that I am not to be shaken by reasoning, but so intimately interwoven is my conviction, that I cannot easily be persuaded, that any reasoning can be found to induce me to alter it. There were many parts of the speech of the right hon. gentleman, which must be considered as highly fa vourable to the cause of those who are friends to the abolition. The whole of his argument is a complete answer to those advocates on the other side, who contend, that the question ought to be left at rest, that the discussion is highly improper, under the peculiar circumstances of the present time, and that it ought not at all to be agitated. I am happy to find that the right hon. gentleman and myself agree in our premises, however we may differ with respect to our conclusion. He admits that the trade is not only inconsistent with humanity and justice (and I should suppose, when I had got that I had not much to ask), but with policy and prudence in time of war. It appears, then, that we only differ as to the mode of abolition. bility and expediency of this measure he vindicated from a proposition made by the assembly of Jamaica to the British government, that it would allow them to lay a tax of 71. upon the importation of every negro above the age of thirty. This proposition was not acceded to by the government; but it showed the opinion of the assembly, both as to the practicability and propriety of the scheme. And if it was practicable to distinguish such as were under thirty, it would be much easier to distinguish those who were under twenty. Formerly, there was a great disproportion in the sexes of the slaves, because the planters had no other idea of keeping up the population than by importation; and, therefore, the population was certainly not now in a state, that promised an internal supply sufficient for the purposes of the plantations. These were the grounds upon which he should oppose this bill, which he did most earnestly and emphatically. He applauded his hon. friend's godlike endeavours to abolish the trade, and believed him to be actuated by the best of motives; but he hoped he would weigh these circumstances before he proceeded any farther. The world must decide upon the conduct of those who took different sides upon this great question. The principles of a man were not shown by having fine speeches in his mouth about humanity and justice; they were shown by his conduct. He trusted he had as much feeling as those who were perpetually talking about it; and he should treat an insinuation to the contrary with the contempt it deserved. He gave his opponents full credit for the goodness of their intentions, and trusted they would act with the same candour towards him. Mr. Fox rose and said:-As the right hon. gentleman seemed, in some part of his speech, particularly to allude to me, I am desirous to take this opportunity shortly to give my opinion on the subject of the debate. When, Sir, we consider his abilities, his opportunities of acquiring information, and the great attention which he has paid to the subject, we may flatter ourselves that we have now heard the whole force of the argument against us. When I say against us, I am aware that I do not use the most parliamentary way of speaking; but I must confess, that I have been so long engaged on one side of the question, that I have now formed a strong predetermined opinion. I do not affirm [VOL. XXXII. ] The right hon. gentleman states a powerful objection to our mode, if it be well founded; namely, that it is impracticable. Let us examine it, as contrasted with that mode of abolition which he has himself proposed, and see to which of the two this objection of impracticability may most justly be applied. First, the right hon. gentleman states that our mode cannot be carried into effect without the consent of the planters, which we can. not expect to have. I have no hesitation to state, that if to the accomplishment of the abolition of the slave trade, we attach, as a necessary condition, the consent of the planters, we do not see the question in a fair and manly light. What ground of hope have we, even from their professions, that they will ever be induced to give their consent to such a measure? And if we advert to what has been their conduct in every former instance, we cannot have the smallest prospect that such an event is ever likely to take place. On a former occasion, I trust I may make the allusion without any irregularity, [Mr. Fox here alluded to the line of argument adopted by Mr. Dundas, when he proposed his plan of gradual abolition], I remember great pains to have been taken to hold two different languages to the different parties in this question, to persuade the planters that if they did not accede to terms of gradual abolition an im[3 L] mediate abolition would be effected; and of little consequence, let them go;" he the enemies of the trade, that if they did merely answered a speculation that the not accept of their object upon the same consequence of the abolition of the slave terms, there would be no abolition at all. trade would be the loss of our West India This attempt to persuade both parties com- possessions; a speculation which, by-thepletely failed. It did not succeed with by, is very uncertain. To the assertion me, because I was persuaded that the on the one side, he only opposed an asserabolition might be effected in a different tion of his own, that even if the speculation manner; and I have not understood that of the loss of those islands should be true, it has gained one proselyte among the we should be as well without them: and West Indians. The right hon. gentleman then came in the case of America. On says, that whatever laws may be passed that subject, I confess that I hold a differthe traffic in slaves will not be extirpated, ent opinion. I consider the loss of Ameand that the whole of the navy of England rica as a grievous misfortune to the cannot prevent illicit intercourse. I am British empire. I always should be fully aware of