; they decide to hear evidence; eventually, the evidence is presented; further hearings are postponed to the next session.
The defeat which we had just sustained, was a matter of great triumph to our opponents. When they considered the majority in the House of Commons in their favour, they viewed the resolutions of the committee, which have been detailed, as the last spiteful effort of a vanquished and dying animal, and they supposed that they had consigned the question to eternal sleep. The committee, however, were too deeply attached to the cause, vanquished as they were, to desert it; and they knew, also, too well the barometer of public feeling, and the occasion of its fluctuations, to despair. In the year 1787, the members of the House of Commons, as well as the people, were enthusiastic in behalf of the abolition of the trade. In the year 1788, the fair enthusiasm of the former began to fade. In 1789, it died. In 1790, prejudice started up as a noxious weed in its place. In 1791, this prejudice arrived at its growth. But to what were these changes owing? To delay; during which the mind, having been gradually led to the question as a commercial, had been gradually taken from it as a moral object. But it was possible to restore the mind to its proper place. Add to which, that the nation had never deserted the cause during this whole period.
The defeat we just experienced was a huge victory for our opponents. With the majority in the House of Commons on their side, they saw the committee's resolutions, which we've detailed, as the last desperate attempt of a defeated and dying creature, and they believed they had buried the issue for good. However, the committee was too committed to the cause, even after their defeat, to abandon it; they also understood too well the pulse of public opinion and the reasons behind its changes to lose hope. In 1787, both the members of the House of Commons and the public were passionate about ending the trade. By 1788, the initial enthusiasm started to wane. In 1789, it disappeared altogether. By 1790, prejudice emerged like a harmful weed in its place. By 1791, this prejudice reached its peak. But what caused these shifts? The delays, during which people's focus transitioned from viewing the issue as a moral one to seeing it as a commercial matter. Yet it was still possible to bring back that moral perspective. Besides, the nation had never truly abandoned the cause throughout this entire time.
It is much to the honour of the English people, that they should have continued to feel for the existence of an evil which was so far removed from their sight. But at this moment their feelings began to be insupportable. Many of them resolved, as soon as parliament had rejected the bill, to abstain from the use of West Indian produce. In this state of things, a pamphlet, written by William Bell Crafton, of Tewksbury, and called A Sketch of the Evidence, with a Recommendation on the Subject to the serious Attention of People in general, made its appearance; and another followed it, written by William Fox, of London, On the Propriety of abstaining from West India Sugar and Rum. These pamphlets took the same ground. They inculcated abstinence from these articles as a moral duty; they inculcated it as a peaceable and constitutional measure; and they laid before the reader a truth which was sufficiently obvious, that, if each would abstain, the people would have a complete remedy for this enormous evil in their own power.
It is a credit to the English people that they have continued to care about the existence of an issue that’s so far removed from their daily lives. However, at this point, their feelings became unbearable. Many decided that as soon as parliament rejected the bill, they would stop using West Indian products. In this context, a pamphlet by William Bell Crafton from Tewksbury, titled A Sketch of the Evidence, with a Recommendation on the Subject to the Serious Attention of People in General, was published; another followed by William Fox from London called On the Propriety of Abstaining from West India Sugar and Rum. These pamphlets took a similar stance. They argued that avoiding these products was a moral obligation; they presented it as a peaceful and lawful action; and they pointed out a clear truth: if everyone abstained, the public would have a complete solution to this significant problem in their own hands.
While these things were going on, it devolved upon me to arrange all the evidence on the part of the abolition under proper heads, and to abridge it into one volume. It was intended that a copy of this should be sent into different towns of the kingdom, that all might know, if possible, the horrors (as far as the evidence contained them) of this execrable trade; and as it was possible that these copies might lie in the places where they were sent, without a due attention to their contents, I resolved, with the approbation of the committee, to take a journey, and for no other purpose than personally to recommend that they might be read.
While all this was happening, it fell to me to organize all the evidence supporting abolition into proper categories and summarize it into one volume. The plan was to send copies of this to various towns across the country so that everyone could understand, at least to some extent, the horrific nature of this terrible trade based on the evidence. Since these copies might end up just sitting in the places where they were sent without anyone really paying attention to them, I decided, with the committee’s approval, to take a trip solely for the purpose of personally encouraging people to read them.
The books, having been printed, were despatched before me. Of this tour I shall give the reader no other account than that of the progress of the remedy, which the people were then taking into their own hands. And first I may observe, that there was no town, through which I passed, in which there was not some one individual who had left off the use of sugar. In the smaller towns there were from ten to fifty by estimation, and in the larger from two to five hundred, who made this sacrifice to virtue. These were of all ranks and parties. Rich and poor, churchmen and dissenters, had adopted the measure. Even grocers had left off trading in the article, in some places. In gentlemen's families, where the master had set the example, the servants had often voluntarily followed it; and even children, who were capable of understanding the history of the sufferings of the Africans, excluded, with the most virtuous resolution, the sweets, to which they had been accustomed, from their lips. By the best computation I was able to make from notes taken down in my journey, no fewer than three hundred thousand persons had abandoned the use of sugar.
The books, having been printed, were sent out before me. Of this journey, I won't give the reader any other account than that of the progress of the remedy, which the people were then taking into their own hands. First, I should note that there was no town I passed through where at least one person had stopped using sugar. In smaller towns, there were around ten to fifty, and in larger ones, from two to five hundred, who made this sacrifice for a good cause. These individuals came from all walks of life. Rich and poor, churchgoers and nonconformists, all adopted this measure. In some places, even grocers stopped selling it. In households where the head had set the example, the servants often voluntarily followed suit; and even children, who could grasp the history of the suffering of Africans, excluded— with the most virtuous determination— the sweets they were used to from their diets. By my best estimate based on notes taken during my journey, no fewer than three hundred thousand people had given up using sugar.
Having travelled over Wales, and two-thirds of England, I found it would be impossible to visit Scotland on the same errand. I had already, by moving upwards and downwards in parallel lines, and by intersecting these in the same manner, passed over six thousand miles. By the best calculation I could make, I had yet two thousand to perform. By means of almost incessant journeyings night and day, I had suffered much in my health. My strength was failing daily. I wrote, therefore, to the committee on this subject; and they communicated immediately with Dr. Dickson, who, on being applied to, visited Scotland in my stead. He consulted first with the committee at Edinburgh relative to the circulation of the Abridgment of the Evidence. He then pursued his journey, and, in conjunction with the unwearied efforts of Mr. Campbel Haliburton, rendered essential service to the cause for this part of the kingdom.
Having traveled across Wales and two-thirds of England, I realized it would be impossible to visit Scotland for the same purpose. I had already covered six thousand miles by moving up and down in parallel lines and intersecting them the same way. According to my best calculations, I still had two thousand miles to go. Due to almost nonstop traveling day and night, my health had suffered significantly. My strength was declining every day. I therefore wrote to the committee about this, and they immediately contacted Dr. Dickson, who, upon being asked, traveled to Scotland on my behalf. He first consulted with the committee in Edinburgh regarding the distribution of the Abridgment of the Evidence. He then continued his journey, and, along with the tireless efforts of Mr. Campbel Haliburton, provided crucial support for this cause in this part of the kingdom.
On my return to London, I found that the committee had taken into their own body T.F. Forster, B.M. Forster, and James West, Esqrs., as members; and that they had elected Hercules Boss, Esq., an honorary and corresponding member, in consequence of the handsome manner in which he had come forward as an evidence, and of the peculiar benefit which had resulted from his testimony to the cause.
On my return to London, I found that the committee had added T.F. Forster, B.M. Forster, and James West as members; and that they had elected Hercules Boss as an honorary and corresponding member because of the generous way he had stepped up as a witness and the unique benefits that his testimony had provided to the cause.
The effects of the two journeys by Dr. Dickson and myself were soon visible. The people could not bear the facts, which had been disclosed to them by the Abridgment of the Evidence. They were not satisfied, many of them, with the mere abstinence from sugar; but began to form committees to correspond with that of London. The first of these appeared at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, so early as the month of October. It consisted of the Rev. William Turner, as chairman, and of Robert Ormston, William Batson, Henry, Taylor, Ralph Bambridge, George Brown, Hadwen Bragg, David Sutton, Anthony Clapham, George Richardson, and Edward Prowit. It received a valuable addition afterwards by the admission of many others. The second was established at Nottingham. The Rev. Jeremiah Bigsby became the president, and the Revs. G. Walker and J. Smith, and Messrs. Dennison, Evans, Watson, Hart, Storer, Bott, Hawkesley, Pennington, Wright, Frith, Hall, and Wakefield, the committee. The third was formed at Glasgow, under the patronage of David Dale, Scott Montcrieff, Robert Graham, Professor Millar, and others. Other committees started up in their turn. At length public meetings began to take place, and after this petitions to be sent to parliament; and these so generally, that there was not a day for three months, Sundays excepted, in which five or six were not resolved upon in some places or other in the kingdom.
The impact of the two journeys by Dr. Dickson and me became clear pretty quickly. The people couldn't handle the facts revealed to them by the Abridgment of the Evidence. Many weren’t satisfied with just avoiding sugar; they started forming committees to connect with the one in London. The first of these appeared in Newcastle-upon-Tyne as early as October. It was led by Rev. William Turner as chairman and included Robert Ormston, William Batson, Henry Taylor, Ralph Bambridge, George Brown, Hadwen Bragg, David Sutton, Anthony Clapham, George Richardson, and Edward Prowit. Many others joined later on. The second committee was formed in Nottingham, with Rev. Jeremiah Bigsby as president, along with Revs. G. Walker and J. Smith, and Messrs. Dennison, Evans, Watson, Hart, Storer, Bott, Hawkesley, Pennington, Wright, Frith, Hall, and Wakefield on the committee. The third one was established in Glasgow, backed by David Dale, Scott Montcrieff, Robert Graham, Professor Millar, and others. More committees kept popping up. Eventually, public meetings started being held, leading to petitions being sent to Parliament; there was hardly a day for three months, excluding Sundays, without five or six petitions being planned somewhere in the country.
Of the enthusiasm of the nation at this time none can form an opinion but they who witnessed it. There never was perhaps a season when so much virtuous feeling pervaded all ranks. Great pains were taken by interested persons in many places to prevent public meetings. But no efforts could avail. The current ran with such strength and rapidity, that it was impossible to stem it. In the city of London a remarkable instance occurred. The livery had been long waiting for the common council to begin a petition; but the lord mayor and several of the aldermen stifled it. The former, indignant at this conduct, insisted upon a common hall. A day was appointed; and, though the notice given of it was short, the assemblage was greater than had ever been remembered on any former occasion. Scarcely a liveryman was absent, unless sick, or previously engaged. The petition, when introduced, was opposed by those who had prevented it in the common council. But their voices were drowned amidst groans and hissings. It was shortly after carried; and it had not been signed more than half an hour, before it was within the walls of the House of Commons. The reason of this extraordinary despatch was, that it had been kept back by intrigue so late, that the very hour in which it was delivered to the House, was that in which Mr. Wilberforce was to make his new motion.
Of the enthusiasm of the nation at this time, only those who witnessed it can form an opinion. There may never have been a time when such strong feelings of virtue were felt across all classes. Many interested parties tried hard in various places to stop public meetings. But no efforts succeeded. The current was so strong and swift that it was impossible to hold it back. In London, a noteworthy event took place. The livery had been waiting for the common council to start a petition, but the lord mayor and several aldermen shut it down. The former, upset by this behavior, called for a common hall. A date was set, and even though the notice was short, the turnout was larger than anyone could remember on any previous occasion. Almost every liveryman was present, unless they were sick or had prior commitments. When the petition was presented, it faced opposition from those who had blocked it in the common council. But their voices were drowned out by groans and hisses. It was quickly passed, and it had been signed for less than half an hour before it was delivered to the House of Commons. The reason for this unusual speed was that it had been held back by behind-the-scenes maneuvering until the very hour it was delivered to the House, which coincided with Mr. Wilberforce's new motion.
And as no petitions were ever more respectable than those presented on this occasion, as far as they breathed the voice of the people, and as far as they were founded on a knowledge of the object which they solicited, so none were ever more numerous, as far as we have any record of such transactions. Not fewer than three hundred and ten were presented from England; one hundred and eighty-seven from Scotland; and twenty from Wales. Two other petitions also for the abolition came from England, but they were too late for delivery. On the other side of the question, one was presented from the town of Reading for regulation, in opposition to that for abolition from the same place. There were also four against abolition. The first of these was from certain persons at Derby, in opposition to the other from that town. The second was from Stephen Fuller, Esq., as agent for Jamaica. The third from J. Dawson, Esq., a slave-merchant at Liverpool. And the fourth from the merchants, planters, mortgagees, annuitants, and others concerned in the West Indian colonies. Taking in all these statements, the account stood thus:—for regulation there was one; against all abolition there were four; and for the total abolition of the trade five hundred and nineteen.
And since no petitions have ever been more respectable than those presented on this occasion, as they truly reflected the voice of the people and were based on an understanding of the issue they were addressing, none were ever more numerous based on any records we have of such events. Not fewer than three hundred and ten petitions came from England; one hundred and eighty-seven from Scotland; and twenty from Wales. Two more petitions for abolition also came from England, but they were submitted too late to be delivered. On the opposing side, there was one petition from Reading for regulation, against the one for abolition from the same place. There were also four petitions against abolition. The first was from certain individuals in Derby, opposing the petition from that town. The second was from Stephen Fuller, Esq., representing Jamaica. The third came from J. Dawson, Esq., a slave trader in Liverpool. The fourth was from merchants, planters, mortgagees, annuitants, and others involved in the West Indian colonies. Considering all these points, the totals were as follows: one for regulation; four against abolition; and five hundred and nineteen for the complete abolition of the trade.
On the 2nd of April Mr. Wilberforce moved the order of the day; which having been agreed to, Sir William Dolben was put into the chair.
On April 2nd, Mr. Wilberforce moved the order of the day; after it was agreed upon, Sir William Dolben took the chair.
He then began by soliciting the candid attention of the West Indians to what he was going to deliver to the House. However others might have censured them indiscriminately, he had always himself made a distinction between them and their system. It was the latter only which he reprobated. If aristocracy had been thought a worse form of government than monarchy, because the people had many tyrants instead of one, how objectionable must be that form of it, which existed in our colonies! Arbitrary power could be bought there by any one, who could buy a slave. The fierceness of it was doubtless restrained by an elevation of mind in many, as arising from a consciousness of superior rank and consequence: but, alas! it was too often exercised there by the base and vulgar. The more liberal, too, of the planters were not resident upon their estates. Hence a promiscuous censure of them would be unjust, though their system would undoubtedly be odious.
He then started by asking for the full attention of the West Indians to what he was about to present to the House. While others might have criticized them without thought, he had always distinguished between them and their system. It was only the latter that he condemned. If aristocracy was considered a worse form of government than monarchy because the people had many tyrants instead of just one, how much worse must that form of it be which existed in our colonies! Arbitrary power could be purchased there by anyone who could buy a slave. The harshness of it was certainly tempered by the higher mindset of many, stemming from a sense of superior rank and importance: but, unfortunately, it was too often wielded by the lowly and base. Furthermore, the more progressive planters were not living on their estates. Therefore, a general criticism of them would be unfair, even though their system was undeniably contemptible.
As for the cure of this monstrous evil, he had shown, last year, that internal regulations would not produce it. These could have no effect, while the evidence of slaves was inadmissible. What would be the situation of the bulk of the people of this country, if only gentlemen of five hundred a-year were admitted as evidences in our courts of law? Neither was the cure of it in the emancipation of the slaves. He did not deny that he wished them this latter blessing. But, alas, in their present degraded state, they were unfit for it! Liberty was the child of reason and order. It was, indeed, a plant of celestial growth, but the soil must be prepared for its reception. He, who would see it flourish and bring forth its proper fruit, must not think it sufficient to let it shoot in unrestrained licentiousness. But if this inestimable blessing was ever to be imparted to them, the cause must be removed, which obstructed its introduction. In short, no effectual remedy could be found but in the abolition of the Slave Trade.
Regarding the solution to this monstrous evil, he had demonstrated, last year, that internal regulations wouldn’t resolve it. They would have no impact, especially since the testimonies of slaves were not allowed. What would happen to most of the people in this country if only gentlemen earning five hundred a year could testify in our courts? The solution also wasn’t in freeing the slaves. He did wish for them to have that blessing. But, unfortunately, in their current degraded state, they were not ready for it! Freedom comes from reason and order. It is, indeed, a precious thing from above, but the environment must be made ready for it. Whoever wants to see it thrive and yield its true benefits must not think it’s enough to let it grow wild and unchecked. However, if this invaluable blessing is ever to be granted to them, the obstacle preventing its arrival must be removed. In short, no effective remedy could be found except for the abolition of the Slave Trade.
He then took a copious view of the advantages, which would arise both to the master and to the slave, if this traffic were done away; and having recapitulated and answered the different objections to such a measure, he went to that part of the subject, in which he described himself to be most interested.
He then took a thorough look at the benefits that would come to both the master and the slave if this trade were eliminated; and after summarizing and addressing the various objections to such a move, he moved on to the part of the topic that he said he was most passionate about.
He had shown, he said, last year, that Africa was exposed to all the horrors of war; and that most of these wars had their origin in the Slave Trade. It was then said, in reply, that the natural barbarity of the natives was alone sufficient to render their country a scene of carnage. This was triumphantly instanced in the King of Dahomey. But his honourable friend Lord Muncaster, then in the House, had proved in his interesting publication, which had appeared since, called Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade, and of its Effects in Africa, addressed to the people of Great Britain, that the very cruelties of this king, on which so much stress had been laid, were committed by him in a war, which had been undertaken expressly to punish an adjacent people for having stolen some of his subjects and sold them for slaves.
He had shown, he said, last year, that Africa was facing all the horrors of war, and that most of these conflicts stemmed from the Slave Trade. In response, it was argued that the inherent brutality of the natives was enough to make their country a battlefield. This was dramatically illustrated by the King of Dahomey. However, his honorable friend Lord Muncaster, who was in the House at the time, proved in his compelling publication, which was released afterward, called Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade, and of its Effects in Africa, aimed at the people of Great Britain, that the very acts of cruelty committed by this king, which had been emphasized, were carried out in a war specifically launched to punish a neighboring group for kidnapping some of his subjects and selling them into slavery.
He had shown, also, last year, that kings were induced to seize and sell their subjects, and individuals each other, in consequence of the existence of the Slave Trade.
He had also demonstrated last year that kings were led to capture and sell their subjects, and individuals were doing the same to one another, due to the existence of the Slave Trade.
He had shown, also, that the administration of justice was perverted, so as to become a fertile source of supply to this inhuman traffic; that every crime was punished by slavery; that false accusations were made to procure convicts; and that even the judges had a profit on the convictions.
He had also demonstrated that the justice system was twisted, turning into a rich source for this cruel trade; that every crime was punished with slavery; that false accusations were made to get convicts; and that even the judges benefited from the convictions.
He had shown again, that many acts of violence were perpetrated by the Europeans themselves. But he would now relate others which had happened since. The captain of an English vessel, lying in the river Cameroons, sent his boat with three sailors and a slave to get water. A Black trader seized the latter, and took him away. He alleged in his defence, that the captain owed him goods to a greater amount than the value of the slave; and that he would not pay him. This being told on board, the captain, and a part of his crew, who were compelled to blacken their naked bodies that they might appear like the natives, went on shore at midnight, armed with muskets and cutlasses. They fired on the trader's dwelling, and killed three of his children on the spot. The trader, being badly wounded, died while they were dragging him to the boat; and his wife, being wounded also, died in half an hour after she was on board the ship. Resistance having been made to these violent proceedings, some of the sailors were wounded, and one was killed.
He had demonstrated again that many acts of violence were committed by the Europeans themselves. But now he would recount others that had occurred since. The captain of an English ship, anchored in the river Cameroons, sent his boat with three sailors and a slave to fetch water. A Black trader captured the slave and took him away. He claimed in his defense that the captain owed him goods worth more than the value of the slave, and that he wouldn't pay him. When this was reported on board, the captain and some of his crew, who were forced to paint their naked bodies to look like the locals, went ashore at midnight, armed with muskets and cutlasses. They fired on the trader's house and killed three of his children on the spot. The trader, who was seriously wounded, died while they were dragging him to the boat, and his wife, also injured, died half an hour after being brought on board the ship. When there was resistance to these violent actions, some of the sailors were wounded, and one was killed.
Some weeks after this affray, a chieftain of the name of Quarmo went on board the same vessel to borrow some cutlasses and muskets. He was going, he said, into the country to make war; and the captain should have half of his booty. So well understood were the practices of the trade, that his request was granted. Quarmo, however, and his associates, finding things favourable to their design, suddenly seized the captain, threw him overboard, hauled him into their canoe, and dragged him to the shore; where another party of the natives, lying in ambush, seized such of the crew as were absent from the ship. But how did these savages behave, when they had these different persons in their power? Did they not instantly retaliate by murdering them all? No—they only obliged the captain to give an order on the vessel to pay his debts. This fact came out only two: months ago in a trial in the Court of Common Pleas—not in trial for piracy and murder, but in the trial of a civil suit, instituted by some of the poor sailors, to whom the owners refused their wages, because the natives, on account of the villainous conduct of their captain, had kept them from their vessel by detaining them as prisoners on shore. This instance, he said, proved the dreadful nature of the Slave Trade, its cruelty, its perfidy, and its effect on the Africans as well as on the Europeans, who carried it on. The cool manner in which the transaction was conducted on both sides, showed that these practices were not novel. It showed also the manner of doing business in the trade. It must be remembered, too, that these transactions were carrying on at the very time when the inquiry concerning this trade was going forward in Parliament, and whilst the witnesses of his opponents were strenuously denying not only the actual, but the possible, existence of any such depredations.
Some weeks after this conflict, a chieftain named Quarmo boarded the same ship to borrow some cutlasses and muskets. He claimed he was going into the country to wage war, and the captain would receive half of the spoils. The practices of the trade were so well understood that his request was granted. However, Quarmo and his associates, seeing an opportunity, suddenly captured the captain, threw him overboard, pulled him into their canoe, and dragged him to the shore, where another group of natives, lying in wait, captured the crew members who were away from the ship. But how did these savages act when they had these different people in their power? Did they immediately respond by killing them all? No—they simply forced the captain to give an order for the ship to pay his debts. This fact only came to light two months ago during a trial in the Court of Common Pleas—not for piracy and murder, but in a civil case brought by some poor sailors, whose wages were denied by the owners because the natives, due to the captain's villainous behavior, had kept them from their ship by holding them as prisoners on shore. This case, he argued, highlighted the horrific nature of the Slave Trade, its cruelty, deceitfulness, and its impact on both Africans and Europeans involved. The calm way in which the transaction was handled by both sides showed that such practices were not new. It also revealed how business was conducted in the trade. It must also be noted that these transactions occurred at the same time inquiries into this trade were being conducted in Parliament, while the witnesses for his opponents were vigorously denying not only the actual but also the possible existence of such depredations.
But another instance happened only in August last. Six British ships, the Thomas, Captain Philips; the Wasp, Captain Hutchinson; the Recovery, Captain Kimber, of Bristol; the Martha, Captain Houston; the Betsey, Captain Doyle; and the Amachree, (he believed,) Captain Lee, of Liverpool; were anchored off the town of Calabar. This place was the scene of a dreadful massacre about twenty years before. The captains of these vessels, thinking that the natives asked too much for their slaves, held a consultation, how they should proceed; and agreed to fire upon the town unless their own terms were complied with. On a certain evening they notified their determination to the traders; and told them, that, if they continued obstinate, they would put it into execution the next morning. In this they kept their word. They brought sixty-six guns to bear upon the town; and fired on it for three hours. Not a shot was returned. A canoe then went to offer terms of accommodation. The parties however not agreeing, the firing recommenced; more damage was done; and the natives were forced into submission. There were no certain accounts of their loss. Report said that fifty were killed; but some were seen lying badly wounded, and others in the agonies of death by those who went afterwards on shore.
But another incident took place just last August. Six British ships—the Thomas, Captain Philips; the Wasp, Captain Hutchinson; the Recovery, Captain Kimber, from Bristol; the Martha, Captain Houston; the Betsey, Captain Doyle; and the Amachree, Captain Lee, from Liverpool—were anchored off the town of Calabar. This location had been the site of a horrific massacre about twenty years earlier. The captains of these ships, believing that the locals were asking too much for their slaves, held a meeting to decide their next steps and agreed to fire on the town unless their terms were met. One evening, they informed the traders of their decision, warning them that if they remained stubborn, they would carry out their threat the next morning. They followed through on their promise. They brought sixty-six guns to bear on the town and fired for three hours without any return fire. A canoe then went to negotiate terms. However, since the parties could not reach an agreement, firing resumed; more damage was inflicted, and the locals were forced to submit. There were no reliable reports of their casualties. Some said that fifty were killed, but others were seen badly wounded or dying by those who later went ashore.
He would now say a few words relative to the Middle Passage, principally to show, that regulation could not effect a cure of the evil there. Mr. Isaac Wilson had stated in his evidence, that the ship, in which he sailed, only three years ago, was of three hundred and seventy tons; and that she carried six hundred and two slaves. Of these she lost one hundred and fifty-five. There were three or four other vessels in company with her, and which belonged to the same owners. One of these carried four hundred and fifty, and buried two hundred; another carried four hundred and sixty-six, and buried seventy-three; another five hundred and forty-six, and burled one hundred and fifty-eight; and from the four together, after the landing of their cargoes, two hundred and twenty died. He fell in with another vessel, which had lost three hundred and sixty-two; but the number, which had been bought, was not specified. Now if to these actual deaths, during and immediately after the voyage, we were to add the subsequent loss in the seasoning, and to consider that this would be greater than ordinary in cargoes which were landed in such a sickly state, we should find a mortality, which, if it were only general for a few months, would entirely depopulate the globe.
He would now say a few words about the Middle Passage, mainly to show that regulation couldn't fix the problem there. Mr. Isaac Wilson had mentioned in his testimony that the ship he sailed on, just three years ago, was three hundred and seventy tons and carried six hundred and two slaves. Of those, it lost one hundred and fifty-five. There were three or four other ships traveling with her, all owned by the same people. One of those carried four hundred and fifty slaves and buried two hundred; another had four hundred and sixty-six and buried seventy-three; another had five hundred and forty-six and buried one hundred and fifty-eight. After landing their cargoes, the four ships together reported two hundred and twenty deaths. He encountered another ship that had lost three hundred and sixty-two, though the number bought wasn't mentioned. Now, if we were to add these actual deaths during and right after the voyage to the subsequent losses from seasoning, and consider that this would likely be worse for cargoes that were landed in such a sickly condition, we would find a mortality rate that, if it were just general for a few months, could completely depopulate the planet.
But he would advert to what Mr. Wilson said, when examined, as a surgeon, as to the causes of these losses, and particularly on board his own ship, where he had the means of ascertaining them. The substance of his reply was this—That most of the slaves laboured under a fixed melancholy, which now and then broke out into lamentations and plaintive songs, expressive of the loss of their relations, friends, and country. So powerfully did this sorrow operate, that many of them attempted in various ways to destroy themselves, and three actually effected it. Others obstinately refused to take sustenance; and when the whip and other violent means were used to compel them to eat, they looked up in the face of the officer, who unwillingly executed this painful task, and said, with a smile, in their own language, "Presently we shall be no more." This, their unhappy state of mind, produced a general languor and debility, which were increased in many instances by an unconquerable aversion to food, arising partly from sickness, and partly, to use the language of the slave-captains, from sulkiness. These causes naturally produced the flux. The contagion spread; several were carried off daily; and the disorder, aided by so many powerful auxiliaries, resisted the power of medicine. And it is worth while to remark, that these grievous sufferings were not owing either to want of care on the part of the owners, or to any negligence or harshness of the captain; for Mr. Wilson declared, that his ship was as well fitted out, and the crew and slaves as well treated, as anybody could reasonably expect.
But he would refer to what Mr. Wilson said during his examination as a surgeon about the reasons for these losses, especially on his own ship, where he could verify them. The essence of his response was this—Most of the slaves suffered from a deep sadness that occasionally resulted in cries and mournful songs, expressing their grief for lost family, friends, and homeland. This sorrow was so intense that many of them tried to take their own lives, and three succeeded. Others stubbornly refused to eat; and when the whip and other harsh measures were used to force them to consume food, they would look up at the officer, who reluctantly carried out this painful duty, and say, with a smile in their own language, "Soon we shall be no more." This tragic state of mind led to a general weakness and fatigue, which in many cases was worsened by a strong dislike of food, stemming partly from illness and partly, to use the terms of the slave captains, from sulkiness. These factors naturally led to diarrhea. The illness spread; several died each day; and the condition, fueled by so many powerful contributing factors, resisted medical treatment. It is also important to note that these severe sufferings were not due to a lack of care from the owners or any negligence or harshness from the captain; Mr. Wilson stated that his ship was well-equipped, and the crew and slaves were treated as well as anyone could reasonably expect.
He would now go to another ship. That, in which Mr. Claxton sailed as a surgeon, afforded a repetition of all the horrid circumstances which had been described. Suicide was attempted, and effected; and the same barbarous expedients were adopted to compel the slaves to continue an existence, which they considered as too painful to be endured. The mortality, also, was as great. And yet here, again, the captain was in no wise to blame. But this vessel had sailed since the regulating act. Nay, even in the last year, the deaths on shipboard would be found to have been between ten and eleven per cent, on the whole number exported. In truth, the House could not reach the cause of this mortality by all their regulations. Until they could cure a broken heart—until they could legislate for the affections, and bind by their statutes the passions and feelings of the mind, their labour would be in vain.
He would now move to another ship. This one, where Mr. Claxton worked as a surgeon, brought back all the horrific circumstances that had been described. There were attempts and actual cases of suicide, and the same brutal methods were used to force the slaves to endure a life they deemed too painful to bear. The death rate was just as high. Yet again, the captain was not to blame. But this ship had sailed after the regulating act. In fact, even in the last year, the deaths on board were found to be between ten and eleven percent of the total number exported. The truth is, the House couldn’t identify the cause of this mortality despite all their regulations. Until they could mend a broken heart—until they could legislate emotions and control the passions and feelings of the mind, their efforts would be futile.
Such were the evils of the Passage. But evils were conspicuous everywhere in this trade. Never was there, indeed, a system so replete with wickedness and cruelty. To whatever part of it we turned our eyes, whether to Africa, the Middle Passage, or the West Indies, we could find no comfort, no satisfaction, no relief. It was the gracious ordinance of Providence, both in the natural and moral world, that good should often arise out of evil. Hurricanes cleared the air; and the propagation of truth was promoted by persecution, Pride, vanity, and profusion contributed often; in their remoter consequences, to the happiness of mankind. In common, what was in itself evil and vicious, was permitted to carry along with it some circumstances of palliation. The Arab was hospitable; the robber brave. We did not necessarily find cruelty associated with fraud, or meanness with injustice. But here the case was far otherwise. It was the prerogative of this detested traffic to separate from evil its concomitant good, and to reconcile discordant mischiefs. It robbed war of its generosity; it deprived peace of its security: we saw in it the vices of polished society, without its knowledge or its comforts; and the evils of barbarism without its simplicity. No age, no sex, no rank, no condition, was exempt from the fatal influence of this wide-wasting calamity. Thus it attained to the fullest measure of pure, unmixed, unsophisticated wickedness; and, scorning all competition and comparison, it stood without a rival in the secure, undisputed, possession of its detestable preeminence.
Such were the horrors of the Passage. But horrors were evident everywhere in this trade. There was never a system as filled with wickedness and cruelty. No matter where we looked, whether it was Africa, the Middle Passage, or the West Indies, we found no comfort, no satisfaction, no relief. It was a divine principle that good should often come out of evil, both in nature and morality. Hurricanes cleared the air, and the spread of truth was often aided by persecution. Pride, vanity, and excess sometimes contributed, in their distant impacts, to the happiness of humanity. Generally, what was inherently evil and immoral had certain circumstances that softened its effects. Arabs were hospitable; robbers were brave. We didn’t always see cruelty linked with deceit, or stinginess with injustice. But here, the situation was quite different. This loathed trade had the power to separate good from evil and to merge conflicting harms. It stripped war of its nobility; it took away the security of peace. We witnessed in it the vices of civilized society, lacking its knowledge or comforts, and the evils of savagery without its simplicity. No era, no gender, no social status, no condition was safe from the destructive impact of this widespread disaster. Thus, it reached the pinnacle of pure, unblemished, and uncomplicated wickedness; and, disregarding all competition and comparison, it stood unrivaled in its notorious superiority.
But, after all this, wonderful to relate, this execrable traffic had been defended on the ground of benevolence! It had been said, that the slaves were captives and convicts, who, if we were not to carry them away, would be sacrificed, and many of them at the funerals of people of rank, according to the savage custom of Africa. He had shown, however, that our supplies of slaves were obtained from other quarters than these. But he would wave this consideration for the present. Had it not been acknowledged by his opponents that the custom of ransoming slaves prevailed in Africa? With respect to human sacrifices, he did not deny that there might have been some instances of these; but they had not been proved to be more frequent than amongst other barbarous nations; and, where they existed, being acts of religion, they would not be dispensed with for the sake of commercial gain. In fact, they had nothing to do with the Slave Trade; only perhaps, if it were abolished, they might, by means of the civilization which would follow, be done away.
But, after all this, it's amazing to say that this terrible practice had been justified on the basis of kindness! It was claimed that the slaves were captives and criminals who, if we didn't take them away, would be sacrificed, and many of them at the funerals of high-ranking individuals, according to the brutal customs of Africa. However, he pointed out that our sources of slaves came from other places than these. But he would set that aside for now. Hadn't his opponents admitted that the practice of ransoming slaves was common in Africa? As for human sacrifices, he didn't deny that there might have been some cases of these; however, they hadn't been shown to be more common than in other savage nations, and where they did exist, being acts of religion, they wouldn't be eliminated just for the sake of profit. In fact, they had nothing to do with the Slave Trade; perhaps, if it were abolished, they could be eliminated through the civilization that would follow.
But, exclusively of these sacrifices, it had been asserted, that it was kindness to the inhabitants to take them away from their own country. But what said the historians of Africa, long before the question of the abolition was started? "Axim," says Bosman, "is cultivated, and abounds with numerous large and beautiful villages: its inhabitants are industriously employed in trade, fishing, or agriculture."—"The inhabitants of Adom always expose large quantities of corn to sale, besides what they want for their own use."—"The people of Acron husband their grounds and time so well, that every year produces a plentiful harvest." Speaking of the Fetu country, he says,—"Frequently, when walking through it, I have seen it abound with fine well-built and populous towns, agreeably enriched with vast quantities of corn and cattle, palm-wine, and oil. The inhabitants all apply themselves, without distinction, to agriculture; some sow corn; others press oil, and draw wine from the palm-trees."
But aside from these sacrifices, it was claimed that it was kind to take the local people away from their own country. But what did the historians of Africa say long before the issue of abolition came up? "Axim," Bosman writes, "is cultivated and has numerous large and beautiful villages: its inhabitants are busy with trade, fishing, or farming."—"The people of Adom always have large amounts of corn for sale, in addition to what they need for themselves."—"The people of Acron manage their land and time so well that every year brings a plentiful harvest." Speaking about the Fetu country, he notes, "Often, when walking through it, I've seen it filled with well-built and populated towns, pleasantly enriched with vast amounts of corn and cattle, palm wine, and oil. The inhabitants all dedicate themselves, without distinction, to farming; some grow corn, others press oil, and extract wine from the palm trees."
Smith, who was sent out by the royal African company in 1726, assures us, "that the discerning natives account it their greatest unhappiness, that they were ever visited by the Europeans. They say that we Christians introduced the traffic of slaves; and that before our coming they lived in peace. But, say they, it is observable, wherever Christianity comes, there come swords and guns, and powder and ball, with it."
Smith, who was dispatched by the Royal African Company in 1726, tells us, "the perceptive locals consider it their biggest misfortune that they were ever visited by Europeans. They claim that we Christians brought the slave trade; and that before we arrived, they lived in peace. However, they point out that wherever Christianity appears, swords and guns, along with gunpowder and bullets, come with it."
"The Europeans," says Bruce, "are far from desiring to act as peace-makers among them. It would be too contrary to their interests; for the only object of their wars is to carry off slaves; and, as these form the principal part of their traffic, they would be apprehensive of drying up the source of it, were they to encourage the people to live well together."
"The Europeans," Bruce says, "have no interest in being peace-makers among them. That would go against their interests; the main goal of their wars is to capture slaves, and since slaves are the core of their trade, they would worry about cutting off that supply if they encouraged people to get along."
"The neighbourhood of the Damel and Tin keep them perpetually at war, the benefit of which accrues to the Company, who buy all the prisoners made on either side; and the more there are to sell, the greater is their profit; for the only end of their armaments is to make captives, to sell them to the white traders."
"The area around the Damel and Tin keeps them constantly at war, which benefits the Company, who buys all the prisoners taken on both sides; the more prisoners there are to sell, the higher their profit, because the sole purpose of their weapons is to capture people to sell to the white traders."
Artus, of Dantzic, says, that in his time "those liable to pay fines were banished till the fine was paid; when they returned to their houses and possessions."
Artus, from Dantzic, states that in his time "those who needed to pay fines were banished until the fine was settled; when they came back to their homes and belongings."
Bosman affirms, "that formerly all crimes in Africa were compensated by fine or restitution, and, where restitution was impracticable, by corporal punishment."
Bosman states, "that in the past, all crimes in Africa were compensated by fines or restitution, and when restitution wasn't possible, by physical punishment."
Moore says, "Since this trade has been used, all punishments have been changed into slavery. There being an advantage in such condemnation, they strain the crimes very hard, in order to get the benefit of selling the criminal. Not only murder, theft, and adultery, are punished by selling the criminal for a slave, but every trifling crime is punished in the same manner."
Moore says, "Since this trade has been established, all punishments have turned into slavery. Because there’s a profit in such condemnation, they stretch the definition of crimes to the limit to benefit from selling the offender. Not just murder, theft, and adultery are punished by selling the criminal into slavery; even the slightest offenses are treated the same way."
Loyer affirms that "the King of Sain, on the least pretence, sells his subjects for European goods. He is so tyrannically severe, that he makes a whole village responsible for the fault of one inhabitant; and on the least offence sells them all for slaves."
Loyer states that "the King of Sain, over the smallest excuse, sells his people for European goods. He is so harshly oppressive that he holds an entire village accountable for the actions of one person; and for the slightest offense, he sells them all into slavery."
Such, he said, were the testimonies, not of persons whom he had summoned; not of friends of the abolition; but of men who were themselves, many of them, engaged in the Slave Trade. Other testimonies might be added; but these were sufficient to refute the assertions of his opponents, and to show the kind services we had done to Africa by the introduction of this trade.
Such, he said, were the testimonies, not from people he had called; not from supporters of abolition; but from men who were themselves, many of them, involved in the Slave Trade. Other testimonies could be added; but these were enough to disprove the claims of his opponents and to demonstrate the positive contributions we had made to Africa through the introduction of this trade.
He would just touch upon the argument, so often repeated, that other nations would carry on the Slave Trade, if we abandoned it. But how did we know this? Had not Denmark given a noble example to the contrary? She had consented to abolish the trade in ten years; and had she not done this, even though we, after an investigation for nearly five years, had ourselves hung back? But what might not be expected, if we were to take up the cause in earnest; if we were to proclaim to all nations the injustice of the trade, and to solicit their concurrence in the abolition of it! He hoped the representatives of the nation would not be less just than the people. The latter had stepped forward, and expressed their sense more generally by petitions, than in any instance in which they had ever before interfered. To see this great cause thus triumphing over distinctions and prejudices was a noble spectacle. Whatever might be said of our political divisions, such a sight had taught us that there were subjects still beyond the reach of party; that there was a point of elevation, where we ascended above the jarring of the discordant elements, which ruffled and agitated the vale below. In our ordinary atmosphere clouds and vapours obscured the air, and we were the sport of a thousand conflicting winds and adverse currents; but here we moved in a higher region, where all was pure and clear, and free from perturbation and discomposure:
He would briefly touch on the argument, often repeated, that other countries would continue the Slave Trade if we stopped it. But how do we know this? Didn’t Denmark set a great example to the contrary? They agreed to abolish the trade in ten years; and had they not done this, even though we had hesitated after nearly five years of investigation? But what could we expect if we took this cause seriously; if we publicly declared the injustice of the trade and sought the agreement of other nations to abolish it? He hoped the nation's representatives wouldn’t be less fair than the people. The latter had stepped up and shared their views more broadly through petitions than in any previous instance of interference. Watching this significant cause overcome distinctions and prejudices was an inspiring sight. Regardless of our political differences, this scene showed us that there are issues still beyond party lines; that there’s a higher ground where we rise above the conflicts and disagreements that agitate the valley below. In our usual environment, clouds and fog obscured the air, and we were at the mercy of countless opposing winds and currents; but here we operated in a higher realm, where everything was clear and pure, free from disturbance and turmoil.
Swells from the vale, and midway leaves the storm;
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread,
Eternal sunshine settles on its head.
Here then, on this august eminence, he hoped we should build the Temple of Benevolence; that we should lay its foundation deep in Truth and Justice; and that we should inscribe upon its gates, "Peace and Good Will to Men." Here we should offer the first-fruits of our benevolence, and endeavour to compensate, if possible, for the injuries we had brought upon our fellow-men.
Here, on this important height, he hoped we would build the Temple of Kindness; that we would lay its foundation deep in Truth and Justice; and that we would write on its gates, "Peace and Good Will to Everyone." Here, we would offer the first fruits of our kindness, and try to make up, if we could, for the harms we had caused to our fellow humans.
He would only now observe, that his conviction of the indispensable necessity of immediately abolishing this trade remained as strong as ever. Let those who talked of allowing three or four years to the continuance of it, reflect on the disgraceful scenes which had passed last year. As for himself, he would wash his hands of the blood which would be spilled in this horrid interval. He could not, however, but believe, that the hour was come, when we should put a final period to the existence of this cruel traffic. Should he unhappily be mistaken, he would never desert the cause; but to the last moment of his life he would exert his utmost powers in its support. He would now move, "That it is the opinion of this committee, that the trade carried on by British subjects for the purpose of obtaining slaves on the coast of Africa, ought to be abolished."
He would now only point out that his belief in the urgent need to immediately end this trade was as strong as ever. Those who suggested allowing three or four more years for it to continue should think about the disgraceful events that took place last year. As for him, he would distance himself from the blood that would be shed during this terrible time. However, he firmly believed that the moment had come to put an end to this cruel trade. If he were unfortunately wrong, he would never abandon the cause; until the last moment of his life, he would do everything he could to support it. He would now propose, "That it is the opinion of this committee that the trade conducted by British subjects for the purpose of obtaining slaves on the coast of Africa should be abolished."
Mr. Baillie was in hopes that the friends of the abolition would have been contented with the innocent blood which had been already shed. The great island of St. Domingo had been torn to pieces by insurrections. The most dreadful barbarities had been perpetrated there. In the year 1789, the imports into it exceeded five millions sterling. The exports from it in the same year amounted to six millions; and the trade employed three hundred thousand tons of shipping, and thirty thousand seamen. This fine island, thus advantageously situated, had been lost in consequence of the agitation of the question of the Slave Trade. Surely so much mischief ought to have satisfied those who supported it; but they required the total destruction of all the West Indian colonies, belonging to Great Britain, to complete the ruin.
Mr. Baillie hoped that the abolition supporters would have been satisfied with the innocent lives that had already been lost. The large island of Saint-Domingue had been torn apart by uprisings. Horrific acts of violence had taken place there. In 1789, its imports exceeded five million pounds. The exports that same year amounted to six million, and the trade involved three hundred thousand tons of shipping and thirty thousand sailors. This beautiful island, so well-situated, had been lost because of the turmoil surrounding the Slave Trade issue. Surely, all this damage should have been enough for those in favor of it, but they demanded the complete destruction of all of Great Britain's West Indian colonies to finish the devastation.
The honourable gentleman, who had just spoken, had dwelt upon the enormities of the Slave Trade. He was far from denying that many acts of inhumanity might accompany it; but as human nature was much the same everywhere, it would be unreasonable to expect among African traders, or the inhabitants of our islands, a degree of perfection in morals, which was not to be found in Great Britain itself. Would any man estimate the character of the English nation by what was to be read in the records of the Old Bailey? He himself, however, had lived sixteen years in the West Indies, and he could bear testimony to the general good usage of the slaves.
The honorable gentleman who just spoke focused on the horrors of the Slave Trade. He didn't deny that many acts of cruelty could come with it; however, since human nature is pretty much the same everywhere, it wouldn't be fair to expect a level of moral perfection from African traders or the inhabitants of our islands that doesn't even exist in Great Britain itself. Would anyone judge the character of the English nation based on the records from the Old Bailey? Nonetheless, he had lived for sixteen years in the West Indies and could vouch for the generally good treatment of the slaves.
Before the agitation of this impolitic question the slaves were contented with their situation. There was a mutual confidence between them and their masters: and this continued to be the case till the new doctrines were broached. But now depots of arms were necessary on every estate; and the scene was totally reversed. Nor was their religious then inferior to their civil state. When the English took possession of Grenada, where his property lay, they found them baptized and instructed in the principles of the Roman Catholic faith. The priests of that persuasion had indeed been indefatigable in their vocation; so that imported Africans generally obtained within twelve months a tolerable idea of their religious duties. He had seen the slaves there go through the public mass in a manner, and with a fervency, which would have done credit to more civilized societies. But the case was now altered; for, except where the Moravians had been, there was no trace in our islands of an attention to their religious interests.
Before the unrest caused by this misguided question, the slaves were satisfied with their situation. There was a mutual trust between them and their masters, and this continued until the new ideas emerged. But now, weapons depots were necessary on every estate, and the situation completely changed. Their religious condition was not inferior to their civil state. When the English took control of Grenada, where his property was located, they found the slaves baptized and taught the principles of the Roman Catholic faith. The priests of that faith had indeed been tireless in their efforts, so that imported Africans generally gained a decent understanding of their religious duties within a year. He had witnessed the slaves there participate in public mass in a way and with a passion that would have been admirable in more civilized societies. But now, things had changed; except where the Moravians had been, there was no sign of attention to their religious interests in our islands.
It had been said that their punishments were severe. There might be instances of cruelty; but these were not general. Many of them were undoubtedly ill disposed; though not more, according to their number, on a plantation, than in a regiment, or in a ship's crew. Had we never heard of seamen being flogged from ship to ship, or of soldiers dying in the very act of punishment? Had we not also heard, even in this country of boasted liberty, of seamen being seized, and carried away, when returning from distant voyages, after an absence of many years; and this without even being allowed to see their wives and families? As to distressed objects, he maintained, that there was more wretchedness and poverty in St. Giles's, than in all the West Indian islands belonging to Great Britain.
It was said that their punishments were harsh. There might be cases of cruelty, but those weren't common. Many of them were certainly unfriendly; however, they were no more so in a plantation than in a military unit or on a ship's crew. Had we never heard of sailors being whipped from ship to ship, or of soldiers dying while being punished? Had we also not heard, even in this country that prides itself on freedom, of sailors being captured and taken away after returning from far-off journeys, sometimes after many years, without even being allowed to see their wives and families? As for those suffering, he claimed there was more misery and poverty in St. Giles's than in all the British West Indian islands combined.
He would now speak of the African and West Indian trades. The imports and exports of these amounted to upwards of ten millions annually; and they gave employment to three hundred thousand tons of shipping, and to about twenty-five thousand seamen. These trades had been sanctioned by our ancestors in parliament. The acts for this purpose might be classed under three heads. First, they were such as declared the colonies, and the trade thereof, advantageous to Great Britain, and therefore entitled to her protection. Secondly, such as authorized, protected, and encouraged the trade to Africa, as advantageous in itself, and necessary to the welfare and existence of the sugar colonies: and, Thirdly, such as promoted and secured loans of money to the proprietors of the said colonies, either from British subjects, or from foreigners. These actsA, he apprehended, ought to satisfy every person of the legality and usefulness of these trades. They were enacted in reigns distinguished for the production of great and enlightened characters. We heard then of no wild and destructive doctrines like the present. These were reserved for this age of novelty and innovation. But he must remind the House, that the inhabitants of our islands had as good a right to the protection of their property, as the inhabitants of Great Britain. Nor could it be diminished in any shape without full compensation. The proprietors of lands in the ceded islands, which were purchased of government under specific conditions of settlement, ought to be indemnified. They also (of whom he was one), who had purchased the territory granted by the crown to General Monkton, in the island, of St. Vincent, ought to be indemnified also. The sale of this had gone on briskly, till it was known that a plan was in agitation for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Since that period, the original purchasers had done little or nothing, and they had many hundred acres on hand, which would be of no value, if the present question was carried. In fact, they had a right to compensation. The planters generally spent their estates in this country. They generally educated their children in it. They had never been found seditious, or rebellious; and they demanded of the Parliament of Great Britain that protection, which, upon the principles of good faith, it was in duty bound to afford them in common with the rest of his majesty's loyal subjects.
He would now talk about the trades involving Africa and the West Indies. The imports and exports from these trades amounted to over ten million annually, employing three hundred thousand tons of shipping and about twenty-five thousand sailors. Our ancestors in Parliament had approved these trades. The laws about this could be categorized into three groups. First, there were those that declared the colonies and their trade beneficial to Great Britain and therefore deserving of her protection. Second, there were those that authorized, protected, and encouraged trade to Africa, as it was beneficial in itself and essential for the well-being and survival of the sugar colonies. Third, there were laws that promoted and ensured loans to the proprietors of these colonies, from either British citizens or foreigners. These actsA, he believed, should reassure everyone of the legality and value of these trades. They were enacted during times noted for producing great and enlightened individuals. There were no wild and destructive ideas like those we hear today; those were saved for this era of change and progress. However, he must remind the House that the people living on our islands had an equal right to protect their property, just like the people in Great Britain. Their rights couldn’t be diminished in any way without full compensation. The landowners in the ceded islands, who had purchased their land from the government under specified conditions, should be compensated. He, among others, who had bought land granted by the crown to General Monkton on the island of St. Vincent, should also be compensated. The sale of this land had been going well until news spread about a plan to abolish the Slave Trade. Since then, the original buyers had done little to nothing, and they still had many hundreds of acres that would be worthless if the current issue went through. In fact, they had a right to compensation. The planters typically invested their wealth in this country and educated their children here. They had never shown signs of sedition or rebellion; and they were asking the Parliament of Great Britain for the protection which, by principles of good faith, it was obliged to provide, just like it does for all of his Majesty's loyal subjects.
Mr. Vaughan stated that, being a West Indian by birth, and connected with the islands, he could speak from his own knowledge. In the early part of his life he was strongly in favour of the abolition of the Slave Trade. He had been educated by Dr. Priestley, and the father of Mrs. Barbauld; who were both of them friends to that question. Their sentiments he had imbibed; but, although bred at the feet of Gamaliel, he resolved to judge for himself, and he left England for Jamaica.
Mr. Vaughan said that, being born in the West Indies and connected to the islands, he could speak from his own experience. Early in his life, he strongly supported the abolition of the Slave Trade. He had been educated by Dr. Priestley and Mrs. Barbauld's father, both of whom were advocates for that cause. He had absorbed their views; however, even though he was educated by great minds, he decided to think for himself, and he left England for Jamaica.
He found the situation of the slaves much better than he had imagined. Setting aside liberty, they were as well off as the poor in Europe. They had little want of clothes or fuel; they had a house and garden found them, were never imprisoned for debts, nor deterred from marrying through fear of being unable to support a family; their orphans and widows were taken care of, as they themselves were when old and disabled; they had medical attendance without expense; they had private property, which no master ever took from them; and they were resigned to their situation, and looked for nothing beyond it. Perhaps persons might have been prejudiced by living in the towns, to which slaves were often sent for punishment; and where there were many small proprietors; or by seeing no negro otherwise than as belonging to the labouring poor; but they appeared to him to want nothing but liberty; and it was only occasionally that they were abused.
He found the situation of the slaves much better than he had imagined. Setting aside freedom, they were as well off as the poor in Europe. They had little need for clothes or fuel; they had a house and garden provided for them, were never imprisoned for debt, nor held back from marrying out of fear of not being able to support a family; their orphans and widows were cared for, just as they were when old and disabled; they received medical care at no cost; they owned personal property, which no master ever took away from them; and they accepted their situation, looking for nothing more. Some people might have been biased by living in towns, where slaves were often sent for punishment; or by seeing black individuals only as part of the laboring poor; but to him, they seemed to want nothing but freedom, and it was only occasionally that they were mistreated.
There were two prejudices with respect to the colonies, which he would notice. The first was, that cruel usage occasioned the inequality of births and deaths among the slaves. But did cruelty cause the excess of deaths above births in the city of London? No—this excess had other causes. So it had among the slaves. Of these more males were imported than females: they were dissolute too in their morals; they had also diseases peculiar to themselves. But in those islands where they nearly kept up their numbers, there was this difficulty, that the equality was preserved by the increase on one estate compensating for the decrease on another. These estates, however, would not interchange their numbers; whereas, where freedom prevailed, the free labourers circulated from one employer to another, and appeared wherever they were wanted.
There were two biases regarding the colonies that he wanted to point out. The first was that mistreatment was the reason for the imbalance of births and deaths among the slaves. But did mistreatment cause the higher number of deaths compared to births in the city of London? No—this difference had other reasons. The same applies to the slaves. More males were imported than females; they also had loose morals and unique diseases. In those islands where they managed to maintain their population numbers, there was the issue that the balance was kept because the increase on one estate made up for the decrease on another. However, these estates wouldn’t share their numbers; meanwhile, in places where freedom existed, free workers moved from one employer to another and showed up wherever they were needed.
The second was, that all chastisement of the slaves was cruelty. But this was not true. Their owners generally withdrew them from public justice; so that they, who would have been publicly executed elsewhere, were often kept alive by their masters, and were found punished again and again for repeating their faults. Distributive justice occasioned many punishments; as one slave was to be protected against every other slave: and, when one pilfered from another, then the master interfered. These punishments were to be distinguished from such as arose from enforcing labour, or from the cruelty of their owners. Indeed he had gone over the islands, and he had seen but little ill usage. He had seen none on the estate where he resided. The whip, the stocks, and confinement, were all the modes of punishment he had observed in other places. Some slaves belonging to his father were peculiarly well off. They saved money, and spent it in their own way.
The second point was that any punishment of slaves was considered cruelty. But that wasn't true. Their owners usually kept them out of the public justice system, so those who would have been executed elsewhere were often kept alive by their masters and punished repeatedly for the same mistakes. Fair justice led to many punishments, as one slave needed to be protected from another: when one stole from another, the master would step in. These punishments were different from those that came from enforcing labor or the cruelty of their owners. In fact, he had traveled across the islands and saw very little mistreatment. He hadn’t seen any on the estate where he lived. The whip, stocks, and confinement were the only forms of punishment he noticed in other places. Some of the slaves belonging to his father were especially fortunate. They were able to save money and spend it however they liked.
But notwithstanding all he had said, he allowed that there was room for improvement; and particularly for instilling into the slaves the principles of religion. Where this should be realized, there would be less punishment, more work, more marriages, more issue, and more attachment to masters. Other improvements would be the establishment of medical societies; the introduction of task-work; and grants of premiums and honorary distinctions both to fathers and mothers, according to the number of children which they should rear. Besides this, Negro evidence should be allowed in the courts of law, it being left to the discretion of the court or jury to take or reject it, according to the nature of the case. Cruel masters also should be kept in order in various ways. They should he liable to have their slaves taken from them, and put in trust. Every instrument of punishment should be banished, except the whip. The number of lashes should be limited; and the punishment should not be repeated till after intervals. These and other improvements should be immediately adopted by the planters. The character of the exemplary among them was hurt by being confounded with that of lower and baser men. He concluded by stating, that the owners of slaves were entitled to compensation, if, by means of the abolition, they should not be able to find labourers for the cultivation of their landsA.
