of the Slave Trade has, as a subject of discussion, opened to the view, and brought under the notice and consideration of this House; a field too large for me to range in, too comprehensive for the extent of individual ability, more than enough to occupy the exertions of every head, and to rouse the energies of every heart among us-to occupy the exertions of every head in appeal to wisdom, and to rouse the energies of every heart, as a call upon the characteristic justice of this House. It is not then, in this field that I am now about to enter; neither is it to those tribunals of your lordships wisdom and justice that I am in the act of addressing myself. The stage in which this business is, is ripe for neither; and God forbid it should ever be so; but there is a third tribunal to which I am now to address myself, and that is, in solemn appeal, at this most momentous crisis of public affairs, to the political discretion of this House: nor even here either shall I have occasion to trespass long on the patience of the House; for what this momentous crisis of public affairs is, will need no representation from me to bring to your lordships minds; the facts, in events too terrible even for the admission of thought, being already before our eyes; and the effects springing from the causes that have produced them, but too plainly speaking for themselves. It is, therefore, enough for me to presume, that your lordships are sufficiently aware of that new philosophy, as it is called, which is gone abroad; containing like Pandora's box of old, all the evils and vices that human nature or the world can be inflicted with. Of that philosophy on the principles of which those monsters in human shape, I mean the people of France; and when I say monsters in human shape, let not the charge of a national reflection (speaking as I do, not from my own, but from much better authority than my own) be imputed to me, namely, that of one of their own countrymen (Voltaire), who knew them well, and who says, in describing the nation, that "They are a race of people descended from monkies and from wolves; for when they are not skipping and dancing like monkies, they are ravenous and ferocious as wolves." I say then, your lordships are aware of that new philosophy on the principles of which these monsters in human shape, this savage nation, have declared war, not only against man, but against God himself-principles by which all Europe is already convulsed, and with the direful influence of which the peace, the order, the subordination, the happiness, of the whole habitable globe, is threatened. And yet such is the philosophy, such are the principles, and such the people, that, in this age of novelty and innovation, we are called upon by some to adopt, to fraternize, and to affiliate with. And now, having said this, if it were to appear to your lordships, that this very proposition for the abolition of the slave trade, not only makes a part in speculation of this new philosophy, but is actually founded on those very principles in practice which I have just mentioned, would it be too much to look for your lordships agreement with me in a motion for postponing the farther consideration of this business to a period, when intermediately mankind may be restored to their senses, and this enthusiastic madness no longer shall remain? We are at war with France, either for the extinction of these principles, or with a view to self preservation, which is the first law of nature, social as well as individual, for the extirpation of the people themselves; for otherwise, what is the result? The result is, that we shall, as of unavoidable necessity, sink into the same abyss of misery with them, and be what they are; for is not their philosophy founded on this? do not their principles lead to this? are not their decrees declaratory to this? is not their object expressly this? and, if success should attend their measures, will not their end be this? And if so, in my contemplation, better were it for us, that we were created toads, to live on the fumes of a dunghill, rather than possessing the feelings and the faculties of men, and of Englishmen too, born to the blessings of a constitution founded on liberty, be made to endure a life that shall pass away with the mortifying suppression of the former, and in the cruel deprivation of the latter. But I have said, that this proposition for the abolition of the slave trade, is in speculation a part of this new philosophy ; and who shall controvert the position? For in the very definition of the terms themselves, as descriptive of the thing, what does the abolition of the slave trade mean more or less in effect, than liberty and equality? what more or less than the rights of man? and what is liberty and equality; and what the rights of man, but the foolish fundamental principles of this new philosophy? But this is not all. It is a proposition that has been adopted, of which the proofs of correspondence | tion of the slave trade, and from whence are not wanting, in concert, or rather let it comes, as a matter of reflection only, me say more ad rem, in fraternity with and to pause upon. I have read a sersome of those profligate and abandoned mon of Dr. Priestley's upon this very subconspirators, the National Convention of ject, preached to a society of dissenters, France; and is, or has been, carried on and published at their request. What through the medium and by the means of this sermon is, your lordships may supsubsisting clubs in both countries; which pose. It is, of course, to inculcate these shows not only that the proposition is in doctrines with all the ability that belongs itself founded on French principles, that to that well-known philosopher. But it is, on French philosophy; but proves is to do more; it is to state facts, that, that we too have in this country our Con- coming from his superintending knowdorcets, our Brissots, our Abbé Gre- ledge and authority, are not to be disregoires, and our Robespierres. And if garded. He tells us to whom we are inthis be so, is not this ground enough for debted for the agitation and adoption of your lordships, at least for the present, this question-" To the Quakers," says to rest on your arms?