Thoughts on the Necessity of Improving the Condition of the Slaves

Chapter 1

Prev List Next

Thoughts On The Necessity Of Improving The Condition Of The Slaves In The British Colonies.

by Thomas Clarkson.

PREFACE.

The following sheets first appeared in a periodical work called The Inquirer. They are now republished without undergoing any substantial alteration. The author however thinks it due to himself to state, that _he would have materially qualified those parts of his essay which speak of the improved Condition of the Slaves in the West Indies since the abolition_, had he then been acquainted with the recent evidence obtained upon that subject. His present conviction certainly is, that he has overrated that improvement, and that in point of fact Negro Slavery is, in its main and leading feature, the same system which it was when the Abolition controversy first commenced.

It is possible there may be some, who, having glanced over the t.i.tle Page of this little work, may be startled at the word _Emanc.i.p.ation_. I wish to inform such, that Mr. Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, an acute Man, and a Friend to the Planters, _proposed this very measure to Parliament_ in the year 1792. We see, then, that the word Emanc.i.p.ation cannot be charged with _Novelty_. It contains now _no new ideas_. It contains now nothing but what has been _thought practicable_, and _even desirable to be accomplished_. The Emanc.i.p.ation which I desire is such an Emanc.i.p.ation only, as I firmly believe to be compatible not only with the due subordination and happiness of the labourer, but with the permanent interests of his employer.

I wish also to say, in case any thing like an undue warmth of feeling on my part should be discovered in the course of the work, that I had no intention of being warm against the West Indians as a body. I know that there are many estimable men among them living in England, who deserve every desirable praise for having sent over instructions to their Agents in the West Indies from time to time in behalf of their wretched Slaves.

And yet, alas! even these, _the Masters themselves, have not had influence enough to secure the fulfilment of their own instructions upon their own estates_; nor will they, _so long as the present system continues_. They will never be able to carry their meritorious designs into effect against _Prejudice, Law, and Custom_. If this be not so, how happens it that you cannot see the Slaves, belonging to such estimable men, _without marks of the whip upon their backs_? The truth is, that _so long as overseers, drivers, and others, are entrusted with the use of arbitrary power_, and _so long as Negro-evidence is invalid against the white oppressor_, and _so long as human nature continues to be what it is_, _no order_ from the Master for the better personal treatment of the Slave _will or can be obeyed_. It is against the _system_ then, and not against the West Indians as a body, that I am warm, should I be found so unintentionally, in the present work.

One word or two now on another part of the subject. A great noise will be made, no doubt, when the question of Emanc.i.p.ation comes to be agitated, about _the immense property at stake_, I mean the property of the Planters;--and others connected with them. This is all well. Their interests ought undoubtedly to be attended to. But I hope and trust, that, if property is to be attended to _on one side_ of the question, it will be equally attended to _on the other_. This is but common justice.

If you put into one scale _the gold_ and _jewels_ of the Planters, you are bound to put into the other _the liberty_ of 800,000 of the African race; for every man"s liberty is _his own property_ by the laws of _Nature_, _Reason_, _Justice_, and _Religion_? and, if it be not so with our West Indian Slaves, it _is only because_ they have been, and continue to be, _deprived_ of it _by force_. And here let us consider for a moment which of these two different sorts of property is of the greatest value. Let us suppose an English gentleman to be seized by ruffians on the banks of the Thames (and why not a _gentleman_ when African _princes_ have been so served?) and hurried away to a land (and Algiers is such a land, for instance), where white persons are held as Slaves. Now this gentleman has not been used to severe labour (neither has the African in his own country); and being therefore unable, though he does his best, to please his master, he is roused to further exertion _by the whip_. Perhaps he takes this treatment indignantly. This only secures him _a severer punishment_. I say nothing of his being badly fed, or lodged, or clothed. If he should have a wife and daughters with him, how much more cruel would be his fate! to see the tender skins of these lacerated by the whip! to see them torn from him, with a knowledge, that they are going to be compelled to submit to the l.u.s.t of an overseer! _and no redress_. "How long," says he, "is this frightful system, which tears my body in pieces and excruciates my soul, which kills me by inches, and which involves my family in unspeakable misery and unmerited disgrace, to continue?"--"For _ever_," replies a voice Suddenly: "_for ever_, as relates to your _own_ life, and the life _of your wife and daughters_, and that of _all their posterity_," Now would not this gentleman give _all that he had left behind him_ in England, and _all that he had in the world besides_, and _all that he had in prospect and expectancy_, to get out of this wretched state, though he foresaw that on his return to his own country he would be obliged to beg his bread for the remainder of his life? I am sure he would. I am sure he would _instantly_ prefer his _liberty to his gold_. There would not be _the hesitation of a moment_ as to the choice he would make. I hope, then, that if _the argument of property_ should he urged on _one side_ of the question, the _argument of property (liberty) will not be overlooked on the other_, but that they will be fairly weighed, the one against the other, and that an allowance will be made as the scale shall preponderate on either side.

THOUGHTS, &c.

