selfish as to desire even so beneficial a boon at the expense of their fellow creatures in Africa; and the heart shud for the termination of the Slave trade, or by his assertion, that if it were now a question, whether the Slave trade should be, for the first time, established, heders to conceive what must be the state would be the man to oppose it. He now came to the arguments of some gentlemen who had been chiefly instrumental in introducing into the debate that degree of novelty and variety, which had eminently distinguished this debate from any other that he remembered upon the same subject. Not content ed with insisting, in the first place that the declaration of the assembly of Jamaica, that they had no view to the termination of the Slave trade, was to be accepted as a proof that they had the termination of the Slave trade' constantly in their view and near their heart, not contented with contending, that in limiting the age of imported negroes, and adding to the salaries of the clergy of the island, the assembly of Jamaica had done all that human wit could devise, and all that human legislation could enact, towards the accomplishing the purposes of the friends of the abolition: the gentlemen who had contended against the motion, had added to these ingenious arguments another and a broader and still bolder one, which, if it be true, leaves very little room to question and very little reason to care, whether either of the other statements be true or false; namely, that for the sake of Africa the Slave trade ought to be continued. And to illustrate and adorn this topic, the hon. gentlemen had availed themselves of all those common places of humanity and philanthropy, all those appeals to the feelings of the House, which have been usually supposed to belong to those who contended on the other side of the question, and upon which they (the friends of the abolition) had, by these pathetic reasoners themselves, in this very debate, been accused of relying exclusively. He appealed to the House, whether he had not been right in ascribing the character of novelty to a debate, in which all the topics of fine feelings were found forcibly enlisted on the side of the Slave trade. One hon. gentleman (Mr. Petrie), had informed the House, that as a planter, he was most anxious for the abolition of the trade, but as a cosmopolite, as a friend of human nature and of the world at large, he must oppose it. "If you would confer a boon on the West Indies," said the hon. gentleman," abolish the trade; but the West Indians are not so of Africa without the Slave trade." Really, if any stranger had come into the House during that part of the debate, he must have conceived that the West Indians had been petitioning to be relieved from the burthen of importing annually vast numbers of dangerous, rebellious, unprincipled barbarians: and that the hon. gentleman, as agent for Africa, was stating to the House, in terms of the utmost pathos, the cruelty of depriving that country of so advantageous an export for its superfluous population. The British parliament must not be so hardhearted. It must continue the traffic in human beings, the commerce of flesh and blood, out of mere humanity. It was not indeed the first time that the inhabitants of Africa had been the victims of humanity. The first importation of them into the West Indies was traced to a good Spanish bishop, who obtained the title of Friend of the Indians, by proposing to import negroes to relieve the native inhabitants of America from the toil with which their new inmates overwhelmed them. But the hon. gentleman went beyond the Spanish bishop in humanity; the bishop began the Slave trade for the advantage of the native inhabitants of the West Indies; the hon. gentleman would continue it, for the benefit of Africa, even though the present inhabitants of the West Indies were, as he said, averse to its continuance. Next to the hon. gentleman, in kind consideration for the unhappy natives of Africa, came an hon. baronet (Sir W. Young), and an hon. gentleman (Mr. Dent), whom he classed together, because their two arguments, though in some degree contradictory to each other, made (when taken together) a complete defence of the Slave trade system in all its parts. The hon. baronet took upon himself the defence of the system of treatment in the islands: the hon. gentleman, as connected with a slave trading town, had to prove the propriety of the exportation from Africa. And this was the way in which they went about it." Slavery, according to the hon. baronet, was taken in a vulgar sense by those who talked in so lamentable a strain upon the subject-the nature of slavery was not correctly understood-there was nothing found to prevent the dangers of African literature, except in the practical philosophy of the West Indies. The hon. baronet had taken fire at an expression in the speech of his hon. friend, who had averred that the regulations for the better treatment of slaves in the islands belonging to Great Britain did not, even in their present improved state, equal the Code Noire of the old French government. The hon. baronet felt the utmost indignation that the laws, by which the colonies of a free country were regulated, should be compared with any body of le in reality so afflicting or depressing in it. A state of slavery had produced great men among the ancients. If gentlemen would look into their Macrobius, they would find that half the ancient philosophers had been slaves." Such was the hon. baronet's statement. Mr. Canning professed he was not so much surprised at it, as some gentlemen appeared to be. When he had seen the word "right" applied in the manner in which it was applied in the Jamaica address in describing a system of oppression, cruelty, and rapine, he had guessed that its companion "philosophy" would not be far away.gislation emanating from an absolute moRight and Philosophy were the two surnames