REVIVAL OF ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION, ETC.
At this period anti-slavery agitation again became the order of the day. On the one hand there existed a large class of declaimers and needy orators who were interested in the revival of the subject; and on the other, there was a powerful body of humane people, to whom the contemplation of the sufferings of the negro people had become habitual, and who required little inducement to recur to such an exciting theme. But there was a cause for this display of philanthropy: the slave was still in chains, and was still suffering from the lash of the hard-hearted driver. The legislatures also in the colonies were not free from blame; they acted in many cases with obstinacy and intemperance; and Jamaica especially afforded many instances of systematic violations of the imperial law. The apprentice system, in point of fact, was a complete failure: it produced on the part of the slaves contumacy; and on the part of the masters breaches of the law, cruelty, and violence. From these circumstances there was no difficulty in lighting up a flame in England on the subject. Meetings were held and petitions got up, with a view of hastening the time when the slave should become a man among his fellow-men. The subject of slavery was brought before the house of lords, on the 29th of January, by Lord Brougham, who, after presenting a petition from Leeds, praying the immediate abolition of negro slavery, delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the enormities still committed in the slave-trade. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Glenelg admitted that Lord Brougham’s statements of the horrors of slavery were substantially correct. In his speech his lordship had said, that British officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave-trade to escape, in order to secure the head-money, and to wait at the mouth of rivers till the cargoes had been shipped. Lord Minto, first lord of the admiralty, in reply, said, that he would not assert that no single instance of this nature had occurred; but he could say that none such had come to his knowledge, and that he did not believe a similar case had ever existed. He could assure their lordships that the only complaint he had heard against British officers thus employed, was, that they were too ready to take these vessels, and too little careful of themselves, not attending sufficiently to their own security against prosecutions. Every letter he received from those officers lamented the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked; and they all pressed for the conclusion of further treaties. If those treaties could be extended to all nations under whose flag the traffic was carrying on, there would be no difficulty in putting it down. The case was not the same with respect to Spain as to Portugal. With the former there was a treaty which enabled us to capture all slavers under her flag; but our cruisers could not capture vessels under Portuguese colours until they had taken in their cargoes. Lord Brougham asked, if a reward according to the tonnage of the vessel captured could not be substituted for head-money? His views were supported by Lords Ellenborough and Ashburton, the latter of whom said strong measures should be taken to compel Portugal to desist from the traffic. Lord Glenelg said, that Lord Palmerston was engaged in negotiating a treaty with that country, with a view of putting a stop to the trade. He thought with Lord Brougham that our interference had aggravated the horrors of slavery; but at the same time he contended that parliament had no alternative but to act as it had done; and that the fear of increasing the evil ought not to have prevented us from taking steps to extirpate the practice. The conversation on this subject here dropped; but it was renewed again on the 20th of February by Lord Brougham, who urged upon the house the propriety of immediately emancipating the negro apprentices. His speech on this occasion gained for him the golden opinions of the good and the wise. He commenced by painting in poetic language the “delicate, calm, and tranquil joy” which pervaded the Antilles on the day when slavery ceased to exist. He continued to show that the predictions of those who had declared that labour would cease when slavery was abolished, had failed. Twice as much sugar was made under the new system; and one planter had said, that with twenty free labourers he could do the work of a hundred slaves. His lordship next proceeded to show that the slave-holders had not kept faith with this country, and that the condition of the negroes, instead of being made better, was in many respects worse than before. They were, he said, the victims of partial tribunals, and of excessive and illegal punishments; and he related the case of eleven females having perished from the punishments inflicted upon them, but whose deaths were, nevertheless, ascribed by a coroner’s jury to “the visitation of God.” At the conclusion of his speech his lordship, after moving that an address be presented to her majesty, beseeching her to take steps for the suppression of the slave-trade, laid these resolutions on the table:—“That the practice of paying head-money to British cruisers should be discontinued. That letters of marque should be issued to private individuals, empowering them to fit out vessels for the capture of slavers. That it was expedient that the period of prædial apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August, 1838.” The resolutions also further indicated certain regulations for the protection of apprentices in the meantime. Lord Glenelg, in a powerful speech, objected to Lord Brougham’s propositions of issuing letters of marque to privateers, and the discontinuance of head-money. With respect to the condition of the apprentices in the West India colonies, he contended that the change had been more advantageous than Lord Brougham had supposed, although he allowed that abuses and difficulties of a serious nature did exist. Still he did not think that sudden emancipation would be for the advantage of the negroes; and he must, therefore, oppose Lord Brougham’s resolutions. Lord Brougham took the sense of the house on the resolution which regarded immediate emancipation; and on a division it was lost by a majority of thirty-one against seven.