But despite everything he had said, he acknowledged that there was room for improvement; specifically, for teaching the slaves the principles of religion. Where this was achieved, there would be fewer punishments, more work, more marriages, more children, and a stronger bond with their masters. Other improvements would include forming medical societies, implementing task work, and offering rewards and honors to parents based on the number of children they raised. Additionally, Black testimony should be permitted in courts, with the court or jury deciding whether to accept or reject it based on the case's nature. Cruel masters should be kept in check in various ways. They should be at risk of having their slaves taken from them and put in trust. All forms of punishment should be prohibited except for whipping. The number of lashes should be limited, and punishments should not be repeated until after some time has passed. These and other improvements should be implemented by the planters immediately. The reputation of the exemplary among them was damaged by being mixed up with that of lesser men. He ended by stating that slave owners deserved compensation if, due to abolition, they could not find laborers to cultivate their landsA.
A: Mr. Vaughan declared in a future stage of the debate, that he wished to see a prudent termination both of the Slave Trade and of slavery; and that, though he was the eldest son of his father, he never would, on any consideration, become the owner of a slave.
A: Mr. Vaughan stated in a later part of the discussion that he wanted to see a sensible end to both the Slave Trade and slavery; and that, even though he was his father's eldest son, he would never, under any circumstances, become the owner of a slave.
Mr. Henry Thornton conceived, that the two last speakers had not spoken to the point. The first had described the happy state of the slaves in the West Indies. The latter had made similar representations; but yet had allowed, that much improvement might be made in their condition. But this had nothing to do with the question then before them. The manner of procuring slaves in Africa was the great evil to be remedied. Africa was to be stripped of its inhabitants to supply a population for the West Indies. There was a Dutch proverb, which said, "My son; get money, honestly if you can—but get money:" or, in other words, "Get slaves, honestly if you can—but get slaves." This was the real grievance; and the two honourable gentlemen, by confining their observations to the West Indies, had entirely overlooked it.
Mr. Henry Thornton believed that the last two speakers missed the point. The first one talked about how well-off the slaves were in the West Indies. The other speaker made similar claims but noted that there was still a lot of room for improvement in their situation. However, that wasn’t the issue at hand. The main problem was how slaves were obtained in Africa, which needed to be addressed. Africa was being stripped of its people to provide a workforce for the West Indies. There’s a Dutch saying: "My son, earn money honestly if you can—but earn money." Or, put another way, "Acquire slaves honestly if you can—but acquire slaves." This was the real concern, and by focusing only on the West Indies, the two gentlemen completely missed it.
Though this evil had been fully proved, he could not avoid stating to the House some new facts, which had come to his knowledge as a director of the Sierra Leone Company, and which would still further establish it. The consideration, that they had taken place since the discussion of the last year on this subject, obliged him to relate them.
Though this wrongdoing had been clearly proven, he felt it necessary to inform the House about some new facts he had learned as a director of the Sierra Leone Company, which would further support the case. The fact that these events occurred after last year's discussion on the topic compelled him to share them.
Mr. Falconbridge, agent to the Company, sitting one evening in Sierra Leone, heard a shout, and immediately afterwards the report of a gun. Fearing an attack, he armed forty of the settlers, and rushed with them to the place from whence the noise came. He found a poor wretch, who had been crossing from a neighbouring village, in the possession of a party of kidnappers, who were tying his hands. Mr. Falconbridge, however, dared not rescue him, lest, in the defenceless state of his own town, retaliation might be made upon him.
Mr. Falconbridge, an agent for the Company, was sitting one evening in Sierra Leone when he heard a shout, followed by the sound of a gunshot. Worried about an attack, he quickly armed forty settlers and rushed with them to where the noise had come from. He discovered a poor man, who had been crossing from a nearby village, being captured by a group of kidnappers who were tying his hands. However, Mr. Falconbridge didn’t dare to rescue him, fearing that his own defenseless town might face retaliation.
At another time a young woman, living half a mile off, was sold, without any criminal charge, to one of the slave-ships. She was well acquainted with the agent's wife, and had been with her only the day before. Her cries were heard; but it was impossible to relieve her.
At another time, a young woman who lived half a mile away was sold, without any criminal charge, to one of the slave ships. She was familiar with the agent's wife and had just been with her the day before. Her cries were heard, but it was impossible to save her.
At another time a young lad, one of the free settlers who went from England, was caught by a neighbouring chief, as he was straggling alone from home, and sold for a slave. The pretext was, that some one in the town of Sierra Leone had committed an offence. Hence the first person belonging to it, who could be seized, was to be punished. Happily the free settlers saw him in his chains; and they recovered him, before he was conveyed to the ship.
At another time, a young boy, one of the free settlers who came from England, was captured by a nearby chief while wandering alone away from home and was sold into slavery. The reason given was that someone in the town of Sierra Leone had committed a crime. Therefore, the first person from that town who could be caught was to be punished. Fortunately, the free settlers saw him in chains and rescued him before he was taken to the ship.
To mark still more forcibly the scenes of misery, to which the Slave Trade gave birth, he would mention a case stated to him in a letter by King Naimbanna. It had happened to respectable person, in no less than three instances, to have some branches of his family kidnapped, and carried off to the West Indies. At one time three young men, Corpro, Banna, and Marbrour, were decoyed on board a Danish slave-ship, under pretence of buying something, and were taken away. At another time another relation piloted a vessel down the river. He begged to be put on shore, when he came opposite to his own town; but he was pressed to pilot her to the river's mouth. The captain then pleaded the impracticability of putting him on shore; carried him to Jamaica; and sold him for a slave. Fortunately, however, by means of a letter, which was conveyed there, the man, by the assistance of the governor, was sent back to Sierra Leone. At another time another relation was also kidnapped. But he had not the good fortune, like the former, to return.
To highlight even more the scenes of misery caused by the Slave Trade, he would reference a case shared with him in a letter from King Naimbanna. A respected person experienced this tragedy in his family three times, with some of his relatives kidnapped and taken to the West Indies. At one point, three young men, Corpro, Banna, and Marbrour, were lured onto a Danish slave ship under the guise of making a purchase and were then taken away. On another occasion, one of his relatives was piloting a vessel down the river. He requested to be put on shore when they reached his town, but he was urged to continue piloting to the river's mouth. The captain then argued that it was impossible to let him off, took him to Jamaica, and sold him as a slave. Fortunately, thanks to a letter that was sent there, the man was assisted by the governor and returned to Sierra Leone. Another relative was also kidnapped later, but unlike the first, he did not have the luck to come back.
He would mention one other instance. A son had sold his own father, for whom he obtained a considerable price: for, as the father was rich in domestic slaves, it was not doubted that he would offer largely for his ransom. The old man accordingly gave twenty-two of these in exchange for himself. The rest, however, being from that time filled with apprehensions of being on some ground or other sold to the slave-ships, fled to the mountains of Sierra Leone, where they now dragged on a miserable existence. The son himself was sold, in his turn, soon after. In short, the whole of that unhappy peninsula, as he learnt from eye-witnesses, had been desolated by the trade in slaves. Towns were seen standing without inhabitants all over the coast; in several of which the agent of the Company had been. There was nothing but distrust among the inhabitants. Every one, if he stirred from home, felt himself obliged to be armed.
He would mention one more instance. A son sold his own father, getting a good price for him since the father was wealthy in household slaves, and it was expected that he would pay a lot for his freedom. The old man ended up giving twenty-two slaves in exchange for himself. However, the rest of the slaves, filled with fears of being sold to the slave ships, ran away to the mountains of Sierra Leone, where they now live a miserable life. The son himself was sold soon after. In short, the entire unfortunate peninsula, as he learned from eyewitnesses, had been devastated by the slave trade. Towns were found abandoned along the coast, many of which the Company agent had visited. There was nothing but distrust among the people. Everyone felt they had to be armed whenever they left home.
Such was the nature of the Slave Trade. It had unfortunately obtained the name of a trade; and many had been deceived by the appellation; but it was war, and not trade. It was a mass of crimes, and not commerce. It was that which prevented the introduction of a trade in Africa; for it was only by clearing and cultivating the lands, that the climate could be made healthy for settlements; but this wicked traffic, by dispersing the inhabitants, and causing the lands to remain uncultivated, made the coast unhealthy to Europeans. He had found, in attempting to establish a colony there, that it was an obstacle which opposed itself to him in innumerable ways; it created more embarrassments than all the natural impediments of the country; and it was more hard to contend with than any difficulties of climate, soil, or natural disposition of the people.
This was the reality of the Slave Trade. Sadly, it had come to be called a trade; many had been misled by that term. But it was war, not trade. It was a series of crimes, not commerce. This was what prevented the establishment of legitimate trade in Africa; only by clearing and farming the land could the climate be made suitable for settlements. However, this wicked practice, by scattering the population and leaving the land uncultivated, made the coast unhealthy for Europeans. In his attempts to set up a colony there, he found it was an obstacle that confronted him in countless ways; it created more challenges than all the natural barriers of the country combined, and it was harder to deal with than any issues related to climate, soil, or the natural disposition of the people.
He would say a few words relative to the numerous petitions which were then on the table of the House. They had shown, in an extraordinary manner, the opinion of the people. He did not wish to turn this into a constitutional question; but he would observe, that it was of the utmost consequence to the maintenance of the constitution of this country, that the reputation of parliament should be maintained. But nothing could prejudice its character so much, as a vote, which should lead the people to believe that the legislative body was the more corrupt part of it, and that it was slow to adopt moral principles.
He would say a few words about the many petitions that were currently on the House's table. They had demonstrated, in a remarkable way, the views of the people. He didn’t want to turn this into a constitutional debate; however, he wanted to point out that it was extremely important for the stability of the constitution in this country that the reputation of parliament be upheld. But nothing could harm its reputation more than a vote that would lead the public to think that the legislative body was the most corrupt part and that it was hesitant to embrace moral principles.
It had been often insinuated that parliament, by interfering in this trade, departed from its proper functions; No idea could be more absurd; for, was it not its duty to correct abuses? and what abuses were greater than robbery and murder? He was, indeed, anxious for the abolition. He desired it, as a commercial man, on account of the commercial character of the country. He desired it for the reputation of parliament, on which so materially depended the preservation of our happy constitution; but most of all he prayed for it for the sake of those eternal principle's of justice, which it was the duty of nations, as well as of individuals, to support.
It was often suggested that parliament, by getting involved in this trade, was stepping outside its proper role; that idea couldn’t be more ridiculous. Isn't it their job to fix abuses? And what greater abuses are there than robbery and murder? He was, in fact, eager for the abolition. He wanted it, as a businessman, because of the commercial standing of the country. He wanted it for the reputation of parliament, which was crucial for maintaining our beloved constitution; but most importantly, he hoped for it for the sake of those timeless principles of justice that both nations and individuals have the responsibility to uphold.
Colonel Tarleton repeated his arguments of the last year. In addition to these he inveighed bitterly against the abolitionists, as a junto of secretaries, sophists, enthusiasts, and fanatics. He condemned the abolition as useless, unless other nations would take it up. He brought to the recollection of the House the barbarous scenes which had taken place it in St. Domingo, all of which, he said, had originated in the discussion of this question. He described the alarms, in which the inhabitants of our own islands were kept, lest similar scenes should occur from the same cause. He ridiculed the petitions on the table. Itinerant clergymen, mendicant physicians, and others, had extorted signatures from the sick, the indigent, and the traveller. School-boys were invited to sign them, under the promise of a holiday. He had letters to produce, which would prove all these things though he was not authorized to give up the names of those who had written them.
Colonel Tarleton repeated his arguments from last year. In addition to these, he fiercely criticized the abolitionists as a group of secretaries, tricksters, idealists, and extremists. He argued that abolition was pointless unless other nations joined in. He reminded the House of the brutal events that occurred in St. Domingo, claiming they stemmed from discussions around this issue. He described the fears that kept the people in our islands on edge, worried that similar events might happen for the same reason. He mocked the petitions on the table, saying that traveling ministers, begging doctors, and others had pressured the sick, the poor, and travelers into signing them. Schoolboys were encouraged to sign with the promise of a day off. He had letters to show that would prove all this, though he wasn't allowed to reveal the names of the writers.
Mr. Montagu said, that, in the last session, he had simply entered his protest against the trade; but now He could be no longer silent; and as there were many, who had conceived regulation to be more desirable than abolition, he would himself to that subject.
Mr. Montagu said that in the last session, he had merely registered his protest against the trade; but now he could no longer remain silent. Since many believed that regulation was better than abolition, he would address that topic himself.
Regulation, as it related to the manner of procuring slaves, was utterly impossible; for how could we know the case of each individual, whom we forced away into bondage? Could we establish tribunals all along the coast, and in every ship, to find it out? What judges could we get for such an office? But, if this could not be done upon the coast, how could we ascertain the justness of the captivity of by far the greatest number, who were brought from immense distances inland?
Regulation regarding how slaves were obtained was completely unfeasible; how could we know the situation of each person we forced into slavery? Could we set up courts along the coast and on every ship to figure it out? What judges would we find for such a role? But if we couldn't do this on the coast, how could we determine the legitimacy of the captivity for the vast majority who were taken from deep inland distances?
He would not dwell upon the proof of the inefficiency of regulations, as to the Middle Passage. His honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, had shown, that, however the mortality might have been lessened in some ships by the regulations of Sir William Dolben, yet, wherever a contagious disorder broke out, the greatest part of the cargo was swept away. But what regulations by the British parliament could prevent these contagions, or remove them suddenly, when they appeared?
He wouldn't focus on proving the ineffectiveness of the regulations regarding the Middle Passage. His honorable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, had demonstrated that, although some ships saw reduced death rates due to Sir William Dolben's regulations, whenever a contagious disease broke out, most of the cargo was lost. But what regulations from the British Parliament could stop these outbreaks or quickly eliminate them once they occurred?
Neither would regulations be effectual, as they related to the protection of the slaves in the West Indies. It might, perhaps, be enacted, as Mr. Vaughan had suggested, that their punishments should be moderate; and that the number of lashes should be limited. But the colonial legislatures had already done as much, as the magic of words alone could do, upon this subject; yet the evidence upon the table clearly proved, that the only protection of slaves was in the clemency of their masters. Any barbarity might be exercised with impunity, provided no White person were to see it, though it happened in the sight of a thousand slaves. Besides, by splitting the offence, and inflicting the punishment at intervals, the law could be evaded, although the fact was within the reach of the evidence of a White man. Of this evasion Captain Cook, of the 89th regiment, had given a shocking instance; and Chief Justice Ottley had candidly confessed, that "he could devise no method of bringing a master, so offending, to justice, while the evidence of the slave continued inadmissible." But perhaps councils of protection, and guardians of the slaves, might be appointed. This, again, was an expedient which sounded well, but which would be nugatory and absurd. What person would risk the comfort of his life by the exercise of so invidious an interference? But supposing that one or two individuals could be found, who would sacrifice all their time, and the friendship of their associates, for the good of the slaves; what could they effect? Could they be in all places at once? But even if acts of barbarity should be related to them, how were they to come at the proof of them?
Neither would regulations be effective when it came to protecting the slaves in the West Indies. It might, perhaps, be enacted, as Mr. Vaughan suggested, that their punishments should be moderate and that the number of lashes should be limited. But the colonial legislatures had already done as much as words alone could do on this issue; yet the evidence clearly showed that the only protection for slaves was the mercy of their masters. Any cruelty could be carried out without consequences, as long as no White person witnessed it, even if it occurred in front of a thousand slaves. Furthermore, by splitting the offense and administering the punishment at intervals, the law could be avoided, even if a White person knew about it. Captain Cook of the 89th regiment provided a shocking example of this evasion, and Chief Justice Ottley openly admitted that "he could think of no way to bring a master so offending to justice while the evidence of the slave remained inadmissible." However, it was suggested that councils of protection and guardians for the slaves could be appointed. This, again, was an idea that sounded good, but would be pointless and ridiculous. What person would risk their comfort by engaging in such an unpopular interference? But suppose a couple of individuals could be found who would sacrifice all their time and friendships for the sake of the slaves; what could they actually accomplish? Could they be everywhere at once? And even if they were told of acts of cruelty, how would they find proof of them?
It appeared, then, that no regulations could be effectual until the slaves were admitted to give their evidence; but to admit them to this privilege in their present state, would be to endanger the safety and property of their masters. Mr. Vaughan had, however, recommended this measure with limitations, but it would produce nothing but discontent; for how were the slaves to be persuaded that it was fit they should be admitted to speak the truth, and then be disbelieved and disregarded? What a fermentation would such conduct naturally excite in men dismissed with injuries unredressed, though abundantly proved, in their apprehension, by their testimony? In fact, no regulations would do. There was no cure for these evils, but in the abolition of the Slave Trade. He called upon the planters to concur with his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, in this great measure. He wished them to consider the progress which the opinion of the injustice of this trade was making in the nation at large, as manifested by the petitions; which had almost obstructed the proceedings of the House by their perpetual introduction. It was impossible for them to stifle this great question. As for himself, he would renew his profession of last year, that he would never cease, but with life, to promote so glorious an end.
It seemed that no regulations could be effective until the slaves were allowed to give their testimony; however, allowing them this privilege in their current situation would threaten the safety and property of their owners. Mr. Vaughan had suggested this measure with some conditions, but it would only lead to dissatisfaction. How could the slaves be convinced that it was appropriate for them to tell the truth, only to be disbelieved and ignored? What kind of uproar would such actions naturally cause in people left with grievances unaddressed, despite having clearly proven them with their testimony? In reality, no regulations could solve the issue. The only solution to these problems was the abolition of the Slave Trade. He urged the planters to join his esteemed colleague, Mr. Wilberforce, in this significant initiative. He wanted them to recognize the growing sentiment against the injustice of this trade in the nation, as shown by the petitions that had nearly halted the House's proceedings with their constant introduction. It was impossible for them to suppress this important issue. As for him, he would reaffirm his commitment from last year that he would never stop, for as long as he lived, to pursue such a noble cause.
Mr. Whitbread said, that even if he could conceive, that the trade was, as some had asserted it to be, founded on principles of humanity; that the Africans were rescued from death in their own country; that, upon being carried to the West Indies, they were put under kind masters; that their labour there was easy; that at evening they returned cheerful to their homes; that in sickness they were attended with care; and that their old age was rendered comfortable; even then he would vote for the abolition of the Slave Trade, inasmuch as he was convinced that that which was fundamentally wrong, no practice could justify.
Mr. Whitbread said that even if he could believe, as some claimed, that the trade was based on humanitarian principles; that the Africans were saved from death in their own country; that when taken to the West Indies, they were placed with kind masters; that their work there was easy; that in the evenings they returned happily to their homes; that when they were sick, they received proper care; and that their old age was comfortable; even then, he would still vote for the abolition of the Slave Trade, because he was convinced that no practice could justify something that was fundamentally wrong.
No eloquence could persuade him, that the Africans were torn from their country and their dearest connexions, merely that they might lead a happier life; or that they could be placed under the uncontrolled dominion of others without suffering. Arbitrary power would spoil the hearts of the best; hence would arise tyranny on the one side, and a sense of injury on the other. Hence the passions would be let loose, and a state of perpetual enmity would follow.
No amount of eloquence could convince him that the Africans were taken from their homeland and their closest connections just to lead a happier life, or that they could be subjected to the unchecked control of others without experiencing suffering. Absolute power would corrupt even the best of hearts, leading to tyranny on one side and a feeling of injustice on the other. This would unleash strong emotions, resulting in a constant state of hostility.
He needed only to go to the accounts of those who defended the system of slavery, to show that it was cruel. He was forcibly struck last year by an expression of an honourable member, an advocate for the trade, who, when he came to speak of the slaves, on selling off the stock of a plantation, said that they fetched less than the common price, because they were damaged. Damaged! What! Were they goods and chattels? What an idea was this to hold out of our fellow-creatures! We might imagine how slaves were treated, if they could be spoken of in such a manner. Perhaps these unhappy people had lingered out the best part of their lives in the service of their master. Able then to do but little, they were sold for little! and the remaining substance of their sinews was to be pressed out by another, yet more hardened than the former, and who had made a calculation of their vitals accordingly.
He just needed to look at the accounts of those who defended slavery to prove how cruel it was. Last year, he was struck by something an honorable member, who supported the trade, said. When he talked about the slaves being sold from a plantation, he remarked that they were worth less than the usual price because they were "damaged." Damaged! What? Were they just goods and property? What a horrific way to view our fellow human beings! We can only imagine how slaves were treated if they could be described like that. Perhaps these unfortunate people had spent the best years of their lives serving their master. By the time they were sold, they could do very little, so they were sold for very little! And the remaining strength they had was to be exploited by someone even more callous, who had calculated their worth accordingly.
As another proof, he would mention a passage in a pamphlet, in which the author, describing the happy situation of the slaves, observed, that a good negro never wanted a character; a bad one could always be detected by his weals and scars. What was this but to say, that there were instruments in use which left indelible marks, behind them; and who would say that these were used justly?
As another example, he would mention a part of a pamphlet in which the author, describing the fortunate condition of the slaves, noted that a good Black person never lacked a reputation; a bad one could always be identified by their scars and bruises. What was this other than to say that there were tools in use that left permanent marks behind? And who would argue that these were used fairly?
An honourable gentleman, Mr. Vaughan, had said, that setting aside slavery, the slaves were better off than the poor in this country. But what was it that we wished to abolish! Was it not the Slave Trade, which would destroy in time the cruel distinction he had mentioned? The same honourable gentleman had also expressed his admiration of their resignation; but might it not be that resignation which was the consequence of despair?
An honorable gentleman, Mr. Vaughan, said that aside from slavery, slaves were better off than the poor in this country. But what did we actually want to eliminate? Was it not the Slave Trade, which would eventually eliminate the cruel distinction he referred to? The same honorable gentleman also expressed admiration for their resignation; but could that resignation be a result of despair?
Colonel Tarleton had insinuated that the petitions on the table had been obtained in an objectionable manner. He had the honour to present one from his constituents, which he would venture to say had originated with themselves, and that there did not exist more respectable names in the kingdom than those of the persons who had signed it. He had also asserted, that there was a strong similitude in their tenour and substance, as if they had been manufactured by the same persons. This was by no means to be wondered at. There was surely but one plain tale to tell, and it was not surprising that it had been clothed in nearly the same expressions. There was but one boon to ask, and that was—the abolition of this wicked trade.
Colonel Tarleton had suggested that the petitions on the table were gathered in a questionable way. He had the honor to present one from his constituents, which he would confidently say came directly from them, and that there were no more respectable names in the country than those who signed it. He also claimed that there was a strong resemblance in their content and substance, as if they had all been created by the same group. This was hardly surprising. There was clearly only one straightforward issue to address, and it wasn’t unexpected that it was expressed in almost the same words. There was only one request to make, and that was—the end of this terrible trade.
It had been said by another, (Mr. Baillie,) that the horrible insurrections in St. Domingo arose from the discussion of the question of the Slave Trade. He denied the assertion; and maintained that they were the effect of the trade itself. There was a point of endurance, beyond which human nature could not go, at which the mind of man rose by its native elasticity with a spring and violence proportioned to the degree to which it had been depressed. The calamities in St. Domingo proceeded from the Slave Trade alone; and, if it were continued, similar evils were to be apprehended in our own islands. The cruelties which the slaves had perpetrated in that unfortunate colony they had learnt from their masters. Had not an African eyes? Had he not ears? Had he not organs, senses, and passions? If you pricked him, would he not feel the puncture, and bleed? If you poisoned him, would he not die? and, if you wronged him, would he not revenge? But he had said sufficient, for he feared he could not better the instruction.
It was said by someone else, (Mr. Baillie,) that the horrible uprisings in St. Domingo were caused by the discussions about the Slave Trade. He disagreed with that claim and argued that they were a direct result of the trade itself. There is a limit to what humans can endure, beyond which people cannot go; at that point, the human mind reacts with a force and intensity that matches the extent of its suffering. The troubles in St. Domingo were solely due to the Slave Trade, and if it continued, similar problems could be expected in our own islands. The violence that the slaves committed in that tragic colony was learned from their masters. Did not an African have eyes? Did he not have ears? Did he not possess organs, senses, and feelings? If you pricked him, would he not feel the pain and bleed? If you poisoned him, would he not die? And if you wronged him, would he not seek revenge? But he believed he had said enough, as he feared he couldn't make the lesson any clearer.
Mr. Milbank would only just observe, that the policy of the measure of the abolition was as great as its justice was undeniable. Where slavery existed, everything was out of its natural place. All improvement was at an end; there must also, from the nature of the human heart, be oppression. He warned the planters against the danger of fresh importations, and invited their concurrence in the measure.
Mr. Milbank would only point out that the policy behind the abolition was as significant as its justice was clear. Where slavery existed, everything was out of balance. Any progress had stopped; and, given human nature, there would also be oppression. He cautioned the planters about the risks of new importations and encouraged their support for the measure.
Mr. Dundas (afterwards Viscount Melville) declared that he had always been a warm friend to the abolition of the Slave Trade, though he differed from Mr. Wilberforce as to the mode of effecting it.
Mr. Dundas (later Viscount Melville) stated that he had always been a strong supporter of abolishing the Slave Trade, even though he disagreed with Mr. Wilberforce on how to achieve it.
The abolitionists, and those on the opposite side of the question, had, both of them, gone into extremes. The former were for the immediate and abrupt annihilation of the trade; the latter considered it as essentially necessary to the existence of the West Indian islands, and therefore laid it down that it was to be continued for ever. Such was the vast distance between the parties. He would now address himself to each.
The abolitionists and their opponents both took extreme positions. The abolitionists wanted to quickly and completely end the trade, while the opponents believed it was essential for the survival of the West Indian islands and argued that it should continue indefinitely. This highlighted the significant divide between the two sides. He would now speak to each group.
He would say first, that he agreed with his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, in very material points. He believed the trade was not founded in policy; that the continuation of it was not essential to the preservation of our trade with the West Indian islands; and that the slaves were not only to be maintained, but increased there, by natural population. He agreed, too, as to the propriety of the abolition. But when his honourable friend talked of direct and abrupt abolition, he would submit it to him, whether he did not run counter to the prejudices of those who were most deeply interested in the question; and whether, if he could obtain his object without wounding these, it would not be better to do it? Did he not also forget the sacred attention which parliament had ever shown to the private interests and patrimonial rights of individuals?
He would first say that he agreed with his honorable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, on several important points. He believed that the trade was not based on sound policy, and that continuing it was not essential for maintaining our trade with the West Indies. He thought that the slaves could not only be sustained but also increased there through natural population growth. He also agreed on the need for abolition. However, when his honorable friend spoke about direct and immediate abolition, he wanted to suggest whether that approach might go against the feelings of those who were most affected by the issue, and whether it might be better to achieve his goals without upsetting those individuals. Did he also overlook the careful consideration that parliament had always given to the personal interests and property rights of individuals?
Whatever idea men might then have of the African trade, certain it was that they, who had connected themselves with it, had done it under the sanction of parliament. It might also be well worth while to consider, (though the conduct of other nations ought not to deter us from doing our duty,) whether British subjects in the West Indies might not be supplied with slaves under neutral flags. Now he believed it was possible to avoid these objections, and at the same time to act in harmony with the prejudices which had been mentioned. This might be done by regulations, by which we should effect the end much more speedily than by the way proposed. By regulations, he meant such as would increase the breed of the slaves in the West Indies; such as would ensure a moral education to their children; and such as would even in time extinguish hereditary slavery. The extinction, however, of this was not to be effected by allowing the son of an African slave to obtain his freedom on the death of his parent. Such a son should be considered as born free; he should then be educated at the expense of the person importing his parents; and, when arrived at such a degree of strength as might qualify him to labour, he should work for a term of years for the payment of the expense of his education and maintenance. It was impossible to emancipate the existing slaves at once; nor would such an emancipation be of any immediate benefit to themselves; but this observation would not apply to their descendants, if trained and educated in the manner he had proposed.
Whatever idea people might have about the African trade at that time, it was clear that those who got involved with it did so under the authority of Parliament. It might be worth considering, although the actions of other nations shouldn't stop us from doing what's right, whether British subjects in the West Indies could be supplied with slaves under neutral flags. He believed it was possible to address these concerns while also respecting the mentioned prejudices. This could be achieved through regulations that would accomplish the goal much more quickly than the proposed methods. By regulations, he meant those that would promote the breeding of slaves in the West Indies, ensure that their children received a moral education, and eventually eliminate hereditary slavery. However, this elimination couldn't be achieved just by allowing the child of an African slave to gain freedom upon their parent's death. Such a child should be treated as born free; they would then be educated at the importer’s expense, and once they were strong enough to work, they would labor for a set number of years to repay the costs of their education and care. It wasn't feasible to free all current slaves at once; nor would such freedom benefit them immediately, but this wouldn't apply to their descendants if they were trained and educated as he suggested.
He would now address himself to those who adopted the opposite extreme; and he thought he should not assume too much when he said, that if both slavery and the Slave Trade could be abolished with safety to their property, it deeply concerned their interests to do it. Such a measure, also, would only be consistent with the principles of the British constitution. It was surely strange that we, who were ourselves free, should carry on a Slave Trade with Africa, and that we should never think of introducing cultivation into the West Indies by free labourers.
He would now turn his attention to those who took the completely opposite view; and he believed he wasn't exaggerating when he stated that if both slavery and the Slave Trade could be ended without harming their property, it seriously affected their interests to do so. Additionally, such a move would align with the principles of the British constitution. It was certainly odd that we, who are free ourselves, would engage in a Slave Trade with Africa and never consider starting agriculture in the West Indies using free laborers.
That such a measure would tend to their interest he had no doubt. Did not all of them agree with Mr. Long, that the great danger in the West Indies arose from the importation of the African slaves there? Mr. Long had asserted, that all the insurrections there arose from these. If this statement was true, how directly it bore upon the present question! But we were told, also, by the same author, that the Slave Trade gave rise to robbery, murder, and all kinds of depredations on the coast of Africa. Had this been answered? No: except indeed it had been said that the slaves were such as had been condemned for crimes. Well, then, the imported Africans consisted of all the convicts, rogues, thieves, and vagabonds in Africa. But would the West Indians choose to depend on fresh supplies of these for the cultivation of their lands, and the security of their islands, when it was also found that every insurrection had arisen from them? It was plain the safety of the islands was concerned in this question. There would be danger so long as the trade lasted. The planters were, by these importations, creating the engines of their own destruction. Surely they would act more to their own interest if they would concur in extinguishing the trade, than by standing up for its continuance.
He had no doubt that such a measure would serve their interests. Didn't they all agree with Mr. Long that the major threat in the West Indies came from the importation of African slaves? Mr. Long claimed that all the uprisings there resulted from these slaves. If this was true, how clearly it related to the current issue! But the same author also told us that the Slave Trade led to robbery, murder, and various crimes along the coast of Africa. Was this addressed? No, except that it was stated the slaves were people who had been convicted of crimes. So, then, the imported Africans consisted of all the convicts, criminals, and outcasts in Africa. Would the people in the West Indies really want to rely on a constant influx of these individuals for cultivating their land and ensuring the safety of their islands, especially when it was found that every uprising had stemmed from them? It was obvious that the islands' safety was at stake in this matter. There would be danger as long as the trade continued. The plantation owners were, through these imports, creating the tools of their own downfall. Surely, they would be acting more in their own interest by agreeing to end the trade rather than supporting its continuation.
He would now ask them, what right they had to suppose that Africa would for ever remain in a state of barbarism. If once an enlightened prince were to rise up there, his first act would be to annihilate the Slave Trade. If the light of heaven were ever to descend upon that continent, it would directly occasion its downfall. It was their interest then to contrive a mode of supplying labour, without trusting to precarious importations from that quarter. They might rest assured that the trade could not continue. He did not allude to the voice of the people in the petitions then lying on the table of the House; but he knew certainly, that an idea not only of the injustice, but of the impolicy, of this trade had been long entertained by men of the most enlightened understandings in this country. Was it then a prudent thing for them to rest on this commerce for the further improvement of their property?
He would now ask them what right they had to think that Africa would always stay in a state of barbarism. If an enlightened leader were to emerge there, their first action would be to end the Slave Trade. If the light of knowledge were ever to shine on that continent, it would directly lead to its collapse. It was in their best interest to figure out a way to provide labor without relying on uncertain imports from that region. They could be sure that the trade wouldn't last. He wasn't referring to the voices of the people in the petitions currently on the table of the House; but he knew for sure that the notion of both the injustice and the foolishness of this trade had been long recognized by some of the most educated minds in this country. Was it wise for them to depend on this commerce for the continued improvement of their property?
There was a species of slavery, prevailing only a few years ago, in the collieries in certain boroughs in Scotland. Emancipation there was thought a duty by parliament: but what an opposition there was to the measure! Nothing but ruin would be the consequence of it! After several years struggle the bill was Carried. Within a year after, the ruin so much talked of vanished in smoke, and there was an end of the business. It had also been contended that Sir William Dolben's bill would be the ruin of Liverpool: and yet one of its representatives had allowed, that this bill had been of benefit to the owners of the slave-vessels there. Was he then asking too much of the West Indians, to request a candid consideration of the real ground of their alarms? He would conclude by stating, that he meant to propose a middle way of proceeding. If there was a number of members in the House, who thought with him, that this trade ought to be ultimately abolished, but yet by moderate measures, which should neither invade the property nor the prejudices of individuals, he wished them to unite, and they might then reduce the question to its proper limits.
There was a type of slavery that existed only a few years ago in the coal mines of certain towns in Scotland. Parliament believed that ending it was a duty, but there was a huge backlash against this decision! It was said that the result would be nothing but disaster! After several years of struggle, the bill passed. Within a year, the supposed disaster faded away, and the issue was resolved. It had also been argued that Sir William Dolben's bill would destroy Liverpool, yet one of its representatives admitted that the bill actually benefited the owners of slave ships there. Was he asking too much of those in the West Indies to consider the real reasons behind their fears? He would finish by saying that he planned to propose a balanced approach. If there were members in the House who agreed with him that this trade should eventually be abolished, but done through moderate measures that wouldn’t threaten individual property or beliefs, he wanted them to come together, and then they could streamline the discussion to focus on the core issues.
Mr. Addington, the speaker, (now Viscount Sidmouth,) professed himself to be one of those moderate persons called upon by Mr. Dundas. He wished to see some middle measure suggested. The fear of doing injury to the property of others, had hitherto prevented him from giving an opinion against a system, the continuance of which he could not countenance.
Mr. Addington, the speaker (now Viscount Sidmouth), identified himself as one of the moderate individuals Mr. Dundas referred to. He wanted to see some sort of compromise proposed. His concern about harming other people's property had previously kept him from expressing an opinion against a system he could no longer support.
He utterly abhorred the Slave Trade. A noble and learned lord, who had now retired from the bench, said on a certain occasion, that he pitied the loyalty of that man, who imagined that any epithet could aggravate the crime of treason. So he himself knew of no language which could aggravate the crime of the Slave Trade. It was sufficient for every purpose of crimination, to assert, that man thereby was bought; and sold, or that he was made subject to the despotism of man. But though he thus acknowledged the justice due to a whole continent on the one side, he confessed there were opposing claims of justice on the other. The case of the West Indians deserved a tender consideration also.
He completely hated the Slave Trade. A respected and knowledgeable lord, who had now stepped down from his position, once said that he felt sorry for anyone loyal to a person who thought that any insult could somehow make treason worse. He himself didn’t believe there were words strong enough to worsen the crime of the Slave Trade. It was enough to say, simply, that people were being bought and sold, or that they were being subjected to another person's tyranny. But while he recognized the justice owed to an entire continent on one side, he admitted there were competing claims for justice on the other side as well. The situation of the West Indians also deserved careful consideration.
He doubted, if we were to relinquish the Slave Trade alone, whether it might not be carried on still more barbarously than at present; and whether, if we were to stop it altogether, the islands could keep up their present stocks. It had been asserted that they could. But he, thought that the stopping of the imputations could not be depended upon for this purpose, so much as a plan for providing them with more females.
He questioned whether, if we were to end the Slave Trade alone, it might not continue in an even more brutal way than it does now; and he wondered if, if we were to completely abolish it, the islands could maintain their current populations. Some had claimed that they could. However, he believed that stopping the importation wouldn't be reliable for this, as much as a plan to provide them with more women.
With the mode suggested by his right honourable friend, Mr. Dundas, he was pleased, though he, did not wholly agree to it. He could not grant liberty to the children born in the islands. He thought, also, that the trade ought to be permitted for ten or twelve years longer, under such arrangements as should introduce a kind of management among the slaves there, favourable to their interests, and of course to their future happiness. One species of regulation which he should propose, would be greater encouragement to the importation of females than of males, by means of a bounty on the former till their numbers should be found equal. Rewards also might be given to those slaves who should raise a certain number of children; and to those who should devise means of lightening negro-labour. If the plan of his honourable friend should comprehend these regulations, he would heartily concur in it. He wished to see the Slave Trade abolished. Indeed it did not deserve the name of a trade. It was not a trade, and ought not to be allowed. He was satisfied, that in a few years it would cease to be the reproach of this nation and the torment of Africa. But under regulations like these, it would cease without any material injury to the interests of others.
With the approach suggested by his esteemed colleague, Mr. Dundas, he was in agreement, though not completely. He couldn't grant freedom to the children born in the islands. He also believed that the trade should be allowed for another ten or twelve years, under arrangements that would create a form of management among the slaves there, benefiting their interests and, obviously, their future happiness. One type of regulation he would propose would be to encourage the importation of females more than males, through a bounty on females until their numbers were balanced. Additionally, rewards could be given to slaves who had a certain number of children, and to those who found ways to lighten the burden of labor for the enslaved. If his honorable friend's plan included these regulations, he would fully support it. He wanted to see the Slave Trade abolished. In fact, it didn't even deserve to be called a trade. It was not a trade and should not be permitted. He was confident that in a few years it would no longer be a shame for this nation and a source of suffering for Africa. But with regulations like these, it would end without seriously harming the interests of others.
Mr. Fox said, that after what had fallen from the two last speakers, he could remain no longer silent. Something so mischievous had come out, and something so like a foundation had been laid for preserving, not only for years to come, but for ever, this detestable traffic, that he should feel himself wanting in his duty, if he were not to deprecate all such deceptions and delusions upon the country.
Mr. Fox said that after what the last two speakers had just mentioned, he couldn't stay silent any longer. Something so harmful had come up, and a basis had been established for keeping this awful practice alive not just for the years ahead, but forever, that he would feel he was failing in his duty if he didn't speak out against all these deceptions and delusions affecting the country.
The honourable gentlemen had called themselves moderate men: but upon this subject he neither felt, nor desired to feel, anything like a sentiment of moderation. Their speeches had reminded him of a passage in MIDDLETON'S Life of Cicero. The translation of it was defective, though it would equally suit his purpose. He says, "To enter into a man's house, and kill him, his wife, and family, in the night, is certainly a most heinous crime, and deserving of death; but to break open his house, to murder him, his wife, and all his children in the night, may be still very right, provided it be done with moderation." Now, was there anything more absurd in this passage, than to say, that the Slave Trade might be carried on with moderation; for, if you could not rob or murder a single man with moderation, with what moderation could you pillage and wound a whole nation? In fact, the question of the abolition was simply a question of justice. It was only, whether we should authorize by law, respecting Africa, the commission of crimes, for which, in this country, we should forfeit our lives: notwithstanding which, it was to be treated, in the opinion of these honourable gentlemen, with moderation.
The honorable gentlemen referred to themselves as moderate men, but on this subject, he felt no sense of moderation, nor did he want to. Their speeches reminded him of a passage in MIDDLETON'S Life of Cicero. The translation was flawed, but it still fit his point. It says, "To break into a man's house and kill him, his wife, and family at night is definitely a terrible crime that deserves death; but to break into his house to murder him, his wife, and all his children at night might be perfectly fine, as long as it’s done with moderation." Now, is there anything more ridiculous in this passage than suggesting that the Slave Trade could be conducted with moderation? If you can’t rob or kill a single person moderately, how could you possibly pillage and harm an entire nation moderately? The question of abolition was simply a matter of justice. It was about whether we should legally permit crimes against Africa that, if committed here, would cost us our lives. Yet, in the view of these honorable gentlemen, it should be approached with moderation.
Mr. Addington had proposed to cure the disproportion of the sexes in the islands, by a bounty on the importation of females; or, in other words, by offering a premium to any crew of ruffians, who would tear them from their native country. He would let loose a banditti against the most weak and defenceless of the sex. He would occasion these to kill fathers, husbands, and brothers, to get possession of their relatives, the females, who, after this carnage, were to be reserved for—slavery. He should like to see the man, who would pen such a moderate clause for a British parliament.
Mr. Addington suggested fixing the imbalance of the sexes on the islands by giving a reward for bringing in women; in other words, by offering a bounty to any group of thugs willing to snatch them from their home country. He would unleash a gang against the most vulnerable and defenseless women. This would lead to the killing of fathers, husbands, and brothers, just to capture their female relatives, who, after this violence, were to be kept for—slavery. He would like to see the person who would draft such a reasonable proposal for the British parliament.
Mr. Dundas had proposed to abolish the Slave Trade, by bettering the state of the slaves in the islands, and particularly that of their offspring. His plan, with respect to the latter, was not a little curious. They were to become free, when born; and then they were to be educated, at the expense of those to whom their fathers belonged. But it was clear, that they could not be educated for nothing. In order, therefore, to repay this expense, they were to be slaves for ten or fifteen years. In short, they were to have an education, which was to qualify them to become freemen; and after they had been so educated, they were to become slaves. But as this free education might possibly unfit them for submitting to slavery; so, after they had been made to bow under the yoke for ten or fifteen years, they might then, perhaps, be equally unfit to become free; and therefore, might be retained as slaves for a few years longer, if not for their whole lives. He never heard of a scheme so moderate, and yet so absurd and visionary.
Mr. Dundas suggested ending the Slave Trade by improving the conditions of the slaves in the islands, especially for their children. His plan for the children was quite interesting. They would be granted freedom at birth and would then receive an education paid for by their fathers’ owners. But it was obvious that this education couldn’t be free. To cover these costs, they would have to serve as slaves for ten to fifteen years. Essentially, they would be educated to qualify as free individuals, and once educated, they would then return to being slaves. However, this free education might make them unsuitable for accepting slavery. After enduring ten to fifteen years of servitude, they might also become unfit for freedom, possibly leading to them being kept as slaves for several more years, if not for their entire lives. He had never encountered such a moderately absurd and unrealistic plan.
The same honourable gentleman had observed, that the conduct of other nations should not hinder us from doing, our duty; but yet neutrals would furnish, our islands with slaves. What was the inference from this moderate assertion, but that we might as well supply them ourselves? He hoped, if we were yet to be supplied, it would never be by Englishmen. We ought no longer to be concerned in such a crime.
The same respectable gentleman pointed out that the actions of other countries shouldn't stop us from fulfilling our responsibilities; however, neutral parties would still provide our islands with slaves. What was the conclusion from this reasonable statement, if not that we might as well supply them ourselves? He hoped that if we were to be supplied, it would never be by Englishmen. We should no longer be involved in such a crime.
An adversary, Mr. Baillie, had said, that it would not be fair to take the character of this country from the records of the Old Bailey. He did not at all wonder, when the subject of the Slave Trade was mentioned, that the Old Bailey naturally occurred to his recollection. The facts, which had been described in the evidence, were associated in all our minds with the ideas of criminal justice. But Mr. Baillie had forgot the essential difference between the two cases. When we learnt from these records, that crimes were committed in this country, we learnt also, that they were punished with transportation and death. But the crimes committed in the Slave Trade were passed over with impunity. Nay, the perpetrators were even sent out again to commit others.
An opponent, Mr. Baillie, argued that it wouldn’t be fair to judge this country based on the records of the Old Bailey. He wasn't surprised that the Old Bailey came to mind when the topic of the Slave Trade was brought up. The facts detailed in the evidence link our thoughts with the ideas of criminal justice. However, Mr. Baillie overlooked the key difference between the two situations. When we read these records and see that crimes were committed in this country, we also see that those crimes were punished with transportation and execution. In contrast, the crimes associated with the Slave Trade were rarely punished. In fact, the offenders were often sent out again to commit more crimes.
As to the mode of obtaining slaves, it had been suggested as the least disreputable, that they became so in consequence of condemnation as criminals. But he would judge of the probability of this mode by the reasonableness of it. No less than eighty thousand Africans were exported annually by the different nations of Europe from their own country. Was it possible to believe that this number could have been legally convicted of crimes, for which they had justly forfeited their liberty? The supposition was ridiculous. The truth was, that every enormity was practised to obtain the persons of these unhappy people; He referred those present to the case in the evidence of the African trader, who had kidnapped and sold a girl, and who was afterwards kidnapped and sold himself. He desired them to reason upon the conversation which had taken place between the trader and the captain of the ship on this occasion. He desired them also to reason upon the instance mentioned this evening, which had happened in the river Cameroons, and they would infer all the rapine, all the desolation, and all the bloodshed, which had been placed to the account of this execrable trade.
As for how slaves were obtained, it was suggested that the least shameful way was that they were condemned as criminals. But he wanted to judge the likelihood of this by its reasonableness. No fewer than eighty thousand Africans were exported annually by various European nations from their own countries. Was it really believable that this number could have been legally convicted of crimes for which they justly lost their freedom? That idea was ridiculous. The truth was that every atrocity was committed to capture these unfortunate people; he referred those present to the testimony of the African trader who had kidnapped and sold a girl and was later kidnapped and sold himself. He asked them to think about the conversation that took place between the trader and the ship's captain during this incident. He also wanted them to consider the example mentioned that evening, which occurred in the river Cameroons, and from that, they would understand all the robbery, all the destruction, and all the bloodshed attributed to this terrible trade.
An attempt had been made to impress the House with the horrible scenes which had taken place in St. Domingo, as an argument against the abolition of the Slave Trade; but could any more weighty argument be produced in its favour? What were the causes of the insurrections there? They were two. The first was the indecision of the National Assembly, who wished to compromise between that which was right and that which was wrong on this subject. And the second was the oppression of the people of colour, and of the slaves. In the first of the causes we saw something like the moderation of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Addington. One day this Assembly talked of liberty, and favoured the Blacks. Another day they suspended their measures and favoured the Whites. They wished to steer a middle course; but decision had been mercy. Decision even against the planters would have been a thousand times better than indecision and half measures. In the mean time, the people of colour took the great work of justice into their own hands. Unable, however, to complete this of themselves, they called in the aid of the slaves. Here began the second cause; for the slaves, feeling their own power, began to retaliate on the Whites. And here it may be observed, that, in all revolutions, the clemency or cruelty of the victors will always be in proportion to their former privileges, of their oppression. That the slaves then should have been guilty of great excesses, was not to be wondered at; for where did they learn their cruelty? They learnt it from those who had tyrannized over them. The oppression, which they themselves had suffered, was fresh in their memories, and this had driven them to exercise their vengeance so furiously. If we wished to prevent similar scenes in our own islands, we must reject all moderate measures, and at once abolish the Slave Trade. By doing this, we should procure a better treatment for the slaves there; and when this happy change of system should have taken place, we might depend on them for the defence of the islands as much as on the whites themselves.
An attempt had been made to impress the House with the horrible scenes that had happened in St. Domingo as an argument against ending the Slave Trade; but could a stronger argument be presented in favor of it? What caused the insurrections there? There were two main reasons. The first was the indecision of the National Assembly, which tried to find a compromise between what was right and what was wrong on this issue. The second was the oppression of people of color and the slaves. In the first reason, we see something similar to the moderation of Mr. Dundas and Mr. Addington. One day this Assembly spoke about liberty and supported the Blacks. The next day, they paused their actions and supported the Whites. They sought to take a middle ground; but making a decision would have been merciful. A decision, even one against the planters, would have been a thousand times better than indecision and half-hearted measures. In the meantime, the people of color took the significant work of justice into their own hands. However, they were unable to complete this on their own, so they sought the help of the slaves. This is where the second cause began; the slaves, realizing their own strength, started to fight back against the Whites. It’s important to note that in any revolution, the mercy or brutality of the victors is always related to their past privileges and the oppression they faced. It’s no surprise that the slaves committed great excesses; where did they learn their cruelty? They learned it from those who had oppressed them. The oppression they had suffered was fresh in their minds, driving them to unleash their vengeance with intensity. If we want to prevent similar scenes in our own islands, we must reject all moderate measures and immediately abolish the Slave Trade. By doing so, we would ensure better treatment for the slaves there; and once this positive change in the system occurs, we could rely on them for the defense of the islands just as much as on the whites themselves.
Upon the whole, he would give his opinion of this traffic in a few words. He believed it to be impolitic—he knew it to be inhuman—he was certain it was unjust—he thought it so inhuman and unjust, that, if the colonies could not be cultivated without it, they ought not to be cultivated at all. It would be much better for us to be without them, than, not abolish the Slave Trade. He hoped therefore that members would this night act the part which would do them honour. He declared, that, whether he should vote in a large minority or a small one, he would never give up the cause. Whether in Parliament or out of it, in whatever situation he might ever be, as long as he had a voice to speak, this question should never be at rest. Believing the trade to be of the nature of crimes and pollutions, which stained the honour of the country, he would never relax his efforts. It was his duty to prevent man from preying upon man; and if he and his friends should die before they had attained their glorious object, he hoped there would never be wanting men alive to their duty, who would continue to labour till the evil should be wholly done away. If the situation of the Africans was as happy as servitude could make them, he could not consent to the enormous crime of selling man to man; nor permit a practice to continue, which put an entire bar to the civilization of one quarter of the globe. He was sure that the nation would not much longer allow the continuance of enormities which shocked human nature. The West Indians had no right to demand that crimes should be permitted by this country for their advantage; and, if they were wise, they would lend their cordial assistance to such measures, as would bring about, in the shortest possible time, the abolition of this execrable trade.
Overall, he would summarize his thoughts on this trade in just a few words. He believed it was unwise—he knew it was inhumane—he was certain it was unjust—he thought it so inhumane and unjust that if the colonies couldn't be developed without it, they shouldn't be developed at all. It would be much better for us to do without them than to not end the Slave Trade. He hoped that the members would act honorably tonight. He stated that whether he ended up in a large minority or a small one, he would never give up the cause. Whether in Parliament or elsewhere, in whatever situation he found himself, as long as he could speak, this issue would never be settled. Believing the trade was akin to crimes and injustices that tarnished the country's honor, he would never ease his efforts. It was his duty to prevent one person from exploiting another; and if he and his friends were to die before they achieved their noble goal, he hoped there would always be others who would continue to work towards eliminating this evil. Even if the Africans were as well off as servitude could allow, he could not agree to the massive crime of selling human beings; nor could he allow a practice to continue that completely barred the progress of one part of the world. He was confident that the nation would not allow the continuation of atrocities that horrified humanity for much longer. The West Indians had no right to ask that this country permit crimes for their benefit; and if they were wise, they would support measures that would quickly lead to the abolition of this despicable trade.
Mr. Dundas rose again, but it was only to move an amendment, namely, that the word "gradually" should be inserted before the words "to be abolished" in Mr. Wilberforce's motion.
Mr. Dundas stood up again, but this time it was just to propose an amendment, specifically that the word "gradually" should be added before the words "to be abolished" in Mr. Wilberforce's motion.
Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Earl of Liverpool) said, that the opinions of those who were averse to the abolition had been unfairly stated. They had been described as founded on policy, in opposition to humanity. If it could be made out that humanity would be aided by the abolition, he would be the last person to oppose it. The question was not, he apprehended, whether the trade was founded in injustice and oppression: he admitted it was. Nor was it, whether it was in itself abstractedly an evil: he admitted this also; but whether, under all the circumstances of the case, any considerable advantage would arise to a number of our fellow-creatures from the abolition of the trade in the manner in which it had been proposed.
Mr. Jenkinson (later the Earl of Liverpool) stated that the views of those against abolition had been misrepresented. They were portrayed as being based on policy rather than on humanity. If it could be proven that humanity would benefit from abolition, he would be the last to oppose it. The issue, he believed, wasn’t whether the trade was rooted in injustice and oppression—he acknowledged that it was. Nor was it whether it was inherently an evil—he agreed with that too; but rather, whether, given all the circumstances, any significant benefit would come to many of our fellow humans from abolishing the trade in the way it had been suggested.
He was ready to admit, that the Africans at home were made miserable by the Slave Trade, and that, if it were universally abolished, great benefit would arise to them. No one, however, would assert, that these miseries arose from the trade as carried on by Great Britain only. Other countries occasioned as much of the evil as we did; and if the abolition of it by us should prove only the transferring of it to those countries, very little benefit would result from the measure.
He was willing to acknowledge that the Africans at home suffered greatly because of the Slave Trade, and that if it were universally abolished, they would greatly benefit. However, no one would claim that these sufferings were caused solely by the trade conducted by Great Britain. Other countries contributed just as much to the problem as we did; and if our abolition of the trade merely shifted it to those countries, then very little benefit would come from the action.
What then was the probability of our example being followed by foreign powers? Five years had now elapsed since the question was first started, and what had any of them done? The Portuguese continued the trade. The Spaniards still gave a bounty to encourage it. He believed there were agents from Holland in this country, who were then negotiating with persons concerned in it in order to secure its continuance. The abolition also had been proposed in the National Assembly of France, and had been rejected there. From these circumstances he had a right to infer, that if we gave up the trade, we should only transfer it to those countries: but this transfer would be entirely against the Africans. The mortality on board English ships, previously to the regulating bill, was four and an-eighth per cent. Since that time it had been reduced to little more than three per centA. In French ships it was near ten, and in Dutch ships from five to seven, per cent. In Portuguese it was less than either in French or Dutch, but more than in English ships since the regulating bill. Thus the deaths of the Africans would be more than doubled, if we were to abolish the trade.
What was the likelihood of other countries following our example? Five years had passed since the question was first raised, and what had any of them done? The Portuguese kept trading. The Spaniards still offered incentives to promote it. He thought there were agents from the Netherlands in this country who were negotiating with people involved in the trade to ensure it continued. The abolition was also proposed in the National Assembly of France, but it was rejected. From these points, he concluded that if we ended the trade, we would just be handing it over to those countries, which would be completely detrimental to the Africans. The death rate on English ships, before the regulatory bill, was four and one-eighth percent. Since then, it had dropped to just over three percentA. On French ships, it was close to ten percent, and on Dutch ships, it ranged from five to seven percent. On Portuguese ships, it was lower than on French or Dutch ships, but higher than on English ships after the regulatory bill. Therefore, the death rate for Africans would more than double if we were to abolish the trade.
A: Mr. Wilberforce stated it on the same evening to be between ten and eleven per cent. for the last year. The number then exported from Africa to our islands was rather more than 22,000, of whom more than 2,300 died.
A: Mr. Wilberforce mentioned that the percentage was between ten and eleven percent for the past year. The total exported from Africa to our islands was just over 22,000, with more than 2,300 of them dying.
Perhaps it might be replied, that the importations being stopped in our own islands, fewer Africans would experience this misery, because fewer would be taken from their own country on this account. But he had a right to infer, that as the planters purchased slaves at present, they would still think it their interest to have them. The question then was, whether they could get them by smuggling. Now it appeared by the evidence, that many hundred slaves had been stolen from time to time from Jamaica, and carried into Cuba. But if persons could smuggle slaves out of our colonies, they could smuggle slaves into them; but particularly when the planters might think it to their interest to assist them.