I know of no subject, where humanity and justice, as well as public and private interest, would be more intimately united than in that, which should recommend a mitigation of the slavery, with a view afterwards to the emanc.i.p.ation of the Negroes, wherever such may be held in bondage.

This subject was taken up for consideration, so early as when the Abolition of the slave trade was first practically thought of, and by the very persons who first publicly embarked in that cause in England; but it was at length abandoned by them, not on the ground _that Slavery was less cruel, or wicked, or impolitic, than the slave trade_, but for other reasons. In the first place there were not at that time so many obstacles in the way of the Abolition, as of the Emanc.i.p.ation of the Negroes. In the second place Abolition could be effected immediately, and with but comparatively little loss, and no danger. Emanc.i.p.ation, on the other hand, appeared to be rather a work of time. It was beset too with many difficulties, which required deep consideration, and which, if not treated with great caution and prudence, threatened the most alarming results. In the third place, it was supposed, that, by effecting the abolition of the slave trade, the axe would be laid to the root of the whole evil; so that by cutting off the more vital part of it, the other would gradually die away:--for what was more reasonable than to suppose, that, when masters could no longer obtain Slaves from Africa or elsewhere, they would be compelled individually, by a sort of inevitable necessity, or a fear of consequences, or by a sense of their own interest, _to take better care of those whom they might then have in their possession_? What was more reasonable to suppose, than that the different legislatures themselves, moved also by the same necessity, _would immediately interfere_, without even the loss of a day, _and so alter and amend the laws_ relative to the treatment of Slaves, as to enforce that as a public duty, which it would be thus the private interest of individuals to perform? Was it not also reasonable to suppose that a system of better treatment, thus begun by individuals, and enforced directly afterwards by law, would produce more willing as well as more able and valuable labourers than before; and that this effect, when once visible, would again lead both masters and legislators on the score of interest to treat their slaves still more like men; nay, at length to give them even privileges; and thus to elevate their condition by degrees, till at length it would be no difficult task, and no mighty transition, _to pa.s.s them_ to that most advantageous situation to both parties, _the rank of Free Men?_

These were the three effects, which the simple measure of the abolition of the slave trade was expected to produce by those, who first espoused it, by Mr. Granville Sharp, and those who formed the London committee; and by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wilberforce, and others of ill.u.s.trious name, who brought the subject before Parliament. The question then is, how have these fond expectations been realized? or how many and which of these desirable effects have been produced? I may answer perhaps with truth, that in our own Islands, where the law of the abolition is not so easily evaded, or where there is less chance of obtaining new slaves, than in some other parts, there has been already, that is, since the abolition of the slave trade, a somewhat _better individual_ treatment of the slaves than before. A certain care has been taken of them. The plough has been introduced to ease their labour.

Indulgences have been given to pregnant women both before and after their delivery; premiums have been offered for the rearing of infants to a certain age; religious instruction has been allowed to many. But when I mention these instances of improvement, I must be careful to distinguish what I mean;--I do not intend to say, that there were no instances of humane treatment of the slaves before the abolition of the slave trade. I know, on the other hand, that there were; I know that there were planters, who introduced the plough upon their estates, and who much to their Honour granted similar indulgences, premiums, and permissions to those now mentioned, previously to this great event. All then that I mean to say is this, that, independently of the common progress of humanity and liberal opinion, the circ.u.mstance of not being able to get new slaves as formerly, has had its influence upon some of our planters; that it has made some of them think more; that it has put some of them more upon their guard; and that there are therefore upon the whole, more instances of good treatment of slaves by individuals in our Islands (though far from being as numerous as they ought to be) than at any former period.

But, alas! though the abolition of the slave trade may have produced a somewhat better individual treatment of the slaves, and this also to a somewhat greater extent than formerly, _not one of the other effects_, so anxiously looked for, has been realized. The condition of the slaves has not yet been improved by _law_. It is a remarkable, and indeed almost an incredible fact, _that no one effort has been made_ by the legislative bodies in our Islands with _the real_ intention of meeting the new, the great, and the extraordinary event of the abolition of the slave trade. While indeed this measure was under discussion by the British Parliament, an attempt was made in several of our Islands to alter the old laws with a view, as it was then pretended, of providing better for the wants and personal protection of the slaves; but it was afterwards discovered, that the promoters of this alteration never meant to carry it into effect. It was intended, by making a show of these laws, _to deceive the people of England_, and _thus to prevent them from following up the great question of the abolition_. Mr. Clappeson, one of the evidences examined by the House of Commons, was in Jamaica, when the a.s.sembly pa.s.sed their famous consolidated laws, and he told the House, that "he had often heard from people there, that it was pa.s.sed because of the stir in England about the slave trade;" and he added, "that slaves continued to be as ill treated there _since the pa.s.sing of that act as before_." Mr. Cook, another of the evidences examined, was long resident in the same island, and, "though he lived there also _since the pa.s.sing of the_ act, _he knew of no legal protection_, which slaves had against injuries from their masters." Mr. Dalrymple was examined to the same point for Grenada. He was there in 1788, when the Act for that island was pa.s.sed also, called "An Act for the better Protection and promoting the Increase and Population of Slaves." He told the House, that, "while he resided there, the proposal in the British Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade was a matter of general discussion, and that he believed, that this was a princ.i.p.al reason for pa.s.sing it.