the truth of this position, inclined to coincide with those prudent and of the inefficacy of laws to suppress men, who are not disposed to risk any any commerce which holds out the tempt-great stake on the chance of speculation; ing prospect of high profit; but this and if even, in the contest between Great refutes the reasoning of those who con- Britain and her colonies, I had been of demned the severity of penalties imposed the opinion of the Dean of Gloucester, by the present bill; as it is evident that that the independence of America was the rigour of the penalty ought to be in desirable, I should not have ventured to proportion to the difficulty of suppressing have acted on that opinion. But in this the offence. In this respect, therefore, case, if the West India planters should the right hon. gentleman made the fullest present the alternative, "either we will defence of those penalties, which have separate from Great Britain, or continue been so much reprobated. On the penal- the slave trade," I should have no hesities themselves he did not dwell much; tation. I would say, " Separate, go to in fact, he did not seem to take them at America, or if you think proper, go to all into his consideration. When he France." When I threaten them thus, I asked, "Will it not be practicable to mean to convey, that the separation would smuggle, notwithstanding the operation of be infinitely more inconvenient to them the law ?" ought not another question than to Great Britain, and that they are to have suggested itself, "Is it not also but little prepared for such a step. possible that those concerned in smuggling may be detected?" May it not be expected, that the law will at least have some effect in securing the object in view; that in some instances the vigilance of its operation will arrest the criminal; and that in others the contemplation of its penalties will prvent the offence? But another objection is, that these laws cannot be executed without the co-operation of the West Indians themselves. Are there not already laws in force, prohibiting any intercourse between the West Indians and North America, for the purpose of procuring provisions? Has there been found any deficiency with respect to the observance of those laws? And yet provisions may be purchased more easily than slaves. Allusions have been made to an expression brought forward by me on a former evening, and repeated this night by an hon. friend of mine. From the construction put upon that expression, I conceive that it has been misunderstood. My hon. friend did not say, "the West Indies are The right hon. gentleman entered into a detail of the amount of the importations, but was afterwards obliged to admit, that not much stress was to be laid on a calculation of that sort. He entered also into a speculation with respect to the rivalship of America in point of manufactures. The probability of what this country may suffer from such a rivalship, I consider to be very remote. The extent of land to be cultivated in America, compared even with the increasing rate of population, must retard such an event for a great number of years. But when I venture to put the case of the loss of the West Indies, I talk so from a certainty that there is no danger of such a separation, and from a firm conviction that it cannot be the result of the present bill. As to the point of right, I affirm that, from the nature of the connexion, no right can be more unquestionable than for the legislature of Great Britain to interfere in regulating the external commerce of her colonies. The right hon. gentleman says, that if you cut them off from one branch of trade, particular purposes, I certainly shall reyou become yourselves bound to supply gret its operation, and sincerely wish that the deficiency. In point of fact, the argu- any other mode of disposing of them ment is not founded, for you have already could be suggested. It is urged against interdicted them from many branches of us, "You say, that they are unjustly torn commerce, which you do not supply. But from their friends and their country: what is the extent of his argument, as why, then, do you not take the means applied to the present case? To say that to restore them?" If it were possible to you are bound to supply the West India secure this object, I should grudge no planters with slaves with your own hands expense with which it might be attended. and your own capital, till such a time as But one of the evils of this robbery is, those gentlemen are convinced that no that it leaves no means of restitution. fresh supplies are necessary, is to suppose Should we attempt again to convey these that you have formed something like the poor wretches to the coast of Africa, worst of all contracts. It is to suppose they might only be left to perish by fathat you have sold yourselves to the devil mine, or be exposed to a repetition of the to the end of time, and are engaged to do sufferings which we now deprecate; and his service, without the possibility of this circumstance in itself I can only conredemption. When the right hon. gen- sider as a fresh stigma which attaches to tleman talks of the danger to be appre- this abominable traffic, and a more conhended from slaves newly imported from vincing proof of its foul atrocity.-As to a country, where neither from religion, the practicability of the different plans, morality, nor philosophy, they have ac- so far as they are connected with the quired any laudable sentiment or good question of the co-operation of the colodisposition, where neither precept nor nies, if the plan of abolition can be carexample has concurred to form them to ried into effect with the consent and coamiable manners and habits of virtue, operation of the colonies, my plan is full what is the obvious inference? If there as easy and practicable as that of the right is one country in the world so peculiarly hon. gentleman; but if it must be enunfortunate, so totally depraved, is not forced without their consent, his plan is this wretched picture of our nature owing more difficult in execution, and less certo the existence of that abominable traffic, tain in its operation than mine. Evasion which thus tends to eradicate from the becomes easy, in proportion as distinction character any thing amiable, or even hu- is difficult. Would it be harder to puman? Can there exist any obligation to nish a man for importing negroes, or for be the conductors of such a trade? We only importing them above a certain age? cannot have made such a contract. If In the one case, the enactment is broad we have, it is one of those few contracts, and positive, and removes at once all which ought to be violated.