Perhaps one could argue that if imports were stopped in our own islands, fewer Africans would suffer this misery, as fewer would be taken from their homeland for this reason. However, it can be inferred that since planters are currently buying slaves, they would still believe it’s in their best interest to have them. The question then becomes whether they could acquire them through smuggling. The evidence shows that many hundreds of slaves have been stolen over time from Jamaica and brought to Cuba. If people can smuggle slaves out of our colonies, they can certainly smuggle them in; especially when the planters might believe it’s in their interest to support this.
With respect to the slaves there, instances had been related of their oppression, which shocked the feelings of all who heard them: but was it fair to infer from these their general ill usage? Suppose a person were to make a collection of the different abuses, which had happened for a series of years under our own happy constitution, and use these as an argument of its worthlessness; should we not say to him, that in the most perfect system which the human intellect could form some defects would exist; and that it was unfair to draw inferences from such partial facts? In the same manner he would argue relative to the alleged treatment of the slaves. Evidence had been produced upon this point on both sides. He should not be afraid to oppose the authorities of Lord Rodney, and others, against any, however respectable, in favour of the abolition. But this was not necessary. There was another species of facts, which would answer the same end; Previously to the year 1730 the decrease of the slaves in our islands was very considerable. From 1730 to 1755 the deaths were reduced to only two and a-half per cent, above the births; from 1755 to 1768 to only one and three-fourths; and from 1768 to 1788 to only one per cent. This then, on the first view of the subject, would show, that whatever might have been the situation of slaves formerly, it had been gradually improved. But if, in addition to this, we considered the peculiar disadvanges under which they laboured; the small proportion of females to males; and the hurricanes, and famines, which had swept away thousands, we should find it physically impossible, that they could have increased as related, if they had been treated as cruelly as the friends of the abolition had described.
Regarding the slaves there, stories have been shared about their oppression, which shocked everyone who heard them. But is it fair to conclude from these stories that they were generally mistreated? Imagine someone gathering various abuses that have occurred over the years under our own beneficial constitution and using these as proof of its worthlessness. Wouldn’t we tell them that even in the best system that human intellect can devise, there will be some flaws, and it’s unfair to make conclusions based on such selective evidence? In the same way, one could argue concerning the claimed treatment of the slaves. Evidence has been presented on both sides of this issue. I wouldn’t hesitate to oppose the views of Lord Rodney and others against anyone, no matter how respected, who supports abolition. However, this isn’t necessary. There are other types of facts that can serve the same purpose. Before 1730, the decline of the slave population in our islands was significant. From 1730 to 1755, the deaths were just two and a half percent higher than the births; from 1755 to 1768, only one and three-fourths percent; and from 1768 to 1788, just one percent. At first glance, this suggests that, regardless of the slaves’ past situation, their conditions had gradually improved. Yet, if we also consider the unique disadvantages they faced—such as the small number of females compared to males, as well as the hurricanes and famines that devastated thousands—we would find it physically impossible for their numbers to have grown as reported if they had been treated as harshly as abolitionists have claimed.
This species of facts would enable him also to draw still more important conclusions; namely, that as the slaves in the West Indies had gradually increased, they would continue to increase; that very few years would pass, not only before the births were equal to the deaths, but before they were more numerous than the deaths; and that if this was likely to happen in the present state of things, how much more would it happen, if by certain regulations the increase of the slaves should be encouraged?
This kind of information would also allow him to make even more significant conclusions; specifically, that as the slave population in the West Indies had gradually grown, it would continue to grow. It wouldn’t be long before the number of births matched the number of deaths, and eventually, there would be more births than deaths. If this was likely to occur under the current circumstances, how much more probable would it be if specific regulations were put in place to encourage the increase of the slave population?
The only question then was, whether it was more advantageous to breed or to import. He thought he should prove the former; and if so, then this increase was inevitable, and the importations would necessarily cease.
The only question then was whether it was better to breed or to import. He believed he could show that breeding was the better option; if so, then this increase was unavoidable, and the imports would naturally stop.
In the first place, the gradual increase of the slaves of late years clearly proved, that such increase had been encouraged. But their price had been doubled in the last twenty years. The planter, therefore, must feel it his interest to desist from purchasing, if possible. But again, the greatest mortality was among the newly imported slaves. The diseases they contracted on the passage, and their deaths in the seasoning, all made for the same doctrine. Add to this, that slaves bred in the islands were more expert at colonial labour, more reconciled to their situation, and better disposed towards their masters than those who were brought from Africa.
In the first place, the steady increase in the number of slaves in recent years clearly showed that this growth had been encouraged. However, their price had doubled in the last twenty years. The planter, therefore, must find it in his best interest to stop purchasing, if possible. Additionally, the highest death rate was among the newly imported slaves. The diseases they picked up during the journey and the deaths during the acclimatization process all supported the same argument. Furthermore, slaves born in the islands were more skilled at colonial work, more adapted to their situation, and had a better relationship with their masters than those who were brought over from Africa.
But it had been said, that the births and deaths in the islands were now equal; and that therefore no further supply was wanted. He denied the propriety of this inference. The slaves were subject to peculiar diseases. They were exposed also to hurricanes and consequent famines. That the day, however, would come, when the stock there would be sufficient, no person who attended to the former part of his argument could doubt. That they had gradually increased, were gradually increasing, and would, by certain regulations, increase more and more, must be equally obvious. But these were all considerations for continuing the traffic a little longer.
But it had been said that the births and deaths in the islands were now balanced, and therefore no more supply was needed. He disagreed with this conclusion. The slaves were vulnerable to specific diseases. They were also at risk from hurricanes and the resulting famines. However, it was clear to anyone who listened to the earlier part of his argument that a day would come when the population there would be sufficient. That they had gradually increased, were currently increasing, and would continue to grow more and more with certain regulations was equally obvious. But these were all reasons to continue the trade a little longer.
He then desired the House to reflect upon the state of St. Domingo. Had not its calamities been imputed by its own deputies to the advocates for the abolition? Were ever any scenes of horror equal to those which had passed there? And should we, when principles of the same sort were lurking in our own islands, expose our fellow-subjects to the same miseries, who, if guilty of promoting this trade, had, at least, been encouraged in it by ourselves?
He then urged the House to think about the situation in St. Domingo. Hadn't its disasters been blamed by its own representatives on those pushing for abolition? Were there ever any scenes of horror that matched what happened there? And should we, with similar principles lurking in our own islands, subject our fellow subjects to the same sufferings, who, if guilty of supporting this trade, had at least been encouraged in it by us?
That the Slave Trade was an evil, he admitted. That the state of slavery itself was likewise an evil, he admitted; and if the question was, not whether we should abolish, but whether we should establish these, he would be the first to oppose himself to their existence; but there were many evils, which we should have thought it our duty to prevent, yet which, when they had once arisen, it was more dangerous to oppose than to submit to,—The duty of a statesman was, not to consider abstractedly what was right or wrong, but to weigh the consequences which were likely to result from the abolition of an evil, against those which were likely to result from its continuance. Agreeing then most perfectly with the abolitionists in their end, he differed from them only in the means of accomplishing it. He was desirous of doing that gradually, which he conceived they were doing rashly. He had therefore drawn up two propositions. The first was, That an address be presented to His Majesty, that he would recommend to the colonial assemblies to grant premiums to such planters, and overseers, as should distinguish themselves by promoting the annual increase of the slaves by birth; and likewise freedom to every female slave, who had reared five children to the age of seven years. The second was, That a bounty of five pounds per head be given to the master of every slave-ship, who should import in any cargo a greater number of females than males, not exceeding the age of twenty-five years. To bring, forward these propositions, he would now move that the chairman leave the chair.
He acknowledged that the Slave Trade was a terrible thing. He also recognized that the existence of slavery was equally wrong. If the question was not whether we should abolish it but whether we should start it, he would be the first to stand against it; however, there are many wrongs that we would think it our responsibility to prevent, but once they occur, it's often more dangerous to fight against them than to accept them. The role of a statesman isn’t to focus solely on what is right or wrong in an abstract sense, but to consider the potential outcomes of abolishing an evil versus the outcomes of allowing it to continue. So, while he fully agreed with the abolitionists on their ultimate goal, he disagreed with their approach. He wanted to achieve that goal slowly, believing they were being too hasty. He had formulated two proposals. The first was to present a request to His Majesty to encourage colonial assemblies to offer incentives to planters and overseers who promoted the annual growth of the slave population through birth, and also to grant freedom to any female slave who had raised five children to the age of seven. The second proposal was to offer a bounty of five pounds for every slave ship captain who brought in more females than males, with a maximum age of twenty-five. To present these proposals, he would now request that the chairman step down.
Mr. Este wished the debate to be adjourned. He allowed there were many enormities in the trade, which called for regulation. There were two propositions before the House: the one for the immediate, and the other for the gradual, abolition of the trade. He thought that members should be allowed time to compare their respective merits. At present his own opinion was, that gradual abolition would answer the end proposed in the least exceptionable manner.
Mr. Este wanted the debate to be postponed. He acknowledged that there were many serious issues in the trade that needed regulation. There were two proposals before the House: one for immediate abolition and the other for gradual abolition of the trade. He believed that members should have time to weigh the pros and cons of each. Right now, he personally thought that gradual abolition would achieve the desired goal in the least objectionable way.
Mr. Pitt rejoiced that the debate had taken a turn, which contracted the question into such narrow limits. The matter then in dispute was merely as to the time at which the abolition should take, place. He therefore congratulated the House, the country, and the world, that this great point had been gained; that we might now consider this trade as having received its condemnation; that this curse of mankind was seen in its true light; and that the greatest stigma on our national character, which ever yet existed, was about to be removed! Mankind, he trusted, were now likely to be delivered from the greatest practical evil that ever afflicted the human race—from the most severe and extensive calamity recorded in the history of the world.
Mr. Pitt was glad that the debate had shifted, narrowing the question significantly. The issue under discussion was simply about when the abolition should happen. He therefore congratulated the House, the country, and the world for this significant progress; we could now view this trade as having been condemned; this curse on humanity was finally recognized for what it truly was; and the biggest stain on our national character that ever existed was about to be erased! He hoped that humanity was now on the verge of being freed from the greatest practical evil that has ever plagued us—from the most severe and widespread disaster documented in history.
His honourable friend (Mr. Jenkinson) had insinuated, that any act for the abolition would be evaded. But if we were to enforce this act with all the powers of the country, how could it fail to be effectual? But his honourable friend had himself satisfied him, upon this point. He had acknowledged, that the trade would drop of itself, on account of the increasing dearness of the commodity imported. He would ask then, if we were to leave to the importer no means of importation but by smuggling; and if, besides all the present disadvantages, we were to load him with all the charges and hazards of the smuggler, would there be any danger of any considerable supply of fresh slaves being poured into the islands through this channel? The question under these circumstances, he pronounced, would not bear a dispute.
His honorable friend (Mr. Jenkinson) suggested that any law for abolition would be sidestepped. But if we were to enforce this law with all the powers of the country, how could it not be effective? However, his honorable friend had already convinced him on this issue. He admitted that the trade would eventually decline due to the rising cost of the imported goods. So, he asked, if we left importers with no option but to smuggle; and if, on top of the current disadvantages, we added all the costs and risks of smuggling, would there really be any significant chance of a large influx of new slaves coming into the islands this way? Given these circumstances, he asserted, the question was beyond debate.
His honourable friend had also maintained, that it would be inexpedient to stop the importations immediately, because the deaths and births in the islands were as yet not equal. But he (Mr. Pitt) had proved last year, from the most authentic documents, that an increase of the births above the deaths had already taken place. This then was the time for beginning the abolition. But he would now observe, that five years had elapsed since these documents were framed; and therefore the presumption was, that the black population was increasing at an extraordinary rate. He had not, to be sure, in his consideration of the subject, entered into the dreadful mortality arising from the clearing of new lands. Importations for this purpose were to be considered, not as carrying on the trade, but as setting on foot a Slave Trade, a measure which he believed no one present would then support. He therefore asked his honourable friend, whether the period he had looked to was now arrived? whether the West Indies, at this hour, were, not in a state in which they could maintain their population?
His honorable friend had also argued that it would be unwise to stop imports immediately because the number of deaths and births in the islands wasn't balanced yet. But he (Mr. Pitt) had proven last year, using the most reliable documents, that there had already been more births than deaths. So now was the time to start the abolition. He would also point out that five years had passed since those documents were created, which implies that the black population was growing at an extraordinary rate. He hadn’t, of course, taken into account the terrible loss of life caused by clearing new land. Imports for this purpose should not be viewed as continuing trade, but as starting a Slave Trade, a move he believed no one present would support. He therefore asked his honorable friend whether the time he had anticipated had now come, and whether the West Indies, at this moment, were in a position to sustain their population?
It had been argued, that one or other of these two, assertions was false; that either the population of the slaves must be decreasing, (which the abolitionists denied,) or, if it was increasing, the slaves must have been well treated. That their population was rather increasing than otherwise, and also that their general treatment was by no means so good as it ought to have been, were both points which had been proved by different witnesses. Neither were they incompatible with each other. But he would see whether the explanation of this seeming contradiction would not refute the argument of expediency, as advanced by his honourable friend. Did the slaves decrease in numbers?—Yes. Then ill usage must have been the cause of it; but if so, the abolition was immediately necessary to, restrain it. Did they, on the other hand, increase?—Yes. But if so, no further importations, were wanted. Was their population (to take a middle course) nearly stationary, and their treatment neither so good nor so bad as it might be?—Yes. But if so, this was the proper period for stopping further supplies; for both the population and the treatment would be improved by such a measure.
It has been argued that one of these two claims is false; either the population of the slaves must be decreasing (which the abolitionists denied), or if it is increasing, the slaves must be well treated. Evidence from various witnesses has shown that their population is actually increasing and that their general treatment is definitely not as good as it should be. These points are not mutually exclusive. However, he would examine whether explaining this apparent contradiction could challenge the argument of practicality made by his honorable friend. Are the slaves decreasing in number?—Yes. Then poor treatment must be the cause; if that's the case, abolition is urgently needed to put a stop to it. Are they, on the other hand, increasing?—Yes. But if that's true, there's no need for more imports. Is their population (to take a middle position) nearly stable, with their treatment neither good nor bad as it could be?—Yes. But if that's the case, this is the right time to halt further supplies; doing so would improve both their population and treatment.
But he would show again the futility of the, argument of his honourable friend. He himself had admitted that it was in the power of the colonists to correct the various abuses, by which the Negro population was restrained. But, they could not do this without improving the condition of their slaves; without making them approximate towards the rank of citizens; without giving them some little interest in their labour, which would occasion them to work with the energy of men. But now the Assembly of Grenada had themselves stated, "that though the Negroes were allowed the afternoons of only one day in every week they would do as much work in that afternoon, when employed for their own benefit as in the whole day, when employed in their masters' service." Now, after, this, confession, the House might burn all his calculations relative to the Negro population; for, if it had not yet quite reached the desirable state which he had pointed out, this confession had proved, that further supplies were not wanted. A Negro, if he worked for himself, could do double work. By an improvement then in the mode of labour, the work in the islands could be doubled. But if so, what would become of the argument of his honourable friend? for then only half the number of the present labourers were necessary.
But he would once again demonstrate the futility of his honorable friend's argument. He had admitted that it was within the colonists' power to fix the various issues that kept the Black population restrained. However, they couldn't do this without improving the conditions of their slaves; without bringing them closer to citizenship; without giving them some stake in their labor that would motivate them to work with the energy of men. Yet, the Assembly of Grenada had stated, "that even if the Black people were allowed to work only one afternoon each week for themselves, they would accomplish as much in that time as they would in a full day working for their masters." After this admission, the House could disregard all of his calculations about the Black population; because if it hadn’t yet reached the ideal state he suggested, this acknowledgment proved that no additional supplies were necessary. A Black person, when working for themselves, could do double the work. Therefore, by improving the way labor was managed, the total output on the islands could be doubled. But if that's the case, what happens to his honorable friend's argument? Since only half the number of current laborers would then be required.
He would now try this argument of expediency by other considerations. The best informed writers on the subject had told us, that the purchase of new Negroes was injurious to the, planters. But if this statement was just, would not the abolition be beneficial to them? That it would, was the opinion of Mr. Long, their own historian. "If the Slave Trade," says he, "was prohibited for four or five years, it would enable them to retrieve their affairs by preventing them from running into debt, either by renting or purchasing Negroes." To this acknowledgment he would add a fact from the evidence, which was, that a North American province, by such a prohibition alone for a few years from being deeply plunged in debt, had become independent, rich, and flourishing.
He would now try this argument for practicality using other considerations. The best-informed writers on the subject have told us that buying new slaves is harmful to the planters. But if this claim is true, wouldn’t ending the slave trade be beneficial for them? Mr. Long, their own historian, believed it would. "If the Slave Trade," he says, "is banned for four or five years, it would help them get back on their feet by preventing them from going into debt, either by renting or buying slaves." To this acknowledgment, he would add a fact from the evidence, which is that a North American province, by simply prohibiting the trade for a few years, managed to avoid being deeply in debt and became independent, wealthy, and thriving.
The next consideration was the danger, to which the islands, were exposed from the newly imported slaves. Mr. Long, with a view of preventing insurrections, had advised, that a duty equal to a prohibition, might be laid on the importation of Coromantine slaves. After noticing one insurrection, which happened through their means, he speaks of another in the following year, in which thirty-three Coromantines, "most of whom had been newly imported, murdered and wounded no less than nineteen Whites in the, space of an hour." To the authority of Mr Long he would add the recorded opinion of a committee of the House of Assembly of Jamaica, which was appointed to inquire into the best means of preventing future insurrections. The committee reported, that "the rebellion had originated, like most others, with the Coromantines," and they proposed that a bill should he brought in for laying a higher duty on the importation of these particular Negroes, which should operate as a prohibition. But the danger was not confined to the introduction of Coromantines. Mr. Long accounts for the frequent insurrections in Jamaica from the greatness of its general importations. "In two years and a-half," says he, "twenty-seven thousand Negroes have been imported.—No wonder that we have rebellions!" Surely then, when his honourable friend spoke of the calamities of St. Domingo, and of similar dangers impending over our own islands, it ill became him to be the person to cry out for further importations! It ill became him to charge upon the abolitionists the crime of stirring up insurrections, who only recommended what the legislature of Jamaica itself had laid down in a time of danger with an avowed view to prevent them. It was, indeed, a great satisfaction to himself, that among the many arguments for prohibiting the Slave Trade, the security of our West Indian possessions against internal commotions, as well as foreign enemies, was among the most prominent and forcible. And here he would ask his honourable friend, whether in this part of the argument he did not see reason for immediate abolition. Why should we any longer persist in introducing those latent principles of conflagration, which, if they should once burst forth, might annihilate the industry of a hundred years? which might throw the planters back a whole century in their profits, in their cultivation, and in their progress towards the emancipation of their slaves? It was our duty to vote that the abolition of the Slave Trade should be immediate, and not to leave it to he knew not what future time or contingency.
The next thing to consider was the threat the islands faced from the newly imported slaves. Mr. Long, aiming to prevent uprisings, suggested that a duty equivalent to a ban be placed on the importation of Coromantine slaves. After mentioning one uprising caused by them, he referred to another the following year, where thirty-three Coromantines, "most of whom had been newly imported, killed or injured at least nineteen Whites in just an hour." To Mr. Long's authority, he added the recorded opinion of a committee from the House of Assembly of Jamaica, which was created to explore the best ways to prevent future uprisings. The committee reported that "the rebellion originated, like most others, with the Coromantines," and proposed that a bill be introduced to impose a higher duty on the importation of these specific individuals, serving as an effective ban. However, the danger was not limited to just Coromantines. Mr. Long explained that the frequent uprisings in Jamaica arose from the scale of its general importations. "In two and a half years," he stated, "twenty-seven thousand Negroes have been imported. It’s no surprise we have rebellions!" Therefore, when his esteemed friend talked about the disasters in St. Domingo and similar threats looming over our own islands, it was inappropriate for him to call for more importations! It was also inappropriate for him to accuse abolitionists of inciting uprisings, who were only suggesting what the Jamaican legislature itself had proposed during a time of crisis to prevent them. It gave him great satisfaction that among the many reasons to prohibit the Slave Trade, the safety of our West Indian territories against internal strife, as well as foreign foes, was among the most significant and compelling. And here, he would ask his esteemed friend, if he didn’t see reason for immediate abolition in this part of the argument. Why should we continue to introduce those underlying sparks of conflict, which, if they ever erupted, could destroy the progress made over a hundred years? That could set back the planters a whole century in their profits, cultivation, and advancement toward the emancipation of their slaves? It was our responsibility to vote for the immediate abolition of the Slave Trade and not to leave it to an uncertain future or unpredictable circumstances.
Having now done with the argument of expediency, he would consider the proposition of his right honourable friend Mr. Dundas; that, on account of some patrimonial rights of the West Indians, the prohibition of the Slave Trade would be an invasion of their legal inheritance. He would first observe, that, if this argument was worth anything, it applied just as much to gradual as to immediate abolition. He had no doubt, that, at whatever period we should say the trade should cease; it would be equally, set up; for it would certainly be just as good an argument against the measure in seventy years hence, as it was against it now. It implied also, that Parliament had no right to stop the importations: but had this detestable traffic received such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of the legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? In what a situation did the proposition of his honourable friend place the legislature of Great Britain! It was scarcely possible to lay a duty on anyone article, which might not in someway affect the property of individuals. But if the laws respecting the Slave Trade implied a contract for its perpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the branches of our national commerce.
Having wrapped up the discussion on practicality, he would address the suggestion from his honorable friend Mr. Dundas that due to some inherited rights of the West Indians, banning the Slave Trade would violate their legal inheritance. He would first point out that if this argument had any merit, it applied just as much to gradual abolition as it did to immediate abolition. He had no doubt that whenever we decided to end the trade, the argument against it would remain valid; it would be just as strong after seventy years as it was now. It also suggested that Parliament had no authority to halt the importations. But did this horrible trade really have such a backing that it was beyond the reach of the legislature forever, more than any other aspect of our trade? What a position did his honorable friend's proposition put the legislature of Great Britain in! It was nearly impossible to impose a tax on any item that wouldn’t somehow impact individual property rights. However, if the laws regarding the Slave Trade implied a commitment to its never-ending continuation, then the House could never regulate any other aspects of our national commerce.
But any contract for the promotion of this trade must, in his opinion, have been void from the beginning: for if it was an outrage upon justice, and only another name for fraud, robbery, and murder, what pledge could devolve upon the legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?
But any contract to promote this trade must, in his view, have been invalid from the start: if it was a violation of justice and just another term for deception, theft, and murder, what responsibility would the legislature have to take on the duty of becoming complicit in these terrible acts by allowing them to continue?
But he would appeal to the acts themselves. That of 23 George II. c. 31, was the one upon which the greatest stress was laid. How would the House be surprised to hear that the very outrages committed in the prosecution of this trade had been forbidden by that act! "No master of a ship trading to Africa," says the act, "shall by fraud, force, or violence, or by any indirect practice whatever, take on board or carry away from that coast any Negro, or native of that country, or commit any violence on the natives, to the prejudice of the said trade; and every person so offending, shall for every such offence forfeit one hundred pounds." But the whole trade had been demonstrated to be a system of fraud, force, and violence; and therefore the contract was daily violated, under which the Parliament allowed it to continue.
But he would focus on the laws themselves. The one from 23 George II, c. 31, was the most significant. How shocked would the House be to learn that the very abuses committed in this trade were prohibited by that law! "No ship captain trading to Africa," the law states, "shall use fraud, force, or violence, or any indirect means whatsoever, to take on board or carry away from that coast any Black person or native of that country, or commit any violence against the natives, which would harm the trade; and anyone who does so shall forfeit one hundred pounds for each offense." Yet the entire trade had been proven to be based on fraud, force, and violence; therefore, the agreement under which Parliament permitted it to continue was being violated daily.
But why had the trade ever been permitted at all? The preamble of the act would show: "Whereas the trade to and from Africa is very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of Negroes at reasonable rates, and for that purpose the said trade should be carried on."—Here then we might see what the Parliament had in view, when it passed this act. But no one of the occasions, on which it grounded its proceedings, now existed. He would plead, then, the act itself as an argument for the abolition. If it had been proved that, instead of being very advantageous to Great Britain, it was the most destructive to her interests—that it was the ruin of her seamen—that it stopped the extension of her manufactures;—if it had been proved, in the second place, that it was not now necessary for the supply of our Plantations with Negroes;—if it had been further established, that it was from the beginning contrary to the first principles of justice, and consequently that a pledge for its continuance, had one been attempted to be given, must have been absolutely void—where in this act of parliament was the contract to be found, by which Britain was bound, as she was said to be, never to listen to her own true interests and to the cries of the natives of Africa? Was it not clear, that all argument, founded on the supposed pledge of Parliament, made against those who employed it?
But why was the trade ever allowed at all? The introduction of the act makes it clear: "Whereas the trade to and from Africa is very beneficial to Great Britain, and necessary for providing the Plantations and Colonies with a sufficient number of enslaved people at reasonable rates, and for that purpose the trade should continue."—Here we can see what Parliament intended when it passed this act. However, none of the reasons that justified its actions still exist. Therefore, I would argue that the act itself supports the case for abolition. If it has been shown that, rather than being beneficial to Great Britain, it was actually detrimental to her interests—that it harmed her sailors and hindered the growth of her industries;—if it has also been demonstrated that it is no longer necessary for supplying our Plantations with enslaved people;—and if it has been further established that it was unjust from the start, meaning any promise made to continue it would be completely invalid—where in this act of Parliament is the contract that supposedly binds Britain to ignore her true interests and the pleas of the people of Africa? Isn't it obvious that any argument based on a supposed promise from Parliament goes against those who use it?
But if we were not bound by existing laws to the support of this trade, we were doubly criminal in pursuing it; for why ought it to be abolished at all? Because it was incurable injustice. Africa was the ground on which he chiefly rested; and there it was, that his two honourable friends, one of whom had proposed gradual abolition, and the other regulation, did not carry their principles, to their full extent. Both had confessed the trade to be a moral evil. How much stronger, then, was the argument, for immediate than for gradual abolition! If on the ground of a moral evil it was to be abolished at last, why ought it not now? Why was injustice to be suffered to remain for a single hour? He knew of no evil, which ever had existed, nor could he imagine any to exist, worse than the tearing of eighty thousand persons annually from their native land, by a combination of the most civilized nations, in the most enlightened quarter of the globe; but more, especially by that nation, which called herself the most free and the most happy of them all.
But if we weren't bound by current laws to support this trade, we were even more guilty for pursuing it; after all, why should it be abolished at all? Because it was an obvious injustice. Africa was the main point of reference for him, and it was there that his two honorable friends, one of whom suggested gradual abolition and the other regulation, didn't fully commit to their principles. Both admitted that the trade was a moral evil. So how much stronger was the argument for immediate rather than gradual abolition! If it's going to be abolished as a moral evil eventually, why not do it now? Why should injustice be allowed to persist for even a single hour? I can't think of any evil that has ever existed, nor can I imagine one that could exist, worse than the separation of eighty thousand people each year from their homeland, driven by a coalition of the most civilized nations, in the most enlightened part of the world; especially by the nation that claims to be the freest and happiest of them all.
He would now notice the objection, that other nations would not give up the Slave Trade, if we were to renounce it. But if the trade were stained, but by a thousandth part of the criminality which he and others, after a thorough investigation of the subject, charged upon it, the House ought immediately to vote for its abolition. This miserable argument, if persevered in, would be an eternal bar to the annihilation of the evil. How was it ever to be eradicated, if every nation was thus prudentially to wait till the concurrence of all the world should be obtained! But it applied a thousand times more strongly in a contrary way. How much more justly would other nations say, "Great Britain, free as she is, just and honourable as she is, not only has not abolished, but has refused to abolish, the Slave Trade. She has investigated it well. Her senate has deliberated upon it. It is plain, then, that she sees no guilt in it." With this argument we should furnish the other nations of Europe, if we were again to refuse to put an end to this cruel traffic; and we should have from henceforth not only to answer for our own, but for their crimes also. Already we have suffered one year to pass away; and now, when the question was renewed, not only had this wretched argument been revived, but a proposition had been made for the gradual abolition of the trade. He knew, indeed, the difficulty of reforming long established abuses; but in the present case, by proposing some other period than the present, by prescribing some condition, by waiting for some contingencies, perhaps till we obtained the general concurrence of Europe, (A concurrence which he believe never yet took place at the commencement of any one improvement in policy or morals,) he fared that this most enormous evil would never be redressed. Was it not folly to wait for the stream to run down before we crossed the bed of its channel? Alas! we might wait for ever. The river would still flow on. We should be no nearer the object which we had in view, so long as the step, which could alone bring us to it was not taken.
He would now point out the objection that other countries wouldn't give up the Slave Trade if we stopped it. But if the trade were tainted, even by a tiny fraction of the wrongdoing that he and others have seriously investigated, the House should immediately vote to end it. This pathetic argument, if continued, would forever block the elimination of this evil. How could it ever be stopped if every nation prudently waited for the agreement of everyone else? But it actually applies even more strongly in the opposite direction. How much more justly would other nations say, "Great Britain, free and honorable as she is, not only hasn't abolished the Slave Trade, but has refused to do so. She has thoroughly investigated it. Her parliament has debated it. Clearly, she sees no wrongdoing in it." With this argument, we would be giving other European nations a reason to continue the trade if we refused to end this cruel practice; we would then have to not only answer for our own actions but for theirs too. Already, we've let a year go by, and now that the question has come up again, not only has this miserable argument resurfaced, but there's also a proposal for the gradual abolition of the trade. He knew how difficult it is to reform long-established abuses, but in this situation, by suggesting some future time instead of acting now, setting some conditions, or waiting for certain outcomes, perhaps until we had everyone's agreement in Europe—which he believed has never happened at the start of any significant change in policy or ethics—he feared that this enormous evil would never be addressed. Wasn't it foolish to wait for the water to recede before we crossed the riverbed? We could wait forever. The river would continue to flow, and we would still be no closer to our goal as long as we didn't take the necessary step to reach it.
He would now proceed to the civilization of Africa; and, as his eye had just glanced upon a West Indian law in the evidence upon the table, he would begin with an argument, which the sight of it had suggested to him. This argument had been ably answered in the course of the evening; but he would view it in yet another light. It had been said, that the savage disposition of the Africans rendered the prospect of their civilization almost hopeless. This argument was indeed of long standing; but, last year, it had been supported upon a new ground. Captain Frazer had stated in his evidence, that a boy had been put to death at Cabenda, because there were those who refused to purchase him as a slave. This single story was deemed by him, and had been considered by others, as a sufficient proof of the barbarity of the Africans, and of the inutility of abolishing the Slave Trade. But they, who had used this fact, had suppressed several circumstances relating to it. It appeared, on questioning Captain Frazer afterward, that this boy had previously run away from his master three several times; that the master had to pay his value, according to the custom of the country, every time he was brought back; and that partly from anger at the boy for running away so frequently, and partly to prevent a repetition of the same expense, he determined to destroy him. Such was the explanation of the signal instance, which was to fix barbarity on all Africa, as it came out in the cross-examination of Captain Frazer. That this African master was unenlightened and barbarous, he freely admitted; but what would an enlightened and civilized West Indian have done in a similar case? He would quote the law, passed in the West Indies in 1722, which he had just cast his eye upon in the book of evidence, by which law this very same crime of running away was by the legislature, of an island, by the grave and deliberate sentence of an enlightened legislature, punished with death; and this, not in the case only of the third offence, but even in the very first instance. It was enacted, "That, if any Negro or other slave should withdraw himself from his master for the term of six months, or any slave, who was absent, should not return within that time, every such person should suffer death." There was also another West Indian law, by which every Negro was armed against his fellow Negro, for he was authorized to kill every runaway slave; and he had even a reward held out to him for so doing. Let the House now contrast the two cases. Let them ask themselves which of the two exhibited the greater barbarity; and whether they could possibly vote for the continuance of the Slave Trade, upon the principle that the Africans had shown themselves to be a race of incorrigible barbarians?
He would now move on to discussing the civilization of Africa; and, since his eye had just caught a glimpse of a West Indian law in the evidence on the table, he would start with an argument inspired by it. This argument had already been effectively countered during the evening, but he would consider it from yet another perspective. It had been claimed that the savage nature of Africans made the prospect of their civilization nearly impossible. This argument was indeed longstanding; however, it had been reinforced last year on a new basis. Captain Frazer had stated in his evidence that a boy was killed in Cabenda because no one wanted to buy him as a slave. This single incident was seen by him and others as sufficient proof of African barbarity and the futility of ending the Slave Trade. However, those who cited this fact left out several key details. When Captain Frazer was questioned later, it turned out that this boy had escaped from his master three times; that the master had to pay for him according to local customs each time he was returned; and that out of frustration at the boy's repeated escapes, and to avoid incurring the same costs again, he decided to kill him. This was the context behind the notable case that was used to label all of Africa as barbaric, as revealed during Captain Frazer's cross-examination. He readily admitted that this African master was brutal and unenlightened; but what would an enlightened and civilized West Indian have done in a similar situation? He would reference a law passed in the West Indies in 1722, which he had just scanned in the evidence book, stating that the very same crime of running away was punished with death by the island's legislature, based on a serious and thoughtful decision from an enlightened assembly, and this punishment applied not just after a third offense but even for the first. It was enacted, "That if any Negro or other slave withdraws from their master for six months, or if any slave who is absent does not return within that time, every such person shall suffer death." There was also another West Indian law that effectively turned every Negro against their fellow Negro, as they were permitted to kill any runaway slave, and they were even offered a reward for doing so. Now, let the House compare the two situations. They should ask themselves which of the two displayed greater barbarity; and whether they could possibly support the continuation of the Slave Trade on the grounds that Africans had proven themselves to be a race of irredeemable barbarians?
Something like an opposite argument, but with a like view, had been maintained by others on this subject. It had been said, in justification of the trade, that the Africans had derived some little civilization from their intercourse with us. Yes; we had given them just enough of the forms of justice to enable them to add the pretext of legal trials to their other modes of perpetrating the most atrocious crimes. We had given them just enough of European improvements, to enable them the more effectually to turn Africa into a ravaged wilderness. Alas! alas! we had carried on a trade with them from this civilized and enlightened country, which, instead of diffusing knowledge, had been a check to every laudable pursuit. We had carried a poison into their country, which spread its contagious effects from one end of it to the other, and which penetrated to its very centre, corrupting every part to which it reached. We had there subverted the whole order of nature; we had aggravated every natural barbarity, and furnished to every man motives for committing, under the name of trade, acts of perpetual hostility and perfidy against his neighbour. Thus had the perversion of British commerce carried misery instead of happiness to one whole quarter of the globe. False to the very principles of trade, misguided in our policy, unmindful of our duty, what almost irreparable mischief had we done to that continent! How should we hope to obtain forgiveness from heaven, if we refused to use those means which the mercy of Providence had still reserved to us for wiping away the guilt and shame, with which we were now covered? If we refused even this degree of compensation, how aggravated would be our guilt! Should we delay, then, to repair these incalculable injuries? We ought to count the days, nay the very hours, which intervened to delay the accomplishment of such a work.
Something like the opposite argument, but with a similar perspective, has been put forth by others on this topic. It has been claimed, in defense of the trade, that Africans gained some level of civilization from their interactions with us. Yes, we provided them just enough justice to let them add the façade of legal trials to their other ways of committing the most horrific crimes. We offered them just enough European advancements to help them turn Africa into a devastated wasteland. Alas! We engaged in a trade with them from this so-called civilized and enlightened nation, which, instead of spreading knowledge, acted as a barrier to every commendable pursuit. We introduced a poison into their land that spread its infectious effects from one end to the other, reaching deep into its core and corrupting everything it touched. We upset the entire natural order there; we intensified every primitive brutality and gave every person reasons to commit acts of constant hostility and betrayal against their neighbors under the guise of trade. Thus, the corruption of British commerce brought suffering instead of joy to a whole region of the world. True to the very principles of trade, misguided in our policies, and neglectful of our responsibilities, what almost irreparable damage have we inflicted upon that continent! How can we hope for forgiveness from heaven if we refuse to take the opportunities that Providence has still given us to remove the guilt and shame we now carry? If we deny even this level of compensation, how much worse would our guilt be! Should we hesitate to make amends for these unimaginable injuries? We should count the days, indeed the very hours, that delay the fulfillment of such a crucial task.
On this great subject, the civilization of Africa, which, he confessed, was near his heart, he would yet add a few observations. And first he would say, that the present deplorable state of that country, especially when we reflected that her chief calamities were to be ascribed to us, called for our generous aid, rather than justified any despair, on our part, of her recovery, and still less a repetition of our injuries. On what ground of theory or history did we act, when we supposed she was never to be reclaimed? There was a time, which it might be now fit to call to remembrance, when human sacrifices, and even this very practice of the Slave Trade existed in our own island. Slaves, as we may read in HENRY's History of Great Britain, were formerly an established article of our exports. "Great numbers," he says, "were exported like cattle from the British coast, and were to be seen exposed for sale in the Roman markets."—"Adultery, witchcraft, and debt," says the same historian, "were probably some of the chief sources of supplying the Roman market with British slaves—prisoners taken in war were added to the number—there might be also among them some unfortunate gamesters, who, after having lost all their goods, at length staked themselves, their wives, and their children." Now every one of these sources of slavery had been stated to be at this hour a source of slavery in Africa. If these practices, therefore, were to be admitted as proofs of the natural incapacity of its inhabitants, why might they not have been applied to ancient Britain? Why might not then some Roman senator, pointing to British barbarians, have predicted with equal boldness, that these were a people who were destined never to be free; who were without the understanding necessary for the attainment of useful arts; depressed by the hand of nature below the level of the human species, and created to form a supply of slaves for the rest of the world? But, happily, since that time, notwithstanding what would then have been the justness of these predictions, we had emerged from barbarism. We were now raised to a situation which exhibited a striking contrast to every circumstance by which a Roman might have characterized us, and by which we now characterized Africa. There was indeed one thing wanting to complete the contrast, and to clear us altogether from the imputation of acting even to this hour as barbarians; for we continued to this hour a barbarous traffic in slaves; we continued it even yet, in spite of all our great pretensions. We were once as obscure among the nations of the earth, as savage in our manners, as debased in our morals, as degraded in our understandings, as these unhappy Africans. But in the lapse of a long series of years, by a progression slow, and for a time almost imperceptible, we had become rich in a variety of acquirements. We were favoured above measure in the gifts of Providence, we were unrivalled in commerce, pre-eminent in arts, foremost in the pursuits of philosophy and science, and established in all the blessings of civil society; we were in the possession of peace, of liberty, and of happiness; we were under the guidance of a mild and a beneficent religion; and we were protected by impartial laws and the purest administration of justice; we were living under a system of government, which our own happy experience led us to pronounce the best and wisest, and which had become the admiration of the World. From all these blessings we must for ever have been excluded, had there been any truth in those principles, which some had not hesitated to lay down as applicable to the case of Africa; and we should have been at this moment little superior, either in morals, knowledge, or refinement, to the rude inhabitants of that continent.
On the important topic of African civilization, which he admitted was very meaningful to him, he wanted to add a few thoughts. First, he pointed out that the current tragic state of that country, especially considering that we were primarily responsible for its major troubles, called for our generous support rather than any despair about its recovery, let alone repeating our past wrongdoings. What grounds did we have, based on theory or history, to believe that it could never be salvaged? There was a time, which might now be worth remembering, when human sacrifices and practices like the Slave Trade existed in our own land. Slaves, as noted in HENRY's History of Great Britain, were once a major part of our exports. "Great numbers," he says, "were exported like cattle from the British coast and could be seen up for sale in Roman markets." According to the same historian, "Adultery, witchcraft, and debt were likely key sources of British slaves for the Roman market—prisoners taken in war were added to the count—there might also have been some unfortunate gamblers who, after losing everything, ended up betting themselves, their wives, and their children." Now, all these reasons for slavery were claimed to be valid in Africa today. If these practices were taken as evidence of the inherent incapacity of its people, why couldn't the same be said for ancient Britain? Why couldn't a Roman senator, pointing at the British barbarians, have confidently predicted that they were a people destined to never be free; lacking the understanding necessary for useful arts; oppressed by nature below the level of humanity, and meant to provide slaves for the rest of the world? Fortunately, since that time, despite what would have justified these predictions, we had moved beyond barbarism. We now stood in sharp contrast to every way a Roman might have described us and the way we now described Africa. However, there was still one thing missing to fully complete this contrast and to rid us of the accusation that we still acted like barbarians; we continued to engage in the savage trade of slaves even now, regardless of our grand claims. We were once as inconspicuous among the nations of the world, as savage in our behaviors, as debased in our morals, and as diminished in our intellects as those unfortunate Africans. But over many years, through a gradual and nearly imperceptible progress, we had become rich in various knowledge and skills. We were exceptionally blessed by Providence, unrivaled in trade, outstanding in arts, leading in philosophy and science, and established in the benefits of civil society; we enjoyed peace, liberty, and happiness; we were guided by a kind and benevolent religion; and we were protected by fair laws and the highest standards of justice. We lived under a government system that our own happy experiences led us to call the best and wisest, one that had become the admiration of the world. Without these blessings, we would have been forever excluded if there were any truth to the ideas that some had pushed as applicable to Africa; and we would currently be little better, either in morals, knowledge, or sophistication, than the primitive inhabitants of that continent.
If then we felt that this perpetual confinement in the fetters of brutal ignorance would have been the greatest calamity which could have befallen us; if we viewed with gratitude the contrast between our present and our former situation; if we shuddered to think of the misery which would still have overwhelmed us, had our country continued to the present times, through some cruel policy, to be the mart for slaves to the more civilized nations of the World;—God forbid that we should any longer subject Africa to the same dreadful scourge, and exclude the sight of knowledge from her coasts, which had reached every other quarter of the globe!
If we believed that being stuck in the chains of brutal ignorance would be the worst disaster for us; if we felt grateful for the difference between our current situation and our past; if we were horrified at the thought of the misery that would still be overwhelming us if our country had continued, due to some cruel policy, to be a market for slaves for more civilized nations in the world—God forbid that we should keep Africa under the same terrible curse and deny her the opportunity for knowledge that has reached every other part of the globe!
He trusted we should no longer continue this commerce, and that we should no longer consider ourselves as conferring too great a boon on the natives of Africa in restoring them to the rank of human beings, He trusted we should not think ourselves too liberal, if, by abolishing the Slave Trade, we gave them the same common chance of civilization with other parts of the World. If we listened to the voice of reason and duty this night, some of us might live to see a reverse of that picture, from which we how turned our eyes with shame. We might live to behold the natives engaged in the calm occupations of industry, and in the pursuit of a just commerce. We might behold the beams of science and philosophy breaking in upon their land, which at some happy period in still later times might blaze with full lustre; and joining their influence to that of pure religion, might illuminate and invigorate the most distant extremities of that immense continent. Then might we hope, that even Africa (though last of all the quarters of the globe) should enjoy at length, in the evening of her days, those blessings, which had descended so plentifully upon us in a much earlier period of the world. Then also would Europe, participating in her improvement and prosperity, receive an ample recompense for the tardy kindness (if kindness it could be called) of no longer hindering her from extricating herself out of the darkness, which, in other more fortunate regions, had been so much more speedily dispelled.
He believed we should no longer keep up this trade, and that we shouldn’t see ourselves as doing the natives of Africa a huge favor by restoring their status as human beings. He hoped we wouldn't think of ourselves as too generous if by abolishing the Slave Trade, we gave them the same opportunity for civilization as other parts of the world. If we listened to the call of reason and responsibility tonight, some of us might live to see a change from that picture we currently look away from in shame. We might witness the natives engaged in peaceful work and fair trade. We might see the lights of science and philosophy shining in their land, which at some fortunate time in the future could shine brightly; and together with the influence of true religion, could light up and energize the farthest corners of that vast continent. Then we could hope that even Africa (though the last of all the regions in the world) would finally enjoy, in her later days, those blessings that have abundantly come to us much earlier in history. Europe would also benefit from her progress and success, receiving a generous reward for the slow kindness (if it could even be called kindness) of no longer preventing her from pulling herself out of the darkness that, in other more fortunate areas, had been cleared away much more quickly.
————Nos primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis;
Illìc sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.
————The East first blew its breath upon the eager horses;
There, the late red light of the Evening Star ignited.
Then might be applied to Africa those words, originally used indeed with a different view:
Then those words could be applied to Africa, originally used with a different intention:
His demùm exactis———
Devenere locos laetos, et amoena vireta
Fortunatorum nemorum, sedesque beatas;
Largior hìc campos aether et lumine vestit
Purpureo.
His customs were followed exactly—
They reached joyful places, and beautiful groves
Of fortunate woods, and happy homes;
Here the sky is broader and is adorned
With purplish light.
It was in this view—it was as an atonement for our long and cruel injustice towards Africa, that the measure proposed by his honourable friend Mr. Wilberforce most forcibly recommended itself to his mind. The great and happy change to be expected in the state of her inhabitants was, of all the various benefits of the abolition, in his estimation the most extensive and important. He should vote against the adjournment; and he should also oppose every proposition which tended either to prevent, or even to postpone for an hour, the total abolition of the Slave Trade.
It was with this perspective—in recognition of our long and harsh injustices toward Africa—that the proposal put forward by his esteemed colleague Mr. Wilberforce resonated strongly with him. The significant and positive transformation anticipated for her people was, in his view, the most far-reaching and vital benefit of abolishing the slave trade. He intended to vote against the adjournment and would also oppose any suggestions aimed at delaying or even postponing the complete abolition of the Slave Trade, even for an hour.
Mr. Pitt having concluded his speech (at about six in the morning), Sir William Dolben, the chairman, proposed the following questions:—The first was on the motion of Mr. Jenkinson, "that the chairman do now leave the chair." This was lost by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four to eighty-seven. The second was on the motion of Mr. Dundas, "that the abolition should be, gradual;" when the votes for gradual exceeded those for immediate by one hundred and ninety-three to one hundred and twenty-five. He then put the amended question, that "it was the opinion of the committee that the trade ought to be gradually abolished." The committee having divided again, the votes for a gradual abolition were, two hundred and thirty, and those against any abolition were eighty-five.
Mr. Pitt finished his speech (around six in the morning), and Sir William Dolben, the chairman, proposed the following questions:—The first was on the motion of Mr. Jenkinson, "that the chairman should now leave the chair." This was defeated by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four to eighty-seven. The second was on the motion of Mr. Dundas, "that the abolition should be gradual;" in which the votes for gradual outnumbered those for immediate by one hundred and ninety-three to one hundred and twenty-five. He then put the amended question, that "it was the opinion of the committee that the trade should be gradually abolished." After the committee divided again, the votes for a gradual abolition were two hundred and thirty, and those against any abolition were eighty-five.
After this debate, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade held a meeting. They voted their thanks to Mr. Wilberforce for his motion, and to Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and those other members of the House who had supported it. They resolved, also, that the House of Commons, having determined that the Slave Trade ought to be gradually abolished, had by that decision manifested their opinion, that it was cruel and unjust. They resolved, also, that a gradual abolition of it was not an adequate remedy for its injustice and cruelty; neither could it be deemed a compliance with the general wishes of the people, as expressed in their numerous and urgent petitions to Parliament; and they resolved lastly, that the interval in which the Slave Trade should be permitted to continue, afforded a prospect of redoubled cruelties and ravages on the coast of Africa; and that it imposed therefore an additional obligation on every friend to the cause to use all constitutional means to obtain its immediate abolition.
After this debate, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade held a meeting. They expressed their gratitude to Mr. Wilberforce for his motion, and to Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and the other members of the House who had supported it. They also resolved that the House of Commons, having decided that the Slave Trade should be gradually abolished, had shown through this decision that they believed it was cruel and unfair. They concluded that a gradual abolition was not a sufficient solution for its injustice and cruelty; nor could it be seen as meeting the general wishes of the people, as shown in their many urgent petitions to Parliament. Lastly, they resolved that the time allowed for the continuation of the Slave Trade would likely lead to increased brutality and devastation along the coast of Africa; therefore, it placed an additional responsibility on every supporter of the cause to use all constitutional methods to achieve its immediate abolition.
At a subsequent meeting they voted their thanks to the right honourable Lord Muncaster, for the able support he had given to the great object of their institution by his Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade, and of its Effects in Africa; addressed to the people of Great Britain; and they elected the Rev. Richard Gifford, and the Rev. Thomas Gisborne, honorary and corresponding members; the first on account of his excellent sermon before-mentioned, and other services; and the latter on account of his truly Christian and seasonable pamphlet, entitled Remarks on the Late Decision of the House of Commons, respecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade.
At a later meeting, they expressed their gratitude to the right honorable Lord Muncaster for the valuable support he provided to the main goal of their organization through his Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade, and its Effects in Africa; addressed to the people of Great Britain. They also elected Rev. Richard Gifford and Rev. Thomas Gisborne as honorary and corresponding members; the first for his outstanding sermon mentioned earlier and other contributions, and the latter for his genuinely Christian and timely pamphlet, titled Remarks on the Late Decision of the House of Commons, respecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade.
On the 23rd of April, the House of Commons resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the subject again; and Mr. Beaufoy was put into the chair.
On April 23rd, the House of Commons turned into a committee of the whole House to discuss the topic again, and Mr. Beaufoy took the chair.
Mr. Dundas, upon whom the task of introducing a bill for the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade now devolved, rose to offer the outlines of a plan for that purpose. He intended, he said, immediately to abolish that part of the trade, by which we supplied foreigners with slaves. The other part of it was to be continued seven years from the 1st of January next. He grounded the necessity of its continuance till this time upon the documents of the Negro population in the different islands. In many of these, slaves were imported, but they were re-exported nearly in equal numbers. Now, all these he considered to be in a state to go on without future supplies from Africa. Jamaica and the ceded islands retained almost all the slaves imported into them. This he considered as a proof that these had not attained the same desirable state; and it was therefore necessary, that the trade should be continued longer on this account. It was his intention, however, to provide proper punishments, while it lasted, for abuses both in Africa and in the Middle Passage, He would take care, as far as he could, that none but young slaves should be brought from the Coast of Africa. He would encourage establishments there for a new species of traffic. Foreign nations should be invited to concur in the abolition. He should propose a praedial rather than a personal service for the West Indies, and institutions, by which the slaves there should be instructed in religious duties. He concluded by reading several resolutions, which he would leave to the future consideration of the House.
Mr. Dundas, who was now responsible for introducing a bill to gradually end the Slave Trade, stood up to lay out a plan for that purpose. He said he intended to immediately stop the part of the trade where we supplied slaves to foreign countries. The other part would continue for seven years starting from January 1st. He justified this extension based on data about the Black population in various islands. In many of these places, slaves were imported but almost equal numbers were re-exported. He believed that all of these could sustain themselves without additional supplies from Africa. Jamaica and the ceded islands retained nearly all the slaves brought in. He saw this as evidence that these locations had not reached a suitable state, necessitating the continuation of the trade for a longer period. However, he intended to impose appropriate punishments for abuses occurring both in Africa and during the Middle Passage while the trade continued. He would ensure that only young slaves were brought from the African Coast. He aimed to promote new types of trade establishments there. He would invite foreign nations to join in the abolition efforts. He proposed replacing personal service in the West Indies with a more agricultural approach and establishing programs to teach the slaves about religious duties. He concluded by reading several resolutions for the House to consider in the future.
Mr. Pitt then rose. He deprecated the resolutions altogether. He denied also the inferences which Mr. Dundas had drawn from the West Indian documents relative to the Negro population. He had looked aver his own calculations from the same documents again and again, and he would submit them, with all their data, if it should be necessary, to the House.
Mr. Pitt then stood up. He completely dismissed the resolutions. He also rejected the conclusions that Mr. Dundas had drawn from the West Indian documents about the Black population. He had reviewed his own calculations from the same documents multiple times, and he would present them, along with all their data, to the House if needed.
Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Fox held the same language. They contended also, that Mr. Dundas had now proved, a thousand times more strongly than ever, the necessity of immediate abolition. All the resolutions he had read were operative against his own reasoning. The latter observed, that the Slave-traders were in future only to be allowed to steal innocent children from their disconsolate parents.
Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Fox shared the same viewpoint. They also argued that Mr. Dundas had now demonstrated, even more convincingly than before, the need for immediate abolition. All the resolutions he had read went against his own reasoning. The latter noted that the slave traders would only be permitted to abduct innocent children from their sorrowful parents in the future.
After a few observations by Lord Sheffield, Mr. Drake, Colonel Tarleton, and Mr. Rolle, the House adjourned.
After a few comments from Lord Sheffield, Mr. Drake, Colonel Tarleton, and Mr. Rolle, the House adjourned.
On the 25th of April it resumed the consideration of the subject. Mr. Dundas then went over his former resolutions, and concluded by moving, "that it should not be lawful to import any African Negroes into any British colonies, in ships owned or navigated by British subjects, at any time after the 1st of January, 1800."
On April 25th, it resumed discussing the topic. Mr. Dundas then reviewed his earlier resolutions and ended by proposing, "that it should not be legal to import any African Negroes into any British colonies, in ships owned or operated by British subjects, at any time after January 1, 1800."
Lord Mornington (now Marquis Wellesley) rose to propose an amendment. He congratulated his countrymen, that the Slave Trade had received its death-wound. This traffic was founded in injustice; and between right and wrong there could be no compromise. Africa was not to be sacrificed to the apparent good of the West Indies. He would not repeat those enormities out of the evidence, which had made such a deep impression upon the House. It had been resolved, that the trade should be abolished. The question then was, how long they were to persevere in the crime of its continuance? One had said, that they might be unjust for ten years longer; another, only till the beginning of the next century. But this diversity of opinion had proceeded from an erroneous statement of Mr. Dundas against the clear and irrefragable calculations of Mr. Pitt. The former had argued, that, because Jamaica and the ceded islands had retained almost all the slaves which had been, imported into them, they were therefore not yet in a situation to support their population without further supplies from Africa. But the truth was, that the slaves, so retained, were kept, not to maintain the population there, but to clear new land. Now the House had determined, that the trade was not to be continued for this purpose. The population, therefore, in the islands was sufficient to continue the ordinary cultivation of them.
Lord Mornington (now Marquis Wellesley) stood up to propose an amendment. He congratulated his fellow countrymen that the Slave Trade had received its final blow. This trade was based on injustice, and there could be no compromise between right and wrong. Africa should not be sacrificed for the perceived benefit of the West Indies. He would not repeat the horrors from the evidence that had made such a strong impact on the House. It had already been decided that the trade should be abolished. The question now was, how much longer would they continue this crime? One person suggested they could be unjust for another ten years; another thought only until the start of the next century. But this range of opinions stemmed from a misunderstanding by Mr. Dundas, contradicting the clear and undeniable calculations of Mr. Pitt. The former claimed that, because Jamaica and the ceded islands had kept nearly all the slaves imported, they weren’t yet in a position to support their population without more supplies from Africa. However, the truth was that the slaves being kept were not intended to support the population there but to clear new land. Now the House had made it clear that the trade was not to continue for this purpose. Therefore, the population in the islands was sufficient to maintain their usual cultivation.
He deprecated the idea, that the Slave Trade had been so sanctioned by the acts of former Parliaments, that the present could make no alteration in it. Had not the House altered the import of foreign sugar into our islands? a measure, which at the time affected the property of many. Had they not prohibited the exports of provisions from America to the same quarter; Again, as to compacts, had the Africans ever been parties to these? It was rather curious also, when King James the Second gave a charter to the slave-trader, that he should have given them a right to all the south of Africa, and authority over every person born therein! But, by doing this, it was clear that he gave them a right which he never possessed himself. After many other observations, he concluded by moving, "that the year 1793 be substituted in the place of the year 1800."