-But I have said, he, "who were the first to show themnot only that this proposition is founded selves friends to the rights of humanity, on this new philosophy in speculation, and to dissenters of all denominations;" but that it has, on its very principles, adding, in the true spirit of levelling, to been reduced to practice; and of this nei- his levelling flock, this prophetic exther are the damning proofs deficient: for, hortation to perseverance in the good look at the state of the colony of St. Do- cause; namely, "that the time is arrivmingo, and see what liberty and equality, ing, when the wolf shall lie down with see what the rights of man, have done the lamb, as the present state of there. Look at the 10th of August, and things," says he, "makes highly probathe 2d and 3d of September at Paris, and ble;-that is to say, that all being equal, in comparison with the foul calendar of blacks and whites, French and English, murders committed at St. Domingo, you wolves and lambs, shall all,“ merry comwill find these days of humanity and com- panions every one," promiscuously pig passion. There indeed (at Paris) you will together; engendering a race of people have brought to your view murderers and not descended, as Voltaire says, from cannibals enough, it is true; but here (at monkies and wolves, but a new species of St. Domingo) you will see rivers of com- man as the product of this new philosophy, merce dried up, whilst fountains of hu- a nondescript in the order of human beman blood are made to issue in their ings, and hitherto unknown to the natu stead; and (as if in the pride of exulta- ralist. But as that present state of tion for this philosophic event) hear too, things to which the sermon alludes, is in the milk of his humanity, what one of widely different from the present state of these murderous philosophers (citizen things, the only remark I shall make upon Robespierre) says upon this very occa- what I have stated, is this, in the shape sion: "Perish," says he," the colonies, of a question-Is there, or can there be, rather than that we should loose one of any just reason why the Quakers, or any our principles !" But let us remember, other of the sects of dissenters, should be my lords, that we have colonies of our more forward in showing themselves own; and would your lordships be willing, friends to the rights of humanity, than the by making the same experiment, to pro- members of the established church are? duce the same consequences? And if And to this I shall wait for an answer in arnot, let us have some regard for our con- gument: but, in the mean time, having sistency. Let us not spill the blood and heard the assertion that they are so, and waste the treasure of this country, in a understanding that all the petitions for the war with France, to combat principles abolition of this trade have been either that we ourselves are giving law to. from, or through the influence of, this body of men; and apprehending that the same proceeding may be adopted in this House, I shall trouble your lordships with a few reflections on this subject. Thus much have I thought it necessary to say in address to the political discretion of your lordships; and now I will add a word or two in argumentum ad suspicionem, in address to the jealousy of this House. And in so doing, let us see who are the abettors of this proposition for the aboli I say, then, as a general proposition, that the right of petitioning the king, or either House of parliament, is a right in and if petitions are to be admitted for conscience sake, why not petition to alter the liturgy of the church of England, and to change the established religion of the country? The ground is the same, and the reason the same; but, I trust, the practice is not meant to be the same. But here, too, reverts my question, what right has a Quaker, or any other dissenter, to more humanity than a church of England man? And yet such is the pretence; but admitting he has, what is the answer to their petitions? The aswer is, have nothing to do with the trade, and your humanity is out of the question; but if this were not so, let me ask again, what right has any body of men, however numerous (unless with sinister views, or for hypocritical purposes) to set up their humanity against the humanity of other people; and, to satisfy that humanity, to call upon parliament-to do what? to repeal their own acts; and this, too, in a case where not only public faith is to be violated, public justice sacrificed, all ideas of policy obliterated, thousands and tens of thousands of subjects ruined, millions and tens of millions of property lost herent in the subject, fundamental in the constitution, just in its origin, and beneficial in its application; but, at the same time, it is a right subject to limitations. That it is a restricted right we know from the act of the 13th Chas. 2d, s. 1, c. 5, the restrictions of which I need not here enumerate; but the reasons of those restrictions we all must remember to be on account of the rage for petitioning that preceded the grand rebellion in 1640; and we know too, that it is under these restrictions that the right is declared and confirmed by the act of the 1st of Wiliam and Mary, s. 2, c. 2. This, then, being the case, my argument is, that the ground of every petition to the king, or to either House of parliament (legal ground I mean) is and can only be for two causes-either against the infringement of a constitutional right by the legislature, or by any branch of it; or, that right being so in fringed, for a redress of grievances. Now, I conceive, the constitutional rights of the subject to be, and only to be, the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property; and against