The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808), Vol. I by Thomas Clarkson

T >> Thomas Clarkson >> The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808), Vol. I

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25

The men were chained two and two together by their hands and feet, and were
chained also by means of ring-bolts, which were fastened to the deck. They
were confined in this manner at least all the time they remained upon the
Coast, which was from six weeks to six months as it might happen.

Their allowance consisted of one pint of water a day to each person, and
they were fed twice a day with yams and horse-beans.

After meals they jumped up in their irons for exercise. This was so
necessary for their health, that they were whipped if they refused to do
it. And this jumping had been termed dancing.

They were usually fifteen and sixteen hours below deck out of the
twenty-four. In rainy weather they could not be brought up for two or three
days together. If the ship was full, their situation was then distressing.
They sometimes drew their breath with anxious and laborious efforts, and
some died of suffocation.

With respect to their health in these voyages, the mortality, where the
African constitution was the strongest, or on the windward coast, was only
about five in a hundred. In thirty-five voyages, an account of which was
produced, about six in a hundred was the average number lost. But this loss
was still greater at Calabar and Bonny, which were the greatest markets for
slaves. This loss, too, did not include those who died, either while the
vessels were lying upon the Coast, or after their arrival in the West
Indies, of the disorders which they had contracted upon the voyage. Three
and four in a hundred had been known to die in this latter case.

But besides these facts, which were forced out of the witnesses by means of
the cross-examination which took place, they were detected in various
falsehoods.

They had asserted that the ships in this trade were peculiarly constructed,
or differently from others, in order that they might carry a great number
of persons with convenience; whereas Captain Parrey asserted that out of
the twenty-six, which he had seen, ten only had been built expressly for
this employ.

They had stated the average height between decks at about five feet and
four inches. But Captain Parrey showed, that out of the nine he measured,
the height in four of the smallest was only four feet eight inches, and the
average height in all of them was but five feet two.

They had asserted that vessels under two hundred tons had no platforms. But
by his account the four just mentioned were of this tonnage, and yet all of
them had platforms either wholly or in part.

On other points they were found both to contradict themselves and one
another. They had asserted, as before mentioned, that if they were
restricted to less than two full-grown slaves to a ton, the trade would be
ruined. But in examining into the particulars of nineteen vessels, which
they produced themselves, five of them only had cargoes equal to the
proportion which they stated to be necessary to the existence of the trade.
The other fourteen carried a less number of slaves (and they might have
taken more on board if they had pleased): so that the average number in the
nineteen was but one man and four-fifths to a ton, or ten in a hundred
below their lowest standard[A]. One again said, that no inconvenience arose
in consequence of the narrow space allowed to each individual in these
voyages. Another said, that smaller vessels were more healthy than larger,
because, among other reasons, they had a less proportion of slaves as to
number on board.

[Footnote A: The falsehood of their statements in this respect was proved
again afterwards by facts. For, after the regulation had taken place, they
lost fewer slaves and made greater profits.]

They were found also guilty of a wilful concealment of such facts, as they
knew, if communicated, would have invalidated their own testimony. I was
instrumental in detecting them on one of these occasions myself. When Mr.
Dalzell was examined, he was not wholly unknown to me. My Liverpool
muster-rolls told me that he had lost fifteen seamen out of forty in his
last voyage. This was a sufficient ground to go upon; for generally, where
the mortality of the seamen has been great, it may be laid down that the
mortality of the slaves has been considerable also. I waited patiently till
his evidence was nearly closed, but he had then made no unfavourable
statements to the house. I desired, therefore, that a question might be put
to him, and in such a manner, that he might know that they, who put it, had
got a clew to his secrets. He became immediately embarrassed. His voice
faltered. He confessed with trembling, that he had lost a third of his
sailors in his last voyage. Pressed hard immediately by other questions, he
then acknowledged that he had lost one hundred and twenty or a third of his
slaves also. But would he say that these were all he had lost in that
voyage? No: twelve others had perished by an accident, for they were
drowned. But were no others lost besides the one hundred and twenty and the
twelve? None, he said, upon the voyage, but between twenty and thirty
before he left the Coast. Thus this champion of the merchants, this
advocate for the health and happiness of the slaves in the middle passage,
lost nearly a hundred and sixty of the unhappy persons committed to his
superior care, in a single voyage!