He was of opinion, however, that this Act would prove ineffectual, because, as Negro evidence was not to be admitted, those, who chose to abuse their slaves, might still do it with impunity; and people, who lived on terms of intimacy, would dislike the idea of becoming spies and informers against each other." We have the same account of the ameliorating Act of Dominica. "This Act," says Governor Prevost, "appears to have been considered from the day it was pa.s.sed until this hour as _a political measure to avert the interference of the mother country in the management of the slaves_." We, are informed also on the same authority, that the clauses of this Act, which had given a promise of better days, "_had been wholly neglected_." In short, the Acts pa.s.sed in our different Islands for the pretended purpose of bettering the condition of the slaves have been all of them most shamefully neglected; and they remain only a dead letter; or they are as much a nullity, as if they had never existed, at the present day.

And as our planters have done nothing yet effectively by _law_ for ameliorating the condition of their slaves, so they have done nothing or worse than nothing in the case of their _emanc.i.p.ation_. In the year 1815 Mr. Wilberforce gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention to introduce there a bill for the registration of slaves in the British colonies. In the following year an insurrection broke out among some slaves in Barbadoes. Now, though this insurrection originated, as there was then reason to believe, in local or peculiar circ.u.mstances, or in circ.u.mstances which had often produced insurrections before, the planters chose to attribute it to the Registry Bill now mentioned. They gave out also, that the slaves in Jamaica and in the other islands had imbibed a notion, that this Bill was to lead to _their emanc.i.p.ation_; that, while this notion existed, their minds would be in an unsettled state; and therefore that it was necessary that _it should be done away_. Accordingly on the 19th day of June 1816, they moved and procured an address from the Commons to the Prince Regent, the substance of which was (as relates to this particular) that "His Royal Highness would be pleased to order all the governors of the West India islands to proclaim, in the most public manner, His Royal Highness"s concern and surprise at the false and mischievous opinion, which appeared to have prevailed in some of the British colonies,--that either His Royal Highness or the British Parliament had sent out orders for _the emanc.i.p.ation_ of the Negroes; and to direct the most effectual methods to be adopted for discountenancing _these unfounded and dangerous impressions_." Here then we have a proof "that in the month of June 1816 the planters _had no notion of altering the condition of their Negroes_." It is also evident, that they have entertained _no such notion since_; for emanc.i.p.ation implies a _preparation_ of the persons who are to be the subjects of so great a change. It implies a previous alteration of treatment for the better, and a previous alteration of customs and even of circ.u.mstances, no one of which can however be really and truly effected without _a previous change of the laws_. In fact, a progressively better treatment _by law_ must have been settled as a preparatory and absolutely necessary work, had _emanc.i.p.ation been intended_. But as we have never heard of the introduction of any new laws to this effect, or with a view of producing this effect, in any of our colonies, we have an evidence, almost as clear as the sun at noonday, that our planters have no notion of altering the condition of their Negroes, though fifteen years have elapsed since the abolition of the slave trade. But if it be true that the abolition of the slave trade has not produced all the effects, which the abolitionists antic.i.p.ated or intended, it would appear to be their duty, unless insurmountable obstacles present themselves, _to resume their labours:_ for though there may be upon the whole, as I have admitted, a somewhat better _individual_ treatment of the slaves by their masters, arising out of an increased prudence in same, which has been occasioned by stopping the importations, yet it is true, that not only many of the former continue to be ill-treated by the latter, but that _all may be so ill-treated_, if the _latter be so disposed_. They may be ill-fed, hard-worked, ill-used, and wantonly and barbarously punished. They may be tortured, nay even deliberately and intentionally killed without the means of redress, or the punishment of the aggressor, so long as the evidence of a Negro is not valid against a white man. If a white master only take care, that no other white man sees him commit an atrocity of the kind mentioned, he is safe from the cognizance of the law. He may commit such atrocity in the sight of a thousand black spectators, and no harm will happen to him from it. In fact, the slaves in our Islands have _no more real protection or redress from law_, than when _the Abolitionists first took up the question of the slave trade_. It is evident therefore, that the latter have still one-half of their work to perform, and that it is their duty to perform it. If they were ever influenced by any good motives, whether of humanity, justice, or religion, to undertake the cause of the Negroes, they must even now be influenced by the same motives to continue it. If any of those disorders still exist, which it was their intention to cure, they cannot (if these are curable) retire from the course and say--there is now no further need of our interference.

The first step then to be taken by the Abolitionists is to attempt to introduce an _entire new code of laws_ into our colonies. The treatment of the Negroes there must no longer be made to depend upon _the presumed effects_ of the abolition of the slave trade. Indeed there were persons well acquainted with Colonial concerns, who called the abolition _but a half measure_ at the time when it was first publicly talked of. They were sure, that it would never _of itself_ answer the end proposed. Mr.

