189

CHAPTER XII.

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE. - FREE AND SLAVE NEGROES IN THE AMERICAN STATES.

IN the year 1442 some Moorish prisoners captured by the Portuguese obtained their liberty by paying a ransom of ten negro slaves. It is believed that the African slave trade of modern times originated with this transaction. At all events Portugal soon afterwards engaged in the traffic, and was shortly followed by Spain. The Government of the latter country sent the first negroes to the New World, and landed them at Hispaniola in 1501. It conducted the trade until 1516, when the business was placed under control of a company of Genoese merchants. The English did not engage in this commerce until 1561, when Sir John Hawkins fitted out an expedition for the African coast. He, as was the case with the Portuguese and Spaniards, exchanged the manufactures of Europe for negro slaves, the property of barbarous chiefs. After discharging three cargoes at Hispaniola in 1562, he returned to England in the following year. His profits were so large that they were noised about, and a company was quickly formed for the purpose of supplying slaves to the Spanish American colonies, under a charter granted by Queen Elizabeth, who became its largest stockholder. The trade in the course of time grew to be very general, and was carried on by almost every class of speculators; but in 1618 James I. gave to Sir Robert Rich and others the exclusive privilege of conducting it. Through their operations the British American colonies were furnished with black labourers. The first negroes, however, twenty in number, that were received in the American States, unless the Spanish had previously landed them in Florida, were taken to Virginia in 1620 by a Dutch vessel. Another Another company was organised in 1631, by authority of Charles I. Its business

extended so rapidly, and yielded such large returns, that for its defence and accommodation it was found expedient to erect numerous fortifications and warehouses on the coasts of the West Indies. Charles II., in 1662, gave a monopoly of the trade to an association who were authorised to import into the colonies 3,000 slaves per annum. Its affairs were placed under the patronage of the Queen Dowager, with the Duke of York at its head. The King issued a proclamation inviting his subjects to establish themselves in America, and as an encouragement to emigrate tendered a grant of 100 acres of land for each four slaves employed in its cultivation. Another slave-trading company was chartered in 1672, the King being the chief shareholder. It continued in operation for many years, and, notwithstanding that the Parliament in 1688 abolished all such privileges, it seized the vessels of private traders, until its powers were again recognised. The merchants of London found their trade to the slave coast so cramped by the royal monopoly, that they complained bitterly to the House of Commons of their exclusion from so profitable a traffic. Their remonstrance was effectual, and Parliament enacted, in 1695, that for the better 'supply of the plantations, all the subjects of Great Britain should have liberty to trade in Africa for negroes, with such limits as 'should be prescribed by Parliament!' In 1698 it was resolved, that the trade was highly beneficial and advantageous to the kingdom, and to the plantations and colonies thereunto 'belonging.' The limits' prescribed by Parliament were removed in 1708 by the declaration that the trade was im'portant, and ought to be free and open to all the Queen's 'subjects trading from Great Britian.' Again in 1711 it was enacted that this trade ought to be free in a regulated company; the plantations ought to be supplied with negroes at reasonable rates; a considerable stock was necessary for carrying on the trade to the best advantage; and that an export ' of 100,000l. at least in merchandise should be annually made 'from Great Britian to Africa.' A short time prior to the year 1713 a contract had been made between Spain and the Royal Guinea Company of France, which was technically called in those days an assiento.' By the treaty of Utrecht, April 11, 1713, Great Britian obtained a transfer of the agreement to

6

6

herself. This was considered a great triumph of diplomacy, and the news of its accomplishment was hailed with enthusiasm in England: Queen Anne, in a speech from the throne, boasted of the success then obtained in opening a new market to Englishmen for the trade in slaves. This acquisition was followed in another month by a new contract in form, by which the British Government undertook for the period of thirty years to transport annually at a fixed price 4,800 slaves to the colonies of Spain in America. This gave rise to a question as to the true legal character of the slaves to be thus transported from Africa, and, in accordance with the forms of the British Constitution, the point was submitted to the twelve judges of England, who declared that, in pursuance of His Majesty's Order in Council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our opinion to be that negroes are merchandise.' Fifteen years afterwards the spirit of false philanthropy began to be developed in Great Britain, and although large numbers of negroes were held and sold daily on the public exchange in London, questions arose concerning the legal right of owners to retain property in slaves in England; and the principal merchants, alarmed, and fearing an abolition of their lucrative trade, in 1729 referred the matter to Sir Philip Yorke, afterwards Lord Hardwicke, and to Lord Talbot, who were then the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General of the kingdom. The proposition was: What are the rights of a British owner of a slave in England?' The two legal functionaries responded by certifying that a slave coming from the West Indies 'to England, with or without his master, doth not become free, ' and his master's property in him is not thereby determined nor varied, and his master may legally compel him to return to the plantations. This decision caused the slave trade to be conducted with increased vigour. The company established in 1672 presented a claim upon the Government in consequence of the infringement of its franchises by the Act of 1698; and in consideration of the trade having thus been made free to all persons, its shareholders were voted out of the public purse

