by British traders, it would fall into the hands of foreign nations. Yet it was well known that foreign na tions had almost entirely abandoned the trade, and Great Britain alone monopolised the gain and the guilt of it. Where was the law or power which could prevent us from washing out so foul a stain on our commercial character? But the islands, if not supplied by Great Britain, would smuggle for themselves. Had they then fleets? Had they a commercial and a military navy? He wished they had; for he was persuaded that no country could attain any height of prosperity without having long disused and abjured the practice of importing annual cargoes of misery and discontent; of out-numbering the civilised population of the country by crowds of savage and injured spirits, watching only the opportunity of rebellion and revenge. Away then with all idea of the incompetency of a British parliament to rescue the British name from this disgrace! Could the assembly of Jamaica prohibit the delivery of the cargo at the ports of Jamaica, and could not our parliament forbid its freight in the ships of Great Britain? If in the papers on the table a law had been found prohibiting the cultiva tion of any new land in the island beyond what was already culti vated, and another law limiting the importation of negroes to the amount of the annual decrease in their population, the colonial legis latures would have evinced their intention of ending the slave trade; but till these measures were adopted there could be no hope of it. Every additional acre brought into cultivation was not the continuance of the existing slave trade, but the opening of a new one. Every negro imported beyond the popula

tion necessary for keeping up the present rate of cultivation, was the victim of a trade begun now under an avowed conviction of its injustice, and a pretended desire to put an end to it. No man, who was not ready to subscribe to these two regulations, ought to be credited for any professions he might choose to make of a sincere wish to terminate this iniquitous commerce. Such assertions were contradicted by proofs.

One plea had been urged, which, fallacious as it was, seemed to have had too much weight with reasonable people: "That it was the interest of the proprietor to treat his slaves well; and that every person would see a sufficient security in this motive against cruelty and oppression." But the interest of the planter in the preservation and propagation of his slaves had at all times been the same; which would tend to prove, that slaves had at all times been used as well as possible; which manifestly had not been the case. The very laws on the table before us would evince what sort of evils they were intended to remedy. He was not here affirming that slaves upon our islands were cruelly treated, but he wished the house to take a view of the various circumstances which might prevent the proprietor from consulting his ultimate interest. Where he resident in the island, unincumbered with debt, looking to his estate Es a

permanent and improving provi sion, it might be so: but the absentee proprietor, who wished to lay the foundation of a fortune elsewhere; the embarrassed proprietor, who sought to discharge incumbrances; and, lastly, the overseer, anxious to realise a sum of money to purchase an estate for himself; all these might, in the na

ture

ture of things, be interests of a different kind from that steady and permanent interest which, content ing itself with moderate returns, would ensure mild treaturent to the labourers whose work was to produce them. All these might be less solicitous about the eventual exhaustion of the soil, or of the workers of the soil, than the extent of present profit; and when the proportion of these classes to that of the resident and unembarrassed proprietors was considered, what became of the general statement, "that the interest of the owner must secure the good treatment of the slaves?"

But, after all, this was not the question before the house: however kindly they might be treated, few would contend that the importation from Africa was to be continued merely to furnish objects for colonial benevolence.

There remained only one argument, drawn from the circumstances of the times; an argument indeed of weight, but not bearing very happily upon the question in debate. We were cautioned to beware in these times of turbulence and innovation-we were cautioned not rashly to lay our unhallowed hands on the ancient institution of the slave trade! nor subvert a fabric reared by our ancestors, and consecrated by the lapse of ages!

On what principles we were accustomed to bestow respect on any institution which had subsisted from remote time? It was, when we perceived some shadow of departed worth or usefulness, some memorial of what had been of service or credit to mankind. Was this the case in point? Had the slave trade originally begun on any principle of public justice, or national honour, which the changes of the world

alone had impaired? Had it to plead former merits, services, and glories, in behalf of its present disgrace? What were the grounds on which the plea of prescription rested, and in what cases was it usually allowed? here some existing order of things had been so meliorated and reconciled to the feelings of mankind. (though unjust in its original institution) had so accommodated itself to the manners and prejudices and habits of a country, that the remembrance of its usurpation was lost in the experience of its utility.

Conquest was often of this nature: unjustifiable in its first introduction, it frequently bad happened 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. Was this analogous to the slave trade? Was it only in its onset that we could trace violence, injustice, or opposition? Were the oppressors and oppressed so reconciled to each other, that no enmity remained between them now? No! Was it then in reason to claim a prescriptive right, not to the fruits of an ancient and forgotten crime, but to a series of new violences, to a chain of fresh enormities, to cruelties, not continued, but repeated, and of which every instance inflicted a fresh calamity, and constituted a separate and substantive crime? Mr. Canning concluded by reminding the house, that the question was not, Whether the slave trade ought to be terminated? but, whether the papers upon the table contained any proofs of a disposition to terminate it on the part of the colonies? and, whether the house was justified in leaving the matter in the hands of the assembly, instead of taking the necessary

measures

measures for executing their own purpose.

The secretary of war, after complimenting Mr. Canning on his wit, observed, that there were two sentimen's entertained upon this question, which he should state as briefly as possible: the one, that of a short and compendious mode, recommending the immediate abolition: that the trade was in itself inhunian and unjust, and this was sufficient reason for a British parliamen to attempt its termination. But this was deciding the matter upon the abstract right: as an abstract point, indeed, supposing it to be the only one, the determination was right. He apprehended, however, there was something more to be taken into consideration; convenience and expediency and here a great variety of objects made an appearance, and the real question would be at last, by what possible mode would the least evil be incurred?

People fond of abstract rights were apt to make very important mistakes: sudden and violent remedies often created greater mischief than that which they were intended to remedy. It was not difficult to show the absurdity of this system of reversing the cause of an evil by way of cure: thus, for instance, if a man was thrown out of a high window, and had a fractured bone, a dislocated joint, it would be but an indifferent mode of cure to throw him up again: in this light did the immediate abolition of the slave trade appear to him as a remedy.

Those of the other description to which he alluded, defended the continuance of it as an advantage. It was his own opinion, that the wiser course was, to refer the amelioration of the condition of the

unhappy slaves to the colonial assemblies; and after expatiating a considerable time upon it, he gave his dissent to the motion.

The chancellor of the exchequer made a most eloquent speech in favour of its immediate abolition: it was a trade (he said) declared by the house to be against justice, against humanity, against religion, and against every social compact: for its abolition, the honour of the British name, by the expression of the house of parliament, stood pledged.

Was the legislature (the original of this iniquitous commerce, the cause of its continuance and answerable for all its horrors), was the legislature to remedy the evils? It was a trade carried on under our law, by our subjects, from our ports, by our capital: it could not then be difficult for us to abolish it effectually without the consent of the colonial assemblies. Some persons had thought, that however unjust or inhuman the trade might be, as it was a matter of national concern, it was not to be managed like a case between two individu als. But how could any reasonable man believe that the conduct of a nation ought to be guided without reference to the laws of nature or the divine law, any more than the affairs of an individual? The end proposed was not an abstract theory, but a practical measure: it was two-fold; the one, to stop the mischief, the other to do away the guilt: at all events the latter was practicable, and he believed the other also: but sure he was, they would never obtain any credit for intention to do away the mischief on the part of others, until they did away the guilt on the part of themselves. It had been said, that, because a thing was wrong, we

should