to their fate those, who are already in bondage?" Indeed, I do not see how this argument can possibly apply, except I were to conceive, that the right honourable gentleman was arguing for the emancipation. I think it is not necessary to employ more than one argument with respect to the character of the House, "Did you not, four years ago, pledge yourselves at this time, to abolish the detestable traffic in human flesh?" The honourable baronet says, that the House then acted from the opinion expressed in the numerous petitions, which were received from different parts of the country. What, then, would you have it go abroad, that the House supposed it right to act from the opinion of the public, in order to ensure a little popularity, and promote their petty interests at elections, and the moment that the pressure of that opinion is withdrawn, conceive themselves to be justified in renouncing the pledge which they had solemnly adopted? And, what is the period at which you choose to hold up the House in this light? after the passing of the two bills ' which have thrown difficulties in the way of expressing the public opinion. Is it at such a period you think proper to hold out that you are so much inclined to favour the cause of slavery, in opposition to truth, justice, and humanity, that though you formerly truckled to popular opinion, you now come forward in your genuine colours, and, in violation of the most solemn and deliberate pledge, announce yourselves the advocates and supporters of slavery? If any thing can add to the flagrancy of the case, it is the conduct which has been adopted by the House of Lords since this question came before them. I suppose that it is not regular, in this place, to arraign the conduct of the House of Lords, and therefore I will not arraign it. But there is one ground suggested by the right honourable gentleman, on which I can, consistently with order, advert to their conduct. The right honourable gentleman said, that the House of Lords had as much right to their opinion, as this House has to theirs. Now let me state a case. If, after a long and laborious investigation, on a point deeply affecting the honour of the national character, and the general interests of humanity, their lordships had communicated to us the result of their deliberations, involving an issue of the most pressing urgency, and of the greatest practical importance, and had called upon us for our decision; and if we, after four years, had come to no resolution, and taken no notice of such communication, I have no hesitation to say, that in such a case we should have betrayed our trust, and have had no right to sit as a branch of the legislature. What chiefly appears extraordinary is, that the Lords should take no step at all in the business; that they should flinch from the proceeding, and abandon it, as it were, to silent contempt. Undoubtedly, every branch of the legislature has a right to expect from the others, either agreement or dissent to any measure, which it may choose to bring forward. And it is well known, that if this House takes the business to the House of Peers, as it ought, it never will experience such mortifying neglect, or such contemptuous silence. The right honourable gentleman will not deny that if a majority of this House cordially concur as to the principle of the abolition, and agree as to the necessity of carrying it into effect with the smallest delay, the House of Lords will also concur in the propriety of taking some immediate steps for the purpose. But if the House of Commons never are in earnest in the business, it is in vain that they carry their resolution to the House of Lords. That House will see through the pretext, they will second the policy, and will suppose, that by such neglect and delay, which amount, in fact, to rejection, they better comply with the wishes of the House of Commons, as to the real state of the question, than by giving it the most cordial reception, and the most diligent attention. It is necessary for the honour of the House, that this reproach should not attach. In order to vindicate the dignity of their character, and the consistency of their proceedings, it is incumbent upon them to shew, by adopting the motion of the honourable gentleman, that if the resolution which they some years since passed for the abolition of the slave trade be rejected, it is the fault, not of the Commons, but of some other part of the legislature. But it has been said, that if you abolish the trade, other powers will take it up. This is an argument which cannot at all affect the line of conduct which we are bound to pursue. The question is, whether you have not the power of completely abolishing it in your own colonies? Unquestionably you have, notwithstanding what has been urged, that they will still continue to be supplied from other powers. You may certainly as easily put a stop to any contraband trade of this sort, as to the trade which was formerly carried on of importing provisions from America. There is no vigour of means, or language of authority, which you ought not to employ for that object. This country ought to threaten with independence every colony which, after the interdiction of the legislature, should still persevere to carry on this infamous traffic. But it is farther said, that even if the trade were abolished by us, the interests of humanity would not be benefited, and that it would be carried on with circumstances of still greater cruelty and oppression. Upon the same principle might we justify every crime. It might be alleged," that. crimes must be committed in society, and that therefore we will anticipate the criminal purpose, in order to prevent its being perpetrated with more wanton outrage, or determined ferocity By this reasoning the robber might defend his occupation of plunder; he might say, "It is an advantage to myself, and I exercise it with less injury to others, than more hardened or savage offenders." The same argument might be brought to extenuate the crime of murder; it might be alleged, that it was less reprehensible, because it was accompanied with fewer circumstances of excrutiating torture, or persevering malice. The right honourable gentleman treated as a figure of rhetoric, the expression, "to drive the shame of this iniquitous traffic from ourselves." A figure of rhetoric! Good God! can any appeal be more forcible and impressive, more directly practicable, more powerfully urgent? Is it nothing to drive from ourselves the shame of such a traffic, at a period, too, when great revolutions have seemed, in future, to demand a more intimate connection between politics and morals; when nations affect to hold out the principles of eternal justice, as the basis of their conduct, and to establish a character for something better than the artifices of intrigue, or