6

This was signed by Lord Chief Justice Holt, Judge Pollexfen, and eight other judges.

10,000l. per annum for seven years, 1739 to 1746. In 1749 the question of the right of property in slaves again came before Lord Hardwicke, then Lord Chancellor, and by a decision in Chancery he re-affirmed the doctrines advanced by him when Attorney-General. The same year (23rd George II.) Parliament declared the slave trade to be very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the plantations and 'colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of negroes at reasonable rates.' The colony of South Carolina, in 1760, passed an Act prohibiting the further importation of African slaves. The Act was rejected by the Crown, the Governor reprimanded, and a circular was sent to the governors of all the colonies, warning them against presuming to countenance such legislation. In 1765 a similar bill was twice read in the Assembly of Jamaica. The intelligence that this bill was under consideration reached England before its final passage. Instructions were sent out to the royal governor, who, in accordance therewith, forbade any further progress in the

measure.

In 1772 Lord Mansfield, under the pressure of fanaticism, subverted the common law of England by deciding that, although slaves brought into Great Britain from the West Indies did not become free, their owners could exercise no authority over them in England: that colonial legislation which recognised the rights of the master did not extend to this country. Lord Mansfield himself, no doubt, felt that this was judicial legislation. The case (Somersett) was repeatedly argued before him, and each time he begged the parties to consent to a compromise. They refused. Why,' said he, ‘I have known six of those cases already, and in five out of the six there was a compromise: you had better compromise this matter.' But they said, no; that they would stand upon the law. Finally, after holding the case for three terms, he was able to persuade himself to make the decision just adverted to.

In spite of the discountenancing action of the Home Government in 1765, the Assembly of Jamaica, in 1774, passed two bills prohibiting the importation of slaves, when the Earl of Dartmouth, then Secretary of State, wrote to Sir Basil Keith, governor of the colony, that their measures had created alarm

to the merchants of Great Britain engaged in that branch of commerce,' and forbade him, on pain of removal from his 6 government, to assent to such laws.' Finally, when the revolutionary struggle in America had actually commenced, and Crown Point and Ticonderoga had been taken possession of by the rebels,' and the first blood had been shed at Lexington, the same Secretary of State, in answer to the demands of the agent of the continental colonies, who presented him with a copy of the Bill of Rights' adopted on October 14th, 1774, replied, We cannot allow the colonies to check or discourage in any 'degree a traffic so beneficial to the nation.'

Large numbers of Africans were imported into England, and, as a badge of servitude, wore a collar round their necks, with the names of their owners engraved thereon. At the time of the decision in the Somersett case there were about 15,000 negro slaves in Great Britain. Very few were introduced subsequently. The negroes, as invariably in climates unsuited to their physical organisation, rapidly diminished in numbers when no longer recruited by accessions from abroad. Their extinguishment, however, was hastened by the loss of accustomed comforts and restraints, when, taking advantage of Lord Mansfield's decision, they left the homes and protection of their masters. By 1787 only 470 remained in London. This small remnant, utterly worthless and demoralised, became such a nuisance in the quarter where they were congregated, that, through parliamentary aid, they were transported to Sierra Leone along with some white women of bad character. Both races, however, soon became nearly extinct, and the colony was replanted five years later by the shipment thence of 1,170 blacks from Nova Scotia, who had been captured from the Americans during the revolutionary war. Shortly afterwards it received an addition of some rebellious 'maroons,' who had infested the mountains of Jamaica, but were caught by the assistance of bloodhounds; a cruel and barbarous practice never resorted to in the continental colonies of England, nor since they assumed the position of States. These negroes were first sent out of the island to Lower Canada, that the loyal slaves might not be corrupted by the example of their insubordination. Becoming an annoyance to the white colonists, they were eventually deported to Africa.