of tyranny and injustice in the vocabulary of French freedom: and the transition from that system of freedom to the system of absolute and abject slavery, was no violent or unnatural transition. narchy. He might refer to the papers upon the table, to prove that be the Code Noire of France as bad as the hon. baronet was desirous it should be thought, the laws in the English West Indies had, at least, been found as susceptible of amendment: he might refer the hon. baronet But while the hon. baronet was crying to the maimings, and mutilations, the up the philosophy of slavery on the one scourges, and spiked collars, the use of hand, how did it happen that the hon. which was prohibited or regulated by the gentleman (Mr. Dent) could reconcile papers upon the table. But as he really his feelings to such a mode of reasoning? wished to avoid any invidious or harsh toThe hon. gentleman had found great pics, he would confine himself to more fault with his hon. friend (Mr. Wilber-general observations upon the hon. force), for having mentioned in his open- baronet's way of treating this part of ing speech that there were parts to be found in the interior of Africa where civilization had made such a progress, that books were not uncommon among the inhabitants. "Books!" exclaimed the hon. gentleman, "books! the blackamoors have books! and this the hon. mover gives as a reason for not exporting them as slaves! I think if the hon. gentleman had recollected all the mischief that books have done, especially of late years, in the world, he might have spared this argument at least. What produced the French revolution? Books! The House will not be induced to put a stop to the Slave trade, in order that the inhabitants of Africa might stay at home to be corrupted by reading books." Now, he must complain of a little unfairness in the arguments of the hon. baronet and the hon. gentleman, thus contrasted with each other. "Export the natives of Africa," said the hon. gentleman," lest they become literati at home." "Bring them away," said the hon. baronet," that they may become philosophers in the West Indies." He much doubted whether the remedy or the disease were the worst for the patient; but undoubtedly it did seem a little hard that no means could be the subject and he would ask him, whether, in point of fact, he had never found, in the whole extent of his various reading in ancient and modern history, that the colonies of a free country were in general worse regulated and worse administered, than those of more absolute governments? That this might be an extraordinary truth, a painful truth, and one which well deserved the examination of the philosopher and the politician, to discover its causes, and remedy the effect, he was not disposed to deny. But that it was a truth, all history showed. If, therefore, his hon. friend had ventured this assertion, without such strong proof to support it, in the particular instances, as even the papers upon the table would afford, he would have asserted nothing that could call for the sort of indignant reprehension, which the hon. baronet had bestowed upon him; nothing that reflected personally on the gentlemen of the West Indies, nothing that reflected upon the character of this country; but a plain uncontradicted fact, true in general, true in the particular instance, and for which the proceedings now laid before the House furnished ample and indisputable vouchers. calculated for the purpose; if the assembly of Jamaica had professed as distinctly its anxiety to terminate the trade, as in point of fact it had expressed its resolu. tion to continue it; still according to the hon. baronet's argument, no trust could be reposed in these appearances and professions. There was something in the nature of absolute authority, in the relation between master and slave, which made despotism, in all cases, and under all circumstances, an incompetent and unsure executor even of its own provisions in favour of the objects of its power. But the hon. baronet's argument pro- | there had even been no doubt upon the face ceeded on still broader grounds. "Tell of the papers upon the table, of the sincere not me," said he," of the superiority intention of the colonial assemblies to of the French Code Noire, a code framed carry the wishes of this country into ef by a despotic government. It cannot be; fect: if there had been no doubt that the it is not in the nature of things that it termination of the trade was the object to should be superior, or equal to the laws which the regulations (such as they may enacted by the government of a free be) were intended: if there had been no country. However specious in appear-doubt that these regulations were in fact ance, there must be some radical defect in the laws enacted by despotism which prevents their beneficial influence." Was this so? Was the hon. baronet then prepared and contented to argue, that there was something in the nature of the relation between the despot and his slave, which must vitiate and render nugatory and null whatever laws the former might make for the benefit of the latter? which however speciously these laws might be framed, however well adapted they might appear to the evils which they were intended to alleviate, must infallibly be marred and defeated in the execution? Was this the hon. baronet's argument? He thanked him for it. He admitted the truth of it, up to any extent that the hon. baronet pleased. And let the House, let the hon. baronet himself, mark how it bore upon the question before them. The question is, whether in what is to be done towards alleviating and finally extinguishing the horrors of the Slave trade, the proper agent was the british House of Conimons, or the colonial assemblies? The hon. baronet contended, that the colonial assemblies, and not the British House of Commons, were the agents most proper to be employed. But what was the hon. baronet's argument? "Trust