the infringement of any of these rights, or, if infringed, for but where against this very (now-disthe redress of grievances, are the only senting) humanity, this trade has been grounds, on which the subject's right of carried on by all countries in the four petitioning is made to rest. This I take quarters of the globe; and particularly to be clear and indisputable doctrine; by this for near two centuries and a half. and being so, let us see whether the peti- But what is all this to us, say these petions that have been and may be again titioners; for has not citizen Robespierre presented, for the abolition of the slave said, "perish the colonies, rather than trade, are founded upon the infringement we should lose one of the principles of of any one of those rights; and if not, whe- our new philosophy ?" But I say, that ther they are not consequently illegal? this is to dictate to parliament; it is to Let me ask then, is the carrying on of the petition " for the alteration of matters slave trade against the personal security, established by law in the state," which is the personal liberty, or the private pro- expressly contrary to law; it is to set up perty of these petitioners; or does it intoleration against establishment, and to any wise disturb any one of these rights? What must be the answer? Examine the question. It is impossible to be so. Upon what ground, then, are these petitions? Are they for the redress of grievances? No: this neither cannot be; for none of these rights are infringed upon, and not being infringed upon, there are no grievances to be redressed. presume on strength where weakness ought to prevail. The inference I then drew, is this, that these petitions are not founded on any constitutional ground, either of infringement of right, or redress of grievances, but savouring of the times, are like those tumultuos petitions that, preceding the grand rebellion in the year 1640, gave occasion to the act alluded to But these petitions must have some of the 13th Chas.2d, and being so, are conground to stand upon; and what is it? sequently illegal, and being illegal, ought It is, say the petitioners, the ground of not to have been received, but being rehumanity; but humanity, as I have ceived, ought wholly to be disregarded. shown, is no ground for petitioning: hu-His lordship then moved, "That the manity is a private feeling, and not a pub- further consideration of the question for lic principle to act upon: it is a case of the abolition of the slave trade be postconscience, and not a constitutional right; poned to this day five months." [VOL. XXX. ] [2U] Earl Stanhope said, that the present motion was unprecedented. What! stop a judicial inquiry, when only one side of the question had been heard! This would be the height of injustice. The abolition of the slave trade was a most glorious work; it was the work of humanity, of freedom, and of justice. Our slave trade had nothing to do with the French Revolution, and therefore he should give the motion his decided negative. The Duke of Clarence thought it would be impolitic and unjust to abolish the slave trade. He went into the merits of the trade, the immense capital that was employed, and the consequences that must ensue from putting a stop to that which ages had confirmed as highly beneficial to this country. The business of this sort of freedom was begun by a Mr. Ramsay, who was one of the most tyrannical men *that ever governed a plantation in the West Indies, but who, philosophied by those new-fangled principles of liberty, which had deluged Europe with blood, became now as great a tyrant to order and good government as he was before to justice, moderation, and true liberty. His royal highness asserted that the promoters of the abolition were either fanatics or hypocrites, and in one of those classes he ranked Mr. Wilberforce. That French politics did interfere with the opinions and arguments of British senators, he should be able to prove by a letter from lord Stanhope to citizen Condorcet. This letter he read. It contained congratulations to the French republican on the turn which the slave trade was likely to take, and the victory obtained in the House of Commons over the opponents to freedom. It also mentioned with joy that the day was arriving when liberty would triumph, and monarchical tyranny be every where exploded and crushed. Lord Grenville took up in a very serious manner, the attack made on Mr. Wilberforce a gentleman who was an ornament to human nature. The epithets of fanatic or hypocrite did not belong to him: he had taken up the business with a spirit that flowed from justice, and had persevered in it with an assiduity that did credit to his heart as well as his head. There was little doubt, but that in the end the noble object of his pursuit would be crowned with success. In respect to the motion, it certainly should have his dissent; because it was not giving a fair chance to the business; and it would be a great insult to the Commons to decide by this hasty vote that which they had with such labour and pains brought to their bar for a solemn decision. The Duke of Clarence made a handsome apology for what he had said on Mr. Wilberforce: he respected that gentleman's very high character, and certainly meant him no personal or political insult. The Bishop of St. David's said, that though neither a correspondent with Condorcet, an admirer of French republicanism, or a friend to fanatics, yet he conceived that, before war was declared against France, he might communicate by letter with a man of sense, talk familiarly with a dissenter, and converse on philosophy, without losing an atom of that veneration he had for our mixed monarchical government, or forfeiting an iota of his firm allegiance to the king, and his true friendship for the constitution. But it so happened that he had no correspondents in France, and that he detested from his heart the principle which it was now evident actuated this rebellion. He