And 6th, Because a prerogative in the executive power, to introduce any number without limit, of armed foreign hirelings into any country, without the previous and express consent of the legislature, is totally incompatible with any form of a free constitution. For, not only that government is tyrannical, which is actually tyrannically administered; but that government also is tyrannical (however administered,) where there is no sufficient security against its being tyrannically administered in future. And I solemnly protest against a measure, which tends to endanger the rights and liberties of my fellow citizens, of whom I consider myself only as a trustee. Dissentient. STANHOPE. 1. Because, as it was in the debate unanimously admitted, that the keeping in this country troops, whether native or foreign, in time either of war or peace, without the consent of parliament, is unconstitutional. And as it was also admitted unanimously and unequivocally, that the troops in question are here upon grounds of fitness and expediency; and as the consideration of fitness and expediency, though they render, and, in fact, in the present instance do render, not only justifiable, but highly meritorious, do in no degree so change the nature as to make it more or less constitutional. This bill, though of a nature to be very sparingly adopted, yet was of particular propriety; for in a matter of great moment, it declared the law, saved the constitution, and did justice to the motives of the executive government.-Because the stopping of this bill leaves the troops here, without any consent of parliament.-Because the effect of the declarations by which the right of the crown so to keep troops here was disclaimed, however strong, general, and unequivocal, is yet transitory and fugitive; but the fact that troops are so here, is notorious and recorded; and when the motives which justified, and the declarations that reconciled to the House the measure, are forgotten, may be turned into precedent. RADNOR. to that length, but the motion he should conclude with was confined to the prevention of any supply by us to any of the foreign territories with slaves. That was a part of the trade which in fact could hardly now be said to exist, and the main object of his motion was, that it should not be revived. He then moved, "that leave be given to bring in a bill for Abolishing the Trade carried on for supplying foreign territories with Slaves:" Also, "that this Motion be referred to a Committee of the whole House." Sir. W Young thought the motion objectionable in various points of view: it was inefficient for the purpose professed to be in view by it; it was unequal in itself: it was dangerous in points of time and experiment; and finally, it was vexatious to merchants concerned in our West India trade. He was therefore bound to give it his negative. Mr. Whitbread hoped the hon. mover would persist in his first resolution upon this subject for the total and immediate abolition of this abominable trade. It had been said, that the time was past for agitating this question, and that the danger was great. No time could be inconvenient; no danger could be so pressing as to allow the House to continue such gross injustice, as that which attended the slave trade. Colonel Cawthorne avowed his intention of opposing every measure that had the smallest tendency to an abolition of the trade. When the disadvantages to private property, when the deficiences of public revenue, which such a measure would occasion, were considered, it demanded opposition. This was justifiable, both on patriotic principles and for the sake of individual security; but in the present case it was not necessary, because the proposition itself was nugatory. It was nugatory in the retrospect to the cessation of commerce between foreign colonies since the commencement of hostilities; it was nugatory, since the procla mation of French sentiments, and the confused condition of the French republic. Whatever were the pretended motives of religion, justice, and humanity, he suspected the real motives of the abolitionists Debate in the Commons on the Abolition were attributable to their disaffection. of the Slave Trade.] Feb. 7. Mr. Wilber- Long had that party betrayed symptoms force said, that there had been some appre- of their hatred towards the constitution of hension by many that the motion he was this country. It was our duty to counterabout to make would go to the total abo-act the premeditated evil. lition of the Slave Trade. His ideas went Mr. Dent remonstrated against the for * Colonel Tarleton considered the change specified as a dangerous interference with the trade, which he must oppose; because he thought it an unequivocal attack upon private property. As to the trade in question, if it had been to commence de novo, he should have no difficulty in declaring his decided opposition to it; but as circumstances stood at present, he must con mality of a committee on this subject. | be yoked, and wear their fetters. Actua The measure was so contrary to that po- ted by these considerations, he should licy by which this nation was supported give his negative to the motion. and enriched, that none but enthusiasts could approve it. Already the slave trade which but two years since was so vehemently condemned, had been wrecked; and only a few of the partizans, that so eagerly embarked in it, were left to collect the disjointed materials. This was not a time for the prevention of the slave trade with foreign colonies, as many of our merchants must be ruined by it. Failures at Liver-sider the measure proposed as a violent pool, to the extent of 300,000l. had already happened, some of which he suspected might have partly originated in the proposed abolition; more perhaps might follow, and our growing prosperity be thus unfortunately