Steele also confessed in his letter to Dr. d.i.c.kson[1] (of both of whom more by and by), that "the abolition of the stave trade would _be useless_, unless at the same time the infamous laws, which he had pointed out, _were repealed_." Neither must the treatment of the Negroes be made to depend upon what may be called _contingent humanity_. We now leave in this country neither the horse, nor the a.s.s, nor oxen, nor sheep, to the contingent humanity even of _British bosoms_;--and shall we leave those, whom we have proved to be _men_, to the contingent humanity of a _slave colony_, where the eye is familiarized with cruel sights, and where we have seen a constant exposure to oppression without the possibility of redress? No. The treatment of the Negroes must be made to depend _upon law_; and unless this be done, we shall look in vain for any real amelioration of their condition. In the first place, all those old laws, which are repugnant to humanity and justice, must be done away. There must also be new laws, positive, certain, easy of execution, binding upon all, by means of which the Negroes in our islands shall have speedy and substantial redress in real cases of ill-usage, whether by starvation, over-work, or acts of personal violence, or otherwise. There must be new laws again more akin to the principle of _reward_ than of _punishment_, of _privilege_ than of _privation_, and which shall, have a tendency to raise or elevate their condition, so as to fit them by degrees to sustain the rank of free men.

But if a new Code of Laws be indispensably necessary in our colonies in order to secure a better treatment to the slaves, to whom must we look for it? I answer, that we must not look for it to the West Indian Legislatures. For, in the first place, judging of what they are likely to do from what they have already done, or rather from what they have _not_ done, we can have no reasonable expectation from that quarter. One hundred and fifty years have pa.s.sed, during which long interval their laws have been nearly stationary, or without any material improvement.

In the second place, the individuals composing these Legislatures, having been used to the exercise of unlimited power, would be unwilling to part with that portion of it, which would be necessary to secure the object in view. In the third place, their prejudices against their slaves are too great to allow them to become either impartial or willing actors in the case. The term _slave_ being synonymous according to their estimation and usage with the term _brute_, they have fixed a stigma upon their Negroes, such as we, who live in Europe, could not have conceived, unless we had had irrefragable evidence upon the point. What evils has not this cruel a.s.sociation of terms produced? The West Indian master looks down upon his slave with disdain. He has besides a certain antipathy against him. He hates the sight of his features, and of his colour; nay, he marks with distinctive opprobrium the very blood in his veins, attaching different names and more or less infamy to those who have it in them, according to the quant.i.ty which they have of it in consequence of their pedigree, or of their greater or less degree of consanguinity with the whites. Hence the West Indian feels an unwillingness to elevate the condition of the Negro, or to do any thing for him as a human being. I have no doubt, that this prejudice has been one of the great causes why the improvement of our slave population _by law_ has been so long r.e.t.a.r.ded, and that the same prejudice will continue to have a similar operation, so long as it shall continue to exist. Not that there are wanting men of humanity among our West Indian legislators. Their humanity is discernible enough when it is to be applied to the _whites_; but such is the system of slavery, and the degradation attached to this system, that their humanity seems to be lost or gone, when it is to be applied to the _blacks_. Not again that there are wanting men of sense among the same body. They are shrewd and clever enough in the affairs of life, where they maintain an intercourse with the _whites_; but in their intercourse with the _blacks_ their sense appears to be shrivelled and not of its ordinary size. Look at the laws of their own making, as far as the Negroes are concerned, and they are a collection of any thing but--wisdom.

It appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessary in our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slaves there, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it. To whom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion? We answer, To the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to that Parliament, _which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs of Africa_. The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send their respective codes to this Parliament for revision. Here they will be well and impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, others amended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to the Colonies, means having been previously devised for their execution there.

But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of the West India planters. These would consider any such interference by the British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would cry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when the abolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pitt say to them in the House of Commons? "I will now," said he, "consider the proposition, 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. This proposition implied, 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? 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. 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 princ.i.p.als in the commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?"

They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before mentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction of it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must not forget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. "He had known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of obstinacy in the colonial a.s.semblies, which left the British Parliament no choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for such an exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was, that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial a.s.semblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to declare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood.

It told the colonial a.s.semblies, You are safe for the present from the interference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on the promise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what is required of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The a.s.semblies might be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliament might rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in their hands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed." In a subsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Holland remarked, that "in his opinion there had been more prejudice against this Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might be the objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for them to consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that, if the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_." But on this subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall say more in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, and to insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying the evil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revision of the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarm some of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself from the charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr.

Long, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whose authority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing on the affairs of Jamaica, he says: "The system[2] of Colonial government, and the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which never were, but _which ought to be_, strictly canva.s.sed, examined, and amended by the British Parliament."

The second and last step to be taken by the Abolitionists should be, to collect all possible light on the subject of _emanc.i.p.ation_ with a view of carrying that measure into effect in its due time. They ought never to forget, that _emanc.i.p.ation_ was included in _their original idea of the abolition of the slave trade_. Slavery was then as much an evil in their eyes as the trade itself; and so long as the former continues in its present state, the extinction of it ought to be equally an object of their care. All the slaves in our colonies, whether men, women, or children, whether _Africans or Creoles_, have been unjustly deprived of their rights. There is not a master, who has the least claim to their services in point of equity. There is, therefore, a great debt due to them, and for this no payment, no amends, no equivalent can be found, but a _restoration to their liberty_.