He rejected the idea that the Slave Trade had been so legitimized by previous Parliaments that the current one couldn't change it. Didn't the House change the rules around importing foreign sugar to our islands? That was a move that impacted the property of many at the time. Didn't they also ban exports of provisions from America to that same area? And regarding agreements, had the Africans ever agreed to those? It was quite interesting too, that when King James the Second granted a charter to the slave trader, he gave them rights over all of southern Africa and authority over everyone born there! By doing so, he clearly gave them a right he never had himself. After making several other points, he ultimately proposed, "that the year 1793 be substituted in the place of the year 1800."
In the course of the debate, which followed, Mr. Burdon stated his conviction of the necessity of immediate abolition; but he would support the amendment, as the shortest of the terms proposed.
In the discussion that followed, Mr. Burdon expressed his belief in the urgent need for immediate abolition; however, he would back the amendment, as it was the least extensive of the options presented.
Mr. Robert Thornton would support it also, as the only choice left him. He dared not accede to a motion, by which we were to continue for seven years to imbrue our hands in innocent blood.
Mr. Robert Thornton would back it too, as it was the only option left for him. He couldn't agree to a plan that would have us for seven more years staining our hands with innocent blood.
Mr. Ryder (now Earl of Harrowby) would not support the trade for one moment, if he could avoid it. He could not hold a balance with gold in one scale, and blood in the other.
Mr. Ryder (now the Earl of Harrowby) wouldn't back the trade for even a second, if he could help it. He couldn't weigh gold in one scale and blood in the other.
Mr. William Smith exposed the wickedness of restricting the trade to certain ages. The original motion, he said, would only operate as a transfer of cruelty from the aged and the guilty to the young and the innocent. He entreated the House to consider, whether, if it related to their own children, any one of them would vote for it.
Mr. William Smith revealed the unfairness of limiting trade to certain age groups. He argued that the original motion would simply shift the cruelty from the old and guilty to the young and innocent. He urged the House to consider whether any of them would vote for it if it involved their own children.
Mr. Windham had hitherto felt a reluctance to speaking, not from the abstruseness, but from the simplicity, of the subject; but he could not longer be silent, when he observed those arguments of policy creeping again out of their lurking-places, which had fled before eloquence and truth. The House had clearly given up the policy of the question. They had been determined by the justice of it. Why were they then to be troubled again with arguments of this nature? These, if admitted, would go to the subversion of all public as well as private morality. Nations were as much bound as individuals to a system of morals, though a breach in the former could not be so easily punished. In private life morality took pretty good care of itself. It was a kind of retail article, in which the returns were speedy. If a man broke open his neighbour's house, he would feel the consequences. There was an ally of virtue, who rendered it the interest of individuals to be moral, and he was called the executioner. But as such punishment did not always await us in our national concerns, we should substitute honour as the guardian of our national conduct. He hoped the West Indians would consider the character of the mother-country, and the obligations to national as well as individual justice. He hoped, also, they would consider the sufferings, which they occasioned both in Africa, in the passage, and in the West Indies. In the passage, indeed, no one was capable of describing them. The section of the slave-ship; however, made up the deficiency of language, and did away all necessity of argument, on this subject. Disease there had to struggle with the new affliction of chains and punishment. At one view were the irksomeness of a goal, and the miseries of an hospital; so that the holds of these vessels put him in mind of the regions of the damned. The trade, he said, ought immediately to be abolished. On a comparison of the probable consequences of the abolition of it, he saw on one side only doubtful contingencies, but on the other shame and disgrace.
Mr. Windham had until now been hesitant to speak, not because the topic was complicated, but because it was straightforward. However, he could no longer stay silent when he noticed those policy arguments resurfacing that had retreated in the face of eloquence and truth. The House had clearly abandoned the policy stance on the issue. They had been swayed by its justice. So why were they being troubled again by such arguments? If accepted, these would undermine both public and private morality. Nations are just as bound to a moral system as individuals, even if a breach on a national level isn't as easily punished. In private life, morality tends to manage itself. It's like a retail item where the consequences are immediate. If someone breaks into their neighbor's house, they will face the repercussions. There’s a defender of virtue who makes it in individuals' interests to act morally, known as the executioner. But since such punishment isn’t always an option for our national issues, we should rely on honor to guide our national conduct. He hoped the West Indians would think about the character of the mother-country and the responsibilities of both national and individual justice. He also hoped they would consider the suffering they caused in Africa, during the journey, and in the West Indies. In fact, no one could fully describe the suffering during the voyage. However, the condition of the slave ship illustrated the extent of language’s limitations and removed any need for debate on this topic. Disease fought against the new burden of chains and punishment. At one glance, there was the discomfort of a jail and the agony of a hospital, so the holds of these ships reminded him of the regions of the damned. The trade, he asserted, must be abolished immediately. In weighing the likely outcomes of abolishing it, he only saw uncertain possibilities on one side, while on the other were shame and disgrace.
Sir James Johnstone contended for the immediate abolition of the trade. He had introduced the plough into his own plantation in the West Indies, and he found the land produced more sugar than when cultivated in the ordinary way by slaves. Even for the sake of the planters, he hoped the abolition would not be long delayed.
Sir James Johnstone argued for the immediate end of the trade. He had introduced the plow to his own plantation in the West Indies, and he noticed that the land produced more sugar than when it was farmed in the usual way by slaves. Even for the benefit of the planters, he hoped the abolition wouldn't be postponed for long.
Mr. Dundas replied: after which a division took place. The number of votes in favour of the original motion were one hundred and fifty-eight, and for the amendment one hundred and nine.
Mr. Dundas replied; after that, a vote was taken. The number of votes in favor of the original motion was one hundred fifty-eight, while the amendment received one hundred nine.
On the 27th of April the House resumed the subject. Mr. Dundas moved, as before, that the Slave Trade should cease in the year 1800; upon which Lord Mornington moved, that the year 1795 should be substituted for the latter period.
On April 27th, the House returned to the topic. Mr. Dundas proposed, as before, that the Slave Trade should end in the year 1800; to which Lord Mornington suggested replacing that year with 1795.
In the course of the debate, which followed, Mr. Hubbard said, that he had voted against the abolition, when the year 1793 was proposed; but he thought that, if it were not to take place till 1795, sufficient time would be allowed the planters. He would support this amendment; and he congratulated the House on the prospect of the final triumph of truth, humanity, and justice.
During the debate that followed, Mr. Hubbard mentioned that he had voted against the abolition when it was proposed in 1793; however, he believed that if it didn’t happen until 1795, the planters would have enough time to adjust. He expressed his support for this amendment and congratulated the House on the promise of a final victory for truth, humanity, and justice.
Mr. Addington preferred the year 1796 to the year 1795.
Mr. Addington preferred the year 1796 over 1795.
Mr. Alderman Watson considered the abolition in 1796, to be as destructive as if it were immediate.
Mr. Alderman Watson regarded the abolition in 1796 as just as destructive as if it happened right away.
A division having taken place, the number of votes in favour of the original motion were one hundred and sixty-one, and in favour of Lord Mornington's amendment for the year 1795, one hundred and twenty-one. Sir Edward Knatchbull, however, seeing that there was a disposition in the House to bring the matter to a conclusion, and that a middle line would be preferred, moved that the year 1796 should be substituted for this year 1800. Upon this the House divided again; when there appeared for the original motion only one hundred and thirty-two, but for the amendment one hundred and fifty-one.
A division having taken place, the number of votes in favor of the original motion was one hundred sixty-one, and in favor of Lord Mornington's amendment for the year 1795, one hundred twenty-one. Sir Edward Knatchbull, noticing that there was a tendency in the House to wrap things up and that a compromise would be preferred, proposed that the year 1796 should replace the year 1800. The House then divided again; for the original motion, there were only one hundred thirty-two votes, while for the amendment, there were one hundred fifty-one votes.
The gradual abolition having been now finally agreed upon for the year 1796, a committee was named, which carried the resolution to the Lords.
The gradual abolition has now been finally agreed upon for the year 1796, and a committee was appointed to present the resolution to the Lords.
On the 8th of May, the Lords were summoned to consider it; Lord Stormont, after having spoken for some time, moved, that they should hear evidence upon it. Lord Grenville opposed the motion on account of the delay, which would arise from an examination of the witnesses by the House at large: but he moved that such witnesses should be examined by a committee of the House. Upon this a debate ensued, and afterwards a division; when the original motion was carried by sixty-three against thirty-six.
On May 8th, the Lords were called to discuss it; Lord Stormont, after speaking for a while, suggested that they hear evidence on the matter. Lord Grenville opposed the motion due to the delays that would come from having the entire House question the witnesses: instead, he proposed that a committee of the House should examine the witnesses. This led to a debate, and afterward a vote, where the original motion passed with sixty-three in favor and thirty-six against.
On the 15th of May, the Lords met again. Evidence was then ordered to be summoned in behalf of those interested in the continuance of the trade. At length it was introduced; but on the 5th of June, when only seven persons had been examined, a motion was made and carried, that the further examinations should be postponed to the next session.
On May 15th, the Lords gathered once more. They then ordered that evidence be gathered for those invested in keeping the trade going. Eventually, it was brought forward; however, on June 5th, after only seven people had been questioned, a motion was proposed and approved to delay further examinations until the next session.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Continuation from July 1792 to July 1793.—Author travels round the kingdom again.—Motion to renew the resolution of the last year in the Commons; motion lost.—New motion in the Commons to abolish the foreign Slave Trade; motion lost.—Proceedings of the Lords.
Continuation from July 1792 to July 1793.—Author travels around the kingdom again.—Motion to renew the resolution from last year in the Commons; motion failed.—New motion in the Commons to eliminate the foreign Slave Trade; motion failed.—Proceedings of the Lords.
The resolution adopted by the Commons, that the trade should cease in 1796, was a matter of great joy to many; and several, in consequence of it, returned to the use of sugar. The committee, however, for the abolition did not view it in the same favourable light. They considered it as a political manoeuvre to frustrate the accomplishment of the object. But the circumstance, which gave them the most concern, was the resolution of the Lords to hear evidence. It was impossible now to say, when the trade would cease, the witnesses in behalf of the merchants and planters, had obtained possession of the ground; and they might, keep it, if they chose, even till the year 1800, to throw light upon a measure which was to be adopted in 1796. The committee found too, that they had again the laborious task before them of finding out new persons to give testimony in behalf of their cause; for some of their former witnesses were dead, and others were out of the kingdom; and unless they replaced these, there would be no probability of making out that strong case in the Lords, which they had established in the Commons. It devolved therefore upon me once more to travel for this purpose: but as I was then in too weak a state to bear as much fatigue as formerly, Dr. Dickson relieved me, by taking one part of the tour, namely, that to Scotland, upon himself.
The resolution passed by the Commons to end the trade in 1796 brought great happiness to many, and several people returned to using sugar as a result. However, the committee focused on abolition did not see it as a positive development. They viewed it as a political tactic meant to derail their efforts. The situation that worried them the most was the Lords' decision to hear evidence. It was now unclear when the trade would actually end, as witnesses supporting the merchants and planters had taken control of the narrative; they could potentially hold that ground until 1800 to influence a decision about a measure meant to be enacted in 1796. The committee also realized they once again faced the difficult task of finding new individuals to testify for their cause, as some of their previous witnesses had died and others had left the country. Unless they filled these gaps, they would struggle to present the strong case in the Lords that they had successfully made in the Commons. It thus fell to me to travel again for this purpose, but since I was too weak to endure as much effort as before, Dr. Dickson stepped in and took on one part of the journey, specifically the trip to Scotland.
These journeys we performed with considerable success; during which, the committee elected Mr. Joseph Townsend of Baltimore, in Maryland, an honorary and corresponding member.
These journeys we took were quite successful; during this time, the committee elected Mr. Joseph Townsend from Baltimore, Maryland, as an honorary and corresponding member.
Parliament having met, Mr. Wilberforce, in February 1793, moved, that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on Thursday next, to consider of the circumstances of the Slave Trade. This motion was opposed by Sir William Yonge, who moved, that this day six months should be substituted for Thursday next. A debate ensued: of this, however, as well as of several which followed. I shall give no account; as it would be tedious to the reader to hear a repetition of the same arguments. Suffice it to say, that the motion was lost by a majority of sixty-one to fifty-three.
Parliament met, and in February 1793, Mr. Wilberforce proposed that the House enter into a committee of the whole House the following Thursday to discuss the Slave Trade. This proposal was challenged by Sir William Yonge, who suggested that the meeting be postponed for six months. A debate followed, but I won’t recount it along with the several others that came after because repeating the same arguments would be boring for the reader. It’s enough to say that the motion was defeated by a vote of sixty-one to fifty-three.
This sudden refusal of the House of Commons to renew their own vote of the former year, gave great uneasiness to the friends of the cause. Mr. Wilberforce, however, resolved that the session should not pass without an attempt to promote it in another form; and accordingly, on the 14th of May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish that part of the Slave Trade, by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. This motion was opposed like the former; but was carried by a majority of seven. The bill was then brought in; and it passed its first and second reading with little opposition; but on the 5th of June, notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Fox, and the very able speeches of Mr. Francis, Mr. Courtenay, and others, it was lost by a majority of thirty-one to twenty-nine.
This sudden refusal by the House of Commons to renew their vote from the previous year caused significant concern among supporters of the cause. Mr. Wilberforce, however, decided that the session wouldn’t end without trying to promote it in a different way; so, on May 14th, he proposed a bill to abolish that part of the Slave Trade where British merchants supplied foreign countries with slaves. This motion faced opposition just like the previous one, but it passed by a majority of seven. The bill was then introduced and passed its first and second readings with minimal opposition; however, on June 5th, despite the compelling speeches from Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and the very strong arguments from Mr. Francis, Mr. Courtenay, and others, it was defeated by a margin of thirty-one to twenty-nine.
In the interval between these motions, the question experienced in the Lords considerable opposition. The Duke of Clarence moved that the House should not proceed in the consideration of the Slave Trade till after the Easter recess. The Earl of Abingdon was still more hostile afterwards. He deprecated the new philosophy. It was as full of mischief as the Box of Pandora. The doctrine of the abolition of the Slave Trade was a species of it; and he concluded by moving, that all further consideration of the subject be postponed. To the epithets, then bestowed upon the abolitionists by this nobleman, the Duke of Clarence added those of fanatics and hypocrites, among whom he included Mr. Wilberforce by name. All the other Lords, however, who were present, manifested such a dislike to the sentiments of the Earl of Abingdon, that he withdrew his motion.
In the time between these discussions, the question faced significant opposition in the Lords. The Duke of Clarence suggested that the House should not consider the Slave Trade until after the Easter break. The Earl of Abingdon was even more antagonistic afterward. He criticized the new philosophy, calling it as harmful as Pandora's Box. He saw the idea of abolishing the Slave Trade as part of that harm and wrapped up by proposing that any further discussion on the topic be delayed. In response to the negative names this nobleman used for the abolitionists, the Duke of Clarence added that they were fanatics and hypocrites, specifically naming Mr. Wilberforce. However, all the other Lords present showed such disapproval of the Earl of Abingdon's views that he withdrew his proposal.
After this, the hearing of evidence on the resolution of the House of Commons was resumed; and seven persons were examined before the close of the session.
After this, the evidence hearing on the resolution of the House of Commons resumed; and seven people were examined before the session ended.
CHAPTER XXIX.
—Continuation from July 1793 to July 1794.—Author travels round the kingdom again.—Motion to abolish the foreign Slave Trade renewed in the Commons; and carried; but lost in the Lords; further proceedings there.—Author, on account of his declining health, obliged to retire from the cause.
—Continuation from July 1793 to July 1794.—The author travels around the kingdom again. A motion to end the foreign slave trade is brought up again in the Commons and gets approved, but it fails in the Lords; further actions are taken there. The author, due to his worsening health, has to step away from the cause.
The committee for the abolition could not view the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament on this subject during the year 1793, without being alarmed for the fate of their question. The only two sources of hope, which they could discover, were in the disposition then manifested by the Peers, as to the conduct of the Earl of Abingdon, and in their determination to proceed in the hearing of evidence. The latter circumstance indeed was the more favourable, as the resolution, upon which the witnesses were to be examined, had not been renewed by the Commons. These considerations, however, afforded no solid ground for the mind to rest upon. They only broke in upon it, like faint gleams of sunshine, for a moment, and then were gone. In this situation, the committee could only console themselves by the reflection, that they had done their duty. In looking, however, to their future services, one thing, and only one, seemed practicable; and this was necessary; namely, to complete the new body of evidence, which they had endeavoured to form in the preceding year. The determination to do this rendered another journey on my part indispensable; and I undertook it, broken down, as my constitution then was, beginning it in September 1793, and completing it in February 1794.
The committee for abolition couldn’t watch the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament on this issue during 1793 without worrying about the future of their cause. Their sources of hope were limited to the positive attitude shown by the Peers regarding the actions of the Earl of Abingdon and their decision to continue hearing evidence. The latter was more encouraging since the resolution to examine witnesses hadn’t been renewed by the Commons. However, these thoughts didn’t provide a firm footing for their confidence. They only offered fleeting moments of optimism, like brief rays of sunshine, before disappearing. In this situation, the committee could only find comfort in knowing they had fulfilled their duty. Looking ahead to their future efforts, one thing seemed necessary: to complete the new body of evidence they had tried to gather in the previous year. This commitment made another journey essential for me, and I took it on despite my health issues at the time, starting in September 1793 and finishing in February 1794.
Mr. Wilberforce, in this interval, had digested his plan of operations; and accordingly, early in the session of 1794, he asked leave to renew his former bill, to abolish that part of the trade, by means of which British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. This request was opposed by Sir William Yonge; but it was granted; on a division of the House, by a majority of sixty-three to forty votes.
Mr. Wilberforce had used this time to come up with his plan for action, so early in the 1794 session, he requested permission to bring back his previous bill to eliminate the part of the trade that allowed British merchants to provide slaves to foreigners. Sir William Yonge opposed this request, but it was approved; in a vote in the House, it passed by a majority of sixty-three to forty.
When the bill was brought in, it was opposed by the same member; upon which the House divided; and there appeared for Sir William Yonge's amendment thirty-eight votes, but against it fifty-six.
When the bill was introduced, the same member opposed it; at that point, the House split into groups to vote. There were thirty-eight votes in favor of Sir William Yonge's amendment, but fifty-six votes against it.
On a motion for the recommitment of the bill, Lord Sheffield divided the House, against whose motion there was a majority of forty-two. And, on the third reading of it, it was opposed again; but it was at length carried.
On a motion to send the bill back for further review, Lord Sheffield called for a vote, and the motion was defeated by a majority of forty-two. During its third reading, it faced opposition again, but ultimately it passed.
The speakers against the bill were: Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield, Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham and Messrs; Payne, Este, Lechaiere, Cawthorae, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favour of it were: Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.
The speakers against the bill were: Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield, Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham, and Messrs. Payne, Este, Lechaiere, Cawthorae, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favor of it were: Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.
While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing through its stages in the Commons, Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the examinations, while the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the House of Lords, moved, that they should be taken in future before a committee above-stairs. Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, and the Lords Guildford, Stanhope, and Grenville, supported this motion. But the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, aided by the Duke of Clarence, and by the Lords Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and others, negatived it by a majority of twenty-eight.
While the foreign Slave Bill was moving through its stages in the House of Commons, Dr. Horsley, the Bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the hearings as the witnesses were being questioned before the House of Lords, proposed that they should be interviewed in the future before a committee upstairs. Dr. Porteus, the Bishop of London, along with Lords Guildford, Stanhope, and Grenville, backed this proposal. However, Lord Chancellor Thurlow, with support from the Duke of Clarence and Lords Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and others, rejected it by a majority of twenty-eight.
At length the bill itself was ushered into the House of Lords. On reading it a second time, it was opposed by the Duke of Clarence, Lord Abingdon, and others. Lord Grenville and the Bishop of Rochester declined supporting it. They alleged as a reason, that they conceived the introduction of it to have been improper, pending the inquiry on the general subject of the Slave Trade. This declaration brought up the Lords Stanhope and Lauderdale, who charged them with inconsistency as professed friends of the cause. At length the bill was lost. During these discussions the examination of the witnesses was resumed by the Lords; but only two of them were heard in this sessionA.
At last, the bill was presented to the House of Lords. When it was read a second time, it faced opposition from the Duke of Clarence, Lord Abingdon, and others. Lord Grenville and the Bishop of Rochester chose not to support it, arguing that its introduction was inappropriate while the inquiry into the general issue of the Slave Trade was ongoing. This statement prompted Lords Stanhope and Lauderdale to accuse them of inconsistency as supposed advocates of the cause. Eventually, the bill was rejected. During these debates, the Lords resumed examining the witnesses, but only two were heard in this sessionA.
A: After this the examinations wholly dropped in the House of Lords.
A: After this, the assessments completely ceased in the House of Lords.
After this decision the question was in a desperate state; for if the Commons would not renew their own resolution, and the Lords would not abolish the foreign part of the Slave-trade, what hope was there of success? It was obvious too, that in the former House, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas voted against each other. In the latter, the Lord Chancellor Thurlow opposed every motion in favour of the cause. The committee therefore were reduced to this;—either they must exert themselves without hope, or they must wait till some change should take place in their favour. As far as I myself was concerned, all exertion was then over. The nervous system was almost shattered to pieces. Both my memory and my hearing failed me. Sudden dizzinesses seized my head. A confused singing in the ears followed me, wherever I went. On going to bed the very, stairs seemed to dance up and down under me, so that, misplacing my foot, I sometimes fell. Talking too, if it continued but half an hour, exhausted me, so that profuse perspirations followed; and the same effect was produced even by an active exertion of the mind for the like time. These disorders had been brought on by degrees in consequence of the severe labours necessarily attached to the promotion of the cause. For seven years I had a correspondence to maintain with four hundred persons with my own hand. I had some book or other annually to write in behalf of the cause. In this time I had travelled more than thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence, and a great part of these journeys in the night. All this time my mind had been on the stretch. It had been bent too to this one subject; for I had not even leisure to attend to my own concerns. The various instances of barbarity, which had come successively to my knowledge within this period, had vexed, harassed, and afflicted it. The wound which these had produced, was rendered still deeper by those cruel disappointments before related, which arose from the reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony, after I had travelled hundreds of miles in quest of them. But the severest stroke was that inflicted by the persecution, begun and pursued by persons interested in the continuance of the trade, of such witnesses as had been examined against them; and whom, on account of their dependent situation in life, it was most easy to oppress. As I had been the means of bringing these forward on these occasions, they naturally came to me, when thus persecuted, as the author of their miseries and their ruin. From their supplications and wants it would have been ungenerous and ungrateful to have fledA. These different circumstances, by acting together, had at length brought me into the situation just mentioned; and I was therefore obliged, though very reluctantly, to be borne out of the field, where I had placed the great honour and glory of my life.
After this decision, the situation was desperate; because if the Commons wouldn’t renew their own resolution, and the Lords wouldn’t abolish the foreign part of the Slave trade, what hope was there for success? It was clear that, in the former House, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas voted against each other. In the latter, the Lord Chancellor Thurlow opposed every motion in favor of the cause. The committee was left with two choices: either they had to keep pushing without hope, or they had to wait for some change in their favor. As far as I was concerned, all effort was over. My nervous system was nearly shattered. Both my memory and hearing were failing me. I was often hit with sudden dizziness. A constant ringing in my ears followed me wherever I went. When going to bed, the very stairs seemed to sway under me, causing me to misstep and occasionally fall. Talking, even for just half an hour, drained me, leaving me soaked in sweat; the same happened even with intense mental effort for the same amount of time. These issues had gradually emerged due to the intense labor required to promote the cause. For seven years, I had to personally maintain correspondence with four hundred people. I had to write some kind of book annually in support of the cause. During this time, I traveled over thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence, much of those journeys at night. My mind had been under constant strain, focused solely on this issue; I didn’t even have time to attend to my own matters. The various instances of brutality that I learned about during this period had troubled, tormented, and distressed me. The wounds from these experiences were made even deeper by the cruel disappointments I faced, stemming from people repeatedly refusing to give their testimony after I had traveled hundreds of miles to find them. But the hardest blow came from the harassment initiated by individuals with a vested interest in maintaining the trade, targeting those witnesses who had testified against them; these were people whose dependent situation made them easy targets for oppression. As I had facilitated their involvement, they naturally turned to me when they were being harassed, seeing me as the source of their suffering and downfall. It would have been heartless and ungrateful to turn away from their pleas for helpA. All these circumstances ultimately led me to the state I mentioned earlier; I was thus compelled, though very unwillingly, to retreat from the field where I had placed the greatest honor and glory of my life.
A: The late Mr. Whitbread, to whom one day in deep affliction on this account I related accidentally a circumstance of this kind, generously undertook, in order to make my mind easy upon the subject, to make good all injuries, which should in future arise to individuals from such persecution; and he repaired these, at different times, at a considerable expense. I feel it a duty to divulge this circumstance, out of respect to the memory of one of the best of men, and of one, whom, if the history of his life were written, it would appear to have been an extraordinary honour to the country to have produced.
A: The late Mr. Whitbread, to whom I once shared a troubling incident in deep sorrow, generously committed to ease my mind regarding this issue by covering any harm that might arise to individuals from such persecution in the future. He addressed these issues at different times, at a significant cost. I feel it's important to share this fact, as a tribute to the memory of one of the best men, and someone whose life story would show it was an extraordinary honor for the country to have produced him.
CHAPTER XXX.
Continuation from July 1794 to July 1799.—Various motions within this period.
Continuation from July 1794 to July 1799.—Different events during this time.
I purpose, though it may seem abrupt after the division which has hitherto been made of the contents of this volume, to throw the events of the next five years into one chapter.
I plan to, even though it might seem sudden after the separation that has been made regarding the contents of this book, to combine the events of the next five years into one chapter.
Mr. Wilberforce and the members of the committee, whose constitutions had not suffered like my own, were still left; and they determined to persevere in the promotion of their great object as long as their health and their faculties permitted them. The former, accordingly, in the month of February, 1795, moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade. This motion was then necessary, if, according to the resolution of that House, the Slave Trade was to cease in 1796. It was opposed, however, by Sir William Yonge, and unfortunately lost by a majority of seventy-eight to fifty-seven.
Mr. Wilberforce and the committee members, whose health wasn’t as affected as mine, remained determined to continue advocating for their important cause as long as they could. So, in February 1795, he proposed in the House of Commons a bill to abolish the Slave Trade. This motion was crucial since, according to that House's resolution, the Slave Trade was supposed to end in 1796. However, it was opposed by Sir William Yonge and, unfortunately, was defeated by a majority of seventy-eight to fifty-seven.
In the year 1796, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his efforts in the Commons. He asked leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade, but in a limited time. The motion was opposed as before; but on a division, there were for it ninety-three, and against it only sixty-seven.
In 1796, Mr. Wilberforce reignited his efforts in the Commons. He requested permission to introduce a bill to abolish the Slave Trade, but within a limited timeframe. The motion faced opposition as before; however, in the vote, there were ninety-three in favor and only sixty-seven against.
The bill having been brought in, was opposed in its second reading; but it was carried through it by a majority of sixty-four to thirty-one.
The bill was introduced and faced opposition during its second reading, but it passed with a majority of sixty-four to thirty-one.
In a future stage it was opposed again; but it triumphed by a majority of seventy-six to thirty-one. Mr. Elliott was then put into the chair. Several clauses were adopted; and the first of March, 1797, was fixed for the abolition of the Trade: but in the next stage of it, after a long speech from Mr. Dundas, it was lost by a majority of seventy-four against seventy.
In a later stage, it faced opposition again; however, it prevailed with a vote of seventy-six to thirty-one. Mr. Elliott was then appointed to the chair. Several clauses were approved, and March 1, 1797, was set as the date for ending the Trade. But in the following stage, after a lengthy speech by Mr. Dundas, it was defeated with a vote of seventy-four against seventy.
Mr. Francis, who had made a brilliant speech in the last debate, considering that nothing effectual had been yet done on this great question, and wishing that a practical beginning might be made, brought forward soon afterwards, a motion relative to the improvement of the condition of the slaves in the West Indies. This, after a short debate, was negatived without a division. Mr. William Smith also moved an address to His Majesty, that he would be pleased to give directions to lay before the House copies of the several acts relative to regulations in behalf of the slaves, passed by the different colonial assemblies since the year 1788. This motion was adopted by the House. Thus passed away the session of 1796.
Mr. Francis, who had given an impressive speech in the last debate, noted that nothing substantial had been done regarding this important issue and hoped to see a practical start made. He soon proposed a motion concerning the improvement of the condition of slaves in the West Indies. After a brief debate, it was rejected without a vote. Mr. William Smith also proposed an address to His Majesty, requesting that he direct the presentation of copies of the various acts related to regulations for the slaves, passed by the different colonial assemblies since 1788. This motion was approved by the House. Thus ended the session of 1796.
In the year 1797, while Mr. Wilberforce was deliberating upon the best measure for the advancement of the cause, Mr. C. Ellis came forward with a new motion. He began by declaring, that he agreed with the abolitionists as to their object; but he differed with them as to the mode of attaining It. The Slave Trade he condemned as a cruel and pernicious system; but, as it had become an inveterate evil, he feared it could not be done away all at once, without injury to the interests of numerous individuals, and even to the Negroes themselves. He concluded by moving an address to His Majesty, humbly requesting, that he would give directions to the governors of the West Indian islands, to recommend it to the colonial assemblies to adopt such measures as might appear to them best calculated to ameliorate the condition of the Negroes, and thereby to remove gradually the Slave Trade; and likewise to assure His Majesty of the readiness of this House to concur in any measure to accelerate this desirable object; This motion was seconded by Mr. Barham, It was opposed, however, by Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Pitt, and others; but was at length carried by a majority of ninety-nine to sixty-three.
In 1797, while Mr. Wilberforce was considering the best way to promote the cause, Mr. C. Ellis introduced a new motion. He started by saying that he supported the abolitionists' goal, but disagreed with their approach to achieving it. He condemned the Slave Trade as a cruel and harmful system, but since it had become a deeply rooted problem, he worried that it couldn't be completely eliminated at once without harming the interests of many individuals and even the Africans involved. He concluded by proposing an address to the King, respectfully asking him to instruct the governors of the West Indian islands to advise the colonial assemblies to adopt whatever measures they thought best to improve the condition of the Africans, thereby gradually eliminating the Slave Trade; and to assure the King of this House's willingness to support any actions to expedite this important aim. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barham. However, it faced opposition from Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Pitt, and others, but was ultimately passed by a majority of ninety-nine to sixty-three.
In the year 1798, Mr. Wilberforce asked leave to renew his former bill, to abolish the Slave Trade within a limited time. He was supported by Mr. Canning, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Bouverie, and others. Messrs. Sewell, Bryan Edwards, Henniker, and C. Ellis, took the opposite side of the question. Mr. Ellis, however, observed, that he had no objection to restricting the Slave Trade to plantations already begun in the colonies; and Mr. Barham professed; himself a friend to the abolition, if it; could be accomplished in a reasonable way. On a division, there appeared to be for Mr. Wilberforce's motion eighty-three, but against it eighty-seven.
In 1798, Mr. Wilberforce asked to bring back his earlier bill to end the Slave Trade within a specific timeframe. He had support from Mr. Canning, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Bouverie, and others. Messrs. Sewell, Bryan Edwards, Henniker, and C. Ellis argued against it. However, Mr. Ellis mentioned that he had no issue with limiting the Slave Trade to plantations that were already established in the colonies. Mr. Barham stated that he was in favor of abolition if it could be done reasonably. During the vote, there were eighty-three votes for Mr. Wilberforce's motion and eighty-seven against it.
In the year 1799 Mr. Wilberforce, undismayed by these different disappointments, renewed his motion. Colonel M. Wood, Mr. Petrie, and others, among whom were Mr. Windham and Mr. Dundas, opposed it. Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. W. Smith, Sir William Dolben, Sir R. Milbank, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Canning, supported it. Sir R. Milbank contended, that modifications of a system, fundamentally wrong, ought not to be tolerated by the legislature of a free nation, Mr. Hobhouse said, that nothing could be so nefarious as this traffic in blood. It was unjust in its principles it was cruel in its practice: it admitted of no regulation whatever. The abolition of it was called for equally, by morality and sound policy, Mr. Canning exposed the folly of Mr. Dundas, who bad said, that as Parliament had, in the year 1787, left the abolition to the colonial assemblies, it ought not to be taken out of their hands. This great event, he observed, could only be accomplished in two ways; either by these assemblies, or by the Parliament of England. Now the members of the Assembly of Jamaica had professed that they would never abolish the trade. Was it not, therefore, idle to rely upon them for the accomplishment of it? He then took a very comprehensive view of the arguments, which had been offered in the course of the debate, and was severe upon the planters in the House, who, he said, had brought into familiar use certain expressions, with no other view than to throw a veil over their odious system. Among these was, "their right to import labourers." But never was the word "labourers" so prostituted, as when it was used for slaves. Never was the word "right" so prostituted, not even when "the rights of man" were talked of; as when the right to trade in man's blood was asserted, by the members of an enlightened assembly. Never was the right of importing these labourers worse defended than when the antiquity, of the Slave Trade, and its foundation on the ancient acts of parliament, were brought forward in its support. We had been cautioned not to lay our unhallowed hands on the ancient institution of the Slave Trade; nor to subvert a fabric, raised by the wisdom of our ancestors, and consecrated by a lapse of ages. But on what principles did we usually respect the institutions of antiquity? We respected them, when we saw some shadow of departed worth and usefulness; or some memorial of what had been creditable to mankind. But was this the case with the Slave Trade? Had it begun in principles of justice or national honour, which the changes of the world alone had impaired? Had it to plead former services and glories in behalf of its present disgrace? In looking at it we saw nothing but crimes and sufferings from the beginning—nothing but what wounded and convulsed our feelings—nothing but what excited indignation and horror. It had not even to plead what could often be said in favour of the most unjustifiable wars. Though conquest had sometimes originated in ambition, and in the worst of motives, yet the conquerors and the conquered were sometimes blended afterwards into one people; so that a system of common interest arose out of former differences. But where was the analogy of the eases? Was it only at the outset that we could trace violence and injustice on the part of the Slave Trade? Were the oppressors and the oppressed so reconciled, that enmities ultimately ceased? No. Was it reasonable then to urge a prescriptive right, not to the fruits of an ancient and forgotten evil, but to a series of new violences; to a chain of fresh enormities; to cruelties continually repeated; and of which every instance inflicted a fresh calamity, and constituted a separate and substantial crime?
In 1799, Mr. Wilberforce, undeterred by these various setbacks, reintroduced his motion. Colonel M. Wood, Mr. Petrie, and others, including Mr. Windham and Mr. Dundas, opposed it. Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. W. Smith, Sir William Dolben, Sir R. Milbank, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Canning supported it. Sir R. Milbank argued that modifications to a fundamentally wrong system should not be accepted by the legislature of a free nation. Mr. Hobhouse stated that nothing could be as terrible as this trade in blood. It was unjust in its principles and cruel in its practice; it allowed for no regulation whatsoever. The call for its abolition was supported equally by morality and sound policy. Mr. Canning highlighted the absurdity of Mr. Dundas's claim that since Parliament had, in 1787, left the decision about abolition to the colonial assemblies, it should not interfere. He noted that this significant change could only happen in two ways: either through those assemblies or through the Parliament of England. The members of the Assembly of Jamaica had declared they would never abolish the trade. Was it not, therefore, pointless to depend on them for the achievement of this goal? He then reviewed the arguments presented during the debate and criticized the planters in the House, who, he claimed, had used certain phrases merely to disguise their abhorrent system. Among these was "their right to import laborers." But the term "laborers" had never been more misused than when it referred to slaves. The term "right" had never been more misapplied, not even during discussions of "the rights of man," than when it was applied to the right to trade in human blood by the members of an enlightened assembly. The justifications for importing these laborers were poorly defended, especially when arguments about the historical nature of the Slave Trade and its foundations in old acts of Parliament were presented as support. We had been warned not to disturb the ancient institution of the Slave Trade or to dismantle a structure built by the wisdom of our ancestors and preserved over ages. But on what basis do we generally respect ancient institutions? We respect them when we see some remnant of past worth and usefulness, or some evidence of what once brought credit to humanity. But was this the case with the Slave Trade? Did it arise from principles of justice or national honor that time had simply eroded? Did it have past services and honors to plead for its current disgrace? In examining it, we found only crimes and suffering from the start—nothing but that which hurt and shocked our feelings—nothing but what provoked outrage and horror. It couldn’t even make the typical arguments often used to justify the most unjust wars. Though conquests sometimes stemmed from ambition and the worst motives, conquerors and the conquered were occasionally merged into one nation, creating a shared interest from former conflicts. But where was the parallel in this case? Was it only at the beginning that we could identify violence and injustice on the part of the Slave Trade? Were the oppressors and the oppressed reconciled to the point that enmities eventually vanished? No. Was it reasonable, then, to claim a prescriptive right, not to the results of an old and forgotten evil, but to a history of new violences; to a series of ongoing horrors; to repeated cruelties that inflicted fresh suffering each time and constituted a distinct and significant crime?
The debate being over, the House divided; when it appeared that there were for Mr. Wilberforce's motion seventy-four, but against it eighty-two.
The debate ended, and the House split; it turned out that there were seventy-four votes in favor of Mr. Wilberforce's motion, but eighty-two against it.
The motion for the general abolition of the Slave Trade having been thus lost again in the Commons, a new motion was made there soon after, by Mr. Henry Thornton, on the same subject. The prosecution of this traffic, on certain parts of the coast of Africa, had become so injurious to the new settlement at Sierra Leone, that not only its commercial prospects were but its safety endangered. Mr. Thornton, therefore brought in a bill to confine the Slave Trade within certain limits. But even this bill, though it had for its object only to free a portion of the coast from the ravages of this traffic, was opposed by Mr. Gascoyne, Dent, and others. Petitions also were presented against it. At length, after two divisions, on the first of which there were thirty-two votes to twenty-seven, and on the second thirty-eight to twenty-two, it passed through all its stages.
The motion to completely abolish the Slave Trade was once again rejected in the Commons, so shortly afterward, Mr. Henry Thornton introduced a new motion on the same issue. The continuation of this trade, in certain areas along the coast of Africa, was so damaging to the new settlement at Sierra Leone that it not only threatened its commercial prospects but also its safety. Therefore, Mr. Thornton proposed a bill to limit the Slave Trade to specific areas. However, even this bill, which aimed only to protect part of the coast from the destruction caused by this trade, faced opposition from Mr. Gascoyne, Dent, and others. Petitions were also submitted against it. Ultimately, after two votes, the bill passed through all its phases, with the first vote tallying thirty-two in favor to twenty-seven against, and the second with thirty-eight in favor to twenty-two against.
When it was introduced into the Lords the petitions were renewed against it. Delay also was interposed to its progress by the examination of witnesses. It was not till the fifth of July that the matter was brought to issue. The opponents of the bill, at that time, were the Duke of Clarence, Lord Westmoreland, Lord Thurlow, and the Lords Douglas and Hay, the two latter being Earls of Morton and Kinnoul, in Scotland. The supporters of it were Lord Grenville, who introduced it, Lord Loughborough, Lord Holland, and Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester: the latter was peculiarly eloquent. He began his speech, by arraigning the injustice and impolicy of the trade:—"injustice," he said, "which no considerations of policy could extenuate; impolicy, equal in degree to its injustice."
When it was presented to the Lords, the petitions against it were renewed. Its progress was also delayed by the examination of witnesses. It wasn't until July 5 that the issue was brought to a conclusion. The opponents of the bill at that time included the Duke of Clarence, Lord Westmoreland, Lord Thurlow, and Lords Douglas and Hay, with the latter two being the Earls of Morton and Kinnoul from Scotland. The supporters included Lord Grenville, who introduced the bill, Lord Loughborough, Lord Holland, and Dr. Horsley, the Bishop of Rochester; he was particularly eloquent. He began his speech by condemning the injustice and foolishness of the trade: “injustice,” he said, “that no considerations of policy could justify; foolishness, equal in degree to its injustice.”
He well knew that the advocates for the Slave Trade had endeavoured to represent the project for abolition, as a branch of jacobinism; but they who supported it proceeded upon no visionary motives of equality, or of the imprescriptible rights of man. They strenuously upheld the gradations of civil society: but they did, indeed, affirm that these gradations were, both ways, both as they ascended and as they descended, limited. There was an existence of power, to which no good king would aspire; and there was an extreme condition of subjection, to which man could not be degraded without injustice; and this they would maintain, was the condition of the African, who was torn away into slavery.
He knew very well that those in favor of the Slave Trade had tried to portray the abolition movement as part of radicalism. However, the supporters of abolition were not motivated by unrealistic ideas of equality or inherent human rights. They firmly believed in the social hierarchy, but they argued that this hierarchy had limits, both as it rose and as it fell. There was a level of power that no good king would seek, and there was a point of subjugation that a person could not be reduced to without wrongdoing; they argued that this was the situation of the African who was taken into slavery.
He then explained the limits of that portion of Africa, which the bill intended to set apart as sacred to peace and liberty. He showed that this was but one-third of the coast; and, therefore, that two-thirds were yet left for the diabolical speculations of the slave merchants. He expressed his surprise that such witnesses, as those against the bill, should have been introduced at all: he affirmed that their oaths were falsified by their own log-books; and that, from their own accounts, the very healthiest of their vessels were little better than pestilential gaols. Mr. Robert Hume, one of these witnesses, had made a certain voyage: he had made it in thirty-three days: he had shipped two hundred and sixty-five slaves, and he had lost twenty-three of them. If he had gone on losing his slaves, all of whom were under twenty-five years of age, at this rate, it was obvious, that he would have lost two hundred and fifty-three of them, if his passage had lasted for a year. Now, in London only, seventeen would have died of that age, out of one thousand within the latter period.
He then explained the boundaries of that area in Africa that the bill aimed to designate as a place for peace and freedom. He pointed out that this was only one-third of the coast; therefore, two-thirds were still available for the cruel greed of the slave traders. He expressed his disbelief that witnesses against the bill were even brought forward: he claimed their testimonies contradicted their own records; and stated that according to their own logs, even their healthiest ships were hardly better than disease-ridden prisons. Mr. Robert Hume, one of these witnesses, had completed a specific journey in thirty-three days, during which he transported two hundred and sixty-five slaves and lost twenty-three of them. If he continued to lose slaves at this rate, all of whom were under twenty-five, it was clear that he would have ended up losing two hundred and fifty-three if his journey lasted a year. In London alone, seventeen out of every thousand of that age would have died in a similar timeframe.
After having exposed the other voyages of Mr. Hume in a similar manner, he entered into a commendation of the views of the Sierra Leone company, and then defended the character of the Africans in their own country, as exhibited in the Travels of Mr. Mungo Park. He made a judicious discrimination with respect to slavery, as it existed among them: he showed that this slavery was analogous to that of the heroic and patriarchal ages, and contrasted it with the West Indian in an able manner.
After discussing the other voyages of Mr. Hume in a similar way, he praised the goals of the Sierra Leone company, and then defended the character of the Africans in their own land, as shown in the Travels of Mr. Mungo Park. He made a wise distinction regarding slavery as it existed among them: he demonstrated that this slavery was similar to that of the heroic and patriarchal times, and compared it to the West Indian system effectively.
He adverted, lastly, to what had fallen from the learned counsel, who had supported the petitions of the slave-merchants. One of them had put this question to their Lordships, "If the Slave Trade were as wicked as it had been represented, why was there no prohibition of it in the Holy Scriptures?" He then entered into a full defence of the Scriptures on this ground, which he concluded by declaring, that, as St. Paul had coupled men-stealers with murderers, he had condemned the Slave Trade in one of its most productive modes, and generally in all its modes. And here it is worthy of remark, that the word used by the apostle on this occasion, and which has been translated men-stealers, should have been rendered slave traders. This was obvious from the scholiast of Aristophanes, whom he quoted. It was clear, therefore, that the Slave Trade, if murder was forbidden, had been literally forbidden also.
He finally pointed out something that was said by the learned counsel who had backed the petitions of the slave traders. One of them asked their Lordships, "If the Slave Trade is as wrong as it has been claimed, why isn't there a prohibition against it in the Holy Scriptures?" He then provided a thorough defense of the Scriptures on this point, concluding by stating that, since St. Paul had linked men-stealers with murderers, he condemned the Slave Trade in one of its most significant forms and generally in all its forms. It’s worth noting that the word used by the apostle in this instance, which has been translated as men-stealers, should actually have been translated as slave traders. This was clear from the commentary of Aristophanes' scholiast, whom he quoted. Therefore, it was evident that the Slave Trade, if murder is prohibited, was also literally prohibited.
The learned counsel, too, had admonished their lordships, to beware how they adopted the visionary projects of fanatics. He did not know in what direction this shaft was shot; and he cared not. It did not concern him. With the highest reverence for the religion of the land, with the firmest conviction of its truth, and with the deepest sense of the importance Of its doctrines, he was proudly conscious, that the general shape and fashion of his life bore nothing of the stamp of fanaticism. But he begged leave, in his turn, to address a word of serious exhortation to their lordships. He exhorted them to beware how they were persuaded to bury, under the opprobrious name of fanaticism, the regard which they owed to the great duties of mercy and justice, for the neglect of which (if they should neglect them) they would be answerable at that tribunal, where no prevarication of witnesses could misinform the judge; and where no subtlety of an advocate, miscalling the names of things, putting evil for good and good for evil, could mislead his judgment.
The knowledgeable lawyers also advised their lordships to be careful about adopting the unrealistic ideas of extremists. He didn't know who this criticism was aimed at, and he didn't care. It didn't involve him. With great respect for the country's religion and a strong belief in its truth, he felt proud that his life didn't reflect any signs of extremism. However, he wanted to take a moment to give a serious warning to their lordships. He urged them to be cautious not to dismiss, under the insulting label of fanaticism, the responsibility they had towards the essential duties of mercy and justice. If they neglected these, they would have to answer for it at a higher court, where no witness could deceive the judge and where no clever lawyer could misrepresent the truth, confusing good with evil and evil with good.
At length the debate ended: when the bill was lost by a majority of sixty-eight to sixty-one, including personal votes and proxies.
At last, the debate came to a close: the bill was defeated by a majority of sixty-eight to sixty-one, including personal votes and proxies.
I cannot conclude this chapter without offering a few remarks. And, first, I may observe, as the substance of the debates has not been given for the period which it contains, that Mr. Wilberforce, upon whom too much praise cannot be bestowed for his perseverance from year to year, amidst the disheartening circumstances which attended his efforts, brought every new argument to which either the discovery of new light, or the events of the times, produced. I may observe also, in justice to the memories of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, that there was no debate within this period, in which they did not take a part; and in which they did not irradiate others from the profusion of their own light; and thirdly, that in consequence of the efforts of the three, conjoined with those of others, the great cause of the abolition was secretly gaining ground. Many members who were not connected with the trade, but who had yet hitherto supported it, were on the point of conversion. Though the question had oscillated backwards and forwards, so that an ordinary spectator could have discovered no gleam of hope at these times, nothing is more certain, than that the powerful eloquence then displayed had smoothed the resistance to it, had shortened its vibrations, and had prepared it for a state of rest.
I can't wrap up this chapter without sharing a few thoughts. First, I want to point out that the details of the discussions during this time haven’t been covered. Mr. Wilberforce deserves immense praise for his determination year after year, despite the discouraging circumstances surrounding his efforts. He presented every new argument brought about by fresh insights or the events of the day. I should also acknowledge, in respect to the legacies of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, that there was no debate during this time they didn't participate in, and they consistently illuminated the discussions with their brilliance. Lastly, thanks to the efforts of the three of them, along with others, the crucial cause of abolition was gradually gaining support. Many members who had previously supported the trade, even if they weren't directly involved, were on the verge of changing their minds. Although the debate swung back and forth, making it seem hopeless to an outsider, it's clear that the strong rhetoric displayed at that time eased the opposition, reduced its fluctuations, and readied it for a resolution.
With respect to the West-Indians themselves, some of them began to see through the mists of prejudice, which had covered them. In the year 1794, when the bill for the abolition of the foreign Slave Trade was introduced, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Barham supported it. They called upon the planters in the House to give way to humanity, where their own interests could not be affected by their submission. This, indeed, may be said to have been no mighty thing; but it was a frank confession of the injustice of the Slave Trade, and the beginning of the change which followed, both with respect to themselves and others.
Regarding the West-Indians themselves, some of them started to see past the fog of prejudice that had surrounded them. In 1794, when the bill to abolish the foreign Slave Trade was introduced, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Barham supported it. They urged the planters in the House to prioritize humanity when their own interests wouldn’t be compromised by their compliance. While this might not seem like a significant action, it was a straightforward acknowledgment of the injustice of the Slave Trade and the start of the change that followed, both for themselves and for others.
With respect to the old friends of the cause, it is with regret I mention, that it lost the support of Mr. Windham within this period; and this regret is increased by the consideration, that he went off on the avowed plea of expediency against moral rectitude; a doctrine, which, at least upon this subject, he had reprobated for ten years. It was, however, some consolation, as far as talents were concerned, (for there can be none for the loss of virtuous feeling,) that Mr. Canning, a new member, should have so ably supplied his place.
Regarding the old friends of the cause, I regret to mention that we lost Mr. Windham's support during this period. This regret is heightened by the fact that he left on the stated grounds of expediency over moral integrity—a viewpoint he had condemned for a decade concerning this issue. However, it was somewhat comforting, at least in terms of talent (though there can be no comfort for the loss of virtue), that Mr. Canning, a new member, stepped in and effectively took his place.
Of the gradual abolitionists, whom we have always considered as the most dangerous enemies of the cause, Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Earl of Liverpool), Mr. Addington (subsequently Lord Sidmouth), and Mr. Dundas (afterwards Lord Melville), continued their opposition during all this time. Of the first two I shall say nothing at present; but I cannot pass over the conduct of the latter. He was the first person, as we have seen, to propose the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade; and he fixed a time for its cessation on the 1st of January, 1800. His sincerity on this occasion was doubted by Mr. Fox at the very outset; for he immediately rose and said, that "something so mischievous had come out, something so like a foundation had been laid for preserving, not only for years to come, but for anything he knew, for ever, this detestable traffic, that he felt it his duty immediately to deprecate all such delusions upon the country." Mr. Pitt, who spoke soon afterwards, in reply to an argument advanced by Mr. Dundas, maintained, that "at whatever period the House should say that the Slave Trade should actually cease, this defence would equally be set up; for it would be just as good an argument in seventy years hence, as it was against the abolition then." And these remarks Mr. Dundas verified in a singular manner within this period: for in the year 1796, when his own bill, as amended in the Commons, was to take place, he was one of the most strenuous opposers of it; and in the year 1799, when in point of consistency it devolved upon him to propose it to the House, in order that the trade might cease on the 1st of January, 1800, (which was the time of his own original choice, or a time unfettered by parliamentary amendment,) he was the chief instrument of throwing out Mr. Wilberforce's bill, which promised even a longer period to its continuance: so that it is obvious, that there was no time, within his own limits, when the abolition would have suited him, notwithstanding his profession, "that he had always been a warm advocate for the measure."
Of the gradual abolitionists, whom we have always seen as the most dangerous enemies of the cause, Mr. Jenkinson (later the Earl of Liverpool), Mr. Addington (who became Lord Sidmouth), and Mr. Dundas (who later became Lord Melville) maintained their opposition throughout this period. I won't say much about the first two right now, but I can't overlook the actions of the latter. He was the first person, as we have seen, to suggest the gradual abolition of the Slave Trade, setting a stop date for January 1, 1800. His sincerity was doubted by Mr. Fox from the very beginning, as he immediately stood up and said that "something so harmful has come up, something that looks like a basis for preserving, not just for years to come, but possibly forever, this awful trade, that he felt it was his duty to warn the country against such illusions." Mr. Pitt, who spoke shortly after, in response to an argument from Mr. Dundas, insisted that "whenever the House decides that the Slave Trade should actually stop, this defense will be used; it will be just as valid an argument seventy years from now as it was against abolition at that moment." Mr. Dundas demonstrated this in a peculiar way during this time: in 1796, when his own bill, as modified in the Commons, was about to take effect, he was one of its strongest opponents; and in 1799, when consistency required him to propose it to the House so the trade could end on January 1, 1800 (the date he originally chose, or a time not bound by parliamentary changes), he was the main force behind rejecting Mr. Wilberforce's bill, which offered an even longer extension. It is clear that there was never a time within his self-imposed limits when abolition would have worked for him, despite his claim of "having always been a strong supporter of the measure."
CHAPTER XXXI.
Continuation from July 1799 to July 1805.—Various motions within this period.
Continuation from July 1799 to July 1805.—Various events during this period.
The question had now been brought forward in almost every possible way, and yet had been eventually lost. The total and immediate abolition had been attempted; and then the gradual. The gradual again had been tried for the year 1798, then for 1795, and then for 1796, at which period it was decreed, but never allowed to be executed. An Abolition of a part of the trade, as it related to the supply of foreigners with slaves, was the next measure proposed; and when this failed, the abolition of another part of it, as it related to the making of a certain portion of the coast of Africa sacred to liberty, was attempted; but this failed also. Mr. Wilberforce therefore thought it prudent, not to press the abolition as a mere annual measure, but to allow members time to digest the eloquence, which had been bestowed upon it for the last five years, and to wait till some new circumstances should favour its introduction. Accordingly he allowed the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803, to pass over without any further parliamentary notice than the moving for certain papers; during which he took an opportunity of assuring the House, that he had not grown cool in the cause, but that he would agitate it in a future session.
The question had been raised in almost every way possible, yet it ultimately failed. There had been attempts for total and immediate abolition, then for gradual abolition. The gradual approach was tried for the years 1798, 1795, and 1796, when it was decided but never actually implemented. The next proposal was to abolish part of the trade that supplied foreigners with slaves, but when that failed, another attempt was made to declare a portion of the coast of Africa a zone of liberty, which also did not succeed. Mr. Wilberforce decided it was better not to pursue abolition as a yearly agenda but to give members time to reflect on the powerful arguments made over the past five years and to wait for more favorable circumstances for introducing it. Therefore, he let the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803 go by without further parliamentary action, except for requesting certain documents; during this time, he assured the House that he had not lost interest in the cause and would bring it up again in a future session.
In the year 1804, which was fixed upon for renewed exertion, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade elected James Stephen, Zachary Macaulay, Henry Brougham, Esqrs., and William Phillips, into their own body. Four other members, also, Robert Grant, and John Thornton, Esqrs., and William Manser and William Allen, were afterwards added to the list. Among, the reasons for fixing upon this year, one may be assigned, namely, that the Irish members, in consequence of the union which had taken place between the two countries, had then all taken their seats in the House of Commons; and that most of them were friendly to the cause.
In 1804, the year chosen for renewed efforts, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade elected James Stephen, Zachary Macaulay, Henry Brougham, Esqs., and William Phillips to their group. Four other members were later added: Robert Grant, John Thornton, Esqs., and William Manser and William Allen. One reason for choosing this year was that the Irish members, due to the union between the two countries, had all taken their seats in the House of Commons, and most of them supported the cause.
This being the situation of things, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 30th of March, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade within a limited time, Mr. Fuller opposed the motion. A debate ensued. Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Devaynes, Mr. Addington, and Mr. Manning spoke against it, however, notwithstanding his connection with the West Indies, said he would support it, if an indemnification were offered to the planters, in case any actual loss should accompany the measure.
This being the case, Mr. Wilberforce, on March 30th, asked for permission to bring back his bill for ending the Slave Trade within a set timeframe. Mr. Fuller opposed the motion. A debate followed. Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Devaynes, Mr. Addington, and Mr. Manning spoke against it; however, despite his ties to the West Indies, he said he would support it if compensation was offered to the planters in case they faced any actual losses due to the measure.
Sir William Geary questioned the propriety of immediate abolition.
Sir William Geary questioned whether it was appropriate to abolish it right away.
Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Barbara spoke in favour of the motion.
Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Barbara spoke in favor of the motion.