checked. Alderman Newnham was determined to give his negative to the motion, as it implicated the ruin of individuals and the di⚫ minution of the supplies of the state. Hitherto we had evinced the necessity of securing private property, and now we were the first to invade it. Why should we emancipate those who had been proved to be in a better condition than the labouring peasants in this country? Much had been urged of the shameless barbarities of their inhuman masters. History had been traced back for more than a century to select the records of these abominable crimes; and what had been thus diligently searched for, was aggregated and exaggerated, to serve the purposes of enthusiasm, and delude the weak and pitying multitude. The same means would apply to render matrimony detestable. Every gentleman was aware, that, in the marriage state, which was dignified with the epithet of "blessed," there existed petty feuds, and resentful animosities. Every gentleman had read and heard of infidelity and punishment, of flagrant enormities, of men beating their wives, and wives injuring their husbands, of acts of violence, and not unfrequently of murder. Would any one, because these abuses have existed, maintain the necessity of abolishing the nuptial law? Slaves in the West-Indies were confessedly happier than in their native country, and experienced, in general, as mild and attentive treatment from their masters, as servants do in England. There was a mutual interest between the planter and the slave, which enforced compassion and duty. Let it be recollected that if the slaves in the British colonies were liberated, those of other nations would still [VOL. XXX.] aggression upon property, which would produce the most serious consequences. Mr. Ryder could not but express his astonishment at the reception which the present question had experienced. On the exposition of the bill brought forward last year, it had been said, that the destruction of a trade so very profitable was an innovation as dangerous in execution as it was absurd in policy; now, it had been laid down as an argument, that there was no trade, and therefore the bill was inefficacious and superfluous. He was not a little astonished at the inconsistency; but it did not end here; gentlemen had expressed no single objection to the theory of the bill, but that it was a measure fit to be pursued, and laudable, could it be done gradually; and upon this occasion it was opposed, though it was the first step towards that same gradual abolition. At that time the measures to be adopted were only partial; at present they were not so, but likely to be general. He must advert to another inconsistency, that we could regulate the trade better by, in some degree, approaching to humanity; but that other countries would not; we were therefore to continue ravaging and stripping a country of its inhabitants, bringing them into that situation in which they are liable to every disease, infection, and cruelty, because some other country which might think proper to enter into such a commerce, would be inclined to treat them with still greater severity. Mr. Lechmere thought the present pot a fit time to agitate the subject. The motion had nothing to do with the general question of abolition: but, as all Europe was in a state of confusion, it would be highly imprudent to adopt any untried expedient. Mr. East said, that the motion was inconsistent with the previous resolution of the House for a gradual abolition of the slave trade, inasmuch as it went to an im[4 Z] It was also to be observed, that the fo reign slave trade having actually ceased of itself, the motion was not so much a motion to abolish it, as to prevent its revival. The question was, whether we should suffer British subjects again to set on foot a branch of that trade, the whole of which the House had condemned as unjust? It was by no means inconsistent to abolish a part of that now, of which the whole was determined to be abolished two years hence. On the contrary, the measure now proposed might be considered as one step towards the gradual abolition that was agreed upon.-An argument against the motion had been attempted to be drawn from the proceedings on this subject now pending in the other House. In his opinion, the consideration of those proceed mediate abolition of part of that trade. This was not the time for any alteration in the compact with the slaves. When war raged abroad, and distrust and jealousy prevailed at home, it would be manifestly wrong to risk any additional evil. After a variety of attempts to accomplish an abolition of the trade, the measure had been over-ruled by a large and decided majority. To quiet the minds of gentlemen who had been inflamed or misled by notions of false humanity, some alleviation had been given, by the consent of that House to a gradual abolition. Yet but a short time had elapsed before the self-same propositions were made de novo, though brought forward in an assumed disguise; for exactly what those propositions were in substance, the present were in fact. He should give his decisive ne-ings led to the adoption of the present gative to the motion. Mr. Pitt said, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last, had endeavoured to prove an inconsistency between the present motion, and the former resolutions of the House; he therefore wished to recall to their recollection what those resolutions were. The hon. gentleman had said, that the House had passed those resolutions on the principle of thereby setting the question of the slave trade at rest. He wished to know what the hon. gentleman could mean by that expression? Was it to be supposed, that the House meant, by passing a resolution gradually to abolish the trade, to do nothing else than pass the resolution, and never actually to abolish it? The House had