Soon after this the vigilance of Lord Brougham brought to light what appeared to be a new method of establishing a slave-trade. In the colony of British Guiana there had been an old law, which permitted the importation of labourers without restriction. In 1836 a law was passed by the governor and council of policy of the colony, with a view to regulate the relations between the labourers who should come to the colony under articles of indenture, and their employers. On being transmitted to England for approval, the plan was considered on the whole to be an improvement, and therefore it was sanctioned. An order in council was issued in March, 1837, giving assent to the act of the colonial legislature, but with several important alterations, and especially reducing the period of service from seven to three years, and prohibiting the introduction of labourers from Africa, or islands peopled chiefly by the African race. Shortly after these modifications of the law had been promulgated, an application was made for a different regulation, to be extended to individuals from the East Indies, who, it was said, could not be brought into the colony with any profit, unless the term of service was prolonged to five years. This was conceded by Lord Glenelg; and arrangements were made for the deportation of a class of Hindoos, called “Hill Coolies,” or Highland labourers, to British Guiana. This subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham on the 6th of March, who moved two resolutions in condemnation of the order in council of July. In his speech he asserted that twenty-five thousand Africans had been introduced into the Mauritius in defiance of the law; and predicted that they were about to expose to this infernal traffic the entire Asiatic coast. His lordship complained that no precautions had been taken to secure proper ships, provision, or accommodation for the labourers on their voyage. Lord Glenelg contended that Lord Brougham’s alarm was premature; that he had exaggerated the danger, and was urging ministers to present a “barrier to the circulation of voluntary labour.” The Duke of Wellington suggested that arrangements should be made for the superintendence of the embarkation of labourers by responsible persons; that the nature of the bargain made should be fully explained to the labourer; that provision should be made for his return, if he wished it, at the expiration of his period of service; and that persons should be appointed to go with them while on board, and on their landing, to see the due performance of their respective bargains by the masters and the workmen. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Brougham’s ardent imagination rendered him an unsafe guide in such matters; but he intimated that the Duke of Wellington’s suggestion should receive attention. His grace then said that he thought it unadvisable to divide upon Lord Brougham’s motion; and therefore he would move the previous question. On a division the previous question was carried by a large majority; and the original motion being put, was negatived.
The subject of slavery was introduced on the 29th of March in the house of commons, by Sir George Strickland, who moved the immediate abolition of negro apprenticeship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pease, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Lord Howick. On the other hand, it was opposed by Sir George Grey, Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John Russell, and Mr. W. E. Gladstone; and on a division it was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine to two hundred and five. An attempt was subsequently made by Sir Eardley Wilmot to obtain a resolution from the house in favour of immediate abolition. He succeeded, his motion being carried by a majority of ninety-six against ninety-three. Government, however, still expressed aversion to any alteration of the present system; and on the 28th of May Sir George Grey proposed and carried a resolution which virtually rescinded that of Sir Eardley Wilmot, by declaring that, in the opinion of the house, it was not advisable to adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution of the 26th of that month. Sir George Grey’s motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against one hundred and seventy-three.
Although slavery was still allowed to exist, yet two important bills connected with this subject passed the legislature this session. One of these was entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of slavery;” and it contained various provisions, giving further protection to the apprentices, and enforcing such regulations of the former act as had been disregarded by the planters. The second bill empowered her majesty in council to make rules for the government of the prisons in the West Indies; to appoint inspectors of prisons; to dismiss or suspend officers; and to determine on the fitness or unfitness of any place to be used for the purposes of penal confinement.
DEBATES ON THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL—THE BILL CARRIED.
It will be remembered that the Irish poor-law bill had arrived at an advanced stage, last session, in the committee, and that many of its important clauses had been discussed and determined, when the demise of the crown put a stop to its further progress. The subject was renewed on the 1st of December, when the bill was read a first time. It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 9th of February, on which day Mr. O’Connell moved, as an amendment, that it be committed that day six months. When the bill was last year before the house, he said he had addressed them at considerable length in opposition to it. At the same time he had avowed that he had not moral courage to take the course of direct opposition to the measure, although perfectly convinced of its injurious tendency. Since then he had grown both older and firmer; and he was now determined to take the sense of the house on the committal of the bill. He was opposed to the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, at least so far as regarded able-bodied persons; it might induce them to abandon their habitual industry and economy, and prevent them from providing for the wants of age and supervening infirmity. Any such plan was calculated to diminish self-reliance, to paralyse industry, to decrease economy, and, above all, to damp and extinguish the kindly and generous feelings of nature. He further objected to the bill, because it taxed the occupiers of lands, and involved many difficulties of apportionment between his landlord and himself: it would be a constant source of litigation. Besides, he contended that the mode in which the poor-law was proposed to be carried into effect, was not calculated to benefit Ireland: and he enlarged on the poverty of the people in general, in order to show that they ought not to be called upon to endure taxation to the amount of another million. Messrs. Shaw, W. S. O’Brien, Lucas, and Redington supported the bill, though they all thought that many of its details were objectionable. Mr. O. Gore supported Mr. O’Connell’s amendment, he objecting to the workhouse system as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish. Other members, as Messrs. Barron, Young, and Litton, supported the measure; while others, as Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. French, opposed it. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-seven against twenty-five.
The house went into committee on the 12th of February. The third reading of the bill came on on the 30th of April, when Mr. O’Connell again endeavoured to arrest its progress. His opposition, however, was bootless: it passed the house of commons by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against fifty-nine.