Mr. William Smith rose, when the latter had seated himself, and complimented him on this change of sentiment, so honourable to him, inasmuch as he had espoused the cause of humanity against his supposed interest as a planter. Mr. Leigh said that he would not tolerate such a traffic for a moment. All the feelings of nature revolted at it. Lord de Blaquiere observed, "it was the first time the question had been proposed to Irishmen as legislators. He believed it would be supported by most of them. As to the people of Ireland, he could pledge himself that they were hostile to this barbarous traffic." An amendment having been proposed by Mr. Manning, a division took place upon it, when leave was given to bring in the bill, by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to forty-nine.
Mr. William Smith stood up after the other man had taken his seat and praised him for changing his views, which was commendable because he had chosen the cause of humanity over his own interests as a plantation owner. Mr. Leigh stated that he wouldn’t tolerate such a trade for even a moment, as it went against all natural instincts. Lord de Blaquiere noted that it was the first time this issue had been brought up to Irishmen in their roles as lawmakers. He believed most of them would support it. Regarding the people of Ireland, he confidently asserted that they were against this cruel trade. After Mr. Manning proposed an amendment, there was a vote on it, which resulted in permission to introduce the bill passing by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to forty-nine.
On the 7th of June, when the second reading of the bill was moved, it was opposed by Sir W. Yonge, Dr. Laurence, Mr. C. Brook, Mr. Dent, and others. Among these Lord Castlereagh professed himself a friend to the abolition of the trade, but he differed as to the mode. Sir J. Wrottesley approved of the principle of the bill, but would oppose it in some of its details. Mr. Windham allowed the justice, but differed as to the expediency, of the measure. Mr. Deverell professed himself to have been a friend to it; but he had then changed his mind. Sir Laurence Parsons wished to see a plan for the gradual extinction of the trade. Lord Temple affirmed that the bill would seal the death-warrant of every White inhabitant of the islands. The second reading was supported by Sir Ralph Milbank, Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Barham, and Grenfell, and Sir John Newport. Mr. Grenfell observed, that he could not give a silent vote, when the character of the country was concerned. When the question of the abolition first came before the public, he was a warm friend to it; and from that day to this he had cherished the same feelings. He assured Mr. Wilberforce of his constant support. Sir John Newport stated that the Irish nation took a virtuous interest in this noble cause. He ridiculed the idea that the trade and manufactures of the country would suffer by the measure in contemplation; but, even if they should suffer, he would oppose it. "Fiat justitia, ruat coelura," Upon a division, there appeared for the second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.
On June 7th, when the bill was read for the second time, it faced opposition from Sir W. Yonge, Dr. Laurence, Mr. C. Brook, Mr. Dent, and others. Among them, Lord Castlereagh said he supported ending the trade, but disagreed on how to do it. Sir J. Wrottesley backed the bill's principle but opposed some of its details. Mr. Windham recognized the justice of the cause but questioned the practicality of the measure. Mr. Deverell initially supported it but had since changed his mind. Sir Laurence Parsons wanted to see a plan for gradually phasing out the trade. Lord Temple claimed that the bill would effectively sign the death warrant for every White inhabitant of the islands. The second reading found support from Sir Ralph Milbank, Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Barham, Grenfell, and Sir John Newport. Mr. Grenfell stated that he couldn’t stay silent about an issue that affected the country’s reputation. When the abolition debate first surfaced, he was a strong supporter, and he had maintained those same feelings ever since. He assured Mr. Wilberforce of his continued backing. Sir John Newport pointed out that the Irish nation cared deeply about this noble cause. He mocked the notion that the country’s trade and industry would suffer from the proposed measure; but even if they did, he would still oppose it. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." When the vote was called, there were one hundred in favor of the second reading and forty-two against it.
On the 12th of June, when a motion was made to go into a committee upon the bill, it was opposed by Messrs. Fuller, C. Brook, C. Ellis, Dent, Deverell, and Manning: and it was supported by Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Barham, and the Hon. J.S. Cocks. The latter condemned the imprudence of the planters. Instead of profiting by the discussions, which had taken place, and making wise provisions against the great event of the abolition, which would sooner or later take place, they had only thought of new stratagems to defeat it. He declared his abhorrence of the trade, which he considered to be a national disgrace. The House divided: when there were seventy-nine for the motion, and against it, twenty.
On June 12th, when a motion was made to go into a committee regarding the bill, it was opposed by Messrs. Fuller, C. Brook, C. Ellis, Dent, Deverell, and Manning, and supported by Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Barham, and the Hon. J.S. Cocks. The latter criticized the foolishness of the planters. Instead of learning from the discussions that had happened and making sensible preparations for the inevitable abolition that would happen sooner or later, they only thought of new tricks to avoid it. He expressed his disgust for the trade, which he saw as a national shame. The House voted, with seventy-nine in favor of the motion and twenty against it.
On the 27th of June the bill was opposed in its last stage by Sir W. Young, Messrs. Dickenson, Mr. Rose, Addington, and Dent.; and supported by: Messrs. Pitt, W. Smith, Francis, and Barham; when it was carried by a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was then taken up to the Lords; but on a motion of Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of that House, the discussion of it was postponed to the next year.
On June 27th, the bill faced opposition in its final stage from Sir W. Young, Messrs. Dickenson, Mr. Rose, Addington, and Dent. It was supported by Messrs. Pitt, W. Smith, Francis, and Barham, and passed with a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was then sent to the Lords, but on a motion from Lord Hawkesbury, who was a member of that House at the time, the discussion was postponed until the following year.
The session being ended, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade, increased its number, by the election of the Right Honourable Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeek, as members.
The session ended, and the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade increased its numbers by electing the Right Honourable Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeek as members.
In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year. Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Puller, and Mr. Gascoyne opposed it. Leave, however, was given him to introduce his bill.
In 1805, Mr. Wilberforce brought back his proposal from the previous year. Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Puller, and Mr. Gascoyne were against it. However, he was allowed to present his bill.
On the second reading of it, a serious opposition took place; and an amendment was moved for postponing it till that day six months. The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone. The latter could not help lifting his voice against this monstrous traffic in the sinews and blood of man, the toleration of which had so long been the disgrace of the British legislature. He did not charge the enormous guilt resulting from it upon the nation at large; for the nation had washed its hands of it by the numerous petitions it had sent against it; and it had since been a matter of astonishment to all Christendom, how the constitutional guardians of British freedom should have sanctioned elsewhere the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world.
On the second reading, a serious opposition occurred; and a proposal was made to postpone it for six months. Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone opposed the proposal. Mr. Huddlestone couldn't help but speak out against this horrible trade in the lives and blood of people, the toleration of which had long been a shame for the British legislature. He didn’t blame the entire nation for the enormous guilt that came from it; the nation had distanced itself by sending many petitions against it. It had since baffled everyone in Christendom how the constitutional protectors of British freedom could endorse the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world elsewhere.
He said that a curse attended this trade even in the mode of defending it. By a certain fatality, none but the vilest arguments were brought forward, which corrupted the very persons who used them. Every one of these was built on the narrow ground of interest—of pecuniary profit—of sordid gain—in opposition to every high consideration—to every motive that had reference to humanity, justice, and religion—or to that great principle which comprehended them all. Place only before the most determined advocate of this odious traffic the exact image of himself in the garb and harness of a slave, dragged and whipped about like a beast; place this image also before him, and paint it as that of one without a ray of hope to cheer him; and you would extort from him the reluctant confession, that he would not endure for an hour the misery to which he condemned his fellow-man for life. How dared he, then, to use this selfish plea of interest against the voice of the generous sympathies of his nature? But even upon this narrow ground, the advocates for the traffic had been defeated. If the unhallowed argument of expediency was worth anything when opposed to moral rectitude, or if it were to supercede precepts of Christianity, where was a man to stop, on what was he to draw? For anything he knew, it might be physically true, that human blood was the best manure for the land; but who ought to shed it on that account? True expediency, however, was, where it ever would be found, on the side of that system which was most merciful and just. He asked how it happened, that sugar could be imported cheaper from the East Indies than from the West, notwithstanding the vast difference of the length of the voyages, but on account of the impolicy of slavery; or that it was made in the former case by the industry of free men, and in the latter by the languid drudgery of slaves.
He said that this trade was cursed, even in its defense. By some kind of fate, only the most despicable arguments were presented, which corrupted those who used them. Each argument was based on narrow self-interest—on profit—on greedy gain—against all noble considerations—against every motive related to humanity, justice, and religion—or to the great principle that tied them all together. Just put in front of the most determined supporter of this terrible trade the clear image of themselves dressed and chained like a slave, dragged and beaten like an animal; show them this image, making it one of someone without a glimmer of hope to comfort them; and you would force from them the reluctant acknowledgment that they wouldn’t endure for an hour the suffering they condemned another person to for life. How could they, then, use this selfish argument of self-interest against the compassionate instincts of their nature? But even on this narrow ground, the supporters of the trade had lost. If the unholy argument of expedience meant anything in opposition to moral correctness, or if it could override Christian teachings, where would someone draw the line? For all they knew, it might be physically true that human blood was the best fertilizer for the land; but who should shed it for that reason? True expediency, however, was always found on the side of the system that was most merciful and just. He questioned how it was possible for sugar to be imported cheaper from the East Indies than from the West, despite the huge difference in the length of the voyages, except because slavery was ineffective; or that it was made in the former case by the work of free people, while in the latter it was produced by the weary toil of slaves.
As he had had occasion to advert to the Eastern part of the world, he would make an observation upon an argument, which had been collected from that quarter. The condition of the Negroes in the West Indies had been lately compared with that of the Hindoos. But he would observe that the Hindoo, miserable as his hovel was, had sources of pride and happiness, to which not only the West Indian slave, but even his master, was a stranger. He was to be sure a peasant; and his industry was subservient to the gratifications of an European lord; but he was, in his own belief, vastly superior to him. He viewed him as one of the lowest cast. He would not on any consideration eat from the same plate. He would not suffer his son to marry the daughter of his master, even if she could bring him all the West Indies as her portion. He would observe, too, that the Hindoo peasant drank his water from his native well; that, if his meal were scanty, he received it from the hand of her, who was most dear to him; that, when he laboured, he laboured for her and his offspring. His daily task being finished, he reposed with his family. No retrospect of the happiness of former days, compared with existing misery, disturbed his slumber, nor horrid dreams occasioned him to wake in agony at the dawn of day. No barbarous sounds of cracking whips reminded him, that with the form and image of a man his destiny was that of the beast of the field. Let the advocates for the bloody traffic state what they had to set off on their side of the question against the comforts and independence of the man, with whom they compared the slave.
As he had previously mentioned the Eastern part of the world, he would like to comment on an argument that has come from that area. The situation of the Black people in the West Indies has recently been compared to that of the Hindus. However, he points out that the Hindu, despite living in a miserable hut, has sources of pride and joy that neither the West Indian slave nor even his master can comprehend. True, he is a peasant, and his hard work benefits a European lord, but he firmly believes that he is vastly superior to him. He sees the lord as one of the lowest castes. He would never, under any circumstances, eat from the same plate. He wouldn’t allow his son to marry his master’s daughter, even if she could offer him all the riches of the West Indies as a dowry. He also notes that the Hindu peasant drinks water from his native well; if his meal is meager, it is given to him by the one he loves most; when he works, he does it for her and his children. After finishing his daily tasks, he relaxes with his family. No reflection on happier times compared to current suffering disrupts his sleep, nor do nightmarish dreams wake him in torment at dawn. No cruel sounds of cracking whips remind him that, despite his human appearance, his fate is akin to that of the beasts of the field. Let the supporters of the inhumane trade explain what they have to offer in defense of their position against the comfort and independence of the person to whom they compare the slave.
The amendment was supported by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteney, Colonel Tarleton, Messrs. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On dividing the House upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but against it only seventy.
The amendment was backed by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteney, Colonel Tarleton, and Messrs. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. When the House voted on it, seventy-seven were in favor while seventy were against.
This loss of the question, after it had been carried in the last year by so great a majority, being quite unexpected, was a matter of severe disappointment; and might have discouraged the friends of the cause in this infancy of their renewed efforts, if they had not discovered the reason of its failure. After due consideration it appeared, that no fewer than nine members, who had never been absent once in sixteen years when it was agitated, gave way to engagements on the day of the motion, from a belief that it was safe. It appeared also, that out of the great number of Irish members, who supported it in the former year, only nine were in the House, when it was lost. It appeared also that, previously to this event, a canvass, more importunate than had heard of on any former occasion, had been made among the latter by those interested in the continuance of the trade. Many of these, unacquainted with the detail of the subject, like the English members, admitted the dismal representations, which were then made to them. The desire, of doing good on the one hand, and the fear of doing injury on the other, perplexed them; and in this dubious state they absented themselves at the time mentioned.
This unexpected loss of the question, especially after it had passed so comfortably the previous year, was a significant disappointment; it could have discouraged supporters of the cause in the early stages of their renewed efforts if they hadn't figured out why it failed. After careful thought, it turned out that nine members, who had never missed a vote in sixteen years when this issue was discussed, were unable to attend on the day of the vote because they thought it was secure. It also became clear that out of the many Irish members who supported it last year, only nine were present when it was defeated. Additionally, before this outcome, there had been a more intense canvassing among these members by those wanting to maintain the trade than anyone had seen before. Many of them, unfamiliar with the details of the issue, like their English counterparts, believed the negative information being presented to them. The desire to do good on one hand, and the fear of causing harm on the other, confused them; and in this uncertain situation, they chose to stay away at the crucial moment.
The causes of the failure having been found accidental, and capable of a remedy, it was resolved that an attempt should be made immediately in the House in a new form. Lord Henry Petty signified his intention of bringing in a bill for the abolition of the foreign part of the Slave Trade; but the impeachment of Lord Melville, and other weighty matters coming on, the notice was not acted upon in that session.
The reasons for the failure were found to be accidental and fixable, so it was decided to make an immediate attempt in the House in a new format. Lord Henry Petty expressed his plan to introduce a bill to end the foreign part of the Slave Trade; however, with the impeachment of Lord Melville and other important issues arising, the notice wasn't addressed in that session.
CHAPTER XXXII.
—Continuation from July 1805 to July 1806—Author returns to his duty in the committee—Travels again round the kingdom—Death of Mr. Pitt—His character, as it related to the question—Motion for the abolition of the foreign Slave-Trade—Resolution to take measures for the total abolition of it—Address to the King to negotiate with foreign powers for their concurrence in it—Motion to prevent any new vessel going into the trade—these carried through both Houses of Parliament.
—Continuation from July 1805 to July 1806—Author resumes his responsibilities in the committee—Travels around the country again—Death of Mr. Pitt—His character, regarding the issue—Proposal for ending the foreign slave trade—Decision to take steps for its complete abolition—Request to the King to work with foreign powers for their support in this—Proposal to stop any new ships from entering the trade—these passed through both Houses of Parliament.
It was now almost certain, to the inexpressible joy of the committee, that the cause, with proper vigilance, could be carried in the next session in the House of Commons. It became them therefore to prepare to support it. In adverting to measures for this purpose, it occurred to them, that the House of Lords, if the question should be then carried to them from the Commons, might insist upon hearing evidence on the general subject. But, alas, even the body of witnesses, which had been last collected, was broken by death or dispersion! It was therefore to be formed again. In this situation it devolved upon me, as I had now returned to the committee after an absence of nine years, to take another journey for this purpose.
It was now almost certain, to the immense joy of the committee, that the cause, with proper attention, could be advanced in the next session of the House of Commons. They needed to gear up to support it. In considering strategies for this, they realized that the House of Lords, if the issue was brought to them by the Commons, might require hearing evidence on the overall topic. But, unfortunately, even the group of witnesses that had been gathered last was now diminished by death or scattering! So, it needed to be formed again. Given this situation, it fell to me, as I had just returned to the committee after being away for nine years, to take another trip for this purpose.
This journey I performed with extraordinary success. In the course of it I had also much satisfaction on another account. I found the old friends of the cause still faithful to it. It was remarkable, however, that the youth of the rising generation knew but little about the question. For the last eight or nine years the committee had not circulated any books; and the debates in the Commons during that time had not furnished them with the means of an adequate knowledge concerning it. When, however, I conversed with these, as I travelled along, I discovered a profound attention to what I said; an earnest desire to know more of the subject; and a generous warmth in favour of the injured Africans, which I foresaw could soon be turned into enthusiasm. Hence I perceived that the cause furnished us with endless sources of rallying: and that the ardour which we had seen with so much admiration in former years, could be easily renewed.
This journey was a huge success for me. Along the way, I also found great satisfaction in another way. I discovered that the old friends of the cause remained loyal. However, it was surprising that the youth of the new generation knew very little about the issue. For the past eight or nine years, the committee hadn’t circulated any books, and the debates in the Commons during that time hadn’t provided them with sufficient knowledge about it. Yet, when I spoke with them as I traveled, I noticed they were genuinely interested in what I said; there was a strong desire to learn more about the topic and a heartfelt support for the oppressed Africans, which I could see could easily turn into enthusiasm. Thus, I realized that the cause offered us endless opportunities to unite, and that the passion we had admired in earlier years could be revived easily.
I had scarcely finished my journey, when Mr. Pitt died. This event took place in January 1806, I shall stop therefore to make a few observations upon his character, as it related to this cause. This I feel myself bound in justice to do, because his sincerity towards it has been generally questioned.
I had just wrapped up my trip when Mr. Pitt passed away. This happened in January 1806, so I’ll take a moment to share my thoughts on his character in relation to this matter. I feel it’s important to do this because people have often questioned his sincerity towards it.
The way, in which Mr. Pitt became acquainted with this question, has already been explained. A few doubts having been removed, when it was first started, he professed himself a friend to the abolition. The first proof, which he gave of his friendship to it is known but to few; but it is, nevertheless, true, that so early as in 1788, he occasioned a communication to be made to the French government, in which he recommended an union of the two countries for the promotion of the great measure. This proposition seemed to be then new and strange to the Court of France; and the answer was not favourable.
The way Mr. Pitt learned about this issue has already been explained. After clearing up a few doubts when it was first brought up, he declared himself in favor of abolition. The first evidence of his support for it is known to only a few, but it’s true that as early as 1788, he arranged for a message to be sent to the French government, where he suggested a partnership between the two countries to promote this significant cause. This proposal seemed new and unusual to the French Court at the time, and their response was not positive.
From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own power. As far, however, as he had scope, he exerted them. If we look at him in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all, that he took an active, strenuous, and consistent part, and this year after year, by which he realized his professions. In my own private communications with him, which were frequent, he never failed to give proofs of a similar disposition. I had always free access to him. I had no previous note or letter to write for admission. Whatever papers I wanted, he ordered. He exhibited also in his conversation with me on these occasions marks of a more than ordinary interest in the welfare of the cause. Among the subjects, which were then started, there was one, which was always near his heart. This was the civilization of Africa. He looked upon this great work as a debt due to that continent for the many injuries we had inflicted upon it: and had the abolition succeeded sooner, as in the infancy of his exertions he had hoped, I know he had a plan, suited no doubt to the capaciousness of his own mind, for such establishments in Africa, as he conceived would promote in due time this important end.
From this point on, his efforts were limited to what he could actually achieve. However, within those limits, he made the most of his abilities. If we consider his role in parliament, it's clear that he was active, dedicated, and consistent year after year, which proved his commitment. In my private conversations with him, which happened often, he consistently showed a similar dedication. I always had open access to him; I didn't need to write a note or letter to get in. Whatever documents I needed, he arranged for me. In our discussions, he also demonstrated a remarkable interest in the well-being of the cause. Among the topics we talked about, one was always particularly close to his heart: the civilization of Africa. He viewed this significant endeavor as a responsibility we owed to the continent because of the many harms we had caused. Had the abolition happened sooner, as he had hoped early on in his efforts, I know he had a plan—tailored, no doubt, to the vastness of his vision—for establishing initiatives in Africa that he believed would ultimately support this crucial goal.
I believe it will be said, notwithstanding what I have advanced, that if Mr. Pitt had exerted himself as the Minister of this country in behalf of the abolition, he could have carried it. This brings the matter to an issue; for unquestionably the charge of insincerity, as it related to this great question, arose from the mistaken notion, that, as his measures in Parliament were supported by great majorities, he could do as he pleased there. But they who hold this opinion, must be informed, that there were great difficulties, against which he had to struggle on this subject! The Lord Chancellor Thurlow ran counter to his wishes almost at the very outset. Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Dundas, did the same. Thus, to go no further, three of the most powerful members of the cabinet were in direct opposition to him. The abolition then, amidst this difference of opinion, could never become a cabinet measure; but if so, then all his parliamentary efforts in this case wanted their usual authority, and he could only exert his influence as a private manA.
I believe people will say, despite what I’ve mentioned, that if Mr. Pitt had put in the effort as the Minister of this country to support the abolition, he could have succeeded. This brings us to the core of the issue; for unquestionably, the accusation of insincerity regarding this important question came from the mistaken belief that since his proposals in Parliament had strong majority support, he could act freely there. However, those who think this need to understand that he faced significant challenges on this topic! The Lord Chancellor Thurlow opposed his wishes almost right from the start. Lord Liverpool and Mr. Dundas did the same. Therefore, without even going further, three of the most influential members of the cabinet were directly against him. As a result, the abolition could never become a cabinet issue amidst this disagreement, and if that’s the case, all his parliamentary efforts here lacked their usual power, and he could only use his influence as an individual. A.
A: This he did with great effect on one or two occasions. On the motion of Mr. Cawthorne in 1791, the cause hung as it were by a thread; and would have failed that day, to my knowledge, but for his seasonable exertions.
A: He achieved this with impressive results on one or two occasions. During Mr. Cawthorne's motion in 1791, the situation was hanging by a thread; it would have fallen through that day, as far as I know, if it weren't for his timely efforts.
But a difficulty, still more insuperable, presented itself, in an occurrence which took place in the year 1791, but which is much too delicate to be mentioned. The explanation of it, however, would convince the reader, that all the efforts of Mr. Pitt from that day were rendered useless, I mean, as to bringing the question, as a Minister of State, to a favourable issue.
But an even more challenging problem arose from an event that happened in 1791, which is too sensitive to discuss. However, explaining it would make it clear to the reader that all of Mr. Pitt's efforts from that day on were pointless, at least in terms of successfully addressing the issue as a Minister of State.
But though Mr. Pitt did not carry this great question, he was yet one of the greatest supporters of it; He fostered it in its infancy. If, in his public situation, he had then set his face against it, where would have been our hope? He upheld it also in its childhood; and though in this state of its existence it did not gain from his protection all the strength Which it was expected it would have acquired, he yet kept it from falling, till his successors, in whose administration a greater number Of favourable circumstances concurred to give it vigour, brought it to triumphant maturity.
But even though Mr. Pitt didn't succeed in passing this major issue, he was still one of its biggest supporters; he nurtured it when it was just starting out. If he had opposed it in his public role, where would our hope have been? He also supported it during its early stages, and while it didn't gain as much strength from his protection as was expected, he kept it from collapsing until his successors, who had more favorable circumstances on their side, brought it to successful maturity.
Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, having been called to the head of the executive government on the death of Mr. Pitt, the cause was ushered into Parliament under new auspices. In a former year His Majesty had issued a proclamation by which British merchants were forbidden (with certain defined exceptions) to import slaves into the colonies, which had been conquered by the British arms in the course of the war. This circumstance afforded an opportunity of trying the question in the House of Commons with the greatest hope of success. Accordingly Sir A. Pigott, the Attorney-General, as an officer of the crown, brought in a bill on the thirty-first of March 1806, the first object of which was, to give effect to the proclamation now mentioned. The second was, to prohibit British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into the colonies of any foreign power whether hostile or neutral. And the third was, to prohibit British subjects and British capital from being employed in carrying on the Slave Trade in foreign ships; and also to prevent the outfit of foreign ships from British ports.
Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox were appointed to the top of the executive government following Mr. Pitt's death, bringing the issue into Parliament under new leadership. The previous year, His Majesty had issued a proclamation that prohibited British merchants (with some specific exceptions) from importing slaves into colonies conquered by British forces during the war. This situation created a chance to address the issue in the House of Commons with strong hope for success. As a result, Sir A. Pigott, the Attorney-General and a representative of the crown, introduced a bill on March 31, 1806. The bill aimed to enforce the aforementioned proclamation as its first goal. The second goal was to stop British subjects from participating in the importation of slaves into any foreign powers' colonies, whether they were hostile or neutral. The third goal was to prevent British subjects and British capital from being involved in supporting the Slave Trade in foreign ships and to stop the outfitting of foreign ships from British ports.
Sir A. Pigott, on the introduction of this bill, made an appropriate speech. The bill was supported by Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook, and Mr. Bagwell; but opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr. Rose, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir Charles Price. On the third reading, a division being called for, there appeared for it thirty-five, and against it only thirteen.
Sir A. Pigott, during the introduction of this bill, gave an appropriate speech. The bill received support from Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook, and Mr. Bagwell, but was opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr. Rose, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir Charles Price. When the bill was read for the third time, a vote was called, and thirty-five were in favor while only thirteen were against it.
On the 7th of May it was introduced into the Lords. The supporters of it there were, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire and the Lords Holland, Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough. The opposers were, the Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of Westmoreland, and the Lords Eldon and Sheffield. At length a division took place, when there appeared to be in favour of it thirty-three, and against it eighteen.
On May 7th, it was introduced in the House of Lords. The supporters included the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, and Lords Holland, Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough. The opponents were the Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of Westmoreland, and Lords Eldon and Sheffield. Eventually, a vote was held, and it turned out that thirty-three were in favor, while eighteen were against.
During the discussions, to which this bill gave birth, Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox declared in substance, in their respective Houses of Parliament, that they felt the question of the Slave Trade to be one, which involved the dearest interests of humanity, and the most urgent claims of policy, justice, and religion; and that, should they succeed in affecting its abolition, they would regard that success as entailing more true glory on their administration, and more honour and advantage on their country, than any other measure, in which they could he engaged. The bill having passed, (the first, which dismembered this cruel trade,) it was thought proper to follow it up in a prudent manner; and, as there was not then time in the advanced period of the session to bring in another for the total extinction of it, to move a resolution, by which both Houses should record those principles, on which the propriety of the latter measure was founded. It was judged also expedient that Mr. Fox, as the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, should introduce it there.
During the discussions that led to this bill, Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox stated in their respective Houses of Parliament that they saw the issue of the Slave Trade as one that involved the most important interests of humanity, as well as urgent demands for policy, justice, and religion; and that if they succeeded in abolishing it, they would view that achievement as bringing more true glory to their administration and more honor and benefit to their country than any other measure they could pursue. With the bill passed (the first to dismantle this cruel trade), it was deemed appropriate to follow it up carefully; and since there wasn't enough time in the late stage of the session to introduce another bill for its complete eradication, a resolution was proposed for both Houses to record the principles on which the appropriateness of the latter measure was based. It was also considered wise for Mr. Fox, as the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, to introduce it there.
On the 10th of June Mr. Fox rose. He began by saying that the motion, with which he should conclude, would tend in its consequences to effect the total abolition of the Slave Trade; and he confessed that, since he had sat in that House (a period of between thirty and forty years), if he had done nothing else, but had only been instrumental in carrying through this measure, he should think his life well spent; and should retire quite satisfied, that he had not lived in vain.
On June 10th, Mr. Fox stood up. He started by saying that the motion he would conclude with would ultimately lead to the complete abolition of the Slave Trade. He admitted that since he had been in that House for almost thirty to forty years, if he had done nothing else but help pass this measure, he would consider his life well spent and leave feeling satisfied that he had not lived in vain.
In adverting to the principle of the trade, he noticed some strong expressions of Mr. Burke concerning it. "To deal in human flesh and blood," said that great man, "or to deal, not in the labour of men, but in men themselves, was to devour the root, instead of enjoying the fruit of human diligence."
In referring to the principle of trade, he pointed out some strong statements from Mr. Burke about it. "To trade in human flesh and blood," said that great man, "or to trade not in the labor of people, but in people themselves, was to consume the root instead of enjoying the fruit of human hard work."
Mr. Fox then took a view of the opinions of different members of the House on this great question; and showed that, though many had opposed the abolition, all but two or three, among whom were the members for Liverpool, had confessed, that the trade ought to be done away. He then went over the different resolutions of the House on the subject, and concluded from thence, that they were bound to support his motion.
Mr. Fox then looked at the opinions of various members of the House on this important issue and pointed out that, although many had opposed the abolition, almost all but two or three—among them, the representatives from Liverpool—had agreed that the trade should be ended. He then reviewed the different resolutions of the House on the matter and concluded from this that they had a responsibility to support his motion.
He combated the argument, that the abolition would ruin the West Indian islands. In doing this he paid a handsome compliment to the memory of Mr. Pitt, whose speech upon this particular point was, he said, the most powerful and convincing of any he had ever heard. Indeed they, who had not; heard it, could have no notion of it. It was a speech, of which he would say with the Roman author, reciting the words of the Athenian orator, "Quid esset, si ipsum audivissetis!" It was a speech no less remarkable for splendid eloquence, than for solid sense and convincing reason; supported by calculations founded on facts, and conclusions drawn from premises, as correctly as if they had been mathematical propositions; all tending to prove that, instead of the West Indian plantations suffering an injury, they would derive a material benefit by the abolition of the Slave Trade. He then called upon the friends of this great man to show their respect for his memory by their votes; and he concluded with moving, "that this House, considering the African Slave Trade to be contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and policy, will, with all practicable expedition, take effectual measures for the abolition of the said trade, in such a manner, and at such a period, as may be deemed advisable."
He challenged the argument that abolishing slavery would ruin the West Indian islands. In doing so, he gave a great compliment to Mr. Pitt's memory, whose speech on this particular issue was, he said, the most powerful and convincing he had ever heard. In fact, those who hadn’t heard it could have no idea of its impact. It was a speech that could be described using the words of a Roman author, citing the Athenian orator, "What would it be if you had heard it!" It was remarkable not only for its stunning eloquence but also for its solid reasoning and convincing arguments, supported by calculations based on facts and conclusions drawn from premises as precise as mathematical propositions—all demonstrating that instead of hurting the West Indian plantations, they would actually benefit from the abolition of the Slave Trade. He then urged the supporters of this great man to honor his memory with their votes and concluded by proposing, "that this House, considering the African Slave Trade to be against the principles of justice, humanity, and policy, will, as soon as possible, take effective measures to abolish the said trade in a manner and timeframe deemed appropriate."
Sir Ralph Milbank rose, and seconded the motion.
Sir Ralph Milbank stood up and supported the motion.
General Tarleton rose next. He deprecated the abolition, on account of the effect which it would have on the trade and revenue of the country.
General Tarleton rose next. He disapproved of the abolition because of the impact it would have on the country's trade and revenue.
Mr. Francis said the merchants of Liverpool were at liberty to ask for compensation; but he, for one, would never grant it for the loss of a trade, which had been declared to be contrary to humanity and justice. As an uniform friend to this great cause, he wished Mr. Fox had not introduced a resolution, but a real bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He believed that both Houses were then disposed to do it away. He wished the golden opportunity might not be lost.
Mr. Francis said that the merchants of Liverpool were entitled to ask for compensation; however, he, for one, would never agree to it for the loss of a trade that had been declared against humanity and justice. As a consistent supporter of this significant cause, he wished Mr. Fox had introduced a real bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade instead of just a resolution. He believed both Houses were then willing to eliminate it. He hoped that this golden opportunity wouldn’t be missed.
Lord Castlereagh thought it a proposition, on which no one could entertain a doubt, that the Slave Trade was a great evil in itself; and that it was the duty and policy of Parliament to extirpate it; but he did not think the means offered were adequate to the end proposed. The abolition, as a political question, was a difficult one. The year 1796 had been once fixed upon by the House, as the period when the trade was to cease; but, when the time arrived, the resolution was not executed. This was a proof, either that the House did not wish for the event, or that they judged it impracticable. It would be impossible, he said, to get other nations to concur in the measure; and even if they were to concur, it could not be effected. We might restrain the subjects of the parent-state from following the trade; but we could not those in our colonies. A hundred frauds would be committed by these, which we could not detect. He did not mean by this, that the evil was to go on for ever. Had a wise plan been proposed at first, it might have been half-cured by this time. The present resolution would do no good. It was vague, indefinite, and unintelligible. Such resolutions were only the slave-merchants' harvests. They would go for more slaves than usual in the interim. He should have advised a system of duties on fresh importations of slaves, progressively increasing to a certain extent; and that the amount of these duties should be given to the planters, as a bounty to encourage the Negro population upon their estates. Nothing could be done, unless we went hand in hand with the latter. But he should deliver himself more fully on this subject, when any thing specific should be brought forward in the shape of a bill.
Lord Castlereagh believed it was undeniable that the Slave Trade was a significant evil and that it was Parliament's duty and policy to end it. However, he thought the proposed methods were not sufficient to achieve that goal. Abolishing the trade was a complex political issue. The House had once set the year 1796 as the deadline for ending the trade, but when that time came, they did not follow through. This showed either that they didn’t truly want it to happen or that they thought it was impossible. He stated it would be impossible to get other countries to agree to the measure, and even if they did, it wouldn’t work. We could prevent the subjects of the parent state from engaging in the trade, but we couldn’t stop those in our colonies. Numerous fraudulent activities would occur that we wouldn't be able to catch. He didn’t mean that the problem should continue forever. If a sensible plan had been proposed earlier, it might have been significantly improved by now. The current resolution wouldn’t help; it was vague, unclear, and confusing. Such resolutions only benefited the slave traders. They would seek more slaves than usual in the meantime. He would have recommended implementing a system of duties on new slave imports, gradually increasing to a certain level, and that the revenue from these duties should be given to the planters as a subsidy to promote the growth of the Black population on their plantations. Nothing could be achieved unless we worked closely with them. However, he would speak more thoroughly on this topic when a specific bill was presented.
Sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor-General, differed from Lord Castlereagh; for he thought the resolution of Mr. Fox was very simple and intelligible. If there was a proposition vague and indefinite, it was that advanced by the noble lord, of a system of duties on fresh importations, rising progressively, and this under the patronage and co-operation of the planters. Who could measure the space between the present time and the abolition of the trade, if that measure were to depend upon the approbation of the colonies.
Sir S. Romilly, the Solicitor-General, disagreed with Lord Castlereagh; he believed Mr. Fox's resolution was very straightforward and easy to understand. If there was any vague and unclear proposal, it was the one put forward by the noble lord, regarding a system of duties on new imports that would gradually increase, all supported by the planters. Who could gauge the time between now and the end of the trade if that timing depended on the approval of the colonies?
The cruelty and injustice of the Slave Trade had been established by evidence beyond a doubt. It had been shown to be carried on by rapine, robbery, and murder; by fomenting and encouraging wars; by false accusations; and imaginary crimes. The unhappy victims were torn away not only in the time of war, but of profound peace. They were then carried across the Atlantic, in a manner too horrible to describe; and afterwards subjected to eternal slavery. In support of the continuance of such a traffic, he knew of nothing but assertions already disproved, and arguments already refuted. Since the year 1796, when it was to cease by a resolution of Parliament, no less than three hundred and sixty thousand Africans had been torn away from their native land. What an accumulation was this to our former guilt!
The cruelty and injustice of the Slave Trade have been proven beyond any doubt. It has been shown that it was conducted through violence, theft, and murder; by stirring up and supporting wars; through false accusations; and made-up crimes. The unfortunate victims were ripped away not just during wartime, but also in times of deep peace. They were then taken across the Atlantic in a way that's too horrific to describe, and afterwards faced a lifetime of slavery. To justify the continuation of such a trade, all he knew were claims that had already been disproven, and arguments that had already been debunked. Since the year 1796, when Parliament resolved that it should end, over three hundred sixty thousand Africans had been taken from their homeland. What an accumulation this adds to our past guilt!
General Gascoyne made two extraordinary assertions: First, that the trade was defensible on Scriptural ground.—"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen, that are round about thee; of them shall you have bondmen and bondmaids. And thou shalt take them as an heritance for thy children after thee to inherit them for a possession; they shall be thy bondmen for ever." Secondly, that the trade had been so advantageous to this country, that it would have been advisable even to institute a new one, if the old had not existed.
General Gascoyne made two remarkable claims: First, that the trade was justifiable on Biblical grounds. —"Both your male and female slaves, whom you will have, shall be from the surrounding nations; from them, you will acquire male and female slaves. And you shall pass them on as an inheritance to your children after you, to be their possession; they shall be your slaves forever." Secondly, that the trade had been so beneficial to this country that it would have been wise to create a new one, even if the old one hadn’t existed.
Mr. Wilberforce replied to General Gascoyne. He then took a view of the speech of Lord Castlereagh, which he answered point by point. In the course of his observations he showed that the system of duties progressively increasing, as proposed by the noble lord, would be one of the most effectual modes of perpetuating the Slave Trade. He exposed, also, the false foundation of the hope of any reliance on the co-operation of the colonists. The House, he said, had, on the motion of Mr. Ellis, in the year 1797, prayed his Majesty to consult with the colonial legislatures to take such measures, as might conduce to the gradual abolition of the African Slave Trade. This address was transmitted to them by Lord Melville. It was received in some of the islands with a declaration, "that they possibly might, in some instances, endeavour to improve the condition of their slaves; but they should do this, not with any view to the abolition of the Slave Trade; for they considered that trade as their birth-right, which could not be taken from them; and that we should deceive ourselves by supposing, that they would agree to such a measure."
Mr. Wilberforce responded to General Gascoyne. He then reviewed Lord Castlereagh's speech and addressed it point by point. Throughout his remarks, he demonstrated that the proposed system of progressively increasing duties would be one of the most effective ways to maintain the Slave Trade. He also revealed the weak basis for any hope of cooperation from the colonists. The House, he noted, had, on Mr. Ellis's motion in 1797, asked the King to consult with the colonial legislatures to take measures that could lead to the gradual abolition of the African Slave Trade. This request was sent to them by Lord Melville. In some of the islands, it was met with a declaration, “that they might, in some cases, try to improve the conditions of their slaves; however, they would do this not with any intention of abolishing the Slave Trade, as they viewed that trade as their birthright, which could not be taken from them; and that we would be fooling ourselves if we thought they would agree to such a measure.”
He desired to add to this the declaration of General Prevost in his public letter from Dominica. Did he not say, when asked what steps had been taken there in consequence of the resolution of the House in 1797, "that the act of the legislature, entitled an act for the encouragement, protection, and better government of slaves, appeared to him to have been considered, from the day it was passed until this hour, as a political measure to avert the interference of the mother country in the management of the slaves."
He wanted to include the statement from General Prevost in his public letter from Dominica. Didn’t he say, when asked what actions had been taken there because of the House resolution in 1797, "that the law passed by the legislature, called an act for the encouragement, protection, and better governance of slaves, seemed to him to have been viewed, from the day it was enacted until now, as a political move to prevent the mother country from interfering in the management of the slaves."
Sir William Yonge censured the harsh language of Sir Samuel Romilly, who had applied the terms rapine, robbery, and murder to those, who were connected with the Slave Trade. He considered the resolution of Mr. Fox as a prelude to a bill for the abolition of that traffic, and this bill as a prelude to emancipation, which would not only be dangerous in itself, but would change the state of property in the islands.
Sir William Yonge criticized the harsh words of Sir Samuel Romilly, who called those involved in the Slave Trade terms like plunder, theft, and murder. He viewed Mr. Fox's resolution as the first step towards a bill to end that trade, and this bill as the first step towards freedom, which he believed would be not only risky but also alter property ownership in the islands.
Lord Henry Petty, after having commented on the speeches of Sir Samuel Romilly and Lord Castlereagh, proceeded to state his own opinion on the trade; which was, that it was contrary to justice, humanity, and sound policy, all of which he considered to be inseparable. On its commencement in Africa the wickedness began. It produced there fraud and violence, robbery and murder. It gave birth to false accusations, and a mockery of justice. It was the parent of every crime, which could at once degrade and afflict the human race. After spreading vice and misery all over this continent, it doomed its unhappy victims to hardships and cruelties which were worse than death. The first of these was conspicuous in their transportation. It was found there, that cruelty begat cruelty; that the system, wicked in its beginning, was equally so in its progress; and that it perpetuated its miseries wherever it was carried on. Nor was it baneful only to the objects, but to the promoters of it. The loss of British seamen in this traffic was enormous. One-fifth of all, who were employed in it, perished; that is, they became the victims of a system, which was founded on fraud, robbery, and murder; and which procured to the British nation nothing but the execration of mankind. Nor had we yet done with the evils which attended it; for it brought in its train the worst of all moral effects, not only as it respected the poor slaves, when transported to the colonies, but as it respected those who had concerns with them there. The arbitrary power, which it conferred, afforded men of bad dispositions full scope for the exercise of their passions; and it rendered men, constitutionally of good dispositions, callous to the misery of others. Thus it depraved the nature of all who were connected with it. These considerations had made him a friend to the abolition, from the time he was capable of reasoning upon it. They were considerations, also, which determined the House, in the year 1782, to adopt a measure of the same kind as the present. Had anything happened to change the opinion of members, since? On the contrary, they had now the clearest evidence, that all the arguments then used against the abolition were fallacious; being founded, not upon truth, but on assertions devoid of all truth, and derived from ignorance or prejudice.
Lord Henry Petty, after commenting on the speeches of Sir Samuel Romilly and Lord Castlereagh, went on to share his own views on the trade, which he believed was against justice, humanity, and sound policy—principles he saw as connected. The wrongdoing started with its inception in Africa. It led to deceit and violence, theft and murder. It resulted in false accusations and a mockery of justice. It was the source of every crime that could both degrade and harm humanity. After spreading vice and suffering across the continent, it condemned its unfortunate victims to hardships and brutality worse than death. The first notable example of this was their transportation. It became evident that cruelty bred cruelty; the system, wicked from the start, continued to be just as cruel as it evolved, perpetuating its sufferings wherever it operated. It wasn't just harmful to its victims but also to its promoters. The casualties among British seamen involved in this trade were staggering. One-fifth of all those employed in it perished; they became the victims of a system built on deceit, theft, and murder, which brought nothing but the hatred of humanity upon Britain. Moreover, we had not yet escaped the evils it brought; it introduced the worst moral consequences, affecting not only the poor slaves when transported to the colonies but also those who dealt with them there. The power it granted allowed individuals with bad intentions to fully indulge their desires, while it also made inherently good people indifferent to the suffering of others. In this way, it corrupted the character of everyone involved. These thoughts had led him to support abolition from the time he was capable of reasoning about it. They also influenced the House in 1782 to pursue a measure similar to the one currently under discussion. Had anything changed to alter members' opinions since then? On the contrary, they now had clear evidence that all the arguments previously made against abolition were baseless, grounded not in truth but in claims devoid of reality, stemming from ignorance or bias.
Having made these remarks, he proved, by a number of facts, the folly of the argument, that the Africans laboured under such a total degradation of mental and moral faculties, that they were made for slavery.
Having made these points, he demonstrated through several facts the foolishness of the argument that Africans were so completely degraded in their mental and moral abilities that they were meant for slavery.
He then entered into the great subject of population. He showed that in all countries, where there were no unnatural hardships, mankind would support themselves. He applied this reasoning to the Negro population in the West Indies; which he maintained could not only be kept up, but increased, without any further importations from Africa.
He then delved into the important topic of population. He demonstrated that in all countries, where there were no unnatural hardships, people could sustain themselves. He applied this reasoning to the Black population in the West Indies, arguing that it could not only be maintained but also increased without any further imports from Africa.
He then noticed the observations of Sir William Yonge, on the words of Sir Samuel Romilly; and desired him to reserve his indignation for those, who were guilty of acts of rapine, robbery, and murder, instead of venting it on those, who only did their duty in describing them. Never were accounts more shocking than those lately sent to government from the West Indies. Lord Seaforth, and the Attorney-General, could not refrain, in explaining them, from the use of the words murder and torture. And did it become members of that House (in order to accommodate the nerves of the friends of the Slave Trade) to soften down their expressions, when they were speaking on that subject; and to desist from calling that murder and torture, for which a Governor, and the Attorney-General, of one of the islands could find no better name?
He then noticed Sir William Yonge's comments on the words of Sir Samuel Romilly, and he asked him to save his anger for those who committed acts of theft, robbery, and murder, rather than directing it at those who simply did their duty by reporting them. There had never been more shocking reports than the ones recently sent to the government from the West Indies. Lord Seaforth and the Attorney-General couldn't help but use the terms murder and torture while explaining them. Should members of that House, to spare the feelings of those involved in the Slave Trade, really tone down their language when discussing this topic and avoid calling it murder and torture when a Governor and the Attorney-General of one of the islands could find no better terms?
After making observations relative to the co-operation of foreign powers in this great work, he hoped that the House would not suffer itself to be drawn, either by opposition or by ridicule, to the right or to the left; but that it would advance straight forward to the accomplishment of the most magnanimous act of justice, that was ever achieved by any legislature in the world.
After observing the cooperation of foreign powers in this important effort, he hoped that the House wouldn’t be swayed, either by opposition or by mockery, to the right or the left; but that it would move directly forward to achieve the most noble act of justice ever accomplished by any legislature in the world.
Mr. Rose declared, that on the very first promulgation of this question, he had proposed to the friends of it the very plan of his noble friend Lord Castlereagh; namely, a system of progressive duties, and of bounties for the promotion of the Negro population. This he said to show that he was friendly to the principle of the measure. He would now observe, that he did not wholly like the present resolution. It was too indefinite. He wished, also, that something had been said on the subject of compensation. He was fearful, also, lest the abolition should lead to the dangerous change of emancipation. The Negroes, he said, could not be in a better state, or more faithful to their masters, than they were. In three attacks made by the enemy on Dominica, where he had a large property, arms had been put into their hands; and every one of them had exerted himself faithfully. With respect to the cruel acts in Barbados, an account of which had been sent to government by Lord Seaforth and the Attorney-General of Barbados, he had read them; and never had he read anything on this subject with more horror. He would agree to the strongest measures for the prevention of such acts in future. He would even give up the colony, which should refuse to make the wilful murder of a slave felony. But as to the other, or common, evils complained of, he thought the remedy should be gradual; and such also as the planters would concur in. He, would nevertheless not oppose the present resolution.
Mr. Rose stated that when this issue was first brought up, he had suggested to its supporters the same proposal as his esteemed friend Lord Castlereagh—specifically, a system of gradual duties and incentives to enhance the wellbeing of the Black population. He mentioned this to demonstrate his support for the concept of the measure. He noted that he was not entirely comfortable with the current resolution, finding it too vague. He also expressed a wish that compensation had been addressed. He was concerned that abolition might dangerously lead to emancipation. He argued that the Black people couldn’t be in a better position or more loyal to their masters than they already were. In three assaults by the enemy on Dominica, where he had significant property, weapons had been given to them, and each one had acted loyally. Regarding the brutal incidents in Barbados, which Lord Seaforth and the Attorney-General had reported to the government, he had read them and had never encountered anything on this topic that filled him with more horror. He would support the strongest actions to prevent such events from happening again in the future. He would even concede control of any colony that refused to classify the deliberate murder of a slave as a felony. However, concerning the other common complaints, he believed the solutions should be gradual and ones that the planters would agree to. Nevertheless, he would not oppose the current resolution.
Mr. Barham considered compensation but reasonable, where losses were to accrue from the measure, when it should be put in execution; but he believed that the amount of it would be much less than was apprehended. He considered emancipation, though so many fears had been expressed about it, as forming no objection to the abolition, though he had estates in the West Indies himself. Such a measure, if it could be accomplished successfully, would be an honour to the country, and a blessing to the planters; but preparation must be made for it by rendering the slaves fit for freedom, and by creating in them an inclination to free labour. Such a change could only be the work of time.
Mr. Barham thought that compensation was fair, especially when losses would occur from the implementation of the measure; however, he believed that the amount would be much lower than expected. He viewed emancipation, despite many fears surrounding it, as no hindrance to abolition, even though he owned estates in the West Indies. If this measure could be successfully achieved, it would be a pride for the country and a benefit for the planters; however, preparations needed to be made by getting the slaves ready for freedom and instilling in them a desire for free labor. Such a transformation could only happen over time.
Sir John Newport said that the expressions of Sir S. Romilly, which had given such offence, had been used by others; and would be used with propriety, while the trade lasted. Some slave-dealers of Liverpool had lately attempted to prejudice certain merchants of Ireland in their favour. But none of their representations answered; and it was remarkable, that the reply made to them was in these words. "We will have no share in a traffic, consisting in rapine, blood, and murder." He then took a survey of a system of duties progressively increasing, and showed that it would be utterly inefficient; and that there was no real remedy for the different evils complained of, but in the immediate prohibition of the trade.
Sir John Newport stated that the comments made by Sir S. Romilly, which had caused so much offense, had also been expressed by others and would be used appropriately as long as the trade continued. Recently, some slave traders from Liverpool had tried to turn certain Irish merchants against each other for their benefit. However, none of their attempts worked, and it was notable that the response they received was, "We will have no part in a trade based on theft, blood, and murder." He then examined a system of gradually increasing duties and demonstrated that it would be completely ineffective, concluding that the only real solution to the various issues raised was an immediate ban on the trade.
Mr. Canning renewed his professions of friendship to the cause. He did not like the present resolution; yet he would vote for it. He should have been better pleased with a bill, which would strike at once at the root of this detestable commerce.
Mr. Canning renewed his claims of support for the cause. He didn't agree with the current resolution; still, he would vote for it. He would have preferred a bill that would directly target the heart of this awful trade.
Mr. Manning wished the question to be deferred to the next session. He hoped compensation would then be brought forward as connected with it. Nothing, however, effectual could be done without the concurrence of the planters.
Mr. Manning wanted the question to be postponed until the next session. He hoped that compensation would then be discussed alongside it. However, nothing effective could be achieved without the agreement of the planters.
Mr. William Smith noticed, in a striking manner, the different inconsistencies in the arguments of those, who contended for the continuance of the trade.
Mr. William Smith pointed out, quite noticeably, the various inconsistencies in the arguments of those who argued for keeping the trade going.
Mr. Windham deprecated not only the Slave Trade, but slavery also. They were essentially connected with each other. They were both evils, and ought both of them to be done away. Indeed, if emancipation would follow the abolition, he should like the latter measure the better. Rapine, robbery, and murder, were the true characteristics of this traffic. The same epithets had not indeed been applied to slavery, because this was a condition, in which some part of the human race had been at every period of the history of the world. It was, however, a state, which ought not to be allowed to exist. But, notwithstanding all these confessions, he should weigh well the consequences of the abolition before he gave it his support. It would be, on a balance between the evils themselves and the consequences of removing them, that he should decide for himself on this question.
Mr. Windham condemned not only the Slave Trade but also slavery itself. They were fundamentally linked. Both were wrong and should be eliminated. In fact, if emancipation would follow the abolition, he would prefer the latter. Theft, violence, and murder were the true features of this trade. The same labels hadn't been applied to slavery because it was a condition that some people had experienced throughout history. However, it was a situation that shouldn't be allowed to continue. Yet, despite all these admissions, he would carefully consider the consequences of abolition before offering his support. He would decide for himself based on weighing the evils against the consequences of getting rid of them.
Mr. Fox took a view of all the arguments, which had been advanced by the opponents of the abolition; and having given an appropriate answer to each, the House divided, when there appeared for the resolution one hundred and fourteen, and against it but fifteen.
Mr. Fox considered all the arguments made by those against abolition and provided a fitting response to each one. When the House voted, one hundred fourteen were in favor of the resolution, while only fifteen were against it.
Immediately after this division, Mr. Wilberforce moved an address to His Majesty, "praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct a negotiation to be entered into, by which foreign powers should be invited to co-operate with His Majesty in measures to be adopted for the abolition of the African Slave Trade."
Immediately after this division, Mr. Wilberforce proposed an address to His Majesty, "requesting that he would kindly direct a negotiation to be started, inviting foreign powers to work with His Majesty on measures to be taken for the abolition of the African Slave Trade."
This address was carried without a division. It was also moved and carried, that "these resolutions be communicated to the Lords; and that their concurrence should be desired therein."
This address was approved without any objections. It was also proposed and accepted that "these resolutions be shared with the Lords, and that we request their agreement on this matter."
On the 24th of June, the Lords met to consider of the resolution and address. The Earl of Westmoreland proposed that both counsel and evidence should be heard against them; but his proposition was overruled.
On June 24th, the Lords gathered to discuss the resolution and address. The Earl of Westmoreland suggested that both arguments and evidence should be presented against them, but his proposal was rejected.
Lord Grenville then read the resolution of the Commons. This resolution, he said, stated first, that the Slave Trade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity was obvious; for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the Slave Trade convey ideas the very reverse of this definition? It deprived men of all those comforts, in which it pleased the Creator to make the happiness of his creatures to consist,—of the blessings of society,—of the charities of the dear relationships of husband, wife, father, son, and kindred,—of the due discharge of the relative duties of these—and of that freedom, which in its pure and natural sense was one of the greatest gifts of God to man.
Lord Grenville then read the resolution from the Commons. This resolution, he said, stated first, that the Slave Trade was against humanity, justice, and sound policy. It was clear that it was against humanity; after all, humanity can be seen as empathy for the suffering of others or a desire to achieve good outcomes through positive means. But didn’t the Slave Trade represent the complete opposite of this definition? It took away all those comforts that the Creator intended for the happiness of his creatures—it robbed people of the blessings of society, the love of important relationships like husband, wife, father, son, and family, the ability to fulfill their roles and responsibilities to one another—and it stripped away the freedom that, in its pure and natural sense, was one of the greatest gifts God has given to humanity.
It was impossible to read the evidence, as it related to this trade, without acknowledging the inhumanity of it, and our own disgrace. By what means was it kept up in Africa? By wars instigated, not by the passions of the natives, but by our avarice. He knew it would be said in reply to this, that the slaves, who were purchased by us, would be put to death, if we were not to buy them. But what should we say, if it should turn out, that we were the causes of those very cruelties, which we affected to prevent? But, if it were not so, ought the first nation in the world to condescend to be the executioner of savages?
It was impossible to read the evidence related to this trade without recognizing the inhumanity of it and our own shame. How was it maintained in Africa? Through wars incited, not by the passions of the locals, but by our greed. He knew it would be argued in response that the slaves we purchased would be killed if we didn’t buy them. But what would we say if it turned out that we were the cause of those very cruelties we claimed to prevent? And if that’s not the case, should the leading nation in the world lower itself to become the executioner of these people?
Another way of keeping up the Slave Trade was by the practice of man-stealing. The evidence was particularly clear upon this head. This practice included violence, and often bloodshed. The inhumanity of it therefore could not be doubted.
Another way to maintain the Slave Trade was through the practice of man-stealing. The evidence was especially clear on this point. This practice involved violence and often bloodshed. Therefore, the inhumanity of it could not be questioned.
The unhappy victims, being thus procured, were conveyed, he said, across the Atlantic in a manner which justified the charge of inhumanity again. Indeed the suffering here was so great, that neither the mind could conceive, nor the tongue describe, it. He had said on a former occasion, that in their transportation there was a greater portion of misery condensed within a smaller space, than had ever existed in the known world. He would repeat his words; for he did not know, how he could express himself better on the subject. And, after all these horrors, what was their destiny? It was such, as justified the charge in the resolution again: for, after having survived the sickness arising from the passage, they were doomed to interminable slavery.
The unhappy victims, having been obtained in this way, were taken, he said, across the Atlantic in a manner that justified the charge of inhumanity once again. The suffering here was so immense that it was beyond what the mind could imagine or the tongue could describe. He had mentioned before that their transportation contained more misery crammed into a smaller space than had ever been seen in the known world. He would repeat his words because he didn't know how to express it any better. And, after all these horrors, what awaited them? It was enough to justify the charge in the resolution again: after surviving the sickness from the journey, they were condemned to endless slavery.