That all have been unjustly deprived of their rights, may be easily shown by examining the different grounds on which they are alleged to be held in bondage. With respect to those in our colonies, who are _Africans_, I never heard of any t.i.tle to them but by the _right of purchase_. But it will be asked, where did the purchasers get them? It will be answered, that they got them from the sellers; and where did the sellers, that is, the original sellers, get them? They got them by _fraud or violence_. So says the evidence before the House of Commons; and so, in fact, said both Houses of Parliament, when they abolished the trade: and this is the plea set up for retaining them in a cruel bondage!!!

With respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or those born in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these are claimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, and this circ.u.mstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right to their persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which taught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partus sequitur ventrem," says this law, or the "condition or lot of the mother determines the condition or lot of the offspring." It is the same law, which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession.

Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the man who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which were the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law, and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the services of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law they denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and intellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves, and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as upon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however, their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House of Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the falsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections and the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as those of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as it takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable to those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?

This is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have founded their right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. They consider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves in question have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspring of men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, their right must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principle or right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ to the infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by _nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, but to the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on the score of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generally admitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived of their liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as they include _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _make examples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But what injury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the master of its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishment inflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishment should be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, against which, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is it reasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to any one, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _the arbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the condition of a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will of his own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in the condition of a slave?

And as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot be defended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so this right absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by the touchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into the world, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according to Christian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This is the Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under this law, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indian slavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_ or _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism without control; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. The subjects of it _must do_, and this _instantaneously_, whatever their master _orders them to do_, whether it _be right or wrong_. His will, and his will alone, is their law. If the wife of a slave were ordered by a master to submit herself to his l.u.s.ts, and therefore to commit adultery, or if her husband were ordered to steal any thing for him, and therefore to commit theft, I have no conception that either the one or the other would _dare_ to disobey his commands. "The whip, the shackles, the dungeon," says Mr. Steele before mentioned, "are at all times in his power, whether it be to gratify his _l.u.s.t_, or display his authority[3]." Now if the master has the power, _a just, and moral power_, to make his slaves do what he orders them to do, even if it be wrong, then I must contend that the Scriptures, whose authority we venerate, are false. I must contend that his slaves never could have been born free agents and accountable creatures; or that, as soon as they became slaves, they were absolved from the condition of free-agency and that they lost their responsibility as men. But if, on the other hand, it be the revealed will of G.o.d, that all men, without exception, must be left free to act, but accountable to G.o.d for their actions;--I contend that no man can be born, nay, further, that no man can be made, held, or possessed, as a proper slave. I contend that there can be, according to the Gospel-dispensation, _no such state as West Indian slavery_. But let us now suppose for a moment, that there might be found an instance or two of slaves enlightened by some pious Missionary, who would refuse to execute their master"s orders on the principle that they were wrong; even this would not alter our views of the case. For would not this refusal be so unexampled, so unlooked-for, so immediately destructive to all authority and discipline, and so provocative of anger, that it would be followed by _immediate and signal punishment_?

Here then we should have a West Indian master reversing all the laws and rules of civilized nations, and turning upside down all the morality of the Gospel by the novel practice of _punishing men for their virtues_.

This new case affords another argument, why a man cannot be born a proper slave. In fact, the whole system of our planters appears to me to be so directly in opposition to the whole system of our religion, that I have no conception, how a man can have been born a slave, such as the West Indian is; nor indeed have I any conception, how he can be, rightly, or justly, or properly, a West Indian slave at all. There appears to me something even impious in the thought; and I am convinced, that many years will not pa.s.s, before the West Indian slavery will fall, and that future ages will contemplate with astonishment how the preceding could have tolerated it.

It has now appeared, if I have reasoned conclusively, that the West Indians have no t.i.tle to their slaves on the ground of purchase, nor on the plea of the law of birth, nor on that of any natural right, nor on that of reason or justice, and that Christianity absolutely annihilates it. It remains only to show, that they have no t.i.tle to them on the ground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Acts of Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_.

With respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the case is very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave trade nor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been for the _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were first concerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe, first, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the ships which took them from their native land; and secondly, that they were conveyed to the Colonies princ.i.p.ally for _their own benefit_, or out of _Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be converted to Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first a.s.sertion, the way in which Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slave trade began in England. 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 thoughts 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 to her knowledge, 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."

Capt. 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, "Here (says Hill) 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 sometime be the destruction of all who encourage it." Take as an instance of the second what Labat, a Roman missionary, records in his account of the Isles of America. He says, 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 a.s.sured 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_. It was upon these ideas then, namely, that the Africans left their own country voluntarily, and that they were to receive the blessings of Christianity, and upon these alone, that the first transportations were allowed, and that the first _English_ grants and Acts of Parliament, and that the first _foreign_ edicts, sanctioned them. We have therefore the fact well authenticated, as it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that the owners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better t.i.tle to them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forced away from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had its allowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_.