The evidence, on which I have now commented, having been delivered, the
counsel summed up on the seventeenth of June, when the commitee proceeded
to fill up the blanks in the bill. Mr. Pitt moved that the operation of it
be retrospective, and that it commence from the tenth instant. This was
violently opposed by Lord Penrhyn, Mr. Gascoyne, and Mr. Brickdale, but was
at length acceded to.

Sir William Dolben then proposed to apportion five men to every three tons
in every ship under one hundred and fifty tons burthen, which had the space
of five feet between the decks, and three men to two tons in every vessel
beyond one hundred and fifty tons burthen, which had equal accommodation in
point of height between the decks. This occasioned a very warm dispute,
which was not settled for some time, and which gave rise to some beautiful
and interesting speeches on the subject.

Mr. William Smith pointed out in the clearest manner many of the
contradictions, which I have just stated in commenting upon the evidence.
Indeed he had been a principal means of detecting them. He proved how
little worthy of belief the witnesses had shown themselves, and how
necessary they had made the present bill by their own confession. The
worthy Baronet, indeed, had been too indulgent to the merchants, in the
proportion he had fixed of the number of persons to be carried to the
tonnage of their vessels. He then took a feeling view of what would be the
wretched state of the poor Africans on board, even if the bill passed as it
now stood; and conjured the house, if they would not allow them more room,
at least not to infringe upon that, which had been proposed.

Lord Belgrave (now Grosvenor) animadverted with great ability upon the
cruelties of the trade, which he said had been fully proved at the bar. He
took notice of the extraordinary opposition which had been made to the bill
then before them, and which he believed every gentleman, who had a proper
feeling of humanity, would condemn. If the present mode of carrying on the
trade received the countenance of that house, the poor unfortunate African
would have occasion doubly to curse his fate. He would not only curse the
womb that brought him forth, but the British nation also, whose diabolical
avarice had made his cup of misery still more bitter. He hoped that the
members for Liverpool would urge no further opposition to the bill, but
that they would join with the house in an effort to enlarge the empire of
humanity; and that, while they were stretching out the strong arm of
justice to punish the degraders of British honour and humanity in the East,
they would with equal spirit exert their powers to dispense the blessings
of their protection to those unhappy Africans, who were to serve them in
the West.

Mr. Beaufoy entered minutely into an examination of the information, which
had been, given by the witnesses, and which afforded unanswerable arguments
for the passing of the bill. He showed the narrow space, which they
themselves had been made to allow for the package of a human body, and the
ingenious measures they were obliged to resort to for stowing this living
cargo within the limits of the ship. He adverted next to the case of Mr.
Dalzell; and showed how one dismal fact after another, each making against
their own testimony, was extorted from him. He then went to the trifling
mortality said to be experienced in these voyages, upon which subject he
spoke in the following words: "Though the witnesses are some of them
interested in the trade, and all of them parties against the bill, their
confession is, that of the Negros of the windward coast, who are men of the
strongest constitution which Africa affords, no less on an average than
five in each hundred perish in the voyage,--a voyage, it must be
remembered, but of six weeks. In a twelvemonth, then, what must be the
proportion of the dead? No less than forty-three in a hundred, which is
seventeen times the usual rate of mortality; for all the estimates of life
suppose no more than a fortieth of the people, or two and a half in the
hundred, to die within the space of a year. Such then is the comparison. In
the ordinary course of nature the number of persons, (including those in
age and infancy, the weakest periods of existence,) who perish in the space
of a twelvemonth, is at the rate of but two and a half in a hundred; but in
an African voyage, notwithstanding the old are excluded and few infants
admitted, so that those who are shipped are in the firmest period of life,
the list of deaths presents an annual mortality of forty-three in a
hundred. It presents this mortality even in vessels from the windward coast
of Africa; but in those which sail to Bonny, Benin, and the Calebars, from
whence the greatest proportion of the slaves are brought, this mortality is
increased by a variety of causes, (of which the greater length of the
voyage is one,) and is said to be twice as large, which supposes that in
every hundred the deaths annually amount to no less than eighty-six. Yet
even the former comparatively low mortality, of which the counsel speaks
with so much satisfaction, as a proof of the kind and compassionate
treatment of the slaves, even this indolent and lethargic destruction gives
to the march of death seventeen times its usual speed. It is a destruction,
which, if general but for ten years, would depopulate the world, blast the
purposes of its creation, and extinguish the human race."