We had been, he said, so much accustomed to words, descriptive of the cruelty of this traffic, that we had almost forgotten their meaning. He wished that some person, educated as an Englishman, with suitable powers of eloquence, but now for the first time informed of all the horrors of it, were to address their lordships upon it, and he was sure, that they would instantly determine that it should cease. But the continuance of it had rendered cruelty familiar to us; and the recital of its horrors, had been so frequent, that we could now hear them stated without being affected as we ought to be. He intreated their lordships, however, to endeavour to conceive the hard case of the unhappy victims of it; and as he had led them to the last stage of their miserable existence, which was in the colonies, to contemplate it there. They were there under the arbitrary will of a cruel task-master from morning till night. When they went to rest, would not their dreams be frightful? When they awoke, would they not awake—
We had gotten so used to the harsh words describing the cruelty of this trade, he said, that we had almost forgotten what they meant. He wished there was someone, educated like an Englishman and with the right eloquence, who was hearing about all the horrors for the first time to speak to their lordships about it. He was sure they would immediately decide it should end. But because it has gone on for so long, cruelty has become familiar to us, and hearing about its horrors has happened so often that we can now listen to them without feeling the shock we should. He urged their lordships, however, to try to understand the terrible situation of the unfortunate victims, and since he had brought them to the final stage of their miserable lives in the colonies, to think about it there. They were subject to the arbitrary control of a cruel overseer from morning to night. When they went to sleep, wouldn’t their dreams be terrifying? When they woke up, wouldn’t they wake—
Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace
And rest can never dwell, hope never comes
That comes to all; but torture without end
Still urges?—
They knew no change, except in the humour of their masters, to whom their whole destiny was entrusted. We might, perhaps, flatter ourselves with saying, that they were subject to the will of Englishmen. But Englishmen were not better than others, when in possession of arbitrary power. The very fairest exercise of it was a never-failing corrupter of the heart. But suppose it were allowed that self-interest might operate some little against cruelty; yet where was the interest of the overseer or the driver? But he knew it would be said, that the evils complained of in the colonies had been mitigated. There might be instances of this; but they could never be cured, while slavery existed. Slavery took away more than half of the human character. Hence the practice, where it existed, of rejecting the testimony of the slave: but, if this testimony was rejected, where could be his redress against his oppressor?
They experienced no change, except for the whims of their masters, to whom their entire fate was entrusted. We might try to convince ourselves that they were at the mercy of Englishmen. But Englishmen were no better than others when they had unchecked power. Even the best use of that power was a constant corruptor of the heart. Sure, we could argue that self-interest might slightly reduce cruelty, but what about the interests of the overseer or the driver? People might say the issues discussed regarding the colonies had improved. There may be some examples of this, but these issues could never truly be resolved while slavery existed. Slavery stripped away more than half of a person's humanity. This is why, where slavery was present, the testimony of the slave was often dismissed: but if that testimony was ignored, how could the slave seek justice against their oppressor?
Having shown the inhumanity, he would proceed to the second point in the resolution, or the injustice of the trade. We had two ideas of justice, first, as it belonged to society by virtue of a social compact; and, secondly, as it belonged to men, not as citizens of a community, but as beings of one common nature. In a state of nature, man had a right to the fruit of his own labour absolutely to himself; and one of the main purposes, for which he entered into society, was that he might be better protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases therefore it was manifestly unjust, that a man should be made to labour during the whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labour. Hence the Slave Trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very principle, upon which all law for the protection of property was founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade, to an individual, it was derived from dishonour and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy victim of it that, which the latter did not wish to give him; and he gave to the same victim that, which he in vain attempted to show was an equivalent to the thing he took,—it being a thing for which there was no equivalent; and which, if he had not obtained by force, he would not have possessed at all. Nor could there be any answer to this reasoning, unless it could be proved, that it had pleased God to give to the inhabitants of Britain a property in the liberty and life of the natives of Africa. But he would go further on this subject. The injustice complained of was not confined to the bare circumstance of robbing them of the right to their own labour. It was conspicuous throughout the system. They, who bought them, became guilty of all the crimes which had been committed in procuring them, and when they possessed them, of all the crimes which belonged to their inhuman treatment. The injustice in the latter case amounted frequently to murder. For what was it but murder to pursue a practice, which produced untimely death to thousands of innocent and helpless beings? It was a duty, which their lordships owed to their Creator, if they hoped for mercy, to do away this monstrous oppression.
Having shown the inhumanity, he would move on to the second point in the resolution, which is the injustice of the trade. We had two concepts of justice: first, as it pertains to society due to a social agreement; and second, as it pertains to individuals, not just as citizens of a community, but as beings of shared humanity. In a state of nature, a person had a right to the fruits of their own labor completely for themselves, and one of the main reasons for joining society was to be better protected in their rights. In both scenarios, it was clearly unjust for a person to work their entire life and receive no benefit from their labor. Therefore, the Slave Trade and colonial slavery violated the very principle that all laws protecting property were based on. Any benefit that an individual gained from that trade came from dishonor and dishonesty. He extracted from the unfortunate victim something they did not want to give him, and offered the same victim something he tried, in vain, to present as equivalent to what he took—it being something for which there was no equivalent; and which, if he hadn’t obtained it by force, he would not have had at all. There was no argument against this reasoning unless it could be shown that God had granted the people of Britain ownership of the freedom and lives of the natives of Africa. But he would go further on this matter. The injustice being highlighted was not limited to simply robbing them of their right to their own labor. It was evident throughout the system. Those who bought them were guilty of all the crimes committed in acquiring them, and when they owned them, of all the crimes associated with their inhumane treatment. The injustice in the latter case often amounted to murder. For what was it but murder to continue a practice that led to the premature death of thousands of innocent and helpless individuals? It was a duty that their lordships owed to their Creator, if they hoped for mercy, to end this monstrous oppression.
With respect to the impolicy of the trade, (the third point in the resolution,) he would say at once, that whatever was inhuman and unjust must be, impolitic. He had, however, no objection to argue the point upon its own particular merits: and, first, he would observe, that a great man, Mr. Pitt, now no more, had exerted his vast powers on many subjects, to the admiration of his hearers; but on none more successfully than on the subject of the abolition of the Slave Trade. He proved, after making an allowance for the price paid for the slaves in the West Indies, for the loss of them in the seasoning, and for the expense of maintaining them afterwards; and comparing these particulars with the amount in value of their labour there, that the evils endured by the victims of the traffic were no gain to the master, in whose service they took place. Indeed, Mr. Long had laid it down in his History of Jamaica, that the best way to secure the planters from ruin would be to do that which the resolution recommended. It was notorious, that when any planter was in distress, and sought to relieve himself by increasing the labour on his estate, by means of the purchase of new slaves, the measure invariably tended to his destruction. What then was the importation of fresh Africans, but a system tending to the general ruin of the islands?
Regarding the drawbacks of the trade, (the third point in the resolution,) he would say right away that anything inhumane and unjust must also be unwise. However, he had no problem discussing the issue based on its own merits: first, he would note that a great man, Mr. Pitt, who is no longer with us, had used his significant abilities on many topics, impressing his audience; but none more effectively than on the abolition of the Slave Trade. He demonstrated, after factoring in the amount paid for the slaves in the West Indies, the losses during acclimatization, and the costs of their subsequent care; and comparing these details with the value of their labor there, that the suffering endured by the victims of the trade brought no benefit to the master who employed them. In fact, Mr. Long stated in his History of Jamaica that the best way to protect the planters from financial ruin would be to follow the resolution's recommendation. It was well-known that when any planter faced hardship and tried to improve his situation by increasing the labor on his estate through the purchase of new slaves, this approach invariably led to his downfall. So what was the importation of new Africans, other than a system that was ultimately leading to the overall destruction of the islands?
But it had often been said, that without fresh importations the population of the slaves could not be supported in the islands. This, however, was a mistake. It had arisen from reckoning the deaths of the imported Africans, of whom so many were lost in the seasoning, among the deaths of the Creole slaves. He did not mean to say that, under the existing degree of misery, the population would greatly increase; but, he would maintain, that if the deaths and the births were calculated upon those, who were either born, or who had been a long time in the islands, so as to be considered as natives, it would be found that the population had not only been kept up, but that it had been increased.
But it was often said that without new imports, the slave population couldn't be sustained on the islands. However, this was a misconception. It came from counting the deaths of the imported Africans, many of whom died during acclimatization, alongside the deaths of the Creole slaves. He didn't mean to suggest that the population would significantly grow under the current level of suffering; however, he argued that if you accounted for the births and deaths among those who were either born there or had lived in the islands long enough to be considered locals, it would show that the population not only held steady but had actually increased.
If it was true, that the labour of a free-man was cheaper than that of a slave; and, also, that the labour of a long-imported slave was cheaper than that of a fresh-imported one; and, again, that the chances of mortality were much more numerous among the newly-imported slaves in the West Indies, than among those of old standing there, (propositions, which he took to be established,) we should see new arguments for the impolicy of the trade.
If it were true that the labor of a free person was cheaper than that of a slave, and that the labor of a long-imported slave was cheaper than that of a newly-imported one, and also that the chances of mortality were much higher among the newly-imported slaves in the West Indies than among those who had been there for a while (points he considered established), we would find new reasons to argue against the trade.
It might be stated also, that the importation of vast bodies of men, who had been robbed of their rights, and grievously irritated on that account, into our colonies, (where their miserable condition opened new sources of anger and revenge,) was the importation only of the seeds of insurrection into them. And here he could not but view with astonishment the reasoning of the West Indian planters, who held up the example of St. Domingo as a warning against the abolition of the Slave Trade; because the continuance of it was one of the great causes of the insurrections and subsequent miseries in that devoted island. Let us but encourage importations in the same rapid progression of increase every year, which took place in St. Domingo, and we should witness the same effect in our own islands.
It can also be said that bringing in large numbers of people who had been stripped of their rights and deeply angered by that fact into our colonies, where their desperate situations fueled new anger and a desire for revenge, was basically just planting the seeds of rebellion. It’s hard not to be amazed by the logic of the West Indian planters, who pointed to St. Domingo as a cautionary tale against ending the Slave Trade; the ongoing trade itself was one of the main reasons for the uprisings and the suffering that followed in that unfortunate island. If we were to promote importations at the same rapid rate every year that happened in St. Domingo, we would see the same results in our own islands.
To expose the impolicy of the trade further, he would observe, that it was an allowed axiom, that as the condition of man was improved, he became more useful. The history of our own country, in very early times, exhibited instances of internal slavery, and this to a considerable extent. But we should find that; precisely in proportion as that slavery was ameliorated, the power and prosperity of the country flourished. This was exactly applicable to the case in question. There could be no general amelioration of slavery in the West Indies, while the Slave Trade lasted: but if we were to abolish it, we should make it the interest of every owner of slaves to do that, which would improve their condition, and which, indeed, would lead ultimately to the annihilation of slavery itself. This great event, however, could not be accomplished at once; it could only be effected in a course of time.
To further highlight the problems with the trade, he would point out that it's a well-known fact that as people's living conditions improve, they become more productive. The history of our country, especially in early times, showed cases of internal slavery to a significant degree. However, we see that as slavery was improved, the power and wealth of the country increased. This directly relates to the current issue at hand. There cannot be any real improvement in slavery in the West Indies as long as the Slave Trade continues; but if we were to end it, it would encourage every slave owner to take steps to enhance the lives of their slaves, ultimately leading to the end of slavery itself. This significant change, however, could not happen overnight; it would require time to achieve.
It would be endless, he said, to go into all the cases, which would manifest the impolicy of this odious traffic. Inhuman as it was, unjust as it was, he believed it to be equally impolitic; and if their Lordships should be of this opinion also, he hoped they would agree to that part of the resolution, in which these truths were expressed. With respect to the other part of it, or that they would proceed to abolish the trade, he observed, that neither the time, nor the manner of doing it, were specified. Hence, if any of them should differ as to these particulars, they, might yet vote for the resolution, as they were not pledged to anything definite in these respects, provided they thought that the trade should be abolished at some time or other: and he did not believe that there was any one of them, who would sanction its continuance for ever.
It would take forever, he said, to go into all the examples that would show how harmful this awful trade is. As inhumane and unjust as it was, he believed it was also equally unwise; and if the Lords agreed with this view, he hoped they would support that part of the resolution that expressed these truths. Regarding the other part, which called for the abolition of the trade, he pointed out that neither the timing nor the method for doing so were mentioned. Therefore, if any of them disagreed on these specifics, they could still vote for the resolution, since they weren’t committed to anything concrete in these areas, as long as they thought the trade should be abolished at some point; and he believed that none of them would support its continuation forever.
Lord Hawkesbury said, that he did not mean to discuss the question, on the ground of justice and humanity, as contradistinguished from sound policy. If it could fairly be made out that the African Slave Trade was contrary to justice and humanity, it ought to be abolished. It did not, however, follow, because a great evil subsisted, that therefore it should be removed; for it might be comparatively a less evil, than that which would accompany the attempt to remove it. The noble lord, who had just spoken, had exemplified this; for though slavery was a great evil in itself, he was of opinion that it could not be done away, but in a course of time.
Lord Hawkesbury said that he didn’t intend to discuss the issue based on justice and humanity, as opposed to sound policy. If it could be convincingly argued that the African Slave Trade was against justice and humanity, then it should be abolished. However, it didn't necessarily follow that just because a significant evil existed, it should be eliminated; it might be a comparatively lesser evil than the consequences of trying to remove it. The noble lord who just spoke illustrated this point; while slavery is a significant evil in itself, he believed it couldn't be ended right away, but rather over time.
A state of slavery, he said, had existed in Africa from the earliest time; and, unless other nations would concur with England in the measure of the abolition, we could not change it for the better.
A state of slavery, he said, had existed in Africa since ancient times; and unless other nations agreed with England on the abolition, we couldn't improve the situation.
Slavery had existed also throughout all Europe. It had now happily, in a great measure, been done away. But how? Not by acts of parliament, for these might have retarded the event, but by the progress of civilization, which removed the evil in a gradual and rational manner.
Slavery had also existed throughout all of Europe. Fortunately, it has now largely been abolished. But how? Not through laws passed by parliament, as those might have delayed the process, but through the advancement of civilization, which eliminated the issue in a gradual and sensible way.
He then went over the same ground of argument, as when a member of the Commons in 1792. He said that the inhumanity of the abolition was visible in this, that not one slave less would be taken from Africa; and that such as were taken from it, would suffer more than they did now, in the hands of foreigners. He maintained also, as before, that the example of St. Domingo afforded one of the strongest arguments against the abolition of the trade. And he concluded by objecting to the resolution, inasmuch as it could do no good, for the substance of it would be to be discussed again in a future session.
He then repeated the same line of argument he had used as a member of the Commons in 1792. He pointed out that the cruelty of abolition was evident in the fact that not one fewer slave would be taken from Africa, and that those who were taken would suffer more than they do now at the hands of foreigners. He also maintained, as he had before, that the situation in St. Domingo provided one of the strongest arguments against abolishing the trade. He concluded by opposing the resolution, stating that it wouldn’t be beneficial, as its main points would simply be revisited in a future session.
The Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, began, by noticing the concession of the last speaker, namely, that if the trade was contrary to humanity and justice, it ought to be abolished. He expected, he said, that the noble lord would have proved that it was not contrary to these great principles, before he had supported its continuance; but not a word had he said to show that the basis of the resolution in these respects was false. It followed then, he thought, that as the noble lord had not disproved the premises; he was bound to abide by the conclusion.
The Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, started by pointing out the last speaker's admission that if the trade went against humanity and justice, it should be ended. He expected the noble lord to have demonstrated that it wasn't against these important principles before arguing for its continuation; however, he hadn't offered any evidence to show that the foundation of the resolution was incorrect. Therefore, he believed that since the noble lord hadn't disproven the premises, he was obligated to accept the conclusion.
The ways, he said, in which the Africans were reduced to slavery in their own country, were by wars,—many of which were excited for the purpose,—by the breaking up of villages, by kidnapping and by conviction for a violation of their own laws. Of the latter class many were accused falsely, and of crimes which did not exist. He then read a number of extracts from the evidence examined before the privy council, and from the histories of those, who, having lived in Africa, had thrown light upon this subject before the question was agitated. All these, he said, (and similar instances could be multiplied,) proved the truth of the resolution, that the African Slave Trade was contrary to the principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy.
The ways, he said, in which Africans were forced into slavery in their own country were through wars—many of which were started for that purpose—by the destruction of villages, by kidnapping, and by being convicted of violating their own laws. Many of those accused were falsely charged with non-existent crimes. He then read several excerpts from the evidence reviewed by the privy council and from the histories of those who had lived in Africa and shed light on this issue before it became a topic of debate. All these, he said, (and similar examples could be added,) demonstrated the truth of the resolution that the African Slave Trade went against the principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy.
It was moreover, he said, contrary to the principles of the religion we professed. It was not superfluous to say this, when it had been so frequently asserted that it was sanctioned both by the Jewish and the Christian dispensations. With respect to the Jews he would observe, that there was no such thing as perpetual slavery among them. Their slaves were of two kinds, those of their own nation, and those from the country round about them. The former were to be set free on the seventh year; and the rest, of whatever nation, on the fiftieth, or on the year of Jubilee. With respect to the Christian dispensation, it was a libel to say that it countenanced such a traffic. It opposed it both in its spirit and in its principle; nay, it opposed it positively, for it classed men-stealers, or slave traders, among the murderers of fathers and mothers, and the most profane criminals upon earth.
He also stated that it was against the principles of the religion we followed. It wasn't unnecessary to mention this, especially since it had often been claimed that it was supported by both the Jewish and Christian teachings. Regarding the Jews, he noted that there was no concept of permanent slavery among them. Their slaves were of two types: those from their own nation and those from surrounding areas. The former were to be freed in the seventh year, while the latter, regardless of their nationality, were to be freed in the fiftieth year, or during the year of Jubilee. As for the Christian teachings, it was a falsehood to say that it endorsed such a practice. It opposed it both in its spirit and in its principles; in fact, it explicitly condemned it, classifying slave traders among murderers of parents and the most egregious criminals on earth.
The antiquity of slavery in Africa, which the noble lord had glanced at, afforded, he said, no argument for its continuance. Such a mode of defence would prevent for ever the removal of any evil; it would justify the practice of the Chinese, who exposed their infants in the streets to perish; it would also justify piracy, for that practice existed long before we knew anything of the African Slave Trade.
The long history of slavery in Africa that the noble lord mentioned, he said, does not provide a reason for it to continue. Using that kind of defense would perpetually block any efforts to eliminate a problem; it would also excuse the actions of the Chinese, who leave their infants on the streets to die; and it would justify piracy, since that practice existed long before we were aware of the African Slave Trade.
He then combatted the argument, that we did a kindness to the Africans by taking them from their homes; and concluded, by stating to their lordships, that, if they refused to sanction the resolution, they would establish these principles, "that though individuals might not rob and murder, yet that nations might—that though individuals incurred the penalties of death by such practices, yet that bodies of men might commit them with impunity for the purposes of lucre;—and that for such purposes they were not only to be permitted, but encouraged."
He then argued against the idea that taking Africans from their homes was a kindness. He concluded by telling their lordships that if they refused to support the resolution, they would be establishing principles like this: "that while individuals may not rob and murder, nations can— that while individuals face the death penalty for such actions, groups of people can commit them without consequences for the sake of profit; and that for such purposes, they should not only be allowed but encouraged."
The Lord Chancellor (Erskine) confessed that he was not satisfied with his own conduct on this subject. He acknowledged, with deep contrition, that, during the time he was a member of the other House, he had not once attended when this great question was discussed.
The Lord Chancellor (Erskine) admitted that he was not happy with his own actions regarding this issue. He recognized, with genuine regret, that during the time he was a member of the other House, he had never attended when this important topic was discussed.
In the West Indies he could say, personally, that the slaves were well treated, where he had an opportunity of seeing them. But no judgment was to be formed there with respect to the evils complained of; they must be appreciated as they existed in the trade. Of these he had also been an eye-witness. It was on this account that he felt contrition for not having attended the House on this subject, for there were some cruelties in this traffic which the human imagination could not aggravate. He had witnessed such scenes over the whole coast of Africa; and he could say, that if their lordships could only have a sudden glimpse of them, they would be struck with horror, and would be astonished that they could ever have been permitted to exist. What then would they say to their continuance year after year, and from age to age?
In the West Indies, he could personally say that the slaves were treated fairly well, based on his observations. However, no conclusions should be drawn about the problems being reported; they needed to be understood as they were in the trade. He had also witnessed these issues firsthand. For this reason, he felt regret for not addressing the House on this topic, as there were some brutalities in this trade that were beyond the imagination. He had seen such horrific scenes all along the coast of Africa, and he knew that if their lordships could get just a brief look at them, they would be horrified and shocked that such things were ever allowed to happen. What would they say about these conditions continuing year after year, and from generation to generation?
From information, which he could not dispute, he was warranted in saying, that, on this continent, husbands were fraudulently and forcibly severed from their wives, and parents from their children; and that all the ties of blood and affection were torn up by the roots. He had himself seen the unhappy natives put together in heaps in the hold of a ship, where, with every possible attention to them, their situation must have been intolerable. He had also heard proved, in courts of justice, facts still more dreadful than those which he had seen. One of these he would just mention. The slaves on board a certain ship rose in a mass to liberate themselves, and having advanced far in the pursuit of their object, it became necessary to repel them by force. Some of them yielded, some of them were killed in the scuffle, but many of them actually jumped into the sea and were drowned, thus preferring death to the misery of their situation; while others hung to the ship, repenting of their rashness, and bewailing with frightful noises their horrid fate. Thus the whole vessel exhibited but one hideous scene of wretchedness. They who were subdued and secured in chains were seized with the flux, which carried many of them off. These things were proved in a trial before a British jury, which had to consider whether this was a loss which fell within the policy of insurance, the slaves being regarded as if they had been only a cargo of dead matter. He could mention other instances, but they were much too shocking to be described. Surely their lordships could never consider such a traffic to be consistent with humanity or justice. It was impossible.
From information he couldn't dispute, he was justified in saying that on this continent, husbands were forcibly and fraudulently separated from their wives, and parents from their children; all bonds of family and love were cut off completely. He personally saw the unfortunate natives piled together in the hold of a ship, where, despite all possible care for them, their situation must have been unbearable. He also heard evidence in court about even more horrifying facts than what he witnessed. One example he would mention: the slaves on a certain ship banded together to free themselves, and after making significant progress in their plan, it became necessary to force them back. Some of them gave up, some were killed in the struggle, but many jumped into the sea to drown, preferring death over their misery; while others clung to the ship, regretting their impulsiveness, and crying out in despair over their terrible fate. Thus, the entire vessel was a horrifying scene of suffering. Those who were subdued and chained fell ill, and many died from it. These events were proven in a trial before a British jury that had to decide whether this loss fell under insurance policy, treating the slaves as though they were just a pile of cargo. He could mention other cases, but they were too shocking to describe. Surely, their lordships could never consider such a trade to be humane or just. That was impossible.
That the trade had long subsisted there was no doubt, but this was no argument for its continuance. Many evils of much longer standing had been done away, and it was always our duty to attempt to remove them. Should we not exult in the consideration, that we, the inhabitants of a small island, at the extremity of the globe, almost at its north pole, were become the morningstar to enlighten the nations of the earth, and to conduct them out of the shades of darkness into the realms of light; thus exhibiting to an astonished and an admiring world the blessings of a free constitution? Let us then not allow such a glorious opportunity to escape us.
That the trade had been around for a long time was undeniable, but that didn’t mean it should continue. Many problems that had existed even longer have been resolved, and it’s always our responsibility to try to fix them. Shouldn’t we take pride in the fact that we, the people of a small island at the edge of the world, nearly at the North Pole, have become a beacon of hope to illuminate the nations of the earth and guide them out of darkness into light? This way, we can show an amazed and admiring world the benefits of a free system. Let’s not let this amazing opportunity pass us by.
It had been urged that we should suffer by the abolition of the Slave Trade; he believed that we should not suffer. He believed that our duty and our interest were inseparable; and he had no difficulty in saying, in the face of the world, that his own opinion was, that the interests of a nation would be best preserved by its adherence to the principles of humanity, justice, and religion.
It had been argued that we would be harmed by the end of the Slave Trade; he believed we would not be. He believed that our responsibilities and our interests were closely linked; and he had no problem stating, in front of everyone, that his view was that a nation's interests would be best served by sticking to the principles of humanity, fairness, and faith.
The Earl of Westmoreland said, that the African Slave Trade might be contrary to humanity and justice, and yet it might be politic; at least, it might be inconsistent with humanity, and yet not be inconsistent with justice; this was the case when we executed a criminal, or engaged in war.
The Earl of Westmoreland said that the African Slave Trade might go against humanity and justice, but it could still be politically smart; at least, it might clash with humanity and yet not contradict justice; this is the case when we execute a criminal or go to war.
It was, however, not contrary to justice, for justice, in this case, must be measured by the law of nations. But the purchase of slaves was not contrary to this law. The Slave Trade was a trade with the consent of the inhabitants of two nations, and procured by no terror, nor by any act of violence whatever. Slavery had existed from the first ages of the world, not only in Africa, but throughout the habitable globe, among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans; and he would compare, with great advantage to his argument, the wretched condition of the slaves in these ancient states with that of those in our colonies. Slavery too had been allowed in a nation which was under the especial direction of Providence; the Jews were allowed to hold the heathen in bondage. He admitted that what the learned prelate had said relative to the emancipation of the latter in the year of jubilee was correct; but he denied that his quotation relative to the stealers of men referred to the Christian religion. It was a mere allusion to that which was done contrary to the law of nations, which was the only measure of justice between states.
It wasn't, however, against justice, since justice in this case should be measured by international law. But buying slaves didn't violate this law. The Slave Trade was an agreement between the people of two nations, and it wasn't forced by fear or any acts of violence. Slavery had existed since ancient times, not just in Africa but everywhere, among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans; he would argue that the miserable condition of slaves in these ancient societies could be compared to those in our colonies. Slavery was also permitted in a nation that was believed to be under the special guidance of Providence; the Jews were allowed to enslave non-believers. He acknowledged that what the learned bishop said about the emancipation of these individuals during the year of jubilee was correct, but he disagreed that his reference about the kidnappers related to Christianity. It was merely an allusion to actions that violated international law, which was the only standard of justice between nations.
With respect to the inhumanity of the trade, he would observe, that if their lordships, sitting there as legislators, were to set their faces against everything which appeared to be inhuman, much of the security on which their lives and property depended might be shaken, if not totally destroyed. The question was, not whether there was not some evil attending the Slave Trade, but whether by the measure now before them they should increase or diminish the quantity of human misery in the world. He believed, for one, considering the internal state of Africa, and the impossibility of procuring the concurrence of foreign nations in the measure, that they would not be able to do any good by the adoption of it.
Regarding the inhumanity of the trade, he would point out that if their lordships, acting as lawmakers, were to oppose everything that seemed inhumane, a lot of the security their lives and property relied on could be weakened, if not entirely destroyed. The issue was not whether there were evils associated with the Slave Trade, but whether the proposed measure would increase or decrease human suffering in the world. He believed, considering the internal situation in Africa and the impossibility of getting foreign countries to agree to the measure, that adopting it would not lead to any positive outcomes.
As to the impolicy of the trade, the policy of it, on the other hand, was so great, that he trembled at the consequences of its abolition. The property connected with this question amounted to a hundred millions. The annual produce of the islands was eighteen millions, and it yielded a revenue of four millions annually. How was this immense property and income to be preserved? Some had said it would be preserved, because the black population in the islands could be kept up without further supplies; but the planters denied this assertion, and they were the best judges of the subject.
As for the drawbacks of the trade, the benefits of it were so significant that he was anxious about the impact of ending it. The assets related to this issue totaled one hundred million. The yearly output of the islands was eighteen million, and it generated a revenue of four million each year. How would this vast property and income be maintained? Some argued that it could be sustained because the black population in the islands could be maintained without additional supplies; however, the planters disagreed with this claim, and they were the most qualified to make that judgment.
He condemned the resolution as a libel upon the wisdom of the law of the land; and upon the conduct of their ancestors. He condemned it also, because, if followed up, it would lead to the abolition of the trade, and the abolition of the trade to the emancipation of the slaves in our colonies.
He criticized the resolution as a slander against the wisdom of the country's laws; and against the actions of their ancestors. He also condemned it because, if it were carried out, it would result in the end of the trade, and the end of the trade would lead to the freedom of the slaves in our colonies.
The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley) said, that, allowing the slaves in the West Indies even to be pampered with delicacies, or to be put to rest on a bed of roses, they could not be happy, for—a slave would be still a slave. The question, however, was not concerning the alteration of their condition, but whether we should abolish the practice, by which they were put in that condition? Whether it was humane, just, and politic in us so to place them? This question was easily answered; for he found it difficult to form any one notion of humanity, which did not include a desire of promoting the happiness of others; and he knew of no other justice than that, which was founded on the principle of doing to others, as we should wish they should do to us. And these principles of humanity and justice were so clear, that he found it difficult to make them clearer. Perhaps no difficulty was greater than that of arguing a self-evident proposition, and such he took to be the character of the proposition, that the Slave Trade was inhuman and unjust.
The Bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley) stated that even if slaves in the West Indies were treated to luxuries or allowed to rest on a bed of roses, they couldn’t truly be happy, because a slave is still a slave. However, the real question wasn't about changing their situation, but whether we should end the practice that put them in that situation. Was it humane, just, and wise for us to keep them in this state? This question was easy to answer; he found it hard to imagine a concept of humanity that didn't involve wanting to promote the happiness of others, and he knew of no justice other than the principle of treating others the way we would want to be treated ourselves. These ideas of humanity and justice were so obvious that he struggled to clarify them further. Arguing a self-evident truth was perhaps one of the most challenging tasks, and he believed that the claim that the Slave Trade was inhumane and unjust was a clear example of such a truth.
It had been said, that slavery had existed from the beginning of the world. He would allow it. But had such a trade as the Slave Trade ever existed before? Would the noble Earl, who had talked of the slavery of ancient Rome and Greece, assert, that in the course of his whole reading, however profound it might have been, he had found anything resembling such a traffic? Where did it appear in history, that ships were regularly fitted out to fetch away tens of thousands of persons annually, against their will, from their native land; that these were subject to personal indignities and arbitrary punishments during their transportation; and that a certain proportion of them, owing to suffocation and other cruel causes, uniformly perished? He averred, that nothing like the African Slave Trade was ever practised in any nation upon earth.
It has been said that slavery has existed since the beginning of the world. He would agree. But has a trade like the Slave Trade ever existed before? Would the noble Earl, who spoke about the slavery of ancient Rome and Greece, claim that in all his extensive reading, he has found anything resembling such a trade? Where in history is it documented that ships were regularly outfitted to forcibly take tens of thousands of people each year from their homeland; that these individuals faced personal indignities and arbitrary punishments during their journey; and that a certain number of them, due to suffocation and other brutal conditions, consistently died? He asserted that nothing like the African Slave Trade has ever been practiced by any nation on Earth.
If the trade then was repugnant, as he maintained it was, to justice and humanity, he did not see how, without aiding and abetting injustice and inhumanity, any man could sanction it: and he thought that the noble baron (Hawkesbury) was peculiarly bound to support the resolution; for he had admitted that if it could be shown, that the trade was contrary to these principles, the question would be at an end. Now this contrariety had been made apparent, and his lordship had not even attempted to refute it.
If the trade was as morally wrong as he claimed it was, he couldn’t understand how anyone could approve it without contributing to injustice and inhumanity. He believed that the noble baron (Hawkesbury) had a special obligation to support the resolution because he had acknowledged that if it could be proven that the trade violated these principles, the matter would be settled. This contradiction had been clearly demonstrated, and his lordship hadn’t even tried to refute it.
He would say but little on the subject of revealed religion, as it related to this question, because the reverend prelate, near him, had spoken so fully upon it. He might observe, however, that at the end of the sixth year, when the Hebrew slave was emancipated, he was to be furnished liberally from the flock, the floor, and the wine-press of his master.
He wouldn't say much about revealed religion as it related to this question because the reverend prelate nearby had already explained it thoroughly. However, he might point out that at the end of the sixth year, when the Hebrew slave was set free, he was to receive generous provisions from his master’s flock, the grain, and the wine press.
Lord Holland lamented the unfaithfulness of the noble baron (Hawkesbury) to his own principles, and the inflexible opposition of the noble earl (Westmoreland), from both which circumstances he despaired for ever of any assistance from them to this glorious cause. The latter wished to hear evidence on the subject, for the purpose, doubtless, of delay. He was sure, that the noble earl did not care what the evidence would say on either side; for his mind was made up, that the trade ought not to be abolished.
Lord Holland lamented the unfaithfulness of the noble baron (Hawkesbury) to his own principles and the unyielding opposition of the noble earl (Westmoreland). Because of this, he had given up hope for any support from them for this glorious cause. The earl wanted to hear evidence on the matter, likely just to delay things. He was convinced that the noble earl didn’t care what the evidence would say from either side; his mind was already made up that the trade shouldn’t be abolished.
The noble earl had made a difference between humanity, justice, and sound policy. God forbid, that we should ever admit such distinctions in this country! But he had gone further, and said, that a thing might be inhuman, and yet not unjust; and he put the case of the execution of a criminal in support of it. Did he not by this position confound all notions of right and wrong in human institutions? When a criminal was justly executed, was not the execution justice to him who suffered, and humanity to the body of the people at large?
The noble earl had differentiated between humanity, justice, and sound policy. Heaven forbid we ever accept such distinctions in this country! But he went further, claiming that something could be inhumane and yet not unjust; he used the example of executing a criminal to support his point. Didn’t he, with this argument, mix up all ideas of right and wrong in human systems? When a criminal is justly executed, isn’t that an act of justice for the one who suffers and an act of humanity for society as a whole?
The noble earl had said also, that we should do no good by the abolition, because other nations would not concur in it. He did not know what other nations would do; but this he knew, that we ourselves ought not to be unjust because they should refuse to be honest. It was, however, self-obvious, that, if we admitted no more slaves into our colonies, the evil would be considerably diminished.
The noble earl had also said that we wouldn't do any good by abolishing it, since other countries wouldn't agree. He didn’t know what other nations would do; but he did know that we shouldn't act unjustly just because they refuse to be honest. However, it was clear that if we stopped bringing in more slaves to our colonies, the problem would be greatly reduced.
Another of his arguments did not appear to be more solid; for surely the Slave Trade ought not to be continued, merely because the effect of the abolition might ultimately be that of the emancipation of the slaves; an event, which would be highly desirable in its due time.
Another one of his arguments didn’t seem any stronger; for surely the Slave Trade shouldn’t continue just because abolishing it could eventually lead to the freedom of the slaves; a situation that would be very desirable in its proper time.
The noble lord had also said, that the planters were against the abolition, and that without their consent it could never be accomplished. He differed from him in both these points: for, first, he was a considerable planter himself, and yet he was a friend to the measure: secondly, by cutting off all further supplies, the planters would be obliged to pay more attention to the treatment of their slaves, and this treatment would render the trade unnecessary.
The noble lord also claimed that the plantation owners were against abolition and that it could never happen without their agreement. He disagreed with both of these points: first, he was a significant plantation owner himself, yet he supported the measure; second, by cutting off all further supplies, the plantation owners would have to focus more on how they treated their slaves, and that treatment would make the trade unnecessary.
The noble earl had asserted also, that the population in the West Indies could not be kept up without further importations; and this was the opinion of the planters, who were the best judges of the subject. As a planter he differed from his lordship again. If, indeed, all the waste lands were to be brought into cultivation, the present population would be insufficient. But the government had already determined, that the trade should not be continued for such a purpose. We were no longer to continue pirates, or executioners for every petty tyrant in Africa, in order that every holder of a bit of land in our islands might cultivate the whole of his allotment; a work, which might require centuries. Making this exception, he would maintain, that no further importations were necessary. Few or no slaves had been imported into Antigua for many years; and he believed, that even some had been exported from it. As to Jamaica, although in one year fifteen thousand died in consequence of hurricane and famine, the excess of deaths over the births during the twenty years preceding 1788 was only one per cent. Deducting, however, the mortality of the newly imported slaves, and making the calculation upon the Negroes born in the island or upon those who had been long there, he believed the births and the deaths would be found equal. He had a right therefore to argue that the Negroes, with better treatment (which the abolition would secure), would not only maintain but increase their population, without any aid from Africa. He would add, that the newly imported Africans brought with them not only disorders which ravaged the plantations, but danger from the probability of insurrections. He wished most heartily for the total abolition of the trade. He was convinced, that it was both inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. This had always been his opinion as an individual since he was capable of forming one. It was his opinion then as a legislator. It was his opinion as a colonial proprietor; and it was his opinion as an Englishman, wishing for the prosperity of the British empire.
The noble earl had also claimed that the population in the West Indies couldn’t be sustained without additional importations, and this was the view of the planters, who were the best judges of the matter. As a planter, he disagreed with his lordship again. If all the unused land were to be cultivated, the current population would be inadequate. But the government had already decided that the trade should not continue for that purpose. We were no longer going to act as pirates or executioners for every petty tyrant in Africa, just so that every landowner in our islands could farm their entire allotment; a task that might take centuries. With that exception, he argued that no further importations were needed. Few or no slaves had been brought into Antigua for many years, and he believed that some had even been exported from it. Regarding Jamaica, even though fifteen thousand people died in one year due to a hurricane and famine, the excess of deaths over births during the twenty years before 1788 was only one percent. However, if you take away the deaths of newly imported slaves and calculate based on the Black individuals born on the island or those who had been there for a long time, he believed that births and deaths would be roughly equal. He had the right to argue that the Black population, if treated better (which the abolition would ensure), would not only sustain but also grow their numbers, without needing any help from Africa. He would also add that newly imported Africans brought not only diseases that harmed the plantations but also the risk of uprisings. He sincerely wished for the complete abolition of the trade. He was convinced it was inhumane, unjust, and impractical. This had always been his stance as an individual since he was able to form an opinion. It was his stance then as a legislator. It was his stance as a landowner; and it was his stance as an Englishman who wanted the British empire to thrive.
The Earl of Suffolk contended, that the population of the slaves in the islands could be kept up by good treatment, so as to be sufficient for their cultivation. He entered into a detail of calculations from the year 1772 downwards in support of this statement. He believed all the miseries of St. Domingo arose from the vast importation of Africans. He had such a deep sense of the inhumanity and injustice of the Slave Trade, that, if ever he wished any action of his life to be recorded, it would be that of the vote he should then give in support of the resolution.
The Earl of Suffolk argued that the population of slaves in the islands could be maintained through good treatment, making it enough for their cultivation. He went into a detailed analysis of statistics from 1772 onward to back up this claim. He believed that all the suffering in St. Domingo stemmed from the massive importation of Africans. He felt so strongly about the inhumanity and injustice of the Slave Trade that if he ever wanted any action of his life to be remembered, it would be the vote he was about to cast in support of the resolution.
Lord Sidmouth said, that he agreed to the substance of the resolution, but yet he could not support it. Could he be convinced that the trade would be injurious to the cause of humanity and justice, the question with him would be decided; for policy could not be opposed to humanity and justice. He had been of opinion for the last twenty years, that the interests of the country and those of numerous individuals were so deeply blended with this traffic, that we should be very cautious how we proceeded. With respect to the cultivation of new lands, he would not allow a single Negro to be imported for such a purpose; but he must have a regard to the old plantations. When he found a sufficient increase in the Black population to continue the cultivation already established there, then, but not till then, he would agree to an abolition of the trade.
Lord Sidmouth said that he agreed with the main idea of the resolution, but he could not support it. If he could be convinced that the trade would harm humanity and justice, that would settle the matter for him; because policy cannot go against humanity and justice. For the past twenty years, he has believed that the interests of the country and many individuals are so closely tied to this trade that we should be very careful in how we proceed. Regarding the cultivation of new lands, he would not allow a single person to be imported for that purpose; however, he must consider the existing plantations. When he sees a sufficient increase in the Black population to sustain the current cultivation there, then, and only then, would he agree to abolish the trade.
Earl Stanhope said he would not detain their lordships long. He could not, however, help expressing his astonishment at what had fallen from the last speaker; for he had evidently confessed that the Slave Trade was inhuman and unjust, and then he had insinuated, that it was neither inhuman nor unjust to continue it. A more paradoxical or whimsical opinion, he believed, was never entertained, or more whimsically expressed in that house. The noble viscount had talked of the interests of the planters; but this was but a part of the subject; for surely the people of Africa were not to be forgotten. He did not understand the practice of complimenting the planters with the lives of men, women, and helpless children by thousands, for the sake of their pecuniary advantage; and they, who adopted it, whatever they might think of the consistency of their own conduct, offered an insult to the sacred names of humanity and justice.
Earl Stanhope said he wouldn't keep their lordships waiting long. However, he couldn’t help but express his shock at what the last speaker had said; he had clearly admitted that the Slave Trade was inhumane and unfair, and then he suggested it was neither inhumane nor unfair to keep it going. He believed there had never been a more contradictory or bizarre opinion shared in that chamber. The noble viscount had talked about the interests of the planters, but that was just part of the topic; surely, the people of Africa should not be overlooked. He did not understand the idea of valuing the lives of men, women, and helpless children by the thousands for the sake of the financial gain of the planters. Those who embraced such views, no matter how they justified their own actions, were insulting the sacred concepts of humanity and justice.
The noble Earl (Westmoreland) had asked what would be the practical effect of the abolition of the Slave Trade. He would inform him. It would do away the infamous practices which took place in Africa; it would put an end to the horrors of the passage; it would save many thousands of our fellow-creatures from the miseries of eternal slavery; it would oblige the planters to treat those better, who were already in that unnatural state; it would increase the population of our islands; it would give a death-blow to the diabolical calculations, whether it was cheaper to work the Negroes to death and recruit the gangs by fresh importations, or to work them moderately and to treat them kindly. He knew of no event, which would be attended with so many blessings.
The noble Earl (Westmoreland) had asked what the practical outcome of ending the Slave Trade would be. Let me explain. It would eliminate the terrible practices happening in Africa; it would put a stop to the horrors of the journey; it would save countless individuals from the suffering of endless slavery; it would force plantation owners to treat those already in that unnatural condition better; it would boost the population of our islands; it would decisively end the evil calculations of whether it was cheaper to work the enslaved people to death and replace them with new arrivals, or to treat them well and work them moderately. I know of no other event that would bring so many blessings.
There was but one other matter, which he would notice. The noble baron (Hawkesbury) had asserted, that all the horrors of St. Domingo were the consequence of the speculative opinions which were current in a neighbouring kingdom on the subject at liberty. They had, he said, no such origin. They were owing to two causes; first, to the vast number of Negroes recently imported into that island; and, secondly, to a scandalous breach of faith by the French legislature. This legislature held out the idea not only of the abolition of the Slave Trade, but also of all slavery; but it broke its word. It held forth the rights of man to the whole human race, and then, in practice, it most infamously abandoned every article in these rights; so that it became the scorn of all the enlightened and virtuous part of mankind. These were the great causes of the miseries of St. Domingo, and not the speculative opinions of France.
There was just one more thing he wanted to mention. The noble baron (Hawkesbury) claimed that all the horrors in St. Domingo came from the ideas being discussed in a neighboring country about liberty. He said they didn’t come from those ideas at all. They were due to two reasons: first, the large number of Black people recently brought to that island; and second, a shocking breach of trust by the French government. This government suggested not only the end of the Slave Trade but also of all forms of slavery, but then went back on its promise. It proclaimed the rights of man for everyone, only to then completely abandon those rights in practice, becoming a source of shame for all the enlightened and virtuous people in the world. These were the main reasons for the suffering in St. Domingo, not the ideas from France.
Earl Grosvenor could not but express the joy he felt at the hope, after all his disappointments, that this wicked trade would be done away. He hoped that his Majesty's ministers were in earnest, and that they would, early in the next session, take this great question up with a determination to go through with it; so that another year should not pass before we extended the justice and humanity of the country to the helpless and unhappy inhabitants of Africa.
Earl Grosvenor couldn't help but share the joy he felt at the hope, after all his disappointments, that this terrible trade would be eliminated. He hoped that the King's ministers were serious about it and that they would, in the next session, tackle this important issue with the resolve to see it through; so that another year wouldn’t go by before we extended the justice and compassion of our country to the vulnerable and unfortunate people of Africa.
Earl Fitzwilliam said he was fearful lest the calamities of St. Domingo should be brought home to our own islands. We ought not, he thought, too hastily to adopt the resolution on that account. He should therefore support the previous question.
Earl Fitzwilliam said he was worried that the disasters of St. Domingo could come to our own islands. He believed we shouldn’t rush into a decision because of that. So, he would support the previous question.
Lord Ellenborough said, he was sorry to differ from his noble friend (Lord Sidmouth), and yet he could not help saying that if after twenty years, during which this question had been discussed by both Houses of Parliament, their lordships' judgments were not ripe for its determination, he could not look with any confidence to a time when they would be ready to decide it.
Lord Ellenborough said he was sorry to disagree with his noble friend (Lord Sidmouth), but he couldn't help pointing out that if, after twenty years of discussion in both Houses of Parliament, their lordships' opinions weren't ready for a decision, he couldn't have any confidence that they would be prepared to resolve it in the future.
The question then before them was short and plain. It was, whether the African Slave Trade was inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. If the premises were true, we could not too speedily bring it to a conclusion.
The question before them was straightforward. It was whether the African Slave Trade was inhumane, unjust, and impractical. If the premises were true, we should quickly bring it to an end.
The subject had been frequently brought before him in a way which had enabled him to become acquainted with it; and he was the more anxious on that account to deliver his sentiments upon it as a peer of Parliament, without reference to anything he had been called upon to do in the discharge of his professional duty. When he looked at the mode in which this traffic commenced, by the spoliation of the rights of a whole quarter of the globe; by the misery of whole nations of helpless Africans; by tearing them from their homes, their families, and their friends; when he saw the unhappy victims carried away by force; thrust into a dungeon in the hold of a ship, in which the interval of their passage from their native to a foreign land was filled up with misery, under every degree of debasement, and in chains; and when he saw them afterwards consigned to an eternal slavery, he could not but contemplate the whole system with horror. It was inhuman in its beginning, inhuman in its progress, and inhuman to the very end.
The topic had been frequently brought up to him in a way that allowed him to get familiar with it; and he was even more eager, for that reason, to share his thoughts on it as a member of Parliament, without considering anything he had to do in his professional role. When he looked at how this trade started—by stripping an entire region of its rights; by the suffering of countless helpless Africans; by forcibly tearing them from their homes, families, and friends; when he saw the unfortunate victims taken away by force and shoved into a dark ship's hold, where the time of their journey from their homeland to a foreign land was filled with misery, degradation, and chains; and when he saw them later doomed to a life of slavery, he couldn’t help but view the entire system with horror. It was inhumane from the start, inhumane as it progressed, and inhumane to the very end.
Nor was it more inhuman than it was unjust. The noble earl, (Westmoreland,) in adverting to this part of the question had considered it as a question of justice between two nations, but it was a moral question. Although the natives of Africa might be taken by persons authorized by their own laws to take and dispose of them, and the practice, therefore, might be said to be legal as it respected them, yet no man could doubt, whatever ordinances they might have to sanction it, that it was radically, essentially, and in principle, unjust; and therefore there could be no excuse for us in continuing it. On the general principle of natural justice, which was paramount to all ordinances of men, it was quite impossible to defend this traffic; and he agreed with the noble baron (Hawkesbury) that, having decided that it was inhuman and unjust, we should not inquire whether it was impolitic. Indeed, the inquiry itself would be impious; for it was the common ordinance of God, that that which was inhuman and unjust, should never be for the good of man. Its impolicy, therefore, was included in its injustice and its inhumanity. And he had no doubt, when the importations were stopped, that the planters would introduce a change of system among their slaves which would increase their population, so as to render any further supplies from Africa unnecessary. It had been proved, indeed, that the Negro population in some of the islands was already in this desirable state. Many other happy effects would follow. As to the losses which would arise from the abolition of the Slave Trade, they, who were interested in the continuance of it, had greatly over-rated them. When pleading formerly in his professional capacity for the merchants of Liverpool at their lordships' bar, he had often delivered statements, which he had received from them, and which he afterwards discovered to be grossly incorrect. He could say from his own knowledge, that the assertion of the noble earl (Westmoreland), that property to the amount of a hundred millions would be endangered, was wild and fanciful. He would not however deny, that some loss might accompany the abolition; but there could be no difficulty in providing for it. Such a consideration ought not to be allowed to impede their progress in getting rid of an horrible injustice.
It was not only inhumane but also unjust. The noble earl (Westmoreland) viewed this issue as a matter of justice between two nations, but it was really a moral issue. Although people might take Africans under the authority of their own laws, and the practice might be deemed legal for them, no one could deny that, regardless of any laws they had to support it, it was fundamentally unfair and wrong. Therefore, there was no justification for us to keep it going. Based on the overall principle of natural justice, which is above all human laws, it was impossible to defend this trade. He agreed with the noble baron (Hawkesbury) that, once we accepted it was inhumane and unjust, we shouldn’t even question if it was unwise. In fact, that inquiry would be profane because God’s universal law states that what is inhumane and unjust can never be for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, its unwise nature was already included in its injustice and inhumanity. He was confident that when the importations stopped, planters would adapt their systems with their slaves, enhancing their population to make any further supplies from Africa unnecessary. It had already been shown that the Black population in some islands had reached this favorable state. Many other positive outcomes would follow. Concerning the losses that would come from ending the Slave Trade, those who wanted it to continue had greatly exaggerated them. When he used to advocate for the merchants of Liverpool, he had often repeated claims from them that he later found to be completely wrong. He could say from his own experience that the noble earl's (Westmoreland) claim that property worth a hundred million would be at risk was baseless and fanciful. He wouldn’t deny that some losses might occur with the abolition; however, planning for it would be straightforward. Such concerns should not hold back their efforts to eliminate an appalling injustice.
But it had been said that we should do but little in the cause of humanity by abolishing the Slave Trade; because other nations would continue it. He did not believe they would. He knew that America was about to give it up. He believed the states of Europe would give it up. But, supposing that they were all to continue it, would not our honour be the greater? Would not our virtue be the more signal? for then
But it was said that we wouldn't make much of an impact on humanity by abolishing the slave trade, since other nations would just keep it going. He didn't believe that would be the case. He knew America was on the verge of giving it up. He believed that European countries would also let it go. But even if they all decided to continue it, wouldn't our honor be greater? Wouldn't our virtue stand out even more?
Among the faithless found:
to which he would add, that undoubtedly we should diminish the evil, as far as the number of miserable beings was concerned, which was accustomed to be transported to our own colonies.
to which he would add that we should definitely reduce the suffering, especially in terms of the number of people in misery, who were often sent to our own colonies.
Earl Spencer agreed with the noble viscount (Sidmouth), that the amelioration of the condition of the slaves was an object, which might be effected in the West Indies; but he was certain, that the most effectual way of improving it would be by the total and immediate abolition of the Slave Trade; and for that reason he would support the resolution. Had the resolution held out emancipation to them, it would not have had his assent; for it would have ill become the character of this country, if it had been once promised, to have withheld it from them. It was to such deception that the horrors of St. Domingo were to be attributed. He would not enter into the discussion of the general subject at present. He was convinced that the trade was what the resolution stated it to be, inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. He wished therefore, most earnestly indeed, for its abolition. As to the mode of effecting it, it should be such as would be attended with the least inconvenience to all parties. At the same time he would not allow small inconveniences to stand in the way of the great claims of humanity, justice, and religion.
Earl Spencer agreed with the noble viscount (Sidmouth) that improving the situation of slaves was something that could be achieved in the West Indies. However, he was certain that the best way to improve it would be through the total and immediate abolition of the Slave Trade, and for that reason, he would support the resolution. If the resolution had offered emancipation to them, he would not have agreed, as it would not have been right for this country to promise it and then take it away. The horrors of St. Domingo could be traced back to such deceit. He wouldn’t delve into a broader discussion on the topic right now. He was convinced that the trade was, as the resolution described, inhumane, unjust, and unwise. Therefore, he sincerely wished for its abolition. As for how to achieve it, the approach should cause the least inconvenience to everyone involved. At the same time, he wouldn’t let minor inconveniences prevent addressing the larger issues of humanity, justice, and religion.
The question was then put on the resolution, and carried by a majority of forty-one to twenty. The same address also to His Majesty, which had been agreed upon by the Commons, was directly afterwards moved. This also was carried, but without the necessity of a division.
The question was then raised on the resolution, and it passed by a majority of forty-one to twenty. The same address to His Majesty, which had already been approved by the Commons, was then proposed. This was also approved, but without the need for a vote.
The resolution and the motion having passed both Houses, one other parliamentary measure was yet necessary to complete the proceedings of this session. It was now almost universally believed, in consequence of what had already taken place there, that the Slave Trade had received its death-wound; and that it would not long survive it. It was supposed, therefore, that the slave-merchants would, in the interim, fit out not only all the vessels they had, but even buy others, to make what might be called their last harvest. Hence, extraordinary scenes of rapine and murder would be occasioned in Africa. To prevent these, a new bill was necessary. This was accordingly introduced into the Commons. It enacted, but with one exception, that from and after the first of August, 1806, no vessel should clear out for the Slave Trade, unless it should have been previously employed by the same owner or owners in the said trade, or should be proved to have been contracted for previously to the 10th of June, 1806, for the purpose of being employed in that trade. It may now be sufficient to say that this bill also passed both Houses of Parliament; soon after which the session ended.
The resolution and the motion passed both Houses, and one more parliamentary action was needed to wrap up this session. Almost everyone now believed, due to what had already happened, that the Slave Trade was on its last legs and wouldn’t last much longer. It was expected that, in the meantime, slave merchants would prepare all their ships and even purchase new ones for what could be seen as their final haul. As a result, there would be extraordinary acts of theft and violence in Africa. To stop this, a new bill was necessary. This was introduced in the Commons. It stated, with one exception, that starting from August 1, 1806, no ship could leave for the Slave Trade unless it had already been used by the same owner or owners in that trade or could be proven to have been contracted for before June 10, 1806, for the purpose of being used in that trade. It's worth noting that this bill also passed both Houses of Parliament, after which the session concluded.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
—Continuation from July 1806, to March 1807.—Death of Mr. Fox.—Bill for the total abolition of the Slave Trade carried in the House of Lords; sent from thence to the Commons; amended and passed there; carried back, and passed with its amendments by the Lords; receives the royal assent.—Reflections on this great event.
—Continuation from July 1806 to March 1807.—Death of Mr. Fox.—A bill for the complete abolition of the Slave Trade was approved in the House of Lords; it was then sent to the Commons, amended, and passed there; it was returned and passed with its amendments by the Lords; it received the royal assent.—Thoughts on this significant event.
It was impossible for the committee to look back to the proceedings of the last session, as they related to the great question under their care, without feeling a profusion of joy, as well as of gratitude to those, by whose virtuous endeavours they had taken place. But, alas, how few of our earthly pleasures come to us without alloy! a melancholy event succeeded. We had the painful intelligence, in the month of October 1806, that one of the oldest and warmest friends of the cause was then numbered with the dead.
It was impossible for the committee to reflect on the proceedings of the last session regarding the important issue they were handling without feeling a mix of joy and gratitude for those whose virtuous efforts made it happen. But, sadly, how few of our earthly pleasures come without some bitterness! A sorrowful event followed. We received the heartbreaking news, in October 1806, that one of the oldest and closest friends of the cause had passed away.
Of the character of Mr. Fox, as it related to this cause, I am bound to take notice. And, first, I may observe, that he professed an attachment to it almost as soon as it was ushered into the world. Early in the year 1788, when he was waited upon by a deputation of the committee, his language was, as has appeared in the first volume, "that he would support their object to its fullest extent, being convinced that there was no remedy for the evil but in the total abolition of the trade."