the resources of their power? Is it nothing to wipe away the guilt and the stain of a traffic which the right honourable gentleman has himself admitted to be inconsistent with humanity and justice? If the House of Commons still mean to persevere in the trade, for Heaven's sake let them, at least, act fairly and manfully. Let them not use a timid caution, or skulk behind the shameful negligence of others. Let them boldly and openly declare, that after they have confessed the trade to be cruel and unjust, they still mean to carry it on to an unlimited extent. But the right honourable gentleman has alleged as a reason why we ought to give some quarter to this trade, the respect which we owe to our forefathers. We ought not, forsooth, to load their memories with all that accumulation of guilt which is charged upon this traffic, or to brand with such harsh epithets a practice which they encouraged by their example. Reverence for their characters, and regard to their manes ought to sink the consideration of injustice, and extenuate the horror of cruelty. The tendency of mankind to degeneracy has been a common topic of declamation among moralists and poets. If the complaint be well founded, we ought at least, by getting rid as much as possible of the vices of our ancestors, to endeavour to compensate for the particulars in which we fall short of their virtues. But if antiquity shall be found to sanctify injustice, and reverence for former times to diminish the detestation of cruelty — if we shall conceive it to be a point of honour to throw a gloss over the crimes of our ancestors, while we are led from a sense of duty to their manes, to copy them in our own practice, then truly the prediction of the poet will be fulfilled – "Atas Parentum, pejor avis tulit It was amusing enough, however, to hear the right honourable gentleman talk of this pious veneration for the memories of our ancestors, this charitable covering for their failings, and deprecate all harshness of obloquy, and general terms of condemnation as applied to the slave trade, which he had himself previously admitted to be inconsistent with justice and humanity. After this admission, it might have been supposed that few epithets could have been added of more severe obloquy, or more general condemnation. The right honourable gentleman objected that the trade ought not to be abolished immediately, and instanced Grenada, which was by no means in a state ripe for the abolition, and would require for that purpose a period as long as had been granted from the date of the former resolution. That was a point which would come regularly to be discussed in the committee, and there, if it should be found expedient, the period of the abolition might be fixed for the year 1799. As to the plan of the right honourable gentleman to effect the abolition by calculations with respect to the ages of the negroes imported, I must remark, that those who think it impossible at once to abolish the trade, and yet conceive that the object may be effected by such regulations as these, strain at small difficulties, and swallow large ones. It has been stated, that it would be desirable for us to proceed with the concurrence of the gentlemen interested: experience, however, has shewn that we cannot hope to obtain it. We do not pretend to legislate for them on the point of emancipation, nor ought we, so far as relates to the abolition, to suffer them to legislate for us. The question is, whether the House, by its present decision, shall shew itself to have been hypocritical or honourable in its former declaration. It is even of more importance. It is whether the nation, after pretending to spend oceans of blood and millions of money, in the cause of religion, social order, and humanity, shall continue to carry on this shameful and unprincipled traffic, and by a conduct so inconsistent with its professions, so injurious to its honour, incur the charge of the vilest simulation, or the most hardened effrontery. It is surely a point of no small importance, whether, under these circumstances, the legislature shall permit, (and to permit is in some cases to enjoin,) the continuance of a trade, which, after a long and laborious investigation, they have pronounced to be inconsistent with humanity and justice. But the honourable baronet has discovered a new reason why we should not agree to the abolition. He has said, that we must look to an indemnity for the expence we have incurred in the prosecution of the present war. And where are we to look for it? In the West Indies. So that we shall want fresh cargoes of slaves, in order to cultivate our new territorial acquisitions, and so to render them productive as to constitute an adequate indemnity. Consequently, it turns out at last, that the reward of those crusaders in the cause of social order, justice, religion, and humanity, is to be an increased profit on the slave trade! I, for one, never can consent that the country should purchase an indemnity at such a price. Whether the motion shall succeed or not, I beg leave to express to the honourable mover my thanks for bringing it forward, and my confidence that he will never suffer the question to rest till it is finally decided. If we are influenced by any sense of duty to ourselves, by any honourable principle of action, we shall not suffer a session to pass over without bringing forward the subject for consideration. It is a subject which becomes peculiarly urgent from the situation of the West Indies. Whence arises our weakness in that quarter? Why are we so extremely vulnerable on every side? From the existence of that abominable slave trade; which is as miserably impolitic as it is odiously unjust. The motion is for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the slave trade at a time to be limited. In the committee I certainly shall vote for the earliest day that shall be proposed. It is now about eight or nine years since the subject was first brought forward, and if the House keep their word, they cannot avoid taking some decisive step. It was matter of joy to us, when we learned, that the slave trade was to be abolished in Denmark; but when afterwards we understood that the period of the abolition was not to take place till the year 1800, our satisfaction on the occasion was converted into contempt and ridicule. At present I see no probability that the century will put an end to this shame of Great Britain. I cannot submit to sanction this infamous traffic by mere regulations; there are some things so bad, that even to regulate them, is in some measure to participate in their criminality. Let us send the bill to the House of Lords; if it is there rejected, let us send it up session after session. Satisfied with the grounds on which we have brought the measure forward, let the perseverance of our exertions |