Neither have the masters of slaves in our colonies any t.i.tle to their slaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce, though their charters are the only source of their power. It is through these that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue to legislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right or power to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, and though the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept together entirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power to make, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, who holds any of the slaves by a _legal_ t.i.tle: for it is expressed in all these charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others for the continent of North America, or in those given for the islands now under our consideration, that "the laws and statutes, to be made there, are _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to the laws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_." But is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of flogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged by any but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a man should be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man who has injured him? or that there should be a privileged cla.s.s, against whom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though the perpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistency on this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes, made while the charter of that island was fresh in every body"s memory, and therefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: "If any slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall suffer in life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine for the same: but if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, he shall pay the treasury 15 l." And here let us remark, that, when Lord Seaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, the repeal of this b.l.o.o.d.y law, the Legislature of that island rejected the proposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it so stirred up at the time the bad pa.s.sions of many, that several brutal murders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till two or three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to get the law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their _charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles, which are at variance with those upon which the laws of England are founded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country has therefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, and to subst.i.tute such others as she may think proper. And here let it be observed also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws at all for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and upon these alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to what such charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily living practice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _may be done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, without exception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has a legal t.i.tle to any of them. This a.s.sertion may appear strange and extravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it is the less true. It is an a.s.sertion, which has been made by a West Indian proprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with what pa.s.sed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at their committee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in the order of the day: "Is there any law written, or printed, by which a proprietor can prove his t.i.tle to his slave under or conformable to the laws of England?" And "Why, (immediately said one of the members,) why conformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admit such proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?"--"I apprehend not, (answered a second,) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (according to the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws of England."--The same gentleman resumed: "Does the original purchaser of an African slave in this island obtain any legal t.i.tle from the merchant or importer of slaves--and of what nature? Does it set forth any t.i.tle of propriety, agreeable to the laws of England (or even to the laws of nations) to be in the importer more than what depends upon his simple averment? And have not free Negroes been at sundry times trepanned by such dealers, and been brought contrary to the laws of nations, and sold here as slaves?"--"There is no doubt, (observed a third,) but such villainous actions have been done by worthless people: however, though an honest and unsuspicious man may be deceived in buying a stolen horse, it does not follow that he may not have a fair and just t.i.tle to a horse or any thing else bought in an open and legal market; but according to the obligation _of being not repugnant to the laws of England_, I do not see how _we can have any t.i.tle to our slaves_ likely to be supported by the laws of England." In fact, the Colonial system is an excrescence upon the English Const.i.tution, and is constantly at variance with it.

There is not one English law, which gives a man a right to the liberty of any of his fellow creatures. Of course there cannot be, according to charters, any Colonial law to this effect. If there be, it is _null and void_. Nay, the very man, who is held in bondage by the Colonial law, becomes free by English law the moment he reaches the English sh.o.r.e. But we have said enough for our present purpose. We have shown that the slaves in our Colonies, whether they be Africans, or whether they be Creoles, _have been unjustly deprived of their rights_. There is of course a great debt due to them. They have a claim to a restoration to liberty; and as this restoration was included by the Abolitionists in their original idea of the abolition of the slavetrade, so it is their duty to endeavour to obtain it _the first moment it is practicable_. I shall conclude my observations on this part of the subject, in the words of that old champion of African liberty, Mr. W. Smith, the present Member for Norwich, when addressing the House of Commons in the last session of parliament on a particular occasion. He admitted, alluding to the slaves in our colonies, that "immediate emanc.i.p.ation might be an injury, and not a blessing to the slaves themselves. A period of _preparation_, which unhappily included delay, seemed to be necessary.

The ground of this delay, however, was not the intermediate advantage to be derived from their labour, but a conviction of its expediency as it related to themselves. We had to _compensate_ to these wretched beings _for ages of injustice_. We were bound by the strongest obligations _to train up_ these subjects of our past injustice and tyranny _for an equal partic.i.p.ation with ourselves in the blessings of liberty and the protection of the law_; and by these considerations ought our measures to be strictly and conscientiously regulated. It was only in consequence of the necessity of time to be consumed in such a preparation, that we could be justified in the retention of the Negroes in slavery _for a single hour_; and he trusted that the eyes of all men, both here and in the colonies, would be open to this view of the subject as their clear and indispensable duty."

Having led the reader to the first necessary step to be taken in favour of our slaves in the British Colonies,--namely, the procuring for them a new and better code of laws; and having since led him to the last or final one,--namely, the procuring for them the rights of which they have been unjustly deprived: I shall now confine myself entirely to this latter branch of the subject, being a.s.sured, that it has a claim to all the attention that can be bestowed upon it; and I trust that I shall be able to show, by appealing to historical facts, that however awful and tremendous the work of _emanc.i.p.ation_ may seem, it is yet _practicable_; that it is practicable also _without danger_; and moreover, that it is practicable with the probability of _advantage_ to all the parties concerned.

In appealing however to facts for this purpose, we must expect no light from antiquity to guide us on our way; for history gives us no account of persons in those times similarly situated with the slaves in the British colonies at the present day. There were no particular nations in those times, like the Africans, expressly set apart for slavery by the rest of the world, so as to have a stigma put upon them on that account, nor did a difference of the colour of the skin const.i.tute always, as it now does, a most marked distinction between the master and the slave, so as to increase this stigma and to perpetuate antipathies between them.