After having gone with great ability through the other branches of the
subject, he concluded in the following manner: "Thus I have considered the
various objections which have been stated to the bill, and am ashamed to
reflect that it could be necessary to speak so long in defence of such a
cause: for what, after all, is asked by the proposed regulations? On the
part of the Africans, the whole of their purport is, that they, whom you
allow to be robbed of all things but life, may not unnecessarily and
wantonly be deprived of life also. To the honour, to the wisdom, to the
feelings of the house I now make my appeal, perfectly confident that you
will not tolerate, as senators, a traffic, which, as men, you shudder to
contemplate, and that you will not take upon yourselves the responsibility
of this waste of existence. To the memory of former parliaments the horrors
of this traffic will be an eternal reproach; yet former parliaments have
not known, as you on the clearest evidence now know, the dreadful nature of
this trade. Should you reject this bill, no exertions of yours to rescue
from oppression the suffering inhabitants of your Eastern empire; no
records of the prosperous state to which, after along and unsuccessful war,
you have restored your native land; no proofs, however splendid, that,
under your guidance, Great Britain has recovered her rank, and is again the
arbitress of nations, will save your names from the stigma of everlasting
dishonour. The broad mantle of this one infamy will cover with substantial
blackness the radiance of your glory, and change to feelings of abhorrence
the present admiration of the world.--But pardon the supposition of so
impossible an event. I believe that justice and mercy may be considered as
the attributes of your character, and that you will not tarnish their
lustre on this occasion."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose next; and after having made some
important observations on the evidence (which took up much time), he
declared himself most unequivocally in favour of the motion made by the
honourable baronet. He was convinced that the regulation proposed would not
tend to the Abolition of the trade; but if it even went so far, he had no
hesitation openly and boldly to declare, that if it could not be carried on
in a manner different from that stated by the members for Liverpool, he
would retract what he had said on a former day against going into the
general question; and, waiving every other discussion than what had that
day taken place, he would give his vote for the utter annihilation of it at
once. It was a trade, which it was shocking to humanity to hear detailed.
If it were to be carried on as proposed by the petitioners, it would,
besides its own intrinsic baseness, be contrary to every humane and
Christian principle, and to every sentiment that ought to inspire the
breast of man, and would reflect the greatest dishonour on the British
senate and the British nation. He therefore hoped that the house, being now
in possession of such information as never hitherto had been brought before
them, would in some measure endeavour to extricate themselves from that
guilt, and from that remorse, which every one of them ought to feel for
having suffered such monstrous cruelties to be practised upon an helpless
and unoffending part of the human race.

Mr. Martin complimented Mr. Pitt in terms of the warmest panegyric on his
noble sentiments, declaring that they reflected the greatest honour upon
him both as an Englishman and as a man.

Soon after this the house divided upon the motion of Sir William Dolben.
Fifty-six appeared to be in favour of it, and only five against it. The
latter consisted of the two members for Liverpool and three other
interested persons. This was the first division which ever took place on
this important subject. The other blanks were then filled up, and the bill
was passed without further delay.

The next day, or on the eighteenth of June, it was carried up to the House
of Lords. The slave-merchants of London, Liverpool, and Bristol,
immediately presented petitions against it, as they had done in the lower
house. They prayed that counsel might open their case; and though they had
been driven from the commons, on account of their evidence, with disgrace,
they had the effrontery to ask that they might call witnesses here also.

