Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XV.djvu/105

 SLAVERY 97 that the decision of Lord Mansfield, in the case of Somerset, was given in 1772, that de- cision being that the master of a slave could not by force compel him to go out of the king- dom. " The power of a master over his slave," the English chief justice of the court of king's bench observed, " has been extremely different in different countries. The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time it- self from whence it was created are erased from memory. It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law. What- ever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is al- lowed or approved by the law of England, and therefore the black must be discharged." Lord Mansfield's decision has been greatly overrated as to the importance of its terms, and it is in- correct to say that it was the first in the order of time. More than ten years earlier, the ad- miralty court of Glasgow liberated a negro slave who had been imported into Scotland ; and 70 years before, Chief Justice Holt ruled that " as soon as a negro comes into England he is free ; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave;" and later: "In England there is no such thing as a slave, and a human being never was considered a chattel to be sold for a price." The decision of Lord Mansfield was made al- most under compulsion, so strong was the feel- ing in England against slavery at that time ; and immediately the enemies of both the trade and the institution went to work, and began those exertions which were not to cease until their country had abolished, first the commerce in negroes, and then the practice of enslaving them. The Quakers presented to parliament the first petition for the abolition of the slave trade. Mr. Clarkson began his anti-slavery labors in 1786, and Mr. Wilberforce joined him soon after. In June, 1787, a committee, composed of 12 members, all Quakers save Clarkson, Sharp, and another, was instituted for u effecting the abolition of the slave trade." In spite of the care they took to define their object and to conciliate popular prejudice, they encountered the violent opposition of the most eminent men of the country. The duke of Clarence denounced them in the house of lords as fanatics and hypocrites, including Wilber- force by name. The subject was brought be- fore parliament, May 9, 1788, but the aboli- tionists were beaten, as they also were in 1789. Mr. Pitt, chief of the ministry, and Mr. Fox, chief of the opposition, joined them in 1790; and soon nearly all the leading mem- bers of the house of commons, of both par- ties, became abolitionists ; but still defeat met every proposition for abolition till 1793, when the commons passed an act for the gradual abolition of the trade, which failed in the house of peers. The commons changed their mind in 1794, but passed another bill the next year, which the peers threw out. The agita- tion was continued, but the abolitionists failed in parliament till 1804, when another act passed by the commons was lost in the upper house. Another failure in the commons was expe- rienced in 1805. In 1806, when the Fox and Grenville ministry ruled England, abolition was brought forward as a government mea- sure, and was carried in 1807, after the death of Mr. Fox. The abolitionists then began to labor for the removal of slavery itself, but not with much effect till 1823, when a society was formed " for the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions." The principal leaders in this new movement were Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Buxton. About this time appeared a pam- phlet, written by Elizabeth Heyrick, a Qua- ker, and entitled "Immediate, not Gradual, Abolition." Her views did not at first com- mand the assent of those who controlled the operations of the society, but subsequent re- flection and discussion, and the resistance of the colonial authorities to every scheme of amelioration proposed by parliament, finally led them almost unanimously to the conclusion that she was right, and they abandoned the doctrines and measures of gradualism for those of immediate and unqualified emancipation on the soil. The cause from this time advanced with great rapidity. The question exerted a controlling influence in the election of the re- formed parliament in 1832, and when, near the close of the year, that body assembled, the government avowed its purpose to bring in a bill for the abolition of slavery. The anxiety of the abolitionists as to the character of the proposed measure led to a conference, com- posed of 369 delegates from every part of the kingdom. A deputation of more than 300 members of this conference had an audience with leading members of the cabinet, to urge the necessity of total and immediate emancipa- tion. The government measure was brought forward April 23, 1833. It proposed an ap- prenticeship of 12 years for the slaves, and to pay out of their earnings to the masters the sum of 15,000,000. The friends of emanci- pation remonstrated against these features of the plan, and it was finally modified by a re- duction of the term of apprenticeship to six years, and a provision to pay the masters 20,000,000 out of the national treasury. The bill passed the house of commons Aug. 7, the house of lords Aug. 20, and received the royal assent Aug. 28, 1833. The day fixed for eman- cipation was Aug. 1, 1834, and it was left op- tional with the local legislatures respectively to adopt or reject the system of apprentice- ship. Antigua and Bermuda rejected, while the other islands adopted the system. The apprenticeship system did not work well. In some instances the local legislatures volunta- rily abolished it, and in 1838, two years before the time of its appointed expiration, it was brought to an end by act of parliament. In