Nor did the slaves of antiquity, except perhaps once in Sparta, form the whole labouring population of the land; nor did they work incessantly, like the Africans, under the whip; nor were they generally so behind their masters in cultivated intellect. Neither does ancient history give us in the cases of manumission, which it records, any parallel, from which we might argue in the case before us. The ancient manumissions were those of individuals only, generally of but one at a time, and only now and then; whereas the emanc.i.p.ation, which we contemplate in the colonies, will comprehend _whole bodies of men_, nay, _whole populations_, at a given time. We must go therefore in quest of examples to modern times, or rather to the history of the colonial slavery itself; and if we should find any there, which appear to bear at all upon the case in question, we must be thankful for them, and, though they should not be entirely to our mind, we must not turn them away, but keep them, and reason from them as far as their a.n.a.logies will warrant.

In examining a period comprehending the last forty years, I find no less than six or seven instances of the emanc.i.p.ation of African slaves _in bodies_. The first of these cases occurred at the close of the first American war. A number of slaves had run away from their North American masters and joined the British army. When peace came, the British Government did not know what to do with them. Their services were no longer wanted. To leave them behind to fall again into the power of their masters would have been great cruelty as well as injustice; and as to taking them to England, what could have been done with them there? It was at length determined to give _them their liberty_, and to disband them in Nova Scotia, and to settle them there upon grants of land as _British subjects_ and as _free men_. The Nova Scotians on learning their destination were alarmed. They could not bear the thought of having such a number of black persons among them, and particularly as these understood the use of arms. The Government, however, persevering in its original intention, they were conveyed to Halifax, and distributed from thence into the country. Their number, comprehending men, women, and children, were two thousand and upwards. To gain their livelihood, some of them worked upon little portions of land of their own; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and others worked for hire in other ways. In process of time they raised places of worship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their own body. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of an industrious and honest people from their white neighbours. A few years afterwards the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, and the climate too cold for their const.i.tutions, a number of them, to the amount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form a new colony, which was then first thought of, at Sierra Leone.

Accordingly, having been conveyed there, they realized the object in view; and they are to be found there, they or their descendants, most of them in independent and some of them in affluent circ.u.mstances, at the present day.

A second case may be taken from what occurred at the close of the second, or last American war. It may be remembered that a large British naval force, having on board a powerful land force, sailed in the year 1814, to make a descent on the coast of the southern States of America.

The British army, when landed, marched to Washington, and burnt most of its public buildings. It was engaged also at different times with the American army in the field. During these expeditions, some hundreds of slaves in these parts joined the British standard by invitation. When the campaign was over, the same difficulty occurred about disposing of these as in the former case. It was determined at length to ship them to Trinidad _as free labourers_. But here, that is, at Trinidad, an objection was started against receiving them, but on a different ground from that which had been started in the similar case in Nova Scotia. The planters of Trinidad were sure that no free Negroes would ever work, and therefore that the slaves in question would, if made free and settled among them, support themselves _by plunder_. Sir Ralph Woodford, however, the governor of the island, resisted the outcry of these prejudices. He received them into the island, and settled them where he supposed the experiment would be most safely made. The result has shown his discernment. These very men, formerly slaves in the Southern States of America and afterwards emanc.i.p.ated in a body at Trinidad, are now earning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct that the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died away.

A third case may comprehend those Negroes, who lately formed what we call our West Indian black regiments. Some of these had been originally purchased in Africa, not as slaves but recruits, and others in Jamaica and elsewhere. They had all served as soldiers in the West Indies. At length certain of these regiments were transported to Sierra Leone and disbanded there, and the individuals composing them received their discharge _as free men_. This happened in the spring of 1819. _Many hundreds_ of them were _set at liberty at once_ upon this occasion. Some of these were afterwards marched into the interior, where they founded Waterloo, Hastings, and other villages. Others were shipped to the Isles de Loss, where they made settlements in like manner. Many, in both cases, took with them their wives, which they had brought from the West Indies, and others selected wives from the natives on the spot. They were all settled upon grants given them by the Government. It appears from accounts received from Sir Charles M"Carthy, the governor of Sierra Leone, that they have conducted themselves to his satisfaction, and that they will prove a valuable addition to that colony.

A fourth case may comprehend what we call _the captured Negroes_ in the colony now mentioned. These are totally distinct from those either in the first or in the last of the cases which have been mentioned. It is well known that these were taken out of slave-ships captured at different times from the commencement of the abolition of the slave trade to the present moment, and that on being landed _they were made free_. After having been recruited in their health they were marched in bodies into the interior, where they were taught to form villages and to cultivate land for themselves. They were _made free_ as they were landed from the vessels, _from fifty to two or three hundred at a time_. They occupy at present twelve towns, in which they have both their churches and their schools. Regents Town having been one of the first established, containing about thirteen hundred souls, stands foremost in improvement, and has become a pattern for industry and good example.