-The right difficulty and deception; in the other, hon. gentleman, in taking notice of the the distinction is matter of intricacy and particular clauses of the bill, lamented doubt, and opens a wide door for impothat there should be one, enacting, that sition and subterfuge.-But is the right those slaves, who are already in the hon. gentleman authorized by the West islands should be taken from one island India planters to state their co-operation to another, and thus separated from the in the plan which he has proposed? Have connexions they may have formed. If they not constantly opposed the utmost he conceives the attachment which binds obstacles to every step which has been them to the place they have once inha- taken in this business? Did not the act bited to be so strong, with what sentiments to prevent the exportation of negroes to must he contemplate the separation which other islands meet with the opposition of they, in the first instance, experience those who are enemies to the abolition? from their native soil-that separation Their co-operation we cannot hope for, which breaks asunder all the bands of na- and never shall have.-Doubts have been ture, which tears them from every object attempted to be raised with whom the of sympathetic fondness, from every scene right rested to decide upon this question. of early endearment?-With respect to Unquestionably, the assembly of Jamaica the clause which enacts, that those ne- may decide upon matters of internal jurisgroes who shall be attempted to be brought diction, but it belongs to the parliament over for the purpose of illegal commerce, of Great Britain to regulate the concerns shall be sold, and the money applied to of external trade. It is not fit that the as sembly of Jamaica should take upon itself the province of the British legislature. Yet such is the scope of that reasoning, which goes to affirm, that this trade cannot be abolished without the consent of the colonies. With respect to the existence of a supposed engagement sanctioning the trade, and pledging the faith of parliament for its continuance, whenever parliament at any time thinks proper to encourage a trade, it by no means binds itself either to carry it on, or to compensate for its abolition. When I opposed the commercial treaty with France, on the ground that it would be prejudicial to our trade with Portugal, I never pushed the argument so far as to contend, that because by a former treaty, we had encouraged the trade with Portugal, we were indispensably bound to afford it the same countenance, and not to divert commerce into any other channel. But what have we done this session and the last? We have, on the ground of the scarcity of provisions, entirely stopped a great trade, the distillery trade. No proposition can be more evident, than that whenever any motive of policy requires a trade to be suppressed, the legislature is immediately authorized in employing measures to suppress it. But the suppression of this trade is called for not only by motives of policy, but of humanity; and by what is far superior to any considerations either of policy or humanity-the principles of justice. The right hon. gentleman admits, that without some regulations the trade not only cannot be carried on, consist ently with policy and prudence, but consistently with humanity and justice. When he admits this right of regulation, all question with respect to the right of interference is at an end. If we have a right to stop the importation of all slaves above twenty, why not stop the importation of all? The right hon. gentleman has taken notice of the unfounded calumnies circulated against the planters. Undoubtedly, a great body of evidence has been brought forward to prove, that many acts of cruelty have been perpetrated, under the sanction of this odious traffic. This, indeed, is no good reason why the planters, who partake of the characters of any mixed body of men, should be branded with one general stigma. It cannot, however, be denied, that wherever there is slavery, there will be abuse. If with respect to the West Indies, we judge of the national character from that which has always been considered as its best criterion, the national laws, we shall form no very favourable conclusion. What can be more detestable than the laws of Barbadoes? And if any thing can exceed the letter of the law of Barbadoes, it is the practice of Jamaica, as described by Mr. Bryan Edwards, a man justly entitled to every praise. I do not impute that spirit of cruelty to individuals; it is the inevitable consequence of slavery. This trade, it is said, has existed a hundred years. Slavery, it is to be lamented, is much older. We have had writers upon slavery among the ancients, and there we can trace the same effects, produced by this detestable practice, that we have occasion to witness in modern times. The authority of Aristotle has been quoted; and what does he say on the subject? "The Barbarians are slaves by nature, and made for the service of the Greeks." Finding the practice subsisting among his countrymen, this occurred to him as the most satisfactory mode of accounting for its origin; and in another place he says: "You must not introduce what is too improbable, even in fiction; therefore you must not represent a slave as a good man; for the character, though not impossible, is contrary to nature and to general experience." Nothing, indeed, can be more true than that all the virtues of man are allied to liberty in the generous soil of freedom they take deep root, and acquire full vigour and maturity; their vices foster on the dunghill of slavery, and shoot forth with nauseous luxuriance.