negatived the motion for an unqualified abolition: but on what ground had they done it? It was thought by many that if the trade was so suddenly put an end to, serious mischief might be done to our West-India plantations; it was thought also by some, that however justice might call for the abolition of the trade, yet there were some opposing claims of justice also to be considered, and that on these grounds some time ought to be given; it being at the same time generally admitted, that the trade was of such a nature that it was not fit to be continued. Where, then, was the inconsistency of the present motion? The House having determined that the trade should be abolished, but having postponed the period of abolition till 1796, a motion was this day made to abolish immediately that part of the trade which did not respect our West-India islands, but which applied to the foreign islands only. motion. Their lordships had, in point of fact, spent only four days in the whole of the last year in examining evidence. What were the reasons that induced them to bestow so few days on the examination of a subject which had so deeply engaged this House it did not belong to him to inquire. He must presume that their lordships had good reasons for the slowness of their proceedings; but if he assumed this to be the case, he was only bound so much the more to vote for the present motion, the object of which was, to separate that part of the slave trade in question which was short and simple, and admitted of a more immediate decision, from that other part of it, which involved so long an examination. The proposition was one which all friends to the general abolition must agree to, and in which many even of its enemies might join, without any impeachment of their consistency. Mr. Peel opposed the motion. He admitted, that when humanity was opposed to interest, the latter ought to give way; in the present instance, however, he was of opinion, that the natives of Africa were not yet sufficiently matured by civilization to receive their liberty and freedom; and that emancipating those who were not sufficiently enlightened to understand and feel the blessings of liberty, would be like putting a sword into the hands of a madman. Mr. W. Smith supported the motion, and in answer to the observation relative to the danger of the negroes being put to death if we did not purchase them, stated, that the minds of the negroes had already become more tractable since their condition had become an object of parliamentary discussion, that those of the traders had been meliorated, and that less murders were committed even on their 'own coasts than formerly. Mr. Wilberforce replied. After which, the House divided: YEAS NOES Tellers. {Mr. Whitbread S Colonel Tarleton {Mr. Dent } } -63 Leave was given to bring in the bill. 40 February 25. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, man, a Briton, and a Christian, to give his support to a bill which tended in some degree to abolish a trade, founded on injustice and inhumanity. Mr. Vaughan said, he had always been surprised how any British colonist could object to the cessation of that part of the trade which went to the supply of foreigners with slaves. He thought it somewhat extraordinary, that any British colonists should be anxious to raise up rival colonies to supplant themselves. His surprise was not the less to find that the present state of things among the French islands was thought a new motive for us to continue to supply foreigners with slaves. While the French slaves were in Sir W. Young said, that, though he had a state of convulsion, it was very extralast session supported a bill to the same ordinary to wish, by pouring in fresh slaves effect, yet in the present instance, he felt among them, to add fuel to the fire, and himself bound to oppose it; the circum- give them fresh reinforcements of mutistances of the question were, he thought, neers; for such would the newly-imported entirely changed since the abolition of slaves become. His West-India friends colonial slavery by the French Conven- had deprecated discussion in their own tion, and the measures lately pursued in meetings, though they allowed, by their the French islands. He reprobated the reasonings, that the matter was aldoctrines of the humanity and policy of ready spread abroad in the colonies. For the abolition, which he considered as wild his own part, he wholly disregarded the and visionary opinions, unfounded in fear, that the minds of the negroes were themselves, and destructive to the com-in such a state of dangerous excitement, mercial interest of Great Britain. Already the evils complained of in the slave trade were at an end, the transportation to the French West-India islands had abated since the war, and during the war it was impossible the trade could rise again. If the present bill passed, he feared that other bills must follow, which would greatly impede and confuse the merchants. He concluded with moving the second reading of the bill on that day six months. Alderman Newnham should give his negative to the motion, because it could be of no avail, as the principal part of the foreign trade had been already suppressed by the effect of the war. When he considered the immense property embarked in the West-India trade, and the serious consequences which must follow if that trade were lost to this country, he could not suppress his astonishment that gentlemen should wish to hazard so much without the certainty of gaining any thing; because the cause of humanity would not be served by it: on the contrary, the trade would be carried on by others, and not one negro the less would be brought from Africa. Mr. Burdon felt himself bound, as a that we must not appear to give way upon any one part of the slave question. The votes of that House and other symptoms