Counsel and evidence having been respectively heard, the bill was ordered
to be committed the next day. The Lords attended according to summons. But
on a motion by Dr. Warren, the bishop of Bangor, who stated that the Lord
Chancellor Thurlow was much indisposed, and that he wished to be present
when the question was discussed, the commitee was postponed.

It was generally thought that the reason for this postponement, and
particularly as it was recommended by a prelate, was, that the Chancellor
might have an opportunity of forwarding this humane bill. But it was found
to be quite otherwise. It appeared that the motive was, that he might give
to it, by his official appearance as the chief servant of the crown in that
house, all the opposition in his power. For when the day arrived, which had
been appointed for the discussion, and when the Lords Bathurst and
Hawkesbury (now Liverpool) had expressed their opinions, which were
different, relative to the time when the bill should take place, he rose
up, and pronounced a bitter and vehement oration against it. He said, among
other things, that it was full of inconsistency and nonsense from the
beginning to the end. The French had lately offered large premiums for the
encouragement of this trade. They were a politic people, and the
presumption was, that we were doing politically wrong by abandoning it. The
bill ought not to have been brought forward in this session. The
introduction of it was a direct violation of the faith of the other house.
It was unjust, when an assurance had been given that the question should
not be agitated till next year, that this sudden fit of philanthropy, which
was but a few days old, should be allowed to disturb the public mind, and
to become the occasion of bringing men to the metropolis with tears in
their eyes and horror in their countenances, to deprecate the ruin of their
property, which they had embarked on the faith of parliament.

The extraordinary part, which the Lord Chancellor Thurlow took upon this
occasion, was ascribed at the time by many, who moved in the higher
circles, to a shyness or misunderstanding, which had taken place between
him and Mr. Pitt on other matters; when, believing this bill to have been a
favourite measure with the latter, he determined to oppose it. But,
whatever were his motives (and let us hope that he could never have been
actuated by so malignant a spirit as that of sacrificing the happiness of
forty thousand persons for the next year to spite the gratification of an
individual), his opposition had a mischievous effect, on account of the
high situation in which he stood. For he not only influenced some of the
Lords themselves, but, by taking the cause of the slave-merchants so
conspicuously under his wing, he gave them boldness to look up again under
the stigma of their iniquitous calling, and courage even to resume vigorous
operations after their disgraceful defeat. Hence arose those obstacles,
which will be found to have been thrown in the way of the passing of the
bill from this period.

Among the Lords, who are to be particularly noticed as having taken the
same side as the Lord Chancellor in this debate, were the Duke of Chandos
and the Earl of Sandwich. The former foresaw nothing but insurrections of
the slaves in our islands, and the massacre of their masters there, in
consequence of the agitation of this question. The latter expected nothing
less than the ruin of our marine. He begged the house to consider how, by
doing that which might bring about the Abolition of this traffic, they
might lessen the number of British sailors; how, by throwing it into the
hands of France, they might increase those of a rival nation; and how, in
consequence, the flag of the latter might ride triumphant on the ocean, The
Slave-trade was undoubtedly a nursery for our seamen. All objections
against it in this respect were ill-founded. It was as healthy as the
Newfoundland and many other trades.

