The Lord Chancellor having resumed the woolsack, Mr. Alexander, and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the custom-house fees bill, the excise regulation bill, and some private bills, which were read a first time. The two former were ordered to be printed.

The Gibraltar and Malta postage bill, the Prussian yarn bill, and the additional assessed taxes bill passed through committees and were reported.

The Earl of Warwick rose to state to the House, that he had, some time before the decease of the late minister, submitted to him a proposition relative to the subject of taxation, which had been examined and approved of by men of the most distinguished ability. He had also submitted it to the present administration, in the hope that they would have brought forward some measure founded upon it. He now only wished to say, that unless he found them disposed to lay it before Parliament, he should feel it to be his duty to do so; being convinced that, under existing circumstances, it would prove eminently conducive to the salvation of the country, inasmuch as it was founded on a principle applicable in a fair and equal proportion to the means of every individual.

Lord Grenville presented a message from his Majesty, relative to encreasing the pay of seamen, similar to that presented the preceding day to the House of Commons. His lordship said, he thought it wholly unnecessary to enter into any argument upon the subject, as all their lordships must be convinced of the utility and propriety of the measure. He should, therefore, merely move an address to his Majesty, concurring in the object of his Majesty's

message.

The address was agreed to, and ordered to be presented to his Majesty by the Lords with white staves.

SLAVE TRADE.

A short conversation took place betweenthe Earl of Westmoreland and Lord Grenville, relative to the propriety of hearing counsel on a petition, presented on a former day by the noble earl, against the abolition of the slave trade. Lord Grenville objected to hearing counsel, and no motion being made by the Earl of Westmoreland, the former noble lord moved the order of the day for taking into consider

ation

ation the resolution of the House of Commons relative to the abolition of the slave trade, which being read,

Lord Grenville said, that upon this subject, after the repeated discussions and the minute investigations it had uudergone for twenty years, he did not think it necessary to take up much of their lordships' time. The resolution of the House of Commons contained a conclusion drawn from certain premises, and the question now was, whether those premises were correct; and, if so, whether the conclusion drawn was correct. The resolution stated that the slave trade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy, and ought to be abolished. That the trade was contrary to humanity could not surely be doubted for a moment, nor did he believe there was one man to be found who would venture to declare that this trade was in the least degree consistent with humanity. Let it be considered in the three stages of its progress: first, dragging away the unfortunate Africans from their homes, their families, and their comforts; next, the transfer of them from thence to the West Indies; and lastly, the treatment of them whilst there; and in all it would be found most inhuman. The means that were adopted to drag the unfortunate victims from their homes, were in the highest degree cruel, and at the same time contributed to keep up a continued system of barbarism in Africa. Torn from all the tender and social ties from which they derived their happiness, and feeling poignantly the miseries of the condition imposed upon them by our traders, they were doomed to endure still greater miseries in the transfer from thence to the West Indies. It was impossible for any man, however steeled his heart, to read of the horrors of the middle passage, of the treatment which these poor negroes experienced, or the miseries which they endured, without shuddering at the recital. Arrived in the West Indies, a new scene of misery opened to their view. Goaded with the lash they were compelled to labour from morning till night beneath a burning sun, and under the oppressive tyranny of taskmasters set over them by their owners, and though they might sometimes be mildly treated, yet it could not be denied that nothing was a greater corruptor of the human heart, than arbitrary power, nor could be a greater temptation to the abuse of power, than situations where, as in the West Indies, a white overseer, amongst a great number'

of

of negroes, had it in his power to ill-treat them in the grossest manner, whilst they could not be legal evidence against him in any of the courts of justice. That the trade was contrary to justice was clearly in his mind established, the principles of justice as amongst the individuals of a nation applied equally amongst nations, and nothing could be more contrary to justice than robbing men of the fruits of their industry, without giving them any compensation, as was the case with those unfortunate negroes, the fruits of whose industry was wrested from them, they receiving nothing in return but an aggravation of the injustice, the bitter portion of slavery. That what was contrary to hu manity and justice, must also be contrary to sound policy, it was unnecessary to argue. As to any argument set up respecting the profit of the trade, it would serve to justify robbery, or any other crime. On grounds of policy, however, he called upon those who advocated the cause of the planters, to agree to the abolition. Those persons who were best qualified to judge of the state of our West Indies, had declared that the abolition of the trade was necessary to prevent the ultimate destruction of these colonies; and with the example of St. Domingo before their eyes, it surely could be no longer problematical that the more they increased the number of negroes, the more they increased their danger, the more they increased the means which threatened their destruction. The great mortality which took place amongst the negroes, was amongst those who had newly arrived in the islands, but there was no reason to believe that any similar mortality would exist amongst the negroes seasoned to the climate; on the contrary it might be confidently expected that a sufficient stock might be kept up without any fresh importation. From all the arguments and facts which the subject afforded, he was decidedly of opinion, that the conclusion that the trade ought to be abolished was correctly deduced from the premises contained in the resolution of the House of Commons, and he should, therefore, move a similar resolution, concurring with that of the Commons; and though, in his individual opi nion, the best abolition would be an immediate abolition; yet, in deference to the opinion of others for whom he had a high respect, he would wish the subject to stand over for mature delibera ion next session. His lordship concluded by moving a resolution to the effect he had stated.

