Feature =

mittee of the House of Commons in the years 1790 and 1791 on the Part of the Petitioners for the Abolition of the Slave Trade”. In the preface, some of the information that emerges is illuminating. Here are a few examples.

* Bahamas Islands (1784): A law was enacted that “if any slave shall absent him or herself from his or her owner, for the space of three months successively, such slave shall be deemed an outlaw, and, as an encouragement to apprehend and bring to justice such runaways, any person or persons who shall apprehend any such runaway, either alive or dead, shall be paid out of the public treasury £20 for every slave so apprehended and taken” (Source Privy Council Report Part III).

*St. Christopher’s (St. Kitts): An Act to prevent the cutting off or depriving any slave in this Island of any of their limbs or members, or otherwise disabling them, passed 11 March 1784. “Whereas some persons have of late been guilty of cutting off and depriving slaves of their ears, which practice is contrary to the principles of humanity and dishonourable to society; for prevention whereof in future, be it enacted by the governor, that if any owner or possessor of any negro or other slave in this island, shall wilfully and wantonly cut or disable, or cause or procure to be cut out or disable the tongue, put out or cause or procure to be put out, an eye, or lip, or cause the same to be done; or break or cause to be broken, the arm, leg, or any other limb, or member of any negro”; the penalty is £500 currency or about £300 sterling, and six months imprisonment.” (Source: Privy Council Report, part III).

*Barbados: “An Act to prevent Distempered, Maimed, and Worn out Negroes, from infesting the Towns, Streets, and Highways of this Island”, passed 18 January 1785. “Whereas it has, for some time past, been the cruel practice of some persons possessing negroes, who, from their old age and infirmities, are incapable of further service to their inhuman owners, to drive them from their plantations to beg, steal, or starve, which said unhappy objects [note the language] are daily infesting the public street of the several towns in this Island”; the penalty to such owner is £5 currency or about £3 12s sterling; and the court orders that these unhappy objects shall be taken home to their masters.” (Source – Privy Council Report). * Jamaica: From the Cornwall Chronicle,

“When The Zong case came to public notice, the outrage began to build up to such an extent that Parliament could ignore it no longer.”

a Jamaican paper, in December 1797, an addition to the Consolidated Slave-law was proposed in these terms: “Whereas the extreme cruelties and inhumanity of the managers, overseers, and bookkeepers of estates, have frequently driven slaves into the woods, and occasioned rebellions and internal insurrections, to the great prejudice of the proprietors, and the manifest danger of the inhabitants of this Island; for prevention whereof, be it enacted... And whereas also, it frequently happens, that slaves come to their deaths by hefty and severe blows and other improper treatment of overseers and book-keepers in the heat of passion, and when such accidents do happen, the victims are entered in the plantation books as having died of convulsions, fits or other causes not be accounted for, and to conceal the real truth of the cause of death of such slave or slaves, he or they are immediately put underground...”

A few examples of the advertisements in the newspapers for runaway slaves will suffice to provide background to the general conditions prevailing. In the Jamaica Gazette of 8 March 1787, we are informed of 23 runaway slaves marked, and 44 unmarked. Among those marked is “Apollo – WS on his face and breast” – ROBERT RP on each cheek, and KINGSTON marked YORKE on each shoulder and breast. In the Cornwall Chronicle, 15 December 1787, 84 runaways advertised, among them “POMPEY, a Creole negro man, marked on both shoulders and breast MIL, diamond on top”; JAMES, a carpenter “branded on both cheeks”, and BILLY belonging to the King, marked “broad arrow” on one shoulder”. In the Kingston Morning Post, 8 April 1789, seven runaways from one owner are advertised, namely a fisherman, a tailor, a shipwright, a seamstress, and three other

50n NEW AFRICAN February 2008
Over there: This is how Africans were “inspected” before they were bought by slave owners

wenches”. In the same paper, we find an “old grey bearded Coromanten man, a runaway; also another tailor “marked on both shoulders IT, and right should RG”. In the Cornwall Chronicle, 10 October 1789, a runaway is advertised named Prince, branded a black, with a cattle mark “TH”.