not the masters of slaves in what concerns legislation for slavery! However specious their laws may appear, depend upon it, they must be ineffectual in their application. It is in the nature of things that they should be so." Granted. Let then the British House of Commons do their part themselves! Let them not delegate the trust of doing it to those who, according to the hon. baronet's testimony, cannot execute that trust fairly. Let the evils of the Slave trade be remedied by an assembly of Freemen, by the government of a free people, and not by those whom the hon. baronet represents as utterly unqualified for the undertaking, not by the masters of slaves! Their laws, the hon. baronet had avowed, could never reach, would never cure, the evil. So that, according to the hon. baronet's argument, if But then came the general argument; that it is the interest of the proprietor that his slaves should be well treated, that they should not be overworked, that they should produce a natural population; and that any reasonable man would see a sufficient security in these circumstances against cruelty and oppression in the islands. In the first place, this argument proved too much. For as the interest of the planter in the preservation and propagation of his slaves had at all times been the same, it would go to establish that the slaves had at all times been treated as well as possible, with a view to their preservation, to the propagation of their race, and to the consequent discontinuance of importation: Suppositions which manifestly were not well founded; else where would have been the necessity, and what would be the benefit of the laws now upon the table of the House, upon the benevolent intention and efficacy of which so much stress was laid? But in the second place, the argument is perfectly fallacious. It was particularly unpleasant to go at large into this part of the subject, both because it was in its nature liable to be construed as invidious, and because it was not the part of the subject to which the motion of his hon. friend applied; but when points were stated so boldly, as containing incontrovertible truths, as setting all doubt at rest, and making all remedy useless and absurd, it was a little necessary to examine into them. He was not here contesting the fact, that slaves upon our islands were well treated. He was combating the assertion, that from the interest of the proprietors they must of necessity be so. First, then, that man's strongest permanent interests were liable to be overborne by his passions, need hardly be argued at length. Let gentlemen look at the laws upon the table, and see what sort of evils they are intended to remedy. Next, the interest of the proprietor, resident in the island unencumbered with debt, and looking to his estate as a permanent and improving provision for his family, is one thing: but that of the absentee proprietor who wishes to lay the foundation of a fortune elsewhere--that of the embarrassed proprietor, who wishes to discharge incumbrances-and lastly, that of the overseer, who is anxious to realize a sum of money as quickly as possible to purchase an estate for himself; all these might in the nature of things be interests of a very different kind indeed, from that steady and permanent interest, which contenting itself with moderate returns, would insure mild and considerate treatment to the labourers, whose work was to produce them. All these might require increased labour, and rapid produce; all these might, in the nature of things, be less solicitous about the eventual exhaustion of the soil, or of the workers of the soil, than about the extent of present profit. And when the proportion of these classes to that of the resident, and unembarrassed proprietors were considered, what became of the general statement that the interest of the owner must in all cases secure the good treatment of the slaves? That the slaves were in general well-treated he was far from being disposed to deny he hoped, and believed they were so. But that they must be so, from any necessitating and unalterable cause, he could not agree. This, however, after all, was not the question before the House. However well slaves might be treated, he did not believe there were many persons who were disposed to contend that the importation from Africa was to be continued, merely to furnish objects for colonial benevolence, And he saw nothing therefore in the meliorated treatment of the slaves in the West Indies, that called for the continuance, though much that diminished the necessity of the Slave trade. There remained only one argument, drawn from the circumstances of the aw ful times in which we live-an argument of great weight and wisdom in general, but not bearing very happily upon the question in debate. The House were gravely cautioned to beware how, in these times of turbulent innovation, when the old establishments of the world were shaken to their foundations, and many of them tumbling in hideous ruin about our ears; to beware how they laid their unhallowed hands on the ancient institution of the Slave trade! Seduced by plausible theories, and seeking after fancied perfection, would they rashly subvert a fabric reared by our ancestors, and consecrated by the lapse of ages? He had already had occasion to say something of the antiquity of the Slave trade, in apology for the want of novelty and of variety in the arguments which he might have to bring against it. Those arguments he had admitted could not choose but be old; he had admitted they must necessarily be always the same, because they were founded in what was eternal truth, because they were allied to what was immutable justice, and they partook of the immortality of the one and of the unchangeableness of the other. But little, indeed had he expected to hear the remote origin and long duration of the Slave trade brought forward with triumph; to hear the advocates of the Slave