The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808), Volume IIClarkson, Thomas
History
The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade by the British Parliament (1808), Volume II
Clarkson, Thomas
Slave trade -- Africa
He adverted, lastly, to what had fallen from the learned counsel, who had
supported the petitions of the slave-merchants. One of them had put this
question to their lordships, "if the Slave-trade were as wicked as it had
been represented, why was there no prohibition of it in the holy
scriptures?" He then entered into a full defence of the scriptures on this
ground, which he concluded by declaring that, as St. Paul had coupled
men-stealers with murderers, he had condemned the Slave-trade in one of its
most productive modes, and generally in all its modes:--and here it was
worthy of remark, that the word used by the apostle on this occasion, and
which had been translated men-stealers, should have been rendered
slave-traders. This was obvious from the Scholiast of Aristophanes, whom he
quoted. It was clear therefore that the Slave-trade, if murder was
forbidden, had been literally forbidden also.
The learned counsel too had admonished their lordships, to beware how they
adopted the visionary projects of fanatics. He did not know in what
direction this shaft was shot; and he cared not. It did not concern him.
With the highest reverence for the religion of the land, with the firmest
conviction of its truth, and with the deepest sense of the importance of
its doctrines, he was proudly conscious, that the general shape and fashion
of his life bore nothing of the stamp of fanaticism. But he begged leave,
in his turn, to address a word of serious exhortation to their lordships.
He exhorted them to beware, how they were persuaded to bury, under the
opprobrious name of fanaticism, the regard which they owed to the great
duties of mercy and justice, for the neglect of which (if they should
neglect them) they would be answerable at that tribunal, where no
prevarication of witnesses could misinform the judge; and where no subtlety
of an advocate, miscalling the names of things, putting evil for good and
good for evil, could mislead his judgement.
At length the debate ended: when the bill was lost by a majority of
sixty-eight to sixty-one, including personal votes and proxies.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account