The debate having closed, during which nothing more was done than filling
up the blanks with the time when the bill was to begin to operate, the
commitee was adjourned. But the bill after this dragged on so heavily, that
it would be tedious to detail the proceedings upon it from day to day. I
shall, therefore, satisfy myself with the following observations concerning
them. The commitee sat not less than five different times, which consumed
the space of eight days, before a final decision took place. During this
time, so much was it an object to throw in obstacles which might occupy the
little remaining time of the session, that other petitions were presented
against the bill, and leave was asked, on new pretences contained in these,
that counsel might be heard again. Letters also were read from Jamaica,
about the mutinous disposition of the slaves there, in consequence of the
stir which had been made about the Abolition, and also from merchants in
France, by which large offers were made to the British merchants to furnish
them with slaves. Several regulations also were proposed in this interval,
some of which were negatived by majorities of only one or two voices. Of
the regulations, which were carried, the most remarkable were those
proposed by Lord Hawkesbury (now Liverpool); namely, that no insurance
should be made on the slaves except against accidents by fire and water;
that persons should not be appointed as officers of vessels transporting
them, who had not been a certain number of such voyages before; that a
regular surgeon only should be capable of being employed in them; and that
both the captain and surgeon should have bounties, if in the course of the
transportation they had lost only two in a hundred slaves. The Duke of
Chandos again, and Lord Sydney, were the most conspicuous among the
opposers of this humane bill; and the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis
Townshend, the Earl of Carlisle, the Bishop of London, and Earl Stanhope,
among the most strenuous supporters of it. At length it passed, by a
majority of nineteen to eleven votes.

On the fourth of July, when the bill had been returned to the Commons, it
was moved that the amendments made in it by the Lords should be read; but
as it had become a money-bill in consequence of the bounties to be granted,
and as new regulations were to be incorporated in it, it was thought proper
that it should be wholly done away. Accordingly Sir William Dolben moved,
that the further consideration of it should be put off till that day three
months. This having been agreed upon, he then moved for leave to bring in a
new bill. This was accordingly introduced, and an additional clause was
inserted in it, relative to bounties, by Mr. Pitt. But on the second
reading, that no obstacle might be omitted which could legally be thrown in
the way of its progress, petitions were presented against it both by the
Liverpool merchants and the agent for the island of Jamaica, under the
pretence that it was a new bill. Their petitions, however, were rejected,
and it was committed, and passed through its regular stages and sent up to
the Lords.

On its arrival there on the fifth of July, petitions from London and
Liverpool still followed it. The prayer of these was against the general
tendency of it, but it was solicited also that counsel might be heard in a
particular case. The solicitation was complied with; after which the bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

On the seventh, when it was taken next into consideration, two other
petitions were presented against it. But here so many objections were made
to the clauses of it as they then stood; and such new matter suggested,
that the Duke of Richmond, who was a strenuous supporter of it, thought it
best to move that the commitee, then sitting, should be deferred till that
day seven-night, in order to give time for another more perfect to
originate in the lower house.

This motion having been acceded to, Sir William Dolben introduced a new one
for the third time into the Commons. This included the suggestions which
had been made in the Lords. It included also a regulation, on the motion of
Mr. Sheridan, that no surgeon should be employed as such in the
slave-vessels, except he had a testimonial that he had passed a proper
examination at Surgeons'-Hall. The amendments were all then agreed to, and
the bill was passed through its several stages.

On the tenth of July, being now fully amended, it came for a third time
before the Lords; but it was no sooner brought forward than it met with the
same opposition as it had experienced before. Two new petitions appeared
against it, one from a certain class of persons in Liverpool, and another
from Miles Peter Andrews, esquire, stating that, if it passed into a law,
it would injure the sale of his gunpowder, and that he had rendered great
services to the government during the last war by his provision of that
article. But here the Lord Chancellor Thurlow reserved himself for an
effort, which, by occasioning only a day's delay, would in that particular
period of the session have totally prevented the passing of the bill. He
suggested certain amendments for consideration and discussion, which, if
they had been agreed upon, must have been carried again to the lower house
and sanctioned there before the bill could have been complete. But it
appeared afterwards, that there would have been no time for the latter
proceeding. Earl Stanhope, therefore, pressed this circumstance peculiarly
upon the Lords who were present. He observed, that the King was to dismiss
the parliament next day, and therefore they must adopt the bill as it
stood, or reject it altogether. There was no alternative, and no time was
to be lost. Accordingly he moved for an immediate division on the first of
the amendments proposed by Lord Thurlow. This having taken place, it was
negatived. The other amendments shared the same fate; and thus, at length,
passed through the upper house, as through an ordeal as it were of fire,
the first bill that ever put fetters upon that barbarous and destructive
monster, The Slave-trade.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25