The people there have now fallen entirely into the habits of English society. They are decently and respectably dressed. They attend divine worship regularly. They exhibit an orderly and moral conduct. In their town little shops are now beginning to make their appearance; and their lands show the marks of extraordinary cultivation. Many of them, after having supplied their own wants for the year, have a surplus produce in hand for the purchase of superfluities or comforts.

Here then are four cases of slaves, either Africans or descendants of Africans, _emanc.i.p.ated_ in _considerable bodies_ at a time. I have kept them by themselves, became they are of a different complexion from those, which I intend should follow. I shall now reason upon them. Let me premise, however, that I shall consider the three first of the cases as one, so that the same reasoning will do for all. They are alike indeed in their _main_ features; and we must consider this as sufficient; for to attend minutely to every shade of difference[5], which may occur in every case, would be to bewilder the reader, and to swell the size of my work unnecessarily, or without conferring an adequate benefit to the controversy on either side.

It will be said then (for my reasoning will consist princ.i.p.ally in answering objections on the present occasion) that the three first cases _are not strictly a.n.a.logous_ to that of our West Indian slaves, whose emanc.i.p.ation we are seeking. It will be contended, that the slaves in our West Indian colonies have been constantly in an abject and degraded state. Their faculties are benumbed. They have contracted all the vices of slavery. They are become habitually thieves and liars. Their bosoms burn with revenge against the whites. How then can persons in such a state be fit to receive their freedom? The slaves, on the other hand, who are comprehended in the three cases above mentioned, found in the British army a school as it were, _which fitted them by degrees for making a good use of their liberty_. While they were there, they were never out of the reach of discipline, and yet were daily left to themselves to act as free men. They obtained also in this _preparatory school_ some knowledge of the customs of civilized life. They were in the habit also of mixing familiarly with the white soldiers. Hence, it will be said, they were in a state much _more favourable for undergoing a change in their condition_ than the West Indian slaves before mentioned. I admit all this. I admit the difference between the two situations, and also the preference which I myself should give to the one above the other on account of its desirable tendencies. But I never stated, that our West Indian slaves were to be emanc.i.p.ated _suddenly_, but _by degrees_. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, that they were to have _their preparatory school_ also. Nor must it be forgotten, as a comparison has been inst.i.tuted, that if there was _less danger_ in emanc.i.p.ating the other slaves, _because they had received something like a preparatory education_ for the change, there was _far more_ in another point of view, because _they were all acquainted with the use of arms_. This is a consideration of great importance; but particularly when we consider _the prejudices of the blacks against the whites_; for would our West Indian planters be as much at their ease, as they now are, if their slaves had acquired _a knowledge of the use of arms_, or would they think them on this account more or less fit for emanc.i.p.ation?

It will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes, _is not strictly a.n.a.logous_ to the one in point.

These had probably been slaves but _for a short time_,--say a few months, including the time which elapsed between their reduction to slavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this their embarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely been slaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or no change therefore could have been effected in so short an interim in their disposition and their character; and, as they were never carried to the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits, or the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contended therefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for _emanc.i.p.ation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection, and I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ to emanc.i.p.ate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_.

They were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred of the whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, and suffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities which are attached to their bondage upon sh.o.r.e. Under these circ.u.mstances then we find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_ discipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ at a time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_ government of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we find their present number, as compared with that of the whites in the same colony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding which superiority fresh emanc.i.p.ations are constantly taking place, as fresh cargoes of the captured arrive in port.

It will be said, lastly, that all the four cases put together prove nothing. They can give us nothing like _a positive a.s.surance_, that the Negro slaves in our colonies would pa.s.s through the ordeal of emanc.i.p.ation without danger to their masters or the community at large.

Certainly not. Nor if these instances had been far more numerous than they are, could they, in this world of accidents, have given us _a moral certainty of this_. They afford us however _a hope_, that emanc.i.p.ation is practicable without danger: for will any one pretend to say, that we should have had as much reason for entertaining such a hope, _if no such instances had occurred_; or that we should not have had reason to despair, _if four such experiments had been made, and if they had all failed_? They afford us again ground for believing, that there is a peculiar softness, and plasticity, and pliability in the African character. This softness may be collected almost every where from the Travels of Mr. Mungo Park, and has been noticed by other writers, who have contrasted it with the unbending ferocity of the North American Indians and other tribes. But if this be a feature in the African character, we may account for the uniformity of the conduct of those Africans, who were liberated on the several occasions above mentioned, or for their yielding so uniformly to the impressions, which had been given them by their superiors, after they had been made free; and, if this be so, why should not our colonial slaves, if emanc.i.p.ated, conduct themselves in the same manner? Besides, I am not sure whether the good conduct of the liberated in these cases was not to be attributed in part to a sense of interest, when they came to know, that their condition _was to be improved_. Self-interest is a leading principle with all who are born into the world; and why is the Negro slave in our colonies to be shut out from this common feeling of our nature?--why is he to rise against his master, when he is informed that his condition is to be bettered? Did not the planters, as I have before related, declare in the House of Commons in the year 1816, that their Negroes had then imbibed the idea that they were to be made free, and that they were _

Prev List Next