Of Mr. Fox's character in relation to this cause, I must take note. First, I should mention that he expressed support for it almost immediately after it was introduced. Early in 1788, when a committee delegation visited him, he stated, as noted in the first volume, "that he would back their cause wholeheartedly, believing that there was no solution to the problem other than the complete abolition of the trade."
His subsequent conduct evinced the sincerity of his promises. He was constant in his attendance in Parliament whenever the question was brought forward; and he never failed to exert his powerful eloquence in its favour. The countenance, indeed, which he gave it, was of the greatest importance to its welfare; for most of his parliamentary friends, who followed his general political sentiments, patronized it also. By the aid of these, joined to that of the private friends of Mr. Pitt, and of other members, who espoused it without reference to party, it was always so upheld, that after the year 1791 no one of the defeats which it sustained, was disgraceful. The majority on the side of those interested in the continuance of the trade was always so trifling, that the abolitionists were preserved a formidable body, and their cause respectable.
His later actions showed how sincere his promises were. He consistently attended Parliament whenever the issue was discussed and never missed the chance to use his powerful speaking skills to support it. The support he provided was crucial for its success because many of his parliamentary allies, who shared his general political views, backed it too. With the help of these supporters, along with Mr. Pitt's private friends and other members who supported it regardless of their party, it was always maintained. After 1791, none of the defeats it experienced were humiliating. The majority for those wanting to keep the trade was always so small that the abolitionists remained a strong group, and their cause was taken seriously.
I never heard whether Mr. Fox, when he came into power, made any stipulations with His Majesty on the subject of the Slave Trade: but this I know, that he determined upon the abolition of it, if it were practicable, as the highest glory of his administration, and as the greatest earthly blessing which it was in the power of the Government to bestow; and that he took considerable pains to convince some of his colleagues in the cabinet of the propriety of the measure.
I never heard if Mr. Fox, when he took office, made any agreements with the King about the Slave Trade: but I do know that he was committed to ending it, if it was possible, as the greatest achievement of his administration, and as the biggest blessing the Government could give. He also put in a lot of effort to persuade some of his cabinet colleagues about the importance of this initiative.
When the resolution, which produced the debates in parliament, as detailed in the last chapter, was under contemplation, it was thought expedient that Mr. Fox, as the minister of state in the House of Commons, should introduce it himself. When applied to for this purpose he cheerfully undertook the office, thus acting in consistency with his public declaration in the year 1791, "that in whatever situation he might ever be, he would use his warmest efforts for the promotion of this righteous cause."
When the resolution that sparked the debates in parliament, as discussed in the last chapter, was being considered, it was decided that Mr. Fox, the state minister in the House of Commons, should introduce it himself. When asked to do this, he happily accepted the role, staying true to his public promise from 1791, "that no matter what position he was in, he would put forth his best efforts to promote this just cause."
Before the next measure, or the bill to prevent the sailing of any new vessel in the trade after the 1st of August, was publicly disclosed, it was suggested to him, that the session was nearly over; that he might possibly weary both Houses by another motion on the subject; and that, if he were to lose it, or to experience a diminution of his majorities in either, he might injure the cause, which was then in the road to triumph. To this objection he replied, "that he believed both Houses were disposed to get rid of the trade; that his own life was precarious; that if he omitted to serve the injured Africans on this occasion, he might have no other opportunity of doing it; and that he dared not, under these circumstances, neglect so great a duty."
Before the next measure, or the bill to stop the launch of any new vessel in the trade after August 1st, was made public, someone suggested to him that the session was almost over; that he might end up tiring both Houses with another motion on the topic; and that if he lost the vote or saw his majorities decrease in either House, he could harm the cause, which was then on the path to success. In response to this concern, he said, "I believe both Houses want to put an end to the trade; my own life is uncertain; if I miss the chance to help the injured Africans now, I might not get another opportunity; and I cannot, given these circumstances, ignore such an important duty."
This prediction relative to himself became unfortunately verified; for his constitution, after this, began to decline, till at length his mortal destiny, in the eyes of his medical attendants, was sealed. But even then, when removed by pain and sickness from the discussion of political subjects, he never forgot this cause. In his own sufferings he was not unmindful of those of the injured Africans. "Two things," said he, on his death-bed, "I wish earnestly to see accomplished,—peace with Europe—and the abolition of the Slave Trade." But knowing well, that we could much better protect ourselves against our own external enemies, than this helpless people against their oppressors, he added, "but of the two I wish the latter." These sentiments he occasionally repeated, so that the subject was frequently in his thoughts in his last illness. Nay, "the very hope of the abolition (to use the expression of Lord Howick in the House of Commons) quivered on his lips in the last hour of it." Nor is it improbable, if earthly scenes ever rise to view at that awful crisis, and are perceptible, that it might have occupied his mind in the last moment of his existence. Then indeed would joy ineffable, from a conviction of having prepared the way for rescuing millions of human beings from misery, have attended the spirit on its departure from the body; and then also would this spirit, most of all purified when in the contemplation of peace, good-will, and charity upon earth, be in the fittest state, on gliding from its earthly cavern, to commix with the endless ocean of benevolence and love.
This prediction about himself unfortunately came true; his health began to decline until, eventually, his fate, in the eyes of his doctors, was sealed. But even during his pain and illness, when he was removed from discussions on political matters, he never forgot this issue. In his own suffering, he was still aware of the suffering of the injured Africans. "Two things," he said on his deathbed, "I really hope to see accomplished—peace with Europe and the abolition of the Slave Trade." However, knowing that we could protect ourselves from our external enemies much better than these helpless people could against their oppressors, he added, "but of the two, I wish for the latter." He occasionally repeated these thoughts, keeping the subject frequently on his mind during his last illness. In fact, "the very hope of the abolition (as Lord Howick put it in the House of Commons) trembled on his lips in his final moments." It's not unlikely that if earthly scenes ever come to mind at that terrifying moment and are perceivable, this might have occupied his thoughts in his last moments. In that case, an indescribable joy, stemming from the belief that he had paved the way to rescue millions from suffering, would have accompanied his spirit as it left his body; and then, in that moment of contemplation of peace, goodwill, and charity on earth, this spirit would have been most pure, ready to merge with the endless ocean of kindness and love.
At length the session of 1807 commenced. It was judged advisable by Lord Grenville, that the expected motion on this subject should, contrary to the practice hitherto adopted, be agitated first in the Lords. Accordingly, on the 2nd of January he presented a bill, called an act for the abolition of the Slave Trade; but he then proposed only to print it, and to let it lie on the table, that it might be maturely considered, before it should be discussed.
At last, the 1807 session started. Lord Grenville thought it would be better to bring up the expected motion on this issue, unlike past practices, in the House of Lords first. So, on January 2nd, he introduced a bill titled an act for the abolition of the Slave Trade; however, he suggested only printing it and leaving it on the table for careful consideration before it was discussed.
On the 4th, no less than four counsel were heard against the bill.
On the 4th, no less than four attorneys were heard against the bill.
On the 5th the debate commenced. But of this I shall give no detailed account; nor, indeed, of any of those which followed it. The truth is, that the subject has been exhausted. They, who spoke in favour of the abolition, said very little that was new concerning it. They, who spoke against it, brought forward, as usual, nothing but negative assertions and fanciful conjectures. To give therefore what was said by both parties at these times, would be but useless repetitionA. To give, on the other hand, that which was said on one side only would appear partial. Hence I shall offer to the reader little more than a narrative of facts upon these occasions.
On the 5th, the debate started. However, I won't provide a detailed account of it, or any of the debates that followed. The truth is, the subject has been thoroughly discussed. Those who spoke in favor of the abolition didn't say much that was new. On the other hand, those who spoke against it presented the usual negative claims and far-fetched ideas. So, sharing what both sides said would just be repetitive. Offering only the views from one side would seem biased. Thus, I’ll give the reader little more than a recap of the facts from these discussions.
A: The different debates in both Houses on this occasion would occupy the half of another volume. This is another circumstance, which reconciles me to the omission. But that, which reconciles me the most is, that they will be soon published. In these debates justice has been done to every individual concerned in them.
A: The various discussions in both Houses on this issue would fill half of another volume. This is another reason why I’m okay with skipping it. But what makes me feel best about it is that they will be published soon. In these discussions, everyone involved has been represented fairly.
Lord Grenville opened the debate by a very luminous speech. He was supported by the Duke of Gloucester, the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Barrington), the Earls Moira, Selkirk, and Roslyn, and the Lords Holland, King, and Hood. The opponents of the bill were the Duke of Clarence, the Earls of Westmoreland and St. Vincent, and the Lords Sidmouth, Eldon, and Hawkesbury.
Lord Grenville kicked off the debate with a very clear speech. He was backed by the Duke of Gloucester, the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Barrington), the Earls of Moira, Selkirk, and Roslyn, as well as the Lords Holland, King, and Hood. The opponents of the bill included the Duke of Clarence, the Earls of Westmoreland and St. Vincent, and the Lords Sidmouth, Eldon, and Hawkesbury.
The question being called for at four o'clock in the morning, it appeared that the personal votes and proxies in favour of Lord Grenville's motion amounted to one hundred, and those against it to thirty-six. Thus passed the first bill in England, which decreed, that the African Slave Trade should cease. And here I cannot omit paying to his Highness the Duke of Gloucester the tribute of respect, which is due to him, for having opposed the example of his royal relations on this subject in behalf of an helpless and oppressed people. The sentiments too, which he delivered on this occasion, ought not to be forgotten. "This trade," said he, "is contrary to the principles of the British constitution. It is, besides, a cruel and criminal traffic in the blood of my fellow-creatures. It is a foul stain on the national character. It is an offence to the Almighty. On every ground therefore on which a decision can be made; on the ground of policy, of liberty, of humanity, of justice, but, above all, on the ground of religion, I shall vote for its immediate extinction."
At four o'clock in the morning, when the question was called, it turned out that the personal votes and proxies supporting Lord Grenville's motion totaled one hundred, while those against it amounted to thirty-six. Thus, the first bill in England was passed, which declared that the African Slave Trade should come to an end. I cannot fail to acknowledge His Highness the Duke of Gloucester, showing respect for opposing the views of his royal relatives on this issue in favor of a powerless and oppressed group of people. The remarks he made on this occasion should not be forgotten. "This trade," he said, "is against the principles of the British constitution. Moreover, it is a cruel and immoral exploitation of my fellow human beings. It is a terrible stain on our national character. It is an offense against God. For all these reasons—considering policy, liberty, humanity, justice, and especially religion—I will vote for its immediate abolition."
On the 10th of February, the bill was carried to the House of Commons. On the 20th counsel were heard against it; after which, by agreement, the second reading of it took place. On the 23rd the question being put for the commitment of it, Lord Viscount Howick (now Earl Grey) began an eloquent speech. After he had proceeded in it some way, he begged leave to enter his protest against certain principles of relative justice, which had been laid down. "The merchants and planters," said he, "have an undoubted right, in common with other subjects of the realm, to demand justice at our hands. But that, which they denominate justice, does not correspond with the legitimate character of that virtue: for they call upon us to violate the rights of others, and to transgress our own moral duties. That, which they distinguish as justice, involves in itself the greatest injury to others. It is not, in fact, justice, which they demand, but—favour—and favour to themselves at the expense of the most grievous oppression of their fellow-creatures."
On February 10th, the bill was brought to the House of Commons. On the 20th, arguments were heard against it; afterwards, by agreement, the second reading took place. On the 23rd, when the question was raised about committing the bill, Lord Viscount Howick (now Earl Grey) gave an eloquent speech. After he spoke for a while, he requested to express his protest against certain principles of relative justice that had been stated. "Merchants and planters," he said, "have an undeniable right, just like other subjects of the realm, to seek justice from us. However, what they call justice doesn't align with the true nature of that virtue: they ask us to disregard the rights of others and to ignore our own moral responsibilities. What they identify as justice actually causes the greatest harm to others. They’re not really asking for justice; they’re asking for—preferential treatment—and that preference is for themselves at the cost of severely oppressing others."
He then argued the question on the ground of policy. He showed, by a number of official documents, how little this trade had contributed to the wealth of the nation, being but a fifty-fourth part of its export trade; and he contended that as four-sevenths of it had been cut off by His Majesty's proclamation, and the passing of the foreign slave bill in a former year, no detriment of any consequence would arise from the present measure.
He then made his case based on policy. He demonstrated, through various official documents, how little this trade had added to the nation's wealth, making up just a fifty-fourth of its export trade. He argued that since four-sevenths of it had already been eliminated by the King's proclamation and the passing of the foreign slave bill in a previous year, there would be no significant harm from the current action.
He entered into an account of the loss of seamen, and of the causes of the mortality, in this trade.
He provided a report on the loss of sailors and the reasons for the deaths in this trade.
He went largely into the subject of negro-population, in the islands from official documents, giving an account of it up to the latest date. He pointed out the former causes of its diminution, and stated how the remedies for these would follow.
He mostly focused on the topic of the Black population in the islands using official documents, providing an account of it up to the most recent date. He highlighted the previous reasons for its decline and explained how solutions for these issues would be implemented.
He showed how, even if the quantity of colonial produce should be diminished for a time, this disadvantage would, in a variety of instances, be more than counterbalanced by advantages, which would not only be great in themselves, but permanent.
He demonstrated that, even if the amount of colonial produce were to decrease temporarily, this drawback would, in many cases, be more than offset by benefits that would not only be significant on their own but also lasting.
He then entered into a refutation of the various objections which had been made to the abolition, in an eloquent and perspicuous manner; and concluded by appealing to the great authorities of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in behalf of the proposed measure. "These precious ornaments," he said, "of their age and country, had examined the subject with all the force of their capacious minds. On this question they had dismissed all animosity—all difference of opinion—and had proceeded in union; and he believed, that the best tribute of respect we could show, or the most splendid monument we could raise, to their memories, would be by the adoption of the glorious measure of the abolition of the Slave Trade."
He then addressed the different objections raised against the abolition in a clear and articulate way, concluding by invoking the esteemed opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in support of the proposed measure. "These valuable figures," he said, "of their time and nation, had examined the issue with the full strength of their brilliant minds. On this matter, they set aside all hostility and differing views, and came together in agreement; and I believe that the best way to honor their memory, or the most impressive tribute we could create, would be by adopting the remarkable measure to abolish the Slave Trade."
Lord Howick was supported by Mr. Roscoe, who was then one of the members for Liverpool; by Mr. Lushington, Mr. Fawkes, Lord Mahon, Lord Milton, Sir John Doyle, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Wilberforce, and Earl Percy, the latter of whom wished that a clause might be put into the bill, by which all the children of slaves, born after January 1810, should be made free. General Gascoyne and Mr. Hibbert opposed the bill. Mr. Manning hoped that compensation would be made to the planters in case of loss. Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Hiley Addington preferred a plan for gradual abolition to the present mode. These having spoken, it appeared on a division, that there were for the question two hundred and eighty-three, and against it only sixteen.
Lord Howick was backed by Mr. Roscoe, who was a member for Liverpool at the time; by Mr. Lushington, Mr. Fawkes, Lord Mahon, Lord Milton, Sir John Doyle, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Wilberforce, and Earl Percy, the last of whom wanted a clause added to the bill to make all children of slaves born after January 1810 free. General Gascoyne and Mr. Hibbert opposed the bill. Mr. Manning expressed hope that planters would receive compensation for any losses. Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Hiley Addington preferred a gradual abolition plan instead of the current approach. After these discussions, it turned out in a vote that there were two hundred eighty-three in favor of the question and only sixteen against it.
Of this majority I cannot but remark, that it was probably the largest that was ever announced on any occasion, where the House was called upon to divide. I must observe, also, that there was such an enthusiasm among the members at this time, that there appeared to be the same kind and degree of feeling, as manifested itself within the same walls in the year 1788, when the question was first started. This enthusiasm, too, which was of a moral nature, was so powerful, that it seemed even to extend to a conversion of the heart; for several of the old opponents of this righteous cause went away, unable to vote against it; while others of them staid in their places, and voted in its favour.
I have to say that this majority was probably the biggest ever seen during any vote in the House. I also want to point out that there was such an enthusiasm among the members at this time that it felt similar to the excitement we saw back in 1788 when this issue was first raised. This enthusiasm, which had a moral quality to it, was so strong that it even seemed to lead to a change of heart; several of the former opponents of this just cause left unable to vote against it, while others stayed and voted in favor.
On the 27th of February, Lord Howick moved, that the House resolve itself into a committee on the bill for the abolition of the Slave Trade. Sir C. Pole, Messrs. Hughan, Brown, Bathurst, Windham, and Fuller opposed the motion; and Sir R. Milbank, and Messrs. Wynne, Barham, Courtenay, Montague, Jacob, Whitbread, and Herbert (of Kerry), supported it. At length the committee was allowed to sit pro formâ, and Mr. Hobhouse was put into the chair. The bill then went through it, and, the House being resumed, the report was received and read.
On February 27th, Lord Howick proposed that the House enter a committee to discuss the bill to abolish the Slave Trade. Sir C. Pole, Messrs. Hughan, Brown, Bathurst, Windham, and Fuller opposed the motion, while Sir R. Milbank and Messrs. Wynne, Barham, Courtenay, Montague, Jacob, Whitbread, and Herbert (of Kerry) supported it. Eventually, the committee was allowed to meet pro formâ, and Mr. Hobhouse took the chair. The bill then passed through the committee, and when the House resumed, the report was received and read.
On the 6th of March, when the committee sat again, Sir C. Pole moved, that the year 1812 be substituted for the year 1807, as the time when the trade should be abolished. This amendment produced a long debate, which was carried on by Sir C. Pole, Messrs. Fuller, Hiley Addington, Rose, Gascoyne, and Bathurst, on one side; and by Mr. Ward, Sir P. Francis; General Vyse, Sir T. Turton, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Henry Petty, Messrs. Canning, Stanhope, Perceval, and Wilberforce on the other. At length, on a division, there appeared to be one hundred and twenty-five against the amendment, and for it only seventeen. The chairman then read the bill, and it was agreed that he should report it with the amendments on Monday. The bill enacted, that no vessel should clear out for slaves from any port within the British dominions after the 1st of May, 1807, and that no slave should be landed in the colonies after the 1st of March, 1808.
On March 6th, when the committee met again, Sir C. Pole proposed changing the year 1812 to replace 1807 as the date when the trade should be abolished. This amendment sparked a lengthy debate, with Sir C. Pole, Messrs. Fuller, Hiley Addington, Rose, Gascoyne, and Bathurst on one side; and Mr. Ward, Sir P. Francis, General Vyse, Sir T. Turton, Mr. Whitbread, Lord Henry Petty, Messrs. Canning, Stanhope, Perceval, and Wilberforce on the other. Eventually, after a vote, there were one hundred and twenty-five against the amendment and only seventeen in favor. The chairman then read the bill, and it was decided that he would report it with the amendments on Monday. The bill stated that no vessel could leave for slaves from any port within the British dominions after May 1, 1807, and no slave could be landed in the colonies after March 1, 1808.
On the 16th of March, on the motion of Lord Henry Petty, the question was put, that the bill be read a third time. Mr. Hibbert, Captain Herbert, Mr. T.W. Plomer, Mr. Windham, and Lord Castlereagh, spoke against the motion. Sir P. Francis, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. H. Thornton, and Messrs. Barham, Sheridan, and Wilberforce supported it. After this the bill was passed without a divisionA.
On March 16th, following a motion by Lord Henry Petty, the question was raised to read the bill for a third time. Mr. Hibbert, Captain Herbert, Mr. T.W. Plomer, Mr. Windham, and Lord Castlereagh spoke against the motion. Sir P. Francis, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. H. Thornton, and Messrs. Barham, Sheridan, and Wilberforce supported it. After this, the bill was passed without a voteA.
A: S. Lushington, Esq., M.P. for Yarmouth, gave his voluntary attendance and assistance to the committee, during all these motions, and J. Bowdler, Esq., was elected a member of it.
A: S. Lushington, Esq., M.P. for Yarmouth, willingly attended and supported the committee throughout all these motions, and J. Bowdler, Esq., was elected as a member of it.
On Wednesday, the 18th, Lord Howick, accompanied by Mr. Wilberforce and others, carried the bill to the Lords. Lord Grenville, on receiving it, moved that it should be printed, and that, if this process could be finished by Monday, it should be taken into consideration on that day. The reason of this extraordinary haste was, that His Majesty, displeased with the introduction of the Roman Catholic officers' bill into the Commons, had signified his intention to the members of the existing administration, that they were to be displaced.
On Wednesday, the 18th, Lord Howick, along with Mr. Wilberforce and others, presented the bill to the Lords. Lord Grenville, upon receiving it, suggested that it be printed and, if this could be done by Monday, that it be discussed on that day. The reason for this unusual rush was that His Majesty, unhappy with the introduction of the Roman Catholic officers' bill in the Commons, had indicated to the current administration that they were to be removed.
This uneasiness, which, a few days before, had sprung up among the friends of the abolition, on the report that this event was probable, began now to show itself throughout the kingdom. Letters were written from various parts, manifesting the greatest fear and anxiety on account of the state of the bill, and desiring answers of consolation. Nor was this state of the mind otherwise than what might have been expected upon such an occasion; for the bill was yet to be printed. Being an amended one, it was to be argued again in the Lords. It was then to receive the royal assent. All these operations implied time; and it was reported that the new ministryA was formed; among whom were several who had shown a hostile disposition to the cause.
This uneasiness, which had surfaced a few days earlier among supporters of abolition after hearing that this event was likely to happen, began to spread across the country. Letters were sent from various locations expressing deep fear and anxiety regarding the status of the bill and asking for reassuring responses. This mindset was exactly what could have been anticipated in such a situation; the bill still needed to be printed. Being an amended version, it was set to be debated again in the House of Lords. It would then require royal assent. All these steps took time, and it was reported that the new ministryA had been formed, including several individuals who had previously shown hostility toward the cause.
A: The only circumstance, which afforded comfort at this time, was, that the Hon. Spencer Perceval and Mr. Canning were included in it, who were warm patrons of this great measure.
A: The only thing that provided comfort at this time was that the Hon. Spencer Perceval and Mr. Canning were part of it, both of whom were strong supporters of this important initiative.
On Monday, the 23rd, the House of Lords met. Such extraordinary diligence had been used in printing the bill, that it was then ready. Lord Grenville immediately brought it forward. The Earl of Westmoreland and the Marquis of Sligo opposed it. The Duke of Norfolk and the Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Watson) supported it. The latter said, that this great act of justice would be recorded in heaven. The amendments were severally adopted without a division. But here an omission of three words was discovered, namely, "country, territory, or place," which, if not rectified, might defeat the purposes of the bill. An amendment was immediately proposed and carried. Thus the bill received the last sanction of the Peers. Lord Grenville then congratulated the House on the completion, on its part, of the most glorious measure that had ever been adopted by any legislative body in the world.
On Monday, the 23rd, the House of Lords gathered. They had worked exceptionally hard to prepare the bill, so it was ready to go. Lord Grenville introduced it right away. The Earl of Westmoreland and the Marquis of Sligo opposed it. The Duke of Norfolk and the Bishop of Llandaff (Dr. Watson) supported it. The latter expressed that this significant act of justice would be noted in heaven. The amendments were approved one by one without any votes against them. However, it was found that three words were missing: "country, territory, or place," which, if not fixed, could undermine the bill's intentions. An amendment was quickly proposed and passed. Thus, the bill received final approval from the Peers. Lord Grenville then congratulated the House on completing what he described as the most remarkable measure ever passed by any legislative body in the world.
The amendment now mentioned occasioned the bill to be sent back to the Commons. On the 24th, on the motion of Lord Howick, it was immediately taken into consideration there, and agreed to; and it was carried back to the Lords, as approved of, on the same day.
The amendment mentioned caused the bill to be sent back to the Commons. On the 24th, following Lord Howick's motion, it was quickly discussed there and approved; then it was returned to the Lords as accepted on the same day.
But though the bill had now passed both houses, there was an awful fear throughout the kingdom lest it should not receive the royal assent before the ministry was dissolved. This event took place the next day; for on Wednesday, the 25th, at half past eleven in the morning, His Majesty's message was delivered to the different members of it, that they were then to wait upon him to deliver up the seals of their offices. It then appeared that a commission for the royal assent to this bill, among others, had been obtained. This commission was instantly opened by the Lord Chancellor (Erskine), who was accompanied by the Lords Holland and Auckland; and as the clock struck twelve, just when the sun was in its meridian splendour to witness this august act, this establishment of a Magna Charta for Africa in Britain, and to sanction it by its most vivid and glorious beams, it was completed. The ceremony being over, the seals of the respective offices were delivered up; so that the execution of this commission was the last act of the administration of Lord Grenville; an administration, which, on account of its virtuous exertions in behalf of the oppressed African race, will pass to posterity, living through successive generations in the love and gratitude of the most virtuous of mankind.
But even though the bill had now passed both houses, there was a terrible fear throughout the kingdom that it wouldn't receive the royal approval before the government was dissolved. This happened the next day; on Wednesday, the 25th, at half past eleven in the morning, the king's message was delivered to the various members, instructing them to wait on him to hand over the seals of their offices. It then turned out that a commission for the royal approval of this bill, among others, had been obtained. This commission was quickly opened by the Lord Chancellor (Erskine), who was joined by Lords Holland and Auckland; and as the clock struck twelve, just when the sun was at its brightest to witness this significant act, this establishment of a Magna Carta for Africa in Britain, and to bless it with its most radiant and glorious rays, it was finalized. Once the ceremony was over, the seals of their respective offices were surrendered; thus, the execution of this commission was the last act of Lord Grenville's administration, which, because of its noble efforts on behalf of the oppressed African race, will be remembered by future generations, living on in the love and gratitude of the most virtuous of people.
Thus ended one of the most glorious contests, after a continuance for twenty years, of any ever carried on in any age or country. A contest, not of brutal violence, but of reason. A contest between those who felt deeply for the happiness and the honour of their fellow-creatures, and those, who, through vicious custom and the impulse of avarice, had trampled under foot the sacred rights of their nature, and had even attempted to efface all title to the divine image from their minds.
Thus ended one of the most glorious battles, lasting for twenty years, that has ever taken place in any age or country. A battle, not of brutal violence, but of reason. A battle between those who deeply cared for the happiness and honor of their fellow human beings, and those who, driven by harmful customs and the urge for greed, had trampled on the sacred rights of their nature and had even tried to erase all recognition of the divine image from their minds.
Of the immense advantages of this contest I know not how to speak; indeed, the very agitation of the question which it involved has been highly important. Never was the heart of man so expanded; never were its generous sympathies so generally and so perseveringly excited. These sympathies, thus called into existence, have been useful in the preservation of a national virtue. For anything we know, they may have contributed greatly to form a counteracting balance against the malignant spirit, generated by our almost incessant wars during this period, so as to have preserved us from barbarism.
Of the huge benefits of this contest, I don’t even know where to start; in fact, the very debate it sparked has been incredibly significant. Never has the human heart been so opened; never have its generous feelings been so widely and consistently stirred. These feelings, once awakened, have helped maintain a national virtue. For all we know, they may have played a major role in creating a counterbalance to the harmful spirit generated by our nearly constant wars during this time, helping us avoid barbarism.
It has been useful also in the discrimination of moral character; in private life it has enabled us to distinguish the virtuous from the more vicious part of the communityA. It has shown the general philanthropist; it has unmasked the vicious in spite of his pretension to virtue. It has afforded us the same knowledge in public life; it has separated the moral statesman from the wicked politician. It has shown us who, in the legislative and executive offices of our country, are fit to save, and who to destroy, a nation.
It has also been helpful in distinguishing moral character; in private life, it has allowed us to tell the virtuous from the more immoral part of the communityA. It has revealed the true philanthropist and exposed the immoral individual despite his claims to virtue. It has provided us with the same insights in public life; it has differentiated the moral statesman from the corrupt politician. It has shown us who, in the legislative and executive positions of our country, is capable of saving a nation and who is likely to ruin it.
A: I have had occasion to know many thousand persons in the course of my travels on this subject, and I can truly say, that the part which these took on this great question was always a true criterion of their moral character. Some indeed opposed the abolition, who seemed to be so respectable, that it was difficult to account for their conduct; but it invariably turned out, in the course of time, either that they had been influenced by interested motives, or that they were not men of steady moral principle. In the year 1792, when the national enthusiasm was so great, the good were as distinguishable from the bad, according to their disposition to this great cause, as if the divine Being had marked them, or, as a friend of mine the other day observed, as we may suppose the sheep to be from the goats on the day of judgment.
A: I've met thousands of people during my travels on this subject, and I can honestly say that their stance on this important issue was a true reflection of their moral character. Some individuals who opposed abolition seemed so respectable that it was hard to understand their behavior; however, it usually became clear over time that they were either driven by self-interest or lacked strong moral principles. In 1792, when national enthusiasm was at its peak, the good were as easily distinguishable from the bad based on their support for this great cause, as if a divine Being had marked them. A friend of mine recently remarked that it was similar to how we might imagine sheep being separated from goats on judgment day.
It has furnished us also with important lessons. It has proved what a creature man is! how devoted he is to his own interest! to what a length of atrocity he can go, unless fortified by religious principle! But as if this part of the prospect would be too afflicting, it has proved to us, on the other hand, what a glorious instrument he may become in the hands of his Maker; and that a little virtue, when properly leavened, is made capable of counteracting the effects of a mass of vice!
It has taught us important lessons as well. It has shown us what a creature man is! How dedicated he is to his own interests! To what lengths of atrocity he can go, unless supported by religious principles! But as if this part of the picture would be too distressing, it has also revealed to us what a powerful tool he can become in the hands of his Creator; and that a small amount of virtue, when properly shaped, can counteract the effects of a large amount of vice!
With respect to the end obtained by this contest, or the great measure of the abolition of the Slave Trade as it has now passed, I know not how to appreciate its importance; to our own country, indeed, it is invaluable. We have lived, in consequence of it, to see the day, when it has been recorded as a principle in our legislation, that commerce itself shall have its moral boundaries. We have lived to see the day when we are likely to be delivered from the contagion of the most barbarous opinions. They who supported this wicked traffic, virtually denied that man was a moral being; they substituted the law of force for the law of reason: but the great act now under our consideration has banished the impious doctrine, and restored the rational creature to his moral rights. Nor is it a matter of less pleasing consideration, that, at this awful crisis, when the constitutions of kingdoms are on the point of dissolution, the stain of the blood of Africa is no longer upon us, or that we have been freed (alas, if it be not too late!) from a load of guilt, which has long hung like a mill-stone about our necks, ready to sink us to perdition.
Regarding the outcome of this contest, or the significant milestone of the abolition of the Slave Trade as it has now been enacted, I can't fully express its importance; to our country, it is priceless. Because of it, we have lived to witness the day when it is established as a principle in our laws that commerce must have moral limits. We have lived to see the day when we are likely to be freed from the influence of the most barbaric opinions. Those who supported this despicable trade essentially denied that humans are moral beings; they replaced the rule of reason with the rule of force. But the great act we are now considering has eliminated this wicked doctrine and restored moral rights to rational beings. It is also worth noting that at this critical moment, when the foundations of nations are on the verge of collapse, the stain of African blood is no longer upon us, or that we have been freed (if it is not too late!) from a burden of guilt that has long weighed down on us like a millstone, ready to drag us into ruin.
In tracing the measure still further, or as it will affect other lands, we become only the more sensible of its importance; for can we pass over to Africa; can we pass over to the numerous islands, the receptacles of miserable beings from thence; and can we call to mind the scenes of misery which have been passing in each of these regions of the earth, without acknowledging that one of the greatest sources of suffering to the human race has, as far as our own power extends, been done way? Can we pass over to these regions again, and contemplate the multitude of crimes which the agency necessary for keeping up the barbarous system produced, without acknowledging that a source of the most monstrous and extensive wickedness has been removed also? But here, indeed, it becomes us peculiarly to rejoice; for though nature shrinks from pain, and compassion is engendered in us when we see it become the portion of others, yet what is physical suffering compared with moral guilt? The misery of the oppressed is, in the first place, not contagious like the crime of the oppressor; nor is the mischief which it generates either so frightful or so pernicious. The body, though under affliction, may retain its shape; and, if it even perish, what is the loss of it but of worthless dust? But when the moral springs of the mind are poisoned, we lose the most excellent part of the constitution of our nature, and the divine image is no longer perceptible in us; nor are the two evils of similar duration. By a decree of Providence, for which we cannot be too thankful, we are made mortal. Hence the torments of the oppressor are but temporary; whereas the immortal part of us, when once corrupted, may carry its pollutions with it into another world.
In examining the implications further, or how it will impact other lands, we become even more aware of its significance; for can we overlook Africa? Can we ignore the many islands that serve as dumping grounds for suffering people from there? And can we forget the scenes of misery happening in each of these regions of the world without recognizing that one of the biggest sources of suffering for humanity has, as far as we can control, been eliminated? Can we revisit these areas and reflect on the countless crimes that the system of oppression produced, without admitting that a source of immense and widespread wickedness has also been taken away? Here, we should truly celebrate; for although nature recoils from pain and we feel compassion when we witness it afflicting others, what is physical suffering compared to moral wrongdoing? The hardship of the oppressed isn’t contagious like the crime of the oppressor; nor is the damage it causes as horrific or harmful. The body, even in suffering, can maintain its form; and if it perishes, what is the loss but that of mere dust? But when the moral essence of the mind is tainted, we lose the most valuable aspect of our nature, and the divine spark within us becomes unrecognizable; and the two types of evil don't last the same length of time. Thanks to a divine plan, for which we should be eternally grateful, we are mortal. Therefore, the torment inflicted by the oppressor is only temporary; while the immortal part of us, once corrupted, may carry those stains into the next life.
But, independently of the quantity of physical suffering, and the innumerable avenues to vice, in more than a quarter of the globe, which this great measure will cut off, there are yet blessings, which we have reason to consider as likely to flow from it. Among these we cannot overlook the great probability that Africa, now freed from the vicious and barbarous effects of this traffic, may be in a better state to comprehend and receive the sublime truths of the Christian religion. Nor can we overlook the probability that, a new system of treatment necessarily springing up in our islands, the same bright sun of consolation may visit her children there. But here a new hope rises to our view. Who knows but that emancipation, like a beautiful plant, may, in its due season, rise out of the ashes of the abolition of the Slave Trade, and that, when its own intrinsic value shall be known, the seed of it may be planted in other lands? And looking at the subject in this point of view, we cannot but be struck with the wonderful concurrence of events as previously necessary for this purpose, namely, that two nations, England and America, the mother and the child, should, in the same month of the same year, have abolished this impious traffic; nations, which at this moment have more than a million of subjects within their jurisdiction to partake of the blessing; and one of which, on account of her local situation and increasing power, is likely in time to give, if not law, at least a tone to the manners and customs of the great continent on which she is situated.
But regardless of the physical suffering and the countless paths to vice that this significant measure will eliminate across more than a quarter of the globe, there are still blessings that we have good reason to believe will come from it. Among these, we cannot ignore the strong possibility that Africa, now free from the harmful and brutal effects of this trade, may be better positioned to understand and embrace the profound truths of the Christian faith. We also can't overlook the likelihood that a new way of treating people will emerge in our islands, bringing the same bright light of hope to its children there. Yet here a new hope arises before us. Who knows if emancipation, like a beautiful plant, might eventually sprout from the ashes of the abolition of the Slave Trade, and when its true value is recognized, its seeds may be planted in other lands? Viewing the situation from this angle, we can't help but be amazed by the remarkable alignment of events necessary for this goal, specifically that two nations, England and America, the mother and the child, should have abolished this wicked trade in the same month of the same year; nations that at this moment have over a million people under their jurisdiction who can share in this blessing; and one of which, due to its geographical position and growing power, is likely over time to influence, if not dictate, the laws and customs of the vast continent on which it stands.
Reader! Thou art now acquainted with the history of this contest! Rejoice in the manner of its termination! And, if thou feelest grateful for the event, retire within thy closet, and pour out thy thanksgivings to the Almighty for this his unspeakable act of mercy to thy oppressed fellow-creatures.
Reader! You are now familiar with the history of this contest! Celebrate the way it has concluded! And, if you feel thankful for what happened, go to your room and express your gratitude to God for this incredible act of mercy towards your oppressed fellow beings.
THE END.
LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER, ST. MARTIN'S LANE
LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER, ST. MARTIN'S LANE
A SELECT LIST OF BOOKS
A curated list of books
PUBLISHED BY
Published by
JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND,
John W. Parker, West Strand,
LONDON.
LONDON.
THE SLAVE-TRADE and SLAVERY.—HISTORY of the RISE, PROGRESS, and ACCOMPLISHMENT, of the ABOLITION of the AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE by the British Parliament. By THOMAS CLARKSON, M.A. A NEW EDITION, with Prefatory Remarks on the subsequent ABOLITION of SLAVERY, and a Portrait from a highly-approved Picture, recently painted by HENRY ROOM. Published under the Direction of the CENTRAL NEGRO-EMANCIPATION COMMITTEE. One large Volume. Octavo.
THE SLAVE TRADE AND SLAVERY.—A HISTORY of the RISE, PROGRESS, and ACCOMPLISHMENT of the ABOLITION of the AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE by the British Parliament. By THOMAS CLARKSON, M.A. A NEW EDITION, with Prefatory Remarks on the subsequent ABOLITION of SLAVERY, and a Portrait from a highly approved Painting, recently created by HENRY ROOM. Published under the Direction of the CENTRAL NEGRO EMANCIPATION COMMITTEE. One large Volume. Octavo.
THE SCRIPTURAL CHARACTER of the ENGLISH CHURCH CONSIDERED, in a SERIES of SERMONS, with Notes and Illustrations. By the Rev. DERWENT COLERIDGE, M.A.
THE SCRIPTURAL NATURE of the ENGLISH CHURCH EXAMINED in a SERIES of SERMONS, with Notes and Illustrations. By Rev. DERWENT COLERIDGE, M.A.
The series of Sermons, bearing the above title, were written exclusively for perusal, and are arranged as a connected whole. The author has adopted this form to avail himself of the devotional frame of mind, presupposed on the part of the reader, in this species of composition; but he has not deemed it as necessary to preserve with strictness the conventional style of the pulpit, for which these discourses were never intended: they may, consequently, be taken as a series of Essays, or as the successive chapters of a general work.
The series of sermons with the title above were written solely for reading and are organized as a cohesive whole. The author chose this format to take advantage of the devotional mindset expected from the reader in this type of writing; however, he did not feel it was necessary to strictly follow the traditional style of the pulpit, for which these discussions were never meant. Therefore, they can be viewed as a collection of essays or as the consecutive chapters of an overarching work.
THE CATHOLIC CHARACTER of CHRISTIANITY; in a SERIES of LETTERS to a FRIEND. By the Rev. FREDERICK NOLAN, LL.D., F.B.S., Vicar of Prittlewell, and Author of The Evangelical Character of Christianity, &c.
THE CATHOLIC CHARACTER of CHRISTIANITY; in a SERIES of LETTERS to a FRIEND. By the Rev. FREDERICK NOLAN, LL.D., F.B.S., Vicar of Prittlewell, and Author of The Evangelical Character of Christianity, & etc.
The Profits arising from the First Edition of this Work, will be given to the Fund for erecting a Memorial to the Martyred Bishops at Oxford.
The profits from the first edition of this work will be donated to the fund for creating a memorial to the martyred bishops in Oxford.
A MANUAL of CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES; or an Account of the Constitution, Ministers, Worship, Discipline, and Customs of the Early Church; with an Introduction, containing a Complete and Chronological Analysis of the Works of the Antenicene Fathers. Compiled from the Works of Augusti, and other sources. By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of an English-Latin and Latin-English Dictionary, Luther and his Times, &c. In the Press.
A MANUAL of CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES; or an Overview of the Structure, Ministers, Worship, Discipline, and Traditions of the Early Church; with an Introduction that includes a Complete and Chronological Analysis of the Works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Compiled from the Writings of Augusti and other sources. By Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of an English-Latin and Latin-English Dictionary, Luther and his Times, etc. In the Press.
It has been the object of the writer, to construct a History of Christian Antiquities sufficiently copious and accurate for the use of the student in divinity, and at the same time instructive and acceptable to the general reader: a work popular in point of structure and style, but containing the substance of the more scholastic and expensive volumes of Bingham, and embodying information collected by modern divines, who have investigated the history and usages of the early church. Such a compendium was a desideratum in our theological literature. Our language has hitherto possessed no book fit to occupy the same place, in relation to the history of the church, as that which has long been maintained by the Antiquities of Potter and Adam, in connexion with the histories of Greece and Rome. And the author of the present volume hopes he may be permitted to say, that, in the absence of more able labourers in this department, he has endeavoured, by means especially of foreign aid, to remove the want which he has described.
The writer aims to create a comprehensive and accurate History of Christian Antiquities that is useful for theology students while also being engaging and informative for general readers. This work is designed to be accessible in structure and style but includes the essential content of the more scholarly and costly volumes of Bingham, as well as insights gathered by modern theologians who have studied the history and practices of the early church. A resource like this has been needed in our theological literature. Until now, our language has lacked a book that fulfills the same role regarding church history as the Antiquities of Potter and Adam do for the histories of Greece and Rome. The author of this volume hopes to express that, in the absence of more capable contributors in this field, he has worked hard, especially with international support, to address the gap he has identified.
THE WORKS OF DOCTOR DONNE, Dean of Saint Paul's in 1619-1631; with a Memoir of his Life, and Critical Notices of his Writings. By HENRY ALFORD, M.A., Vicar of Wymeswold, and late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With a fine Portrait from an Original Picture by VANDYKE. Six Volumes Octavo.
THE WORKS OF DOCTOR DONNE, Dean of Saint Paul's from 1619-1631; with a Memoir of his Life and Critical Notices of his Writings. By HENRY ALFORD, M.A., Vicar of Wymeswold, and former Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Featuring a beautiful portrait from an original painting by VANDYKE. Six Volumes Octavo.
A HISTORY of the INDUCTIVE SCIENCES, from the Earliest Times to the Present. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., F.R.S.; Pres. Geol. Society, and Professor of Casuistry in the University of Cambridge. Three Volumes, Octavo.
A HISTORY of the INDUCTIVE SCIENCES, from the Earliest Times to the Present. By Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., F.R.S.; President of the Geological Society, and Professor of Casuistry at the University of Cambridge. Three Volumes, Octavo.
THE NEW CRATYLUS; or, CONTRIBUTIONS towards a more ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE of the GREEK LANGUAGE. By JOHN WILLIAM DONALDSON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
THE NEW CRATYLUS; or, CONTRIBUTIONS towards a more ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE of the GREEK LANGUAGE. By JOHN WILLIAM DONALDSON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A NEW SYSTEM OF LOGIC, and Developement of the Principles of Truth and Reasoning; in which a System of Logic, applicable to Moral and Practical Subjects, is for the first time proposed. By SAMUEL RICHARD BOSANQUET, A.M., of the Inner Temple.
A NEW SYSTEM OF LOGIC, and Development of the Principles of Truth and Reasoning; in which a System of Logic, applicable to Moral and Practical Subjects, is for the first time proposed. By SAMUEL RICHARD BOSANQUET, A.M., of the Inner Temple.
The RISE and PROGRESS of the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION; with an HISTORICAL and LEGAL INTRODUCTION and NOTES. By ARCHIBALD JOHN STEPHENS, M.A., F.R.S., &c. Two Volumes, 30s.
The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution; with a Historical and Legal Introduction and Notes. By Archibald John Stephens, M.A., F.R.S., etc. Two Volumes, £30.
The Introduction is embodied in the first volume, and extends from the earliest period of authentic history up to the termination of the reign of William III.; and the Saxon institutions, tenure of lands, domesday, the royal prerogative, origin and progress of the legislative assemblies, privileges of Lords and Commons, pecuniary exactions, administration of justice, gradual improvements in the laws, judicial powers of the Peers, borough institutions, infamy of the Long Parliament, national dissensions, and the principles under which the executive power was intrusted to the Prince of Orange, have experienced every illustration.
The Introduction is included in the first volume and covers the period from the earliest authentic history up to the end of William III's reign. It discusses Saxon institutions, land tenure, the Domesday Book, royal prerogative, the origin and development of legislative assemblies, the privileges of the Lords and Commons, financial demands, the administration of justice, gradual legal improvements, the judicial powers of the Peers, borough institutions, the disgrace of the Long Parliament, national conflicts, and the principles that guided the transfer of executive power to the Prince of Orange.
The doctrinal changes in the Anglican Church which were effected under the Tudors, are justified by a reference to the records and practice of the primitive Church, and the doctrinal schismatic points of Roman Catholic faith relating to the canons of Scripture, seven sacraments, sacrifice of the mass, private and solitary mass, communion in one kind, transubstantiation, image worship, purgatory, indulgences, confession and penance, absolution, &c., are clearly established as being in direct opposition to the opinions of the early fathers, and the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
The changes in beliefs within the Anglican Church made during the Tudor period are supported by references to the records and practices of the early Church. The key points of disagreement with Roman Catholic beliefs—such as the canons of Scripture, the seven sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, private mass, communion in one kind, transubstantiation, worship of images, purgatory, indulgences, confession and penance, and absolution—are clearly shown to contradict the views of the early Church fathers and the core doctrines of Christianity.
The text of De Lolme is incorporated in the second volume, and the notes affixed extend to great length, and embody very valuable and diversified information relative to the rights, qualifications, and disqualifications of members of Parliament and their constituents; the unions of Scotland and Ireland with England; the origin, rise, and progress of the civil law under nine periods of the Roman history; civil process in the English courts of law; history of the courts of equity, and the principles under which they act; trial by jury, and an analysis of criminal offences, and the statutes under which they are punishable, with an analysis of crimes that were committed in 1837, and of the sentences passed. There are likewise tables of the public income and expenditure in the year ended January 5, 1837; of the church revenues, in which will be found information relative to the number of benefices in each diocese; total amount of incomes, gross and net, of the incumbents in each diocese, also the averages of each respectively; number of curates in each diocese; total amount of their stipends, and average thereof; also four scales of the incomes of the beneficed clergy; and genealogical tables from the Saxon and Danish kings, to Queen Victoria.
The text of De Lolme is included in the second volume, and the notes attached are extensive, offering very valuable and diverse information related to the rights, qualifications, and disqualifications of members of Parliament and their constituents; the unions of Scotland and Ireland with England; the origin, rise, and development of civil law through nine periods of Roman history; civil procedures in English courts; the history of equity courts and the principles guiding them; trial by jury, along with an analysis of criminal offenses, the statutes that punish them, and a review of crimes committed in 1837 and the sentences given. Additionally, there are tables showing public income and spending for the year ending January 5, 1837; church revenues, which include data on the number of benefices in each diocese; total income amounts, both gross and net, for incumbents in each diocese, as well as averages; the number of curates in each diocese; total and average stipends for them; four scales of income for beneficed clergy; and genealogical tables tracing from the Saxon and Danish kings to Queen Victoria.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
MEMOIRS of the LIFE, CHARACTER, and WRITINGS, of BISHOP BUTLER, Author of The Analogy. By THOMAS BARTLETT, M.A., One of the Six Preachers of Canterbury Cathedral, and Rector of Kingstone, Kent. Dedicated, by Permission, to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. Octavo, with an original Portrait.
MEMOIRS of the LIFE, CHARACTER, and WRITINGS, of BISHOP BUTLER, Author of The Analogy. By THOMAS BARTLETT, M.A., One of the Six Preachers of Canterbury Cathedral, and Rector of Kingstone, Kent. Dedicated, by Permission, to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. Octavo, with an original Portrait.
ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS HISTORY. By HENRY SOAMES, M.A., Author of The History of the Reformation; The Anglo-Saxon Church, &c.
ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS HISTORY. By HENRY SOAMES, M.A., Author of The History of the Reformation; The Anglo-Saxon Church, &c.
This Work is intended to fill a long-acknowledged chasm in English literature, and especially in that which peculiarly concerns the Church of England. Both Romanists and Protestant Dissenters have been attentive to the important reign of Elizabeth, and by saying very little of each other, have given an invidious colouring to both the Church and the Government. The present work is meant to give every leading fact in sufficient detail, but to avoid unnecessary particulars. It reaches from the establishment of the Thirty-nine Articles, in 1563, to the Hampton-Court Conference, in 1604.
This work aims to address a long-recognized gap in English literature, particularly regarding the Church of England. Both Catholics and Protestant dissenters have focused on the significant reign of Elizabeth, and by saying very little about each other, they've given a negative spin to both the Church and the Government. The current work is designed to present every major fact in enough detail while steering clear of unnecessary specifics. It covers the establishment of the Thirty-nine Articles in 1563 to the Hampton-Court Conference in 1604.
THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH; its HISTORY, REVENUES, and General Character. By the Rev. HENRY SOAMES, M.A., Author of the Elizabethan Religious History. A NEW EDITION.
THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH; its HISTORY, REVENUES, and General Character. By the Rev. HENRY SOAMES, M.A., Author of the Elizabethan Religious History. A NEW EDITION.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; from the Ascension of Jesus Christ to the Conversion of Constantine. By the late EDWARD BURTON, D.D.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; from the Ascension of Jesus Christ to the Conversion of Constantine. By the late EDWARD BURTON, D.D.
HISTORY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, to the REVOLUTION in 1688; embracing Copious Histories of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Translation of the Bible, and the Compilation of the Book of Common Prayer. By THOMAS VOWLER SHORT, D.D. NEW EDITION, in One large Volume.
HISTORY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, to the REVOLUTION in 1688; including detailed accounts of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Bible Translation, and the development of the Book of Common Prayer. By THOMAS VOWLER SHORT, D.D. NEW EDITION, in One large Volume.
The EARLY CHRISTIANS; their MANNERS and CUSTOMS, TRIALS and SUFFERINGS. By the Rev. WILLIAM PRIDDEN, M.A. Second Edition.
The EARLY CHRISTIANS; their BEHAVIORS and CUSTOMS, CHALLENGES and SUFFERINGS. By Rev. WILLIAM PRIDDEN, M.A. Second Edition.
HISTORY OF POPERY; the Origin, Growth, and Progress of the Papal Power; its Political Influence in the European States-System, and its Effects on the Progress of Civilization; an Examination of the Present State of the Romish Church in Ireland; a History of the Inquisition; and Specimens of Monkish Legends.
HISTORY OF POPERY; the Origin, Growth, and Development of the Papal Power; its Political Influence on the European States System, and its Effects on the Advancement of Civilization; an Evaluation of the Current Status of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland; a History of the Inquisition; and Examples of Monk Legends.
LUTHER and HIS TIMES; History of the Rise and Progress of the German Reformation. By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of First Sundays at Church.
LUTHER and HIS TIMES; History of the Rise and Progress of the German Reformation. By Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of First Sundays at Church.
POPULAR HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION, in Germany, Switzerland, and Great Britain; and of its chief Promoters, Opposers, and Victims. By THOMAS FOX.
POPULAR HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION, in Germany, Switzerland, and Great Britain; and of its main Supporters, Opponents, and Victims. By THOMAS FOX.
* HISTORY OF MOHAMMEDANISM, and the PRINCIPAL MOHAMMEDAN SECTS. By W.C. TAYLOR, LL.D.
* HISTORY OF ISLAM, and the MAIN ISLAMIC SECTS. By W.C. TAYLOR, LL.D.
* The CRUSADERS; SCENES, EVENTS, and CHARACTERS, from the Times of the Crusades. By THOMAS KEIGHTLEY. Two Vols.
* The CRUSADERS; SCENES, EVENTS, and CHARACTERS, from the Times of the Crusades. By THOMAS KEIGHTLEY. Two Vols.
* READINGS IN BIOGRAPHY; a Selection of the Lives of Eminent Men of all Nations.
* READINGS IN BIOGRAPHY; a Selection of the Lives of Notable Men from All Nations.
The design of this work is to give an account of the lives of the Leaders in the most important revolutions which history records, from the age of Sesostris to that of Napoleon. Care has been taken to select those personages concerning whom information is most required by the historical student.
The purpose of this work is to provide an account of the lives of the leaders in the most significant revolutions recorded in history, from the time of Sesostris to that of Napoleon. Efforts have been made to choose those figures about whom historical students need the most information.
LIFE OF SIR WILLIAM JONES, by the late LORD TEIGNMOUTH. With Notes, Selections from his Works, and a Memoir of his Noble Biographer, by the Rev. SAMUEL CHARLES WILKS, M.A. 2 Vols., 10s. 6d.
LIFE OF SIR WILLIAM JONES, by the late LORD TEIGNMOUTH. With Notes, Selections from his Works, and a Memoir of his Noble Biographer, by the Rev. SAMUEL CHARLES WILKS, M.A. 2 Vols., 10s 6d.
SIR WILLIAM JONES was not only the most eminent linguist, but in many respects one of the most remarkable men, of the last century; and LORD TEIGNMOUTH'S Memoir of him has been justly accounted one of the most interesting, instructive, and entertaining pieces of modern biography.
SIR WILLIAM JONES was not just the most outstanding linguist, but in many ways one of the most remarkable individuals of the last century; and LORD TEIGNMOUTH'S Memoir of him is rightly considered one of the most interesting, informative, and entertaining works of modern biography.
* LIVES OF BRITISH SACRED POETS. By R. A. WILLMOTT, Esq., Trin. Coll. Camb. Now complete, in Two Volumes, at 4s. 6d. each.
* LIVES OF BRITISH SACRED POETS. By R. A. WILLMOTT, Esq., Trinity College, Cambridge. Now complete, in Two Volumes, at 4s. 6d. each.
The FIRST SERIES contains an Historical Sketch of Sacred Poetry, and the Lives of the English Sacred Poets preceding MILTON.
The FIRST SERIES includes a Historical Overview of Sacred Poetry and the Lives of the English Sacred Poets who came before MILTON.
The SECOND SERIES commences with MILTON, and brings down the Lives to that of BISHOP HEBER inclusive.
The SECOND SERIES starts with MILTON and includes the Lives up to and including BISHOP HEBER.
* LIVES OF EMINENT CHRISTIANS. By RICHARD B. HONE, M.A., Vicar of Hales Owen. Three Volumes, 4s. 6d. each.
* LIVES OF EMINENT CHRISTIANS. By RICHARD B. HONE, M.A., Vicar of Hales Owen. Three Volumes, 4s. 6d. each.
Vol. I. ARCHBISHOP USHER, DOCTOR HAMMOND, JOHN EVELYN, BISHOP WILSON.
Vol. I. ARCHBISHOP USHER, DOCTOR HAMMOND, JOHN EVELYN, BISHOP WILSON.
Vol. II.
Vol. 2.
BERNARD GILPIN, PHILIP DE MORNAY, BISHOP BEDELL, DOCTOR HORNECK.
BERNARD GILPIN, PHILIP DE MORNAY, BISHOP BEDELL, DOCTOR HORNECK.
Vol. III.
Vol. 3.
BISHOP RIDLEY, BISHOP HALL, The HONORABLE ROBERT BOYLE.
BISHOP RIDLEY, BISHOP HALL, The HONORABLE ROBERT BOYLE.
BIBLE BIOGRAPHY; Histories of the Lives and Conduct of the Principal Characters of the Old and New Testament. By E. FARR, Author of a New Version of the Book of Psalms. 4s. 6d.
BIBLE BIOGRAPHY; Stories of the Lives and Actions of the Main Characters from the Old and New Testament. By E. FARR, Author of a New Version of the Book of Psalms. 4s. 6d.
BIBLE NARRATIVE chronologically arranged, in the words of the authorized Version; continued by an Historical Account of the Jewish Nation: and forming a Consecutive History from the Creation of the World to the Termination of the Jewish Polity. Dedicated by permission to the Lord Bishop of Winchester. 7s.
BIBLE NARRATIVE arranged in chronological order, using the authorized Version; followed by a Historical Account of the Jewish Nation: creating a Continuous History from the Creation of the World to the End of the Jewish Polity. Dedicated by permission to the Lord Bishop of Winchester. 7s.