of the public feeling, were already known to the slaves; and as the Lords would soon have to pronounce aye or no on the principal question, little would be gained by temporizing and delay on this secondary question. He then referred to the fate of the mulatto question among the French, to show that a contrary conduct to theirs would be policy in our case under present circumstances; and that we ought, as soon as possible, to put the free mulattoes and free blacks on our side, and at the same time to encourage small settlers, and endeavour to soften the manners of the mulattoes and blacks. To the principle of the bill, therefore, he avowed himself a friend. Mr. East contended, that this was rather a bill of abolition than of regulation, because it went to destroy the larger branch of the trade, that to the foreign islands. In the smaller islands the operation of it would be particularly felt as a grievance, as the merchants had plantations in each little island, and were frequently obliged to transport their slaves from one to the other, as circumstances might require. Whenever occasion to do this should occur in future, they would be obliged to make application to the governor for a licence, and then it would be a matter of option with him either to grant or reject it Though we declined the trade, we must be aware that the Dutch and Spaniards would not forego it; and what advantage could possibly arise from throwing up the trade into the hands of others, who might treat them with much more cruelty? The poor negroes, from benevolent friends, would be transferred to hard task-masters. Mr. Barham said, that no good argument had been adduced against the proposed regulation. The old hackneyed assertion had been brought forward, that if we gave up the trade, other powers would take it up. What did this amount to, but a declaration, that we ought to continue what was wrong, in order to keep others from doing worse; a proposition the reverse of every principle of morality. Mr. Jenkinson thought the bill highly dangerous, considering the state of the West-India islands, and the nature of the decree of the National Convention of France relative to their slaves. What good effect could the bill possibly produce, since it confessedly could not operate during the continuance of the war? Mr. Fox said, that as the hon. gentleman who spoke last admitted the trade proposed by this bill to be abolished for ever, had now no existence, it would be impossible for him to maintain with any consistency the impropriety of this bill. Because, if the trade had no existence at present, the question was, whether we should revive it? The trade now having no existence, what became of all the arguments they had heard concerning the mighty capital embarked in it, the sanction which parliament had given, from time to time, to its continuance, the violent attack on private property, the injury to commerce, the danger of innovation? All these arguments, if arguments they could be called, were fled; nothing now remained, but for parliament to take care that, having fled, they should never return. This was essentially and emphatically their duty; because, if parliament should now remain silent upon the subject, the friends of the trade, on attempting to revive it, would say, that not having taken measures to prohibit the revival when the trade was dead and consequently no in jury could arise to any individual, they had acquiesced in its principle, and held out encouragement for others to adventure when an opportunity should offer; and then again it would be attempted to be proved, that parliament had pledged itself to support this abominable, this execrable traffic. Having said this, he came to notice the determination of that House to abolish the slave trade gradually, and the period at which the House had fixed the final abolition of this trade, namely, the 1st of January 1796. Of that resolution he considered the present bill a material part, and the House in pursuing it did nothing more than hold out to this country, to Europe, to the world at large, that they were sincere in their intention. He trusted also that the hon. gentleman who first brought forward this subject, would not abate in his zeal for the glorious cause in which he had engaged. Perhaps it might not be absolutely necessary in this session, but, sure he was, that the agitation again in that House, of the general question of the total abolition of this detested traffic, should not be delayed beyond the next; for he was clearly of opinion, it could not be too frequently agitated. In what state was this great question at the present moment? He would not speak with disrespect of the House of Lords, but, surely, if this question had, from the multiplicity of business before their lordships, not received their determination it could not be improper for the House of Commons to be vigilant, and to remind their lordships of the subject. The House would recollect that the Lords had received the resolutions of the House of Commons on the subject of the slave trade in April 1792. What progress their lordships had made in the subject he could not find, but he had understood that their lordships had that very day farther postponed the consideration of the slave trade to that day fortnight. to that day fortnight. Therefore, if the Lords delayed this question, if they shunned it, if they shrank from it, if they shifted or neglected it, the House of Commons ought again and again to remind them of it. He did not accuse their lordships of any sinister intentions upon this or any other subject; he had too much confidence in their integrity, their justice, their humanity, and their prudence, to suspect them of any intention to prevent the abolition of so foul a trade. Mr. Pitt said, that the wild and improvident measure that had been adopted |