Lord Hawkesbury concurred with the noble lord in opiVOL. III. 1805-6.

Rr

nion,

nion, that if a trade was carried on which was contrary to humanity and justice, there could be no question as to its being contrary to sound policy. This, however, was not the way in which he viewed this question. It was not upon abstract principles, that the question as to the abolition of the slave trade ought to be considered, but as to its practical effect, and in this view of the subject, the noble lord had ad anced principles in the course of his speech, which he did not venture to sanction in the motion with which he concluded. The same principles upon which the noble lord condemned the slave trade, applied with equal force to the state, of slavery itself, but he noble lord would not venture to bring forward any measure founded upon these principles, as applying to the actual state of slavery in the West Indies. This, therefore, shewed the fallacy of bringing forward abstract principles, without at the same time looking to the practical effect. He did not believe that our ceasing to trade to Africa for negroes, would be of the slightest benefit to the people of that continent, nor did he believe that one slave less would be imported on account of our giving up the trade: the only effect would be, that British capital would be transferred to foreign islands, that the trade would be transferred to other hands, where the same regulations for ameliorating the condition of the negroes in their passage did not exist, and that thus no benefit would practically result from the measure. Slavery was undoubtedly an evil, and the slave trade was an evil; so many other evils existed, particularly comparative evils in the state of human society; but it did not follow that every evil was to be abolished, without reference to the practical effect of such abolition, as, in such case, a greater evil might be produced by the sudden change than previously existed. The instance of St. Domingo, adduced by the noble lord, made more against than for his argument, as the horrid revolution in that island was caused by abstract principles, embodied in the form of legislation in the mother country, without reference to the practical effect, or to the policy of carrying such principles into execution. With respect to the resolution itself, he did not see that it led to any practical conclusion, nor did he think it a right mode of proceeding to adopt a general resolution, containing an abstract principle respecting the abolition of the slave trade, without having previously considered the

practical

practical means by which that trade was to be abolished, or the practical effect which would be thereby produced.

The Bishop of London coincided in the arguments used by Lord Grenville, in support of which he quoted several passages from the evidence relative to the slave trade be-fore the House, and from works written on the subject, to prove the inhumanity and injustice exercised in carrying on The trade; and also that there was every reason to believe. that the stock of negroes in the islands might be kept up' notwithstanding the abolition of the trade. Some of the advocates of the trade, his lordship observed, had attempt ed to quote scripture in support of it, but these me-stealers,,. which actually meant dealers in slaves, were classed with robbers and other criminals. He deprecated the continuance of the trade, which was not only contrary to huma nity and justice, but likewise contrary to the express dictates of the Christian religion.

The Lord Chancellor warmly supported the motion of Lord Grenville. His lordship pathetically described the horrors attendant upon, the slave trade, in first dragging the unfortunate negroes from their homes, and subsequently conveying them to the West Indies. Of the former part of the trade he had only a glimpse, but that was sufficient to instil into his mind the most horrid ideas of the nature of the trade: of the latter he was an immediate wifness, and nothing could be conceived more horrible.. He had not on former occasions expressed his opinion upon this subject, not having been present at any of the discussions it had un-dergone: he now, however, declared himself decidedly hostile to the further continuance of this traffic.

The Earl of Westmoreland opposed the resolution. He argued that it either went to pledge the House to the abolition of the slave trade, or it did not. If the former, why was it not founded on previous enquiry into the na ture and effects of that trade; but if no such pledge was intended, what would be the effect of the present resolution? He entered into a defence of slavery, as consistent with the law of nations, and as practised among all the nations of antiquity, and even authorised by the Jewish code, while it was not expressly prohibited by Christianity.

The Bishop of St. Asaph spoke with energy of the effects of slavery, as degrading the slave below the condition of humanity, and as depriving him of the power of directing his own exertions, whether mental or bodily. Though

Rr2

slavery