The debate in Parliament When The Zong case came to public notice, the outrage began to build up to such an extent that Parliament could ignore it no longer. The evidence provided by the enquiry meant that the efforts of Granville Sharp, Olauda Equiano, Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce to put the question before the House could not be postponed any longer. The question that was put before the House of Commons on 10 June 1806 and to the House of Lords on 24 June 1806, following a resolution moved in both Houses by Charles Fox and Lord Granville was to the following effect: “That conceiving the African Slave Trade to be contrary to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy, this House will,

with all practicable expedition, take measures to abolish it, in such manner, and at such time, as shall be thought advisable.” In the preface of the Report of the Parliamentary Debate, the slave trade was described as a gigantic evil. A bill was brought into Parliament in the previous session with three objectives: (1) To give effect to the Order of Council which had been issued to prohibit the importation of slaves into the colonies conquered by British arms. (2) To prohibit British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into colonies of any foreign power, whether hostile or neutral. (3) To prohibit British capital and British ships from being engaged in carrying on, or assisting to carry on, a slave trade in foreign ships; and also to prevent the outfit of foreign slave ships from British ports.

Foreign Secretary Fox moving the motion argued: “...The time, it is to be hoped, is now not far distant when Africa will be relieved from the oppression, degradation, and misery of this impious commerce; when arresting the progress of that system of fraud, treachery and violence, which converts a large part of the habitable globe into a field of warfare and desolation, this nation shall begin to atone the negro race for the accumulated wrongs...” He certainly knew what he was talking about. He concluded that: “...To deal and traffic, not in the labour of men, but in men themselves, was to devour the root, instead of enjoying the fruit of human diligence, and was therefore not only contrary to justice and humanity, but also contrary to sound policy.” General Tarleton (MP for Liverpool) naturally opposed the motion: “We can but ill afford,” he argued, “to adopt any measure that will occasion a dimunition in revenue. I have no difficulty in saying that the prosperity of Liverpool is intimately connected with the African Slave Trade. It is difficult for me to assent to any measure which appears to be injurious to the interests of my constituents, closely connected as they are with the general interest of this country. “As to the situation in Liverpool, I have this to say: it was once a mere fishing hamlet, but it has risen into prosperity in exact proportion to the extent of the Africa Slave

Trade, so as to become the second place in wealth and population in the British Empire, renowned for its commercial enterprise. This measure [abolition of the slave trade] is one which will cut up, by the roots, the source of our wealth.” Tarleton continued: “Those who are to suffer by the abolition of the Slave Trade will come to Parliament for compensation for their losses. There will be no pretence for refusing such compensation, because whatever may be the injustice or inhumanity of this trade, it is not to be denied that it is a trade which has been carried on under the auspices of this House, and agreeable to Law and therefore, if this trade is now to be abolished, all those who have carried it the most must have their losses made up, particularly those who have been concerned in building up ships for this trade which, from their peculiar construction, are unfit for any other, and this consideration will be very considerable in its amount.” The honourable member of parliament for Liverpool had no doubt whatsoever in his mind that “much evil will result to this country at large, from the abolition of the Slave Trade, should this measure be adopted; but with regard to Liverpool, I am confident that great distress, public and private, will be the result; that bankruptcies will follow...” Of course, after the trade was abolished, the merchants were duly compensated, the churches were paid, the shipbuilders and all. What about the slaves, and the negro race, the unoffending negro race who clearly suffered the most and are still suffering from the effects of the evil trade? Lord Castlereagh, one of the great statesmen of his age and one of the architects of the modern world, in his contribution noted: “As to the general principle on which the resolution is founded, I agree to it, and I do not know who can entertain a contrary opinion in this House. “I think it is a proposition on which no human being can entertain a doubt, namely, that the slave trade is a great evil in itself, and I think that as little doubt can be entertained upon the proposition, namely that it is the duty of Parliament to abrogate that evil and to extirpate it, if that be practicable, it being a stain upon the national character.” Also contributing to the debate was the solicitor-general, Sir Samuel Romilly. He spoke as a lawyer, and the government’s chief lawyer: “I, an individual of this country who feels most seriously the reproachful situation

February 2008 NEW AFRICAN n 51