trade put in their claim for the venerableness of age, and the sacredness of prescription. What were the principles upon which we allowed a certain claim to our respect, to belong to any institution which had subsisted from remote time? What was the reason, why when any such institutions had, by the change of circumstances or of manners, become useless, we still tolerated them, nay cherished them with'something of affectionate regard, and even when they became burthensome did not remove them without regret? of affectionate regard? What? but because in such institutions for the most part we saw the shadow of departed worth or usefulness, the monument and memorial of what had, in its origin, or during its vigour, been of service or of credit to mankind? Was this the case with the Slave trade? Was the Slave trade originally begun upon some principle of public justice, or national honour, which the lapse of time, which the mutations of the world have alone impaired and done away? Has it to plead former merits, services, and glories, in behalf of its present foulness and disgrace? Was its in fancy lovely? or its manhood useful? though in its age it is become thus loathsome and perverse? No. Its infant lips were stained with blood. Its whole existence had been a series of rapacity, cruelty, and murder. It rested with the House to decide, whether it will allow to such a life the honours of old age, or endeavour to extend its duration. What were the grounds on which the plea of prescription usually rested? And in what cases was it where any existing order of things, though violent and unjust in its original institution, had by lapse of time been so meliorated and softened down, and reconciled to the feelings of mankind, had so accommodated itself to the manners and prejudices, and interwoven itself with the habits of a country, that the remembrance of its original usurpation was lost in the experience of present harmlessness or utility. Conquest was often of this nature: Violent and unjustifiable in its first introduction, it did often happen, that the conquerors, and the conquered, became blended into one people, and that a system of common interest arose out of the conciliated differences of parties originally hostile. But was this the case with the Slave trade? Was it in its outset only, that it had any thing of violence, of injustice, or of opposition? Were the wounds which Africa felt in the first conflict, healed and skinned over? Or were they fresh and green as at the moment when the first slave ship began its ravages upon the coast? Were the oppressors and oppressed so reconciled to each other, that no trace of enmity remained? Or was it in reason, or in common sense, to claim a prescriptive right, not to the fruits of an antient and forgotten crime, committed long ago, and traceable only in its consequences-but to a series of new violences, to a chain of fresh enormities, to cruelties not continued, but repeated, and of which every individual instance inflicted a fresh calamity, and constituted a fresh, a separate, and substantive, crime? He could not conceive, that in refusing to sanction the continuance of such a system, the House would feel itself, as in the smallest degree, impairing the respect due to the establishments of antiquity, or shaking the foundations of the British constitution. -Mr. Canning concluded, by reminding the House, that the question, however, immediately in dispute, was not, whether the Slave trade ought, at some time or other, to be terminated, (for upon that, it was professed loudly, that but one opinion could be entertained), but whether the papers upon the table contained such proofs of disposition on the part of the colonies, to bring about the termination of the Slave trade, that the House would, notwithstanding the distinct disclaimer of the assembly of Jamaica, of any such intention on their part, think itself justified in leaving the business wholly in the hands of that assembly, instead of themselves taking the necessary steps for securing the execution of their own purpose. Mr. Windham, after complimenting Mr. Canning on the happy use he had made of his wit, called the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be a common sense view of the subject. He observed that there were two descriptions of sentiments entertained upon this question: one was that of a short and compendious mode, and was recommended by those who called for the immediate abolition of the trade: gentlemen of that side of the question contended that, as the trade was unjust and inhuman, that was enough to call for its immediate and unqualified abolition. This was deciding the matter upon the abstract right; and, as an abstract point, supposing that to be the only one, that determination was right: but he ap prehended there was to be considered something beside the question of abstract right, and that was, the question of convenience and expedience; and in considering that point a great variety of objects made their appearance before the reflecting mind-and the real question at last, would be, by what possible mode was the least evil to be suffered? for a great evil must follow such a trade as that of the Slave trade, and the utmost effort of human wisdom could only choose the least. Those who were fond of abstract rights, were apt to make very considerable mistakes. They generally determined, when they found out an evil, to stop the cause of it immediately. They often recommended the immediate adoption of the reverse of that which was the cause of the evil. But such sudden and violent remedies often created a greater evil than that which they intended to remove. It was not difficult to show the absurdity of this system of reversing the cause of an evil by way of remedy to it: thus, for instance, if a man were thrown out of a high window, and had a fractured bone, or a dislocated joint, it would be but an indifferent mode of cure to |