-But the right hon. gentleman says, that even if we were to abandon the trade from a principle of justice, we should gain nothing on the score of humanity. I will not repeat the argument so often enforced, that we ought to abstain from crimes without any consideration of the consequences: but I will ask, if we abandon the trade at the present moment, who are likely to take it up? Will the French, will the Dutch, will the Americans embark in such an undertaking? If, from a principle of justice, this great country takes the lead in renouncing this abominable traffic; if America bears testimony to the same cause, and France, already pledged by her own declarations, perseveres in the course she has adopted, may not this powerful example be the most effectual step to a final abolition? I ask those who questioned your right to legislate for Jamaica, what right you have to legislate for Africa? what right Englishmen have to tear the unoffending inhabitants from their native soil, and to devote them as victims of their avarice and cruelty? what sort of law that is which sanctions the commission of injustice? what sort of morality that is which teaches us to commit crimes because they are countenanced by the example of others?-But if the plan of the right hon. gentleman is most exceptionable in point of practicability, how does it stand in point of humanity and justice? What must we think if Great Britain, giving up the general point of her right to carry on the trade, and openly avowing its injustice, should still continue to exercise that trade with respect to the weak and the helpless? Is it of consequence for a nation to be moral? What impression, then, must it give to other states, that Great Britain acknowledging the injustice of the trade, and henceforth renouncing all privilege to traffic in those who have arrived at manhood, reserves to herself the power of preying on helpless infancy and unoffending innocence? Can a government be respected or respectable, which places humanity and justice in one hand, and policy and gain in the other? And yet, this must be the case if you do not abolish the slave trade, and still more so if you adopt the plan of abolition proposed by the right hon. gentleman. Of all charges, that of precipitancy is the least applicable to the supporters of this bill. If the other branch of the legislature should still be found to differ from us in opinion on this subject, let it not be the fault of the House of Commons that a traffic is sanctioned, which every man admits to be contrary to humanity, policy, and justice. Mr. Rose said, that several provisions of the bill were of a nature which the House could not safely pass with any attention to the interests of the planters, or even with probable success to the object proposed. He was by no means an enemy to the abolition of the slave trade, which he thought could be effected without violence or personal injury, and even with the concurrence of the planters. To the time and mode in which it was proposed that this abolition should be accomplished, he could not but object. To the first provision of the bill, it was in his mind an insuperable objection, that it interfered with the subjects of other powers, by bringing them to trial in this country, if they were convicted of having violated this provision against shipping negroes from Africa. If a Dane or a Swede, for instance, chose to carry on this trade, his ship and cargo were by the provision subjected to confiscation, and he himself to the punishment of transportation, inflicted on him by an English jury, and an English judge. Would not a measure of this kind be an unjustifiable interference with the legislature of other powers, and expose us to difficulties, and even war with neutral nations? To the second provision, he also must object, inasmuch as it went to punish any British subject who should be convicted of carrying ne groes to foreign islands; its operation, in this respect, would, however, be found to be partial; no one could deny, that an inhabitant of Ireland was a British subject; yet he could not be affected by this provision, though he carried on the trade it was intended to abolish; thus Cork and Waterford might be made to rise on the ruins of Bristol and Liverpool. To other provisions of the bill he also objected, as they tended to vest a discretionary power in the hands of the governors of our islands which might be liable to great abuses: as they were enabled to bring home any number of witnesses in defence of their own conduct, while they might keep back those who would vindicate the conduct of him whom they accused. Positive acts of parliament in favour of the slave trade, which decidedly pronounced, that without this trade our colonies could not exist, were to be found in our statute books. He was therefore against its being abolished abruptly, violently, and unseasonably, and without giving a fair trial to other modes by which the same object might be accomplished with equal effect, and infinitely less danger. The breed of negroes might, he believed, be increased in our own islands to the numher necessary for their cultivation, he therefore suggested the propriety of proposing rewards for its encouragement. The promoters of the bill would defeat their own object, by the violence with which they wished to carry it into effect. Though a friend to the abolition, if the time and mode proposed involved no difficulty or danger, he must now oppose it, because the provisions of the bill seemed pregnant with both. Mr. Serjeant Adair admitted the force of some of the objections started by the last speaker, but when duly considered, |