was, however, a friend to the bill for abo lishing the slave trade, and having studied the whole of the evidence on that subject, and in a great measure made up his mind upon it, he should certainly give his negative to the motion made by the noble earl. The Earl of Mansfield hoped the noble earl would withdraw his motion, and not take the sense of the House upon it. The Earl of Abingdon agreed to withdraw his motion. Debate in the Commons on the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter.] April 23. The House having resolved into a committee to take into consideration the petition of the East India Company relative to the Renewal of their Charter, Mr. Dundas introduced his observations upon the important national subject of the British government and trade in the East Indies, by stating, that the difficulties which he had experienced had arisen, not only from the importance and maguitude of the subject, but from the system which he was to propose being in opposition to established theories in government and in commerce. These theories, he admitted, were just and applicable to other cases, and yet he found it dangerous to listen to them, when he was devising a plan of government and a system of is thus, on the one hand, increased, by the export of produce and manufactures, and the consumption of these manufactures enlarged by the number of persons returning with fortunes from India, or who are supported by the trade and revenues of India; and on the other, it is fostered and encouraged by the import of the raw materials from India, upon which many of our most valuable manufactures depend. In short, the receipts and payments of the East India company amount annually to more than six millions sterling. trade for British India. "No writer upon political economy (he said) has as yet supposed that an extensive empire can be administered by a commercial association; and no writer on commercial economy has thought, that trade ought to be shackled by an exclusive privilege. In deviating from these principles, which have been admitted and admired, I am sensible, that my opinions have popular prejudices against them, but I am supported by successful experience; and when the House adverts to the peculiarities of the subject before them, they will at once see, that I am not attempting to overturn theories, though I am unwilling to recede from old and established practice. I wish, in the outset, to arrest the attention of the House, and to fix it on the advantages which Great Britain actually possesses, and then to ask, whether it would be wise or politic to forego them in search of greater advantages which may exist only in imagination? It would be idle, it would, perhaps, be a proof of ignorance, to maintain that all the advantages which Great Britain possesses from its connexion with India, arise out of the present exclusive privilege of the company; but it would be rash, and, perhaps, impossible to say, what might be the political or commercial effects of a variation from the present system. In an age of enterprise and improvement, men are unwilling to hear of restraints; but the wisdom of the British parliament will not rashly relinquish a positive good in possession, for a probable one in anticipation." Mr. Dundas then stated, that the shipping employed by the East India company amounted to $1,000 tons; that the seamen navigating those ships were about 7,000 men, who had constant employment; that the raw materials imported from India, for the use of the home manufactures, amounted annually to about 700,000.; that the various articles of British produce and manufacture annually exported to India and China, in the company's ships, amounted to upwards of a million and a half sterling, including the exports in private trade allowed to individuals; that the fortunes of individuals acquired in India, and remitted home through the medium of private trade, by bills on the court of directors, or by other means, formed an addition to the capital of the nation, the amount of which could not be accurately ascertained, but might be stated, at least, at a million per annum. "The industry of Britain (he observed) Having made these observations, Mr. Dundas brought forward the general question-Upon what principle ought the state to govern its Indian possessions? And under what regulations ought the trade to the East Indies to be conducted?" He wished if it were possible, to state separately his observations upon the two great points comprehended in this question; but he found that it would be impracticable to explain his ideas of the government, without frequently referring to the connexion established between it and the trade. Mr. Dundas then stated the nature of the present government of India; that it was vested in a corporation under the control of the executive power, and the superintending authority of parliament, and that the experience of nine years had justified this system, and induced him to propose to the consideration of the House the continuance of it. "There were (he said) facts and events respecting which there could be no difference of opinion. India, or the country in Hindostan governed by Britain, is in a state of prosperity unknown to it under the most wise and politic of its ancient sovereigns. The British possessions compared with those of the neighbouring states in the peninsula, are like a cultivated garden compared with the field of the sluggard. The revenues of India have been increased, and the trade connected with them is in a state of progressive improvement. A war, as inevitable as it was politic, has been conducted with vigour and brought to an honourable and advantageous conclusion. Should it here be said, that the company is an improper instru ment for the management of an empire: I would (if they were not under the control of the executive power and the superintendance of parliament) readily admit the force of the argument; but if I find them to be an organ of government, and |