THE EVIDENCE of PROFANE HISTORY to the TRUTH of REVELATION. Dedicated, by Special Permission, to her Majesty THE QUEEN. With numerous Graphic Illustrations. 10s. 6d.
THE EVIDENCE of PROFANE HISTORY to the TRUTH of REVELATION. Dedicated, by Special Permission, to her Majesty THE QUEEN. With numerous Graphic Illustrations. 10s. 6d.
It is the object of this Work to exhibit, from traces afforded in the records and monuments, both sacred and profane, of the ancient world, an unity of purpose maintained by the all-controlling providence of God.
The purpose of this work is to demonstrate, using evidence found in the records and monuments, both sacred and secular, of the ancient world, a united intention sustained by the all-controlling providence of God.
STUDENT'S MANUAL of ANCIENT HISTORY; Accounts of the principal Nations of Antiquity. By W.C. TAYLOR, LL.D. 10s. 6d.
STUDENT'S MANUAL of ANCIENT HISTORY; Accounts of the main Nations of Antiquity. By W.C. TAYLOR, LL.D. 10£ 6d.
The design of this work is to supply the student with an outline of the principal events in the annals of the ancient world, and at the same time to lead him to the consideration of the causes that produced the principal revolutions recorded. The geographical position, natural productions, and progress of civilization, in all the great monarchies and republics, have been diligently investigated, and their effect on the fortunes of the state pointed out. Thus the philosophy of history is made to illustrate the narrative without interrupting it.
The aim of this work is to provide students with an overview of key events in the history of the ancient world while encouraging them to think about the reasons behind the major changes recorded. The geographical location, natural resources, and development of civilization in all the significant empires and republics have been carefully examined, along with their impact on the state’s fortunes. This way, the philosophy of history enhances the narrative without disrupting it.
STUDENT'S MANUAL of MODERN HISTORY; the Rise and Progress of the principal EUROPEAN NATIONS, their Political History, and the Changes in their Social Condition; with a History of the COLONIES founded by Europeans, and General Progress of Civilization. By the same Author. 10s. 6d.
STUDENT'S MANUAL of MODERN HISTORY; the Rise and Progress of the Main EUROPEAN NATIONS, their Political History, and the Changes in their Social Conditions; along with a History of the COLONIES established by Europeans, and the Overall Progress of Civilization. By the same Author. 10s. 6d.
*FAMILY HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By the Rev. G.R. GLEIG, M.A. With PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 3 Vols., 6s. 6d. each.
*FAMILY HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Rev. G.R. GLEIG, M.A. With PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 3 Vols., 6s. 6d. each.
The main purpose of the FAMILY HISTORY OF ENGLAND has been to unite objects which in such undertakings are not always found to coincide; namely, to render the study of English History not merely instructive, but interesting and amusing. For this purpose, the greatest care has been taken to seize upon all those striking features in the detail of events, which not only convey to the mind of the reader a vivid picture of scenes past, but induce him to argue from effects to their causes. While the philosophy of history, therefore, is sedulously taught, it is taught in a manner calculated to gratify both young and old, by affording to the one class ample scope to reflection; to the other, matter that stirs and excites, while it conveys sound moral instruction.
The main goal of the FAMILY HISTORY OF ENGLAND has been to bring together elements that don't always go hand in hand in such projects; specifically, to make the study of English History not just educational but also engaging and fun. To this end, great care has been taken to highlight all the striking features in the details of events, which not only give readers a vivid image of the past but also encourage them to think critically about causes and effects. While the philosophy of history is carefully taught, it's done in a way that appeals to both younger and older audiences, allowing one group plenty of room for reflection and providing the other with content that is stimulating and exciting, while also delivering solid moral lessons.
A HISTORY OF LONDON; the Progress of its Institutions; the Manners and Customs of its People. By CHARLES MACKAY. 7s.
A HISTORY OF LONDON; the Progress of its Institutions; the Manners and Customs of its People. By CHARLES MACKAY. 7shillings.
Of the Histories of London which have hitherto appeared, some have been too voluminous and costly for the general reader, and others too exclusively addressed to the citizen, the antiquarian, or the traveller. The object of the present Volume is to furnish in a tangible form, and at a small price, a general and popular view of the progress of civilization, and of the origin and progress of those events which have raised London to its present importance. The work, however, is not confined to a history of events, but contains graphic pictures of the manners and customs of the people, their sports and pastimes, at different periods, and the characteristic incidents of their domestic history.
Of the histories of London that have come out so far, some have been too lengthy and expensive for the average reader, while others have focused too much on citizens, historians, or travelers. The aim of this volume is to provide a clear and accessible overview of the progress of civilization and the events that have contributed to London’s significance today, all at an affordable price. However, this work isn’t just a straightforward history of events; it also includes vivid descriptions of the customs and traditions of the people, their sports and leisure activities across different eras, and the notable events in their domestic history.
GERMANY, BOHEMIA, and HUNGARY, visited in 1837. By the Rev. G.R. GLEIG, M.A., Chaplain to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. Three Volume's, Post Octavo. 1l. 11s. 6d.
GERMANY, BOHEMIA, and HUNGARY, visited in 1837. By the Rev. G.R. GLEIG, M.A., Chaplain to the Royal Hospital, Chelsea. Three Volumes, Post Octavo. 1l. 11s. 6d.
The principal design of this work is to give some account of the state of society as it now exists in Bohemia and Hungary. In order to reach these countries, the Author was, of course, obliged to pass through a large portion of Germany, where the social condition of the people, as well as the civil, ecclesiastical, and military establishments, attracted his attention. Upon these he touches, more especially in reference to Prussia, towards which the eyes of the rest of Europe are at present anxiously turned. But his great design was to obtain and communicate information, respecting countries into which few Englishmen are accustomed to penetrate. Hence a large portion of his tour, both in Bohemia and Hungary, was performed on foot; and the acquaintance which he was thereby enabled to form with all ranks and conditions of the people, was at once more intimate and more familiar than could have taken place had he travelled by a more usual mode of conveyance. He looked into the cottage as well as the palace, and he has given some account of both.
The main purpose of this work is to provide an overview of the current state of society in Bohemia and Hungary. To reach these countries, the author had to travel through a significant part of Germany, where he noticed the social conditions of the people, along with the civil, religious, and military systems in place. He focuses on these aspects, particularly in relation to Prussia, which is currently drawing the attention of the rest of Europe. However, his primary goal was to gather and share information about regions that few English people usually explore. As a result, a large part of his journey through Bohemia and Hungary was done on foot, allowing him to connect with people from all walks of life in a more personal and familiar way than if he had traveled using more conventional transport. He observed both the cottage and the palace, and he provides accounts of both.
GERMANY; the SPIRIT of her HISTORY, LITERATURE, SOCIAL CONDITION, and NATIONAL ECONOMY; illustrated by Reference to her Physical, Moral, and Political Statistics, and by Comparison with other Countries. By BISSET HAWKINS, M.D., Oxon., F.R.S., &c. 10s. 6d.
GERMANY; the SPIRIT of its HISTORY, LITERATURE, SOCIAL CONDITION, and NATIONAL ECONOMY; illustrated by reference to its physical, moral, and political statistics, and by comparison with other countries. By BISSET HAWKINS, M.D., Oxon., F.R.S., etc. 10s. 6d.
TREVES; SOME ACCOUNT of the CITY of TREVES, and of its ROMAN ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS. From the German of WYTTENBACH. Edited, with NOTES, by DAWSON TURNER, Esq., and illustrated from Drawings made on the spot. Octavo. Nearly Ready.
TREVES; A BRIEF OVERVIEW of the CITY of TREVES, and its ROMAN ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS. From the German of WYTTENBACH. Edited, with NOTES, by DAWSON TURNER, Esq., and illustrated from Drawings made on-site. Octavo. Coming Soon.
RESEARCHES IN BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, and CHALDAEA; forming part of the Labours of the Euphrates Expedition, and published with the sanction of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Control, By WILLIAM AINSWORTH, F.G.S., F.R.G.S. With Illustrations, Maps, &c. 12s. 6d.
RESEARCHES IN BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, and CHALDAEA; part of the efforts of the Euphrates Expedition, and published with the approval of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Control, by WILLIAM AINSWORTH, F.G.S., F.R.G.S. With Illustrations, Maps, & etc. 12s. 6d.
EGYPT and SINAI. By M. DUMAS, with Notes by the Translator. Uniformly with Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon.
EGYPT and SINAI. By M. DUMAS, with Notes by the Translator. Consistent with Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon.
THREE WEEKS IN PALESTINE AND LEBANON. With many Engravings. 3s.
THREE WEEKS IN PALESTINE AND LEBANON. With many Illustrations. 3shillings.
A little volume from the Traveller's notes. Descriptions of Baalbec, Beiroot, Damietta, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ramiah, and other places, are blended with remarks upon the natives, the incidents of the journey, and the observations and reflections which naturally occur to a Clergyman in travelling through the Holy Land.
A small book from a traveler's notes. Descriptions of Baalbek, Beirut, Damietta, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ramiah, and other places are mixed with comments on the locals, the events of the journey, and the thoughts and reflections that naturally arise for a clergyman traveling through the Holy Land.
NOTES on INDIAN AFFAIRS; by the late Hon. F.J. SHORE, Judge of the Civil Court and Criminal Sessions of Furrukhabad. 2 Vols., 26s.
NOTES on INDIAN AFFAIRS; by the late Hon. F.J. SHORE, Judge of the Civil Court and Criminal Sessions of Furrukhabad. 2 Vols., £26.
The facts and opinions contained in this Work are the result of more than fifteen years' residence in India—during which period the Author held various situations in the Police, Revenue, and Judicial Departments, and was in habits of close communication, both Private and Official, with all classes of the Natives.
The facts and opinions in this work come from over fifteen years of living in India—during which the author worked in different roles in the Police, Revenue, and Judicial Departments, and frequently communicated, both privately and officially, with all levels of the local population.
SCOTLAND; SKETCHES of its COASTS and ISLANDS, and of the ISLE of MAN; descriptive of the Scenery, and illustrative of the progressive Revolution in the Condition of the Inhabitants of those Regions. By LORD TEIGNMOUTH, M.P. 2 Vols., with Maps, 21s.
SCOTLAND; SKETCHES of its COASTS and ISLANDS, and of the ISLE of MAN; describing the scenery and highlighting the changes in the lives of the people living in those areas. By LORD TEIGNMOUTH, M.P. 2 Vols., with Maps, 21s.
THE WEST INDIES; the Natural and Physical History of the Colonies; and the Moral, Social, and Political Condition of the Inhabitants, before and after the Abolition of Negro Slavery. By SIR ANDREW HALLIDAY, K.H., M.D., F.R.S.E., &c. With Maps. 10s. 6d.
THE WEST INDIES; the Natural and Physical History of the Colonies; and the Moral, Social, and Political Condition of the Inhabitants, before and after the Abolition of Negro Slavery. By SIR ANDREW HALLIDAY, K.H., M.D., F.R.S.E., &c. With Maps. 10s. 6d.
NEW ZEALAND; an Account of the Position, Extent, Soil and Climate, Natural Productions and Native Inhabitants of New Zealand, with reference to British Colonization. With Charts and Illustrations. 4s. 6d.
NEW ZEALAND: A Overview of Its Location, Size, Soil and Climate, Natural Resources, and Indigenous People, Related to British Settlement. Including Maps and Illustrations. 4s. 6d.
TWO YEARS AT SEA: Narrative of a Voyage to the Swan River and Van Diemen's Land; thence, to various parts of India. With Notes of a Residence in the Burman Empire, and of the Services and Sufferings of the Missionaries in that Country. By JANE ROBERTS. With Engravings, 5s.
TWO YEARS AT SEA: A Story of a Journey to the Swan River and Tasmania; then, to different parts of India. Including Notes from a Stay in the Burmese Empire and the Experiences and Challenges Faced by the Missionaries in that Country. By JANE ROBERTS. With Illustrations, 5s.
MUNGO PARK; his LIFE and TRAVELS: with an Account of his Death, from the JOURNAL of ISAACO, the substance of later Discoveries relative to his lamented Fate, and the Termination of the Niger. 2s. 6d.
MUNGO PARK; his LIFE and TRAVELS: including a summary of his Death, based on the JOURNAL of ISAACO, the main points of later Discoveries related to his tragic Fate, and the End of the Niger. 2s. 6d.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS; his LIFE, VOYAGES, and DISCOVERY of the NEW WORLD. With Engravings. 2s 6d.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS; his LIFE, VOYAGES, and DISCOVERY of the NEW WORLD. With Illustrations. 2s 6d.
CAPTAIN COOK; his VOYAGES and DISCOVERIES: with an Account of Pitcairn's Island, and the Mutiny of the Bounty. Engravings. 2s. 6d.
CAPTAIN COOK; his VOYAGES and DISCOVERIES: with an Account of Pitcairn's Island, and the Mutiny of the Bounty. Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
NARRATIVE of the EXPEDITION to GREENLAND, sent by order of the KING of DENMARK, in SEARCH of the LOST COLONIES; with the Chart completed by the Expedition. Published under the Direction of the Royal Geographical Society. 8s. 6d.
NARRATIVE of the EXPEDITION to GREENLAND, sent by order of the KING of DENMARK, in SEARCH of the LOST COLONIES; with the Chart completed by the Expedition. Published under the Direction of the Royal Geographical Society. 8s. 6d.
NEW POCKET GUIDE to LONDON and its ENVIRONS; containing Descriptions, from personal knowledge, of everything worth seeing or knowing, within Twenty-five Miles of the Metropolis; enlivened with Biographical and other Anecdotes, connected by History of Tradition with the Places described. With a Map of the Environs. By JOHN H. BRADY, F.R.A.S. 7s.
NEW POCKET GUIDE to LONDON and its SURROUNDINGS; featuring descriptions, based on personal experience, of everything worth seeing or knowing within twenty-five miles of the city; filled with biographies and other anecdotes linked by history or tradition to the places mentioned. Includes a map of the surrounding area. By JOHN H. BRADY, F.R.A.S. 7s.
THE DOMESTIC GARDENER'S MANUAL; being an Introduction to Practical Gardening, on Philosophical Principles; to which is added, a NATURALIST'S KALENDAR, and an Appendix on the Operations of Forcing, including the Culture of Vines in Pots. By JOHN TOWERS, C.M.H.S. Second Edition, Enlarged and Improved. One large Volume, Octavo.
THE DOMESTIC GARDENER'S MANUAL; an Introduction to Practical Gardening on Philosophical Principles; plus a NATURALIST'S KALENDAR, and an Appendix on Forcing Operations, including Growing Vines in Pots. By JOHN TOWERS, C.M.H.S. Second Edition, Enlarged and Improved. One large Volume, Octavo.
Most of the works on gardening which have come under my observation, are not only expensive, but appear to have been written almost exclusively for the affluent;—for those who possess, or can afford to possess, all the luxuries of the garden. We read of the management of hot-houses, green-houses, forcing-houses; of nursery-grounds, shrubberies, and other concomitants of ornamental gardening. Now, although it is acknowledged that many useful ideas may be gathered from these works, still it is obvious that they are chiefly written for those whose rank in life enables them to employ a chief gardener and assistants, qualified for the performance of the many operations required in the various departments of large gardens. As I profess to have a very different object in view, I address this book to those, who, without aiming to become professional gardeners, wish, nevertheless, to acquire so much of the art of Gardening as shall enable them to conduct its more common and essential operations with facility and precision.
Most of the gardening books I've seen are not only pricey but seem to be written mainly for wealthy people—those who can have all the luxuries that come with gardening. We read about managing hot houses, greenhouses, forcing houses, nursery grounds, shrubberies, and other elements of ornamental gardening. While it's true that many useful ideas can be taken from these books, it's clear they are primarily aimed at those who have the means to hire a head gardener and assistants skilled in the numerous tasks needed for large gardens. Since I have a different goal in mind, I’m writing this book for those who, without wanting to become professional gardeners, still want to learn enough gardening skills to handle the more common and essential tasks with ease and accuracy.
MUSICAL HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, AND CRITICISM; being a General Survey of Music from the earliest Period to the Present Time. By GEORGE HOGARTH. A new and enlarged edition, in Two Volumes.10s. 6d.
MUSICAL HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, AND CRITICISM; being an Overview of Music from the earliest Times to Today. By GEORGE HOGARTH. A new and expanded edition, in Two Volumes.10s. 6d.
LECTURES on ASTRONOMY, delivered at KING'S COLLEGE, London, by the Rev. HENRY MOSELEY, M.A., F.R.S., Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy in that Institution. With numerous Illustrations. 5s. 6d.
LECTURES on ASTRONOMY, given at KING'S COLLEGE, London, by Rev. HENRY MOSELEY, M.A., F.R.S., Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at that institution. With many illustrations. 5s. 6d.
*MECHANICS APPLIED TO THE ARTS. By PROFESSOR MOSELEY, of King's College, London. A New Edition, corrected and improved. With numerous Engravings. 6s. 6d.
*MECHANICS APPLIED TO THE ARTS. By PROFESSOR MOSELEY, of King's College, London. A New Edition, updated and enhanced. With many Illustrations. 6s. 6d.
A MANUAL OF CHEMISTRY, by W.T. BRANDE, F.R.S., Prof, Chem. R.I., and of Her Majesty's Mint. 30s.
A MANUAL OF CHEMISTRY, by W.T. BRANDE, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution, and of Her Majesty's Mint. 30s.
Although Three Editions of the Manual of Chemistry have already appeared, the present may be considered as a new work. It has been almost wholly re-written; everything new and important in the Science, both in English and Foreign Works, has been embodied; and it abounds in references to Authorities.
Although three editions of the Manual of Chemistry have already been released, this current version can be seen as a completely new work. It has been nearly entirely rewritten; all the new and significant developments in the science, from both English and foreign sources, have been included; and it is filled with references to authoritative sources.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY: being a preparatory View of the Forces which concur to the Production of Chemical Phenomena. By J. FREDERIC DANIELL, F.R.S. Professor of Chemistry in King's College, London; and Lecturer on Chemistry and Geology in the Hon. East India Company's Military Seminary at Addiscombe; and Author of Meteorological Essays. 16s.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY: A preliminary overview of the forces that contribute to chemical phenomena. By J. FREDERIC DANIELL, F.R.S. Professor of Chemistry at King's College, London; and Lecturer on Chemistry and Geology at the Hon. East India Company's Military Seminary in Addiscombe; and Author of Meteorological Essays. 16s.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
* A FAMILIAR HISTORY of BIRDS; their Nature, Habits, and Instincts. By EDWARD STANLEY, D.D., F.L.S., Lord Bishop of Norwich; President of the Linnaean Society. Two Vols., with Engravings. 7s.
* A FAMILIAR HISTORY of BIRDS; their Nature, Habits, and Instincts. By EDWARD STANLEY, D.D., F.L.S., Lord Bishop of Norwich; President of the Linnaean Society. Two Vols., with Engravings. 7s.
BRITISH SONG BIRDS; Popular Descriptions and Anecdotes of the Songsters of the Groves. By NEVILLE WOOD. 7s.
BRITISH SONG BIRDS; Popular Descriptions and Stories about the Songsters of the Groves. By NEVILLE WOOD. 7s.
OUTLINES OF GENERAL PATHOLOGY. By GEORGE FRECKLETON, M.D., Cantab., Fellow of the Royal Coll. of Physicians. 7s.
OUTLINES OF GENERAL PATHOLOGY. By GEORGE FRECKLETON, M.D., Cantab., Fellow of the Royal Coll. of Physicians. 7s.
* POPULAR PHYSIOLOGY; familiar Explanations of interesting Facts connected with the Structure and Functions of Animals, and particularly of Man. By PERCEVAL B. LORD, M.B. Many Engravings. 7s. 6d.
* POPULAR PHYSIOLOGY; easy-to-understand explanations of fascinating facts related to the structure and functions of animals, especially humans. By PERCEVAL B. LORD, M.B. Many illustrations. 7s. 6d.
To trace the finger of God in the works of creation, to consider "the wonders that He doeth amongst the children of men," has ever been a source of the purest and noblest gratification,—that moral gratification which a well-framed mind naturally experiences in contemplating Infinite Power working out the dictates of Infinite Goodness,—that intellectual satisfaction which attends upon our being allowed, even imperfectly, to comprehend some small part of the designs of Infinite Wisdom.
To see the influence of God in the works of creation, to reflect on "the wonders that He performs among humanity," has always been a source of pure and noble joy— that moral joy which a well-balanced mind naturally feels when contemplating Infinite Power carrying out the intentions of Infinite Goodness— that intellectual satisfaction that comes from being able, even if just a little, to understand some small part of the plans of Infinite Wisdom.
THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITS, with its Applications; namely, The First Three Sections of Newton—Conic Sections—The Differential Calculus. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., &c. 9s.
THE DOCTRINE OF LIMITS, with its Applications; namely, The First Three Sections of Newton—Conic Sections—The Differential Calculus. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., etc. 9s.
THE MECHANICAL EUCLID. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Trin. Coll. Cambridge. 5s. 6d.
THE MECHANICAL EUCLID. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHEWELL, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Cambridge. 5s. 6d.
AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE on the DIFFERENTIAL and INTEGRAL CALCULUS. By the Rev. T.G. HALL, M.A., Professor of Mathematics, King's College, London. 12s. 6d.
AN INTRODUCTORY GUIDE to DIFFERENTIAL and INTEGRAL CALCULUS. By Rev. T.G. HALL, M.A., Professor of Mathematics, King's College, London. 12s. 6d.
LECTURES upon TRIGONOMETRY, and the APPLICATION of ALGEBRA to GEOMETRY. Second Edition, corrected. 7s. 6d.
LECTURES on TRIGONOMETRY, and the APPLICATION of ALGEBRA to GEOMETRY. Second Edition, corrected. 7s. 6d.
DYNAMICS, or a TREATISE on MOTION; to which is added, a SHORT TREATISE on ATTRACTIONS. By SAMUEL EARNSHAW, M.A., of St. John's College, Cambridge. Octavo, with many Cuts. 14s.
DYNAMICS, or a TREATISE on MOTION; to which is added, a SHORT TREATISE on ATTRACTIONS. By SAMUEL EARNSHAW, M.A., of St. John's College, Cambridge. Octavo, with many illustrations. 14s.
THE MAGAZINE OF POPULAR SCIENCE; complete in Four large Volumes, Octavo. £2 15s.
THE MAGAZINE OF POPULAR SCIENCE; complete in Four large Volumes, Octavo. £2 15s.
This work furnishes the general reader with popular and connected views of the actual progress and condition of the Physical Sciences, both at home and abroad. The Mechanical Arts, Dietetic Chemistry, the Structure of the Earth, Electricity, Galvanism, Gas, Heat, Light, Magnetism, the Mathematical Sciences, Philosophical Instruments, Rain, Steam, the Cometary System, Tides, Volcanoes, &c., have, among many others, been developed in original communications and discussions, abounding in the freshest facts, the most recent discoveries; and the latest intelligence, which on indefatigable examination of the products of Scientific Research, at home and abroad, has been able to furnish.
This work provides the general reader with accessible and connected insights into the current progress and state of the Physical Sciences, both locally and internationally. Topics like Mechanical Arts, Dietary Chemistry, Earth's Structure, Electricity, Galvanism, Gas, Heat, Light, Magnetism, Mathematical Sciences, Philosophical Instruments, Rain, Steam, the Cometary System, Tides, Volcanoes, etc., have, among many others, been explored in original articles and discussions filled with the latest facts, recent discoveries, and the newest information gathered from thorough investigations of Scientific Research, both at home and abroad.
The Sciences of ASTRONOMY, CHEMISTRY, and GEOLOGY, are comprehensively, but popularly, treated in a series of papers, forming regular and complete Courses on those several Subjects.
The fields of ASTRONOMY, CHEMISTRY, and GEOLOGY are thoroughly and accessibly covered in a series of papers that create regular and complete courses on these subjects.
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY; comprising Descriptions, Popular and Practical, of the most important Philosophical Instruments, their History, Nature and Uses; with complete elucidations of the Sciences to which they respectively appertain. Dedicated, by permission, to the Lord Bishop of Salisbury. By CHARLES TOMLINSON. 10s. 6d.
THE STUDENT'S MANUAL OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY; including Descriptions, Accessible and Practical, of the most important Philosophical Instruments, their History, Nature and Uses; with thorough explanations of the Sciences they relate to. Dedicated, by permission, to the Lord Bishop of Salisbury. By CHARLES TOMLINSON. 10s. 6d.
In this work certain prominent subjects have been selected with which it behoves every one to be acquainted: such, for example, as relate to what may be called our HOUSEHOLD INSTRUMENTS, namely, the Thermometer, the Barometer, and Vernier; the Hydrometer, the Hygrometer; the Tuning-Fork, Musical Glasses and Music generally; the Compass; the Prism, the Telescope, and the Sun-Dial. These subjects, and those in immediate connexion with them, are treated of extensively; as also their application to Science, Art, and, Industry.
In this work, we’ve chosen some important topics that everyone should know about. These include what we can call our HOUSEHOLD INSTRUMENTS, such as the Thermometer, Barometer, and Vernier; the Hydrometer, Hygrometer; the Tuning Fork, Musical Glasses, and music in general; the Compass; the Prism, Telescope, and Sun-Dial. These topics, along with those closely related to them, are covered in depth, as well as their application to Science, Art, and Industry.
* READINGS in SCIENCE; familiar EXPLANATIONS of Appearances and Principles in NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. With many Engravings. 5s.
* READINGS in SCIENCE; familiar EXPLANATIONS of Appearances and Principles in NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. With many Illustrations. 5s.
* EASY LESSONS IN MECHANICS: with Familiar Illustrations of the Practical Application of Mechanical Principles. 3s.
* EASY LESSONS IN MECHANICS: with Familiar Illustrations of the Practical Application of Mechanical Principles. 3s.
HOUSE I LIVE IN; or Popular Illustrations of the Structure and Functions of the Human Body. Edited by T.C. GIRTIN. 2s. 6d.
HOUSE I LIVE IN; or Popular Illustrations of the Structure and Functions of the Human Body. Edited by T.C. GIRTIN. 2s. 6d.
"I am fearfully and wonderfully made!"
"I am created in an amazing and unique way!"
* MINERALS AND METALS; their Natural History and Uses in the Arts: with Accounts of Mines and Mining. Engravings. 2s. 6d.
* MINERALS AND METALS; their Natural History and Uses in the Arts: with Accounts of Mines and Mining. Engravings. 2s. 6d.
Familiar as we are, from our earliest years, with the various articles manufactured from the Metals, for purposes of use and comfort, the nature and properties of the metals themselves, and the means by which they are obtained, are comparatively little known.
Familiar as we are from our earliest years with the different products made from metals for use and comfort, the nature and properties of the metals themselves, along with how they are extracted, are relatively unknown.
* OUTLINES of ASTRONOMY. By the Rev. T.G. HALL, M.A., Professor of Mathematics, King's College, London. With Cuts. 10d.
* OUTLINES of ASTRONOMY. By the Rev. T.G. HALL, M.A., Professor of Mathematics, King's College, London. With illustrations. 10d.
* The ELEMENTS of BOTANY. With many Engravings. NEW EDITION, Enlarged and Improved. 2s.
* The ELEMENTS of BOTANY. With many illustrations. NEW EDITION, Expanded and Enhanced. 2s.
The principles of this beautiful and important science are explained in a clear and simple manner, to as to render the acquisition of them comparatively easy, and the examples, when possible, are selected from our own wild flowers, or from those cultivated in all gardens or fields.
The principles of this beautiful and important science are explained in a clear and straightforward way, making it relatively easy to learn them, and the examples, whenever possible, are chosen from our own wildflowers or from those grown in gardens and fields everywhere.
THE ELEMENTS of POLITICAL ECONOMY, abridged from the Principles of Political Economy by Professor WAYLAND, D.D. 2s. 6d.
THE ELEMENTS of POLITICAL ECONOMY, summarized from the Principles of Political Economy by Professor WAYLAND, D.D. 2s. 6d.
MANUAL of INSTRUCTION in VOCAL MUSIC, chiefly with a View to PSALMODY. By JOHN TURNER, Esq. 4s.
MANUAL of INSTRUCTION in VOCAL MUSIC, mainly aimed at PSALMODY. By JOHN TURNER, Esq. 4s.
THE MERCHANT AND THE FRIAR; TRUTHS and FICTIONS of the MIDDLE AGES BY SIR FRANCIS PALGRAVE, K.H., Keeper of the Records of the Treasury of Her Majesty's Exchequer. 8s.
THE MERCHANT AND THE FRIAR; TRUTHS and FICTIONS of the MIDDLE AGES BY SIR FRANCIS PALGRAVE, K.H., Keeper of the Records of the Treasury of Her Majesty's Exchequer. 8s.
LIGHT IN DARKNESS; or, THE RECORDS OF A VILLAGE RECTORY. 3s. 6d.
LIGHT IN DARKNESS; or, THE RECORDS OF A VILLAGE RECTORY. 3£ 6d.
THE VILLAGE. | THE GOOD AUNT. | THE VILLAGE APOTHECARY. |
THE RETIRED TRADESMAN. | THE VILLAGE SCHOOLMASTER. | THE DESERTED WIFE. |
THE FAMILY AT THE HALL; | ||
OR, PRIDE AND POVERTY. |
* READINGS in ENGLISH PROSE LITERATURE; containing choice Specimens OF the Works of the best English Writers, from LORD BACON to the Present Time. With Biographical Sketches of the Writers, and ESSAYS on the PROGRESS of ENGLISH LITERATURE. 4s. 6d.
* READINGS in ENGLISH PROSE LITERATURE; featuring selected examples of the works of the finest English writers, from LORD BACON to today. Includes biographical sketches of the writers and essays on the development of ENGLISH LITERATURE. 4s. 6d.
This volume is intended to furnish the general reader with some valuable specimens of English prose composition. They are taken from the works of those writers who have chiefly determined the style of our prose literature, and are not only in themselves instructive and entertaining, but are also of sufficient variety, and of ample length, to render the reader familiar with the beauties and the peculiarities of the various writers.
This volume is meant to provide the general reader with some valuable examples of English prose. They are taken from the works of those authors who have mainly shaped the style of our prose literature. These selections are not only informative and entertaining, but also diverse and long enough to help the reader appreciate the unique qualities and beauty of each writer.
* READINGS IN POETRY; a Selection from the Works of the best English Poets, from Spenser to the present times; with Specimens of the American Poets; Notices of the Writers; and Explanatory Notes. 4s. 6d.
* READINGS IN POETRY; a Collection of Works from the top English Poets, from Spenser to today; including Samples of American Poets; Information about the Writers; and Explanatory Notes. 4s. 6d.
A MANUAL of Poetry, comprising the gems of the standard English Poets. Care has been taken to select such pieces and passages as best illustrate the style of the respective Authors; and it is scarcely necessary to add, that scrupulous attention has been paid to the moral character of the extracts.
A MANUAL of Poetry, featuring the best works of the classic English poets. Care has been taken to choose pieces and passages that best showcase the style of each author; and it’s hardly necessary to mention that careful attention has been given to the moral quality of the selections.
UNIVERSAL MYTHOLOGY; an Account of the most important Mythological Systems, their Origin and Connexion. By the Rev HENRY CHRISTMAS, St. John's Coll., Camb. 7s.
UNIVERSAL MYTHOLOGY; an Overview of the most significant Mythological Systems, their Origins and Connections. By Rev. HENRY CHRISTMAS, St. John's College, Cambridge. 7s.
The Mythology of Greece and Rome has hitherto been studied almost exclusively, though neither the most important, nor the most interesting. The systems of the East and of the North, of Egypt and of China, would have illustrated the Greek and Roman fables, have cleared up their difficulties, and explained their allegories. * * * * This object has been attempted in the present work.
The mythology of Greece and Rome has mostly been studied on its own, even though it isn't the most important or the most interesting. The systems from the East and the North, as well as those of Egypt and China, could have shed light on Greek and Roman myths, clarified their challenges, and explained their allegories. * * * * This goal has been pursued in the current work.
THE CAMBRIDGE PORTFOLIO; a Periodical Work comprising Papers illustrative of the principal features in the Scholastic and Social System of the University; Notices of the most Eminent Characters it has produced; Gleanings from the Manuscripts in the several Libraries; and Contributions in Original Literature by contemporary Members. It also contains descriptive accounts of the principal Buildings in Cambridge, their origin, history, and purposes, accompanied by numerous Etchings, executed by LEWIS, INCE, G. COOKE, and other eminent Artists. In Parts, at 5s. each.
THE CAMBRIDGE PORTFOLIO; a Periodical Work featuring Articles that highlight the main aspects of the Scholastic and Social System of the University; Profiles of the most Notable Individuals it has produced; Insights from the Manuscripts in various Libraries; and Original Contributions from contemporary Members. It also includes detailed accounts of the main Buildings in Cambridge, their origins, histories, and functions, along with numerous Etchings created by LEWIS, INCE, G. COOKE, and other renowned Artists. Available in Parts, at 5s. each.
DISSERTATIONS ON THE EUMENIDES OF AESCHYLUS, with the Greek Text, and Critical Remarks. From the German of MULLER. 9s. 6d.
DISSERTATIONS ON THE EUMENIDES OF AESCHYLUS, with the Greek Text, and Critical Remarks. From the German of MULLER. 9s. 6d.
THE FROGS OF ARISTOPHANES, with ENGLISH NOTES, for the Use of Schools and Students. By the Rev. H. P. COOKESLEY. 7s.
THE FROGS OF ARISTOPHANES, with ENGLISH NOTES, for the Use of Schools and Students. By Rev. H. P. COOKESLEY. 7s.
THE AULULARIA of PLAUTUS, with Notes by JAMES HILDYARD, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 7s. 6d.
THE AULULARIA of PLAUTUS, with Notes by JAMES HILDYARD, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 7s. 6d.
SCHLEIERMACHER'S INTRODUCTIONS TO THE DIALOGUES of PLATO; translated from the German, by WILLIAM DOBSON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 12s. 6d.
SCHLEIERMACHER'S INTRODUCTIONS TO THE DIALOGUES of PLATO; translated from the German by WILLIAM DOBSON, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 12s. 6d.
ADRIAN, a TALE of ITALY, in Three Cantos; with the STAR OF DESTINY, and other Poems. By HENRY COOK, Esc. 7s. 6d.
ADRIAN, a STORY of ITALY, in Three Parts; with the STAR OF DESTINY, and other Poems. By HENRY COOK, Esq. 7s. 6d.
THE BRITISH MONTHS, a Poem, in Twelve Parts. By RICHARD MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. 2 Vols., 9s.
THE BRITISH MONTHS, a Poem, in Twelve Parts. By RICHARD MANT, D.D., Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. 2 Vols., 9s.
THE STORY of CONSTANTINE; a Poem. By the Rev. THOMAS E. HANKINSON, M.A., of Corpus Christi, Cambridge. 1s. 6d. Also by the same Author, the following SEATONIAN PRIZE POEMS:
THE STORY of CONSTANTINE; a Poem. By the Rev. THOMAS E. HANKINSON, M.A., of Corpus Christi, Cambridge. 1s. 6d. Also by the same Author, the following SEATONIAN PRIZE POEMS:
ETHIOPIA STRETCHING FORTH HER HAND. 1s. 6d. JACOB, 1s. ISHMAEL, 1s. PAUL AT PHILIPPI, 2s.
ETHIOPIA REACHING OUT HER HAND. 1s. 6d. JACOB, 1s. ISHMAEL, 1s. PAUL IN PHILIPPI, 2s.
THE SATIRES and EPISTLES of HORACE, interpreted by DAVID HUNTER, Esq., M.A. 4s. 6d.
THE SATIRES and EPISTLES of HORACE, interpreted by DAVID HUNTER, Esq., M.A. £4.50.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIVING; by HERBERT MAYO, F.R.S., Senior Surgeon of the Middlesex Hospital. 8s. 6d.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF LIVING; by HERBERT MAYO, F.R.S., Senior Surgeon of the Middlesex Hospital. £8.60.
SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS.
CONTENT SUMMARY.
DIVERSITIES OF CONSTITUTION; Temperament; Habit; Diathesis.
DIVERSITIES OF CONSTITUTION; Temperament; Habit; Diathesis.
OF DIGESTION: Adaptation of Diet to different Constitutions and Ages; on the Social Relations of Food.
OF DIGESTION: Adapting Diet to Different Body Types and Ages; on the Social Aspects of Food.
Of EXERCISE: Exercise of Boys; on the Physical Education of Girls; Spinal Curvature; Exercise proper for Adults; for the Aged.
Of EXERCISE: Exercise for Boys; on the Physical Education of Girls; Spinal Curvature; Exercise suitable for Adults; for Seniors.
Of SLEEP.
Of Sleep.
Of BATHING.
Of bathing.
Of CLOTHING.
Of clothing.
Of AIR and CLIMATE.
Of Air and Climate.
HEALTH of MIND; Self-Control; Mental Culture.
HEALTH of MIND; Self-Control; Mental Culture.
MANAGEMENT of the ORGANS of DIGESTION in HEALTH and DISEASE, by the Author of the preceding work. 6s. 6d.
MANAGEMENT of the ORGANS of DIGESTION in HEALTH and DISEASE, by the Author of the preceding work. £6.50.
CONTENTS.—Rules of Diet for different Constitutions.—Treatment of the various kinds of Indigestion; of Looseness;—of Costiveness.—Local Diseases of the Lower Bowel, and their Treatment.
CONTENTS.—Diet Rules for Different Body Types.—Treatment for Various Types of Indigestion; Diarrhea;—Constipation.—Local Diseases of the Lower Bowel and Their Treatment.
THE FAMILY HAND-BOOK, or PRACTICAL INFORMATION in DOMESTIC ECONOMY; including Cookery, Household Management, and all other Subjects connected with the Health, Comfort, and Expenditure of a Family. With Choice Receipts and Valuable Hints. 5s.
THE FAMILY HAND-BOOK, or PRACTICAL INFORMATION in DOMESTIC ECONOMY; including Cooking, Home Management, and all other Topics related to the Health, Comfort, and Expenses of a Family. With Selected Recipes and Useful Tips. 5s.
THE YOUNG LADY'S FRIEND; a MANUAL of PRACTICAL ADVICE and INSTRUCTION to Young Females on their entering upon the Duties of Life after quitting School. By a LADY. 3s. 6d.
THE YOUNG LADY'S FRIEND; a MANUAL of PRACTICAL ADVICE and INSTRUCTION for Young Women as they begin the Responsibilities of Life after leaving School. By a LADY. 3s. 6d.
A DAILY PRAYER BOOK, for FAMILIES and SCHOOLS; arranged from the Services of the United Church of England and Ireland, after the Form and Order of Morning and Evening Prayer. By J.T. BARRETT, D.D., Rector of Attleborough, Norfolk. 1s. 6d.
A DAILY PRAYER BOOK for FAMILIES and SCHOOLS; organized from the Services of the United Church of England and Ireland, following the structure of Morning and Evening Prayer. By J.T. BARRETT, D.D., Rector of Attleborough, Norfolk. 1s. 6d.
A MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; comprising Three Weekly Courses of Morning and Evening Devotion. With Collects for the Feasts and Fasts. By the Rev. A. HORSFALL, M.A. 2s.
A MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; including Three Weekly Courses of Morning and Evening Devotion. With Collects for the Feasts and Fasts. By Rev. A. HORSFALL, M.A. 2s.
THE BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER, for Members of the United Church of England and Ireland. By JOHN A. BOLSTER, M.A., Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Cork and Cloyne. 2s.
THE BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER, for Members of the United Church of England and Ireland. By JOHN A. BOLSTER, M.A., Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Cork and Cloyne. 2s.
SACRED MINSTRELSY; a COLLECTION of the FINEST SACRED MUSIC, by the best Masters, arranged as Solos, Duets, Trios, &c., and Choruses; and with accompaniments for the Piano-Forte or Organ. Two Handsome Folio Volumes, price 2l. 2s. Half-bound, or in Nos. I. to XXIV., at 1s. 6d.
SACRED MINSTRELSY; a COLLECTION of the BEST SACRED MUSIC, by the top Masters, arranged as Solos, Duets, Trios, etc., and Choruses; with accompaniments for Piano or Organ. Two Beautiful Folio Volumes, priced at £2.20. Half-bound, or available in Parts I to XXIV, at £1.50 each.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of the EUCHARIST.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING on the EUCHARIST.
The Scriptural Argument considered. By THOMAS TUBTON, D.D., Regius Prof. of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough.
The Scriptural Argument considered. By THOMAS TUBTON, D.D., Regius Prof. of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough.
A LIFE of ARISTOTLE, including a Critical Discussion of some Questions of Literary History connected with his Works. By J. W. BLAKESLEY, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Octavo. 8s. 6d.
A LIFE of ARISTOTLE, including a Critical Discussion of some Questions of Literary History connected with his Works. By J. W. BLAKESLEY, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Octavo. £8.60.
TRADITION UNVEILED: a candid Inquiry into the Tendency of the Doctrines advocated in the Oxford Tracts. By the Rev. BADEN POWELL, M.A., F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford. 3s.
TRADITION UNVEILED: an open exploration of the tendencies in the doctrines promoted in the Oxford Tracts. By Rev. BADEN POWELL, M.A., F.R.S., Savilian Professor of Geometry at the University of Oxford. 3s.
The CONNEXION of NATURAL and DIVINE TRUTH; or, the Principles of the Inductive Philosophy considered as subservient to Theology. By the Rev. BADEN POWELL, M.A., F.R.S., of Oriel College, Savilian Professor of Geometry in the University of Oxford. 9s.
The CONNECTION of NATURAL and DIVINE TRUTH; or, the Principles of Inductive Philosophy viewed as supportive of Theology. By the Rev. BADEN POWELL, M.A., F.R.S., of Oriel College, Savilian Professor of Geometry at the University of Oxford. 9s.
NATURAL THEOLOGY considered chiefly with reference to LORD BROUGHAM'S DISCOURSE on that subject. By the Very Rev. T. TURTON, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough. 8s.
NATURAL THEOLOGY mainly focused on LORD BROUGHAM'S DISCOURSE about the topic. Written by the Very Rev. T. TURTON, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough. 8s.
CUDWORTH ON FREEWILL; Edited from the Original MS., and with Notes, by JOHN ALLEN, M.A., Chaplain of King's Coll., London. 3s.
CUDWORTH ON FREEWILL; Edited from the Original Manuscript, and with Notes, by JOHN ALLEN, M.A., Chaplain of King's College, London. 3s.
ORIGINAL FAMILY SERMONS: by ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COTEMPORARY DIVINES OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. Five Volumes, at 6s. 6d, each.
ORIGINAL FAMILY SERMONS: by ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY CONTEMPORARY DIVINES OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. Five Volumes, at £6.50 each.
THE BOOK OF THE FATHERS; Lives of celebrated Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Spirit of their Writings. 9s. 6d.
THE BOOK OF THE FATHERS; Lives of renowned Fathers of the Christian Church, and the Essence of their Writings. £9.50.
It is from the writings of those men, affectionately and justly styled the "Fathers of the Church," that treasures of thought, of morality, of doctrine, and of historical facts, have been drawn by succeeding ages. * * * * There are various causes why the works, and even, the names, of the Early Fathers, are almost unknown to many Christians. * * * * To Protestant readers, one great cause, perhaps the most powerful of all, exists, and that is, the corruptions introduced into the Roman Catholic Church, in later ages, on the pretended basis of their authority; the legends and miracles interpolated with the narratives of their lives and deaths, and the perversion or exaggeration of their opinions.
It is from the writings of those men, affectionately and rightly called the "Fathers of the Church," that later generations have drawn invaluable insights, morals, doctrines, and historical facts. * * * * There are several reasons why the works, and even the names, of the Early Fathers are nearly unknown to many Christians. * * * * For Protestant readers, one significant reason, perhaps the most compelling of all, is the distortions introduced into the Roman Catholic Church in later years, supposedly based on their authority; the legends and miracles added to the stories of their lives and deaths, and the misrepresentation or exaggeration of their views.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
FROM THE PRESS OF JOHN W. PARKER.
THE EDUCATIONAL ECONOMY of ENGLAND. By the
THE EDUCATIONAL ECONOMY of ENGLAND. By the
*Rev. JAMES SEESGOLC BOGNE, minister of St. John's, Faddington. 3s. 6d.
*Rev. JAMES SEESGOLC BOGNE, minister of St. John's, Faddington. £3.30.*
CONSIDERATIONS on PHRENOLOGY in connexion with an Intellectual, Moral, and Religious Education. By the Rev. J.S. HODGSON, M.A. 5s. 6d.
CONSIDERATIONS on PHRENOLOGY in connection with an Intellectual, Moral, and Religious Education. By the Rev. J.S. HODGSON, M.A. 5s. 6d.
PRINCIPLES OF ENGLISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
ENGLISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION PRINCIPLES.
By the Rev, PROFESSOR WHEWELL, F.R.S. 5s.
By Rev. Professor Whewell, F.R.S. £5.
A DISCOURSE on the STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY of CAMBBIDGE. By the Rev. PROFESSOR SEDGWICK. 4s.
A DISCUSSION on the STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE. By Rev. PROFESSOR SEDGWICK. 4s.
The STUDY of MATHEMATICS conducive to the Developement of the Intellectual Powers. By the Rev, PROFESSOR CHEVAELIER. 1s. 6d.
The STUDY of MATHEMATICS that enhances Intellectual Abilities. By Rev. PROFESSOR CHEVAELIER. 1s. 6d.
* EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN; the Mother's Book, adapted to the use of Parents and Teachers. 2s. 6d.
* EDUCATION AND TREATMENT OF CHILDREN; the Mother's Book, designed for Parents and Teachers. 2s. 6d.
NATIONAL EDUCATION, and the MEANS of IMPROVING IT. By the Rev. T.V. SHORT, D.D. 1s.
NATIONAL EDUCATION, and the WAYS to ENHANCE IT. By the Rev. T.V. SHORT, D.D. 1s.
***The Works marked by a Star, in the whole of the Publisher's Lists, are produced under the Direction of the General Literature and Education Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
***The Works marked with a Star, in the complete Publisher's Lists, are created under the oversight of the General Literature and Education Committee of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
SELECT BOOKS FOR CHILDREN.
Choose books for kids.
FAMILIAR LECTURES on the LORD'S PRAYER, By a LADY. 1s.
FAMILIAR LECTURES on the LORD'S PRAYER, By a LADY. £1.
BABY BALLADS and NURSERY HYMNS. By a LADY. 1s.
BABY BALLADS and NURSERY HYMNS. By a LADY. 1s.
PRETTY LESSONS for GOOD CHILDREN; with, some Easy Lessons in Latin. By SARA COLERIDGE. 2s.
PRETTY LESSONS for GOOD CHILDREN; with some Easy Lessons in Latin. By SARA COLERIDGE. 2s.
EASY POETRY for CHILDREN; selected by a Lady. 1s. 6d.
EASY POETRY for KIDS; curated by a Lady. £1.50.
EASY GRAMMAR for CHILDREN. By a Lady. 9d.
EASY GRAMMAR for KIDS. By a Lady. 9d.
SIMPLE TALES for CHILDREN. With many Cuts. 1s.
SIMPLE STORIES for KIDS. With many Illustrations. $1.
THE CHILD'S VERSE BOOK of DEVOTION. 1s.
THE CHILD'S VERSE BOOK of DEVOTION. £1.
THE CHILD'S GUIDE TO GOOD BREEDING, founded on Christian Principles, By Mrs. MARSHALL. 2s. 6d.
THE CHILD'S GUIDE TO GOOD BEHAVIOR, based on Christian Principles, By Mrs. MARSHALL. £2.50.
THE FIRST LIE. By the same. 6d.
THE FIRST LIE. By the same. 6d.
THE FIRST THEFT. By the same. 6d.
THE FIRST THEFT. By the same. 6d.
ANNETTE MOWBRAY; or, Conversations with Mama. By the same. 3s.
ANNETTE MOWBRAY; or, Chats with Mom. By the same. 3s.
THE STOLEN CHILD; a Tale, By CHARLOTTE ADAMS. 1s, 6d.
THE STOLEN CHILD; a Tale, By CHARLOTTE ADAMS. £1.50.
THE DEAF and DUMB BOY; a Tale. By the Rev. W. FLETCHER. With Cuts. 2s. 6d.
THE DEAF and DUMB BOY; a Story. By Rev. W. FLETCHER. With Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
* INSECTS and their HABITATION. With Cuts. 1s.
* INSECTS and their HABITATION. With Illustrations. £1.00.
APPROVED BOOKS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
Recommended Books for Teens.
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS considered with reference to Civilization and the Arts. With Engravings. By MARY ROBERTS. 3s. 6d.
DOMESTICATED ANIMALS looked at in relation to Civilization and the Arts. With Illustrations. By MARY ROBERTS. 3s. 6d.
WILD ANIMALS; their Nature, Habits, and Instincts; and the Regions they inhabit. With Engravings. By the same. 3s. 6d.
WILD ANIMALS: Their Nature, Habits, and Instincts, and the Areas They Live In. With Illustrations. By the Same. 3sh. 6d.
The BOOK of TREES; describing the principal Timber Trees, and the larger species of Palms. With numerous Engravings. 2s.
The BOOK of TREES; detailing the main types of Timber Trees and the larger species of Palms. Includes many illustrations. 2s.
A BOOK of ANIMALS.
A Book of Animals.
A BOOK of BIRDS.
A Book of Birds.
A BOOK of FISHES.
**A BOOK of FISHES.**
A BOOK of REPTILES.
A Book of Reptiles.
A BOOK of SHELLS.
A Book of Shells.
1s. 6d. each.
1s. 6d. each.
In this series of popular books the nature, habits, and uses of the various objects described, are presented in a correct, though simple and attractive form, but no recourse is had to the marvellous. The whole are profusely illustrated with Engravings.
In this series of popular books, the nature, habits, and uses of the different objects described are presented accurately, yet in a straightforward and appealing way, without relying on the extraordinary. The entire collection is filled with illustrations.
CONVERSATIONS on GARDENING and NATURAL HISTORY. With Engravings. 2s. 6d.
CONVERSATIONS on GARDENING and NATURAL HISTORY. With Illustrations. £2.50
SISTER MARY'S TALES in NATURAL HISTORY. With Cuts. 2s. 6d.
SISTER MARY'S TALES in NATURAL HISTORY. With Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
CAPTAIN COOK; his VOYAGES and DISCOVERIES: with, an Account of Pitcairn's Island, and the Mutiny of the Bounty With Engravings. 2s. 6d.
CAPTAIN COOK; his VOYAGES and DISCOVERIES: including an Account of Pitcairn's Island and the Mutiny of the Bounty With Illustrations. 2s. 6d.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS; his LIFE, VOYAGES, and DISCOVERY of the NEW WORLD. With Engravings. 2s. 6d.
CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS; his LIFE, VOYAGES, and DISCOVERY of the NEW WORLD. With Images. 2s. 6d.
MUNGO PARK; his LIFE and TRAVELS: with an Account of his Death from the JOURNAL of ISAACO; the substance of later Discoveries relative to his lamented Fate, and the Termination of the Niger. With engravings. 2s. 6d.
MUNGO PARK; his LIFE and TRAVELS: along with a report of his death from the JOURNAL of ISAACO; the details of recent discoveries related to his tragic fate, and the conclusion of the Niger. With illustrations. 2s. 6d.
FIRST SUNDAYS AT CHURCH; or, Familiar Conversations on the Morning and Evening Services. By the Rev. J.E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of Luther and his Times. 2s. 6d.
FIRST SUNDAYS AT CHURCH; or, Familiar Conversations on the Morning and Evening Services. By Rev. J.E. RIDDLE, M.A., Author of Luther and his Times. 2s. 6d.
ABBOTT'S READER; a Series of Familiar Pieces in Prose and Verse. By the Authors of The Young Christian; The Corner Stone; The Teacher; &c. 3s.
ABBOTT'S READER; a Collection of Familiar Works in Prose and Verse. By the Authors of The Young Christian; The Corner Stone; The Teacher; & others. 3s.
*CONVERSATIONS of a FATHER with his CHILDREN. Two Vols., with Engravings. 5s. 6d.
*CONVERSATIONS of a FATHER with his CHILDREN. Two Volumes, with Illustrations. £5. 6d.
PETER PARLEY'S UNIVERSAL HISTORY for the YOUNG, on the BASIS of GEOGRAPHY. 7s. 6d.
PETER PARLEY'S UNIVERSAL HISTORY for the YOUNG, based on GEOGRAPHY. 7shillings. 6pence.
FABLES and MORAL MAXIMS. Selected by ANNE PARKER. 3s. 6d.
FABLES and MORAL MAXIMS. Selected by ANNE PARKER. £3.6.
POPULAR POEMS for YOUNG PERSONS. Selected by ELIZABETH PARKER. 3s. 6d.
POPULAR POEMS for YOUNG PEOPLE. Selected by ELIZABETH PARKER. 3£ 6p.
TALES and STORIES from HISTORY. By AGNES STRICKLAND. Two Vols., with many Engravings, 7s.
TALES and STORIES from HISTORY. By AGNES STRICKLAND. Two Vols., with many Illustrations, 7s.
*SCENES and SKETCHES from ENGLISH HISTORY. With Cuts. 3s. 6d.
*SCENES and SKETCHES from ENGLISH HISTORY. With Illustrations. 3s. 6d.
SANDFORD and MERTON; adapted to the use of Young Persons of the present day. By Miss ZORNLIN. With many Cuts. 3s. 6d.
SANDFORD and MERTON; adapted for today's young readers. By Miss ZORNLIN. With many illustrations. 3s. 6d.
SCHEMING: A TALE. By Mrs. GODWIN. 2s.
SCHEMING: A STORY. By Mrs. GODWIN. 2s.
THE CHILD of the ATLANTIC: a Tale. By CHARLOTTE ADAMS, Author of The Stolen Child. 2s. 6d.
THE CHILD of the ATLANTIC: a Tale. By CHARLOTTE ADAMS, Author of The Stolen Child. 2s. 6d.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL; or, Lindenhurst Parish: a Tale. By Miss ZORNLIN. 2s. 6d.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL; or, Lindenhurst Parish: a Story. By Miss ZORNLIN. 2s. 6d.
FIVE HUNDRED CHARADES, from History, Geography, and Biography. 1s. 6d.
FIVE HUNDRED CHARADES, from History, Geography, and Biography. £1.6d.
*PERSIAN STORIES; illustrative of Eastern Manners and Customs, 1s.
*PERSIAN STORIES; illustrating Eastern customs and ways of life, 1s.
*PERSIAN FABLES, for Young and Old. By the Rev. H.G. KEENE. 1s.
*PERSIAN FABLES, for Young and Old. By Rev. H.G. KEENE. 1s.
By Mrs. GODWIN.
By Mrs. Godwin.
COUSIN KATE; or, the Punishment of Pride: a Tale.
COUSIN KATE; or, the Consequences of Pride: a Story.
BASIL HARLOW; or, Prodigality is not Generosity.
BASIL HARLOW; or, Being wasteful isn't the same as being generous.
ESTHER MORE, or, Truth is Wisdom.
ESTHER MORE, or, Truth is Wisdom.
LOUISA SEYMOUR; or, Hasty Impressions.
LOUISA SEYMOUR; or, Quick Thoughts.
ALICIA GREY; or, To be Useful is to be Happy.
ALICIA GREY; or, Being Useful Equals Being Happy.
JOSEPHINE; or, Early Trials.
JOSEPHINE; or, Early Challenges.
2s. each, bound in cloth.
2s. each, cloth-bound.
LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER, Publisher, WEST STRAND.
LONDON: JOHN W. PARKER, Publisher, WEST STRAND.
1839 By THOMAS CLARKSON, M.A..
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!