The colonists have maintained a regular traffic with them, and have visited their stations for that purpose. Shackles have been sold to them at the colonial settlement at Mensurado. The pages even of the African Repository (the Society's official) bore testimony, in 1828, that the trade was increasing. In 1837 or '38, Dr. Goheen, agent of the Society, residing at Liberia, wrote in defense of the slave trade, and his letters were published without rebuke in the colonization papers of this country.

Liberia has now become an independent Government. The political control of the Colonization Society over it has terminated, but it continues to busy itself with the task (according to its own account) of supplying it with "nuisances" whom "Christianity can never elevate in this country" for "missionaries" and "statesmen "-to "evangelize the heathen, and build up an empire in Africa!"

We have not room for the particulars; but if the reader will refer to Jay's INQUIRY, pp. 55 to 61 (sixth edition), he will find ample evidence, furnished by the Colonization Society itself, that the boast of suppressing the slave trade was unfounded, and that it was even carried on in the Colony.

CHAPTER XXX.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH COLONIES.

Premature triumphs over the supposed abolition of the Slave Trade-Effects of this illusion from 1807 till 1823-Revival of anti-slavery effort in England—Organization of a Society on the basis of gradualism-Writings of Elizabeth Heyrick in favor of immediatism-Pamphlet of Clarkson on the illegality of Slavery-Change of views and measures-Increased efficiency-Petitions to Parliament-Commencement of Anti-Slavery Reporter, 1825-Parliamentary discussions, 1828-9-30Anti-Slavery meetings-Eminent Advocates-Methodist Conferences, Rectors and Curates, and Doctors of Divinity, enlisted-Dr. Andrew Thomson of Edinburgh, Bishop of Bath and Wells-Daniel O'Connell, George Thompson and othersProtest of Clarkson and Wilberforce against American Colonization SocietyOther political reforms advanced abolition-Ministry of William IV.-Prominent statesmen-Influences in the West Indies-Missionaries among the Slaves-Opposed by the planters-Increased feeling in England-Numerous petitions-Candidates for Parliament questioned-Treatise of Judge Jeremie-Persecutions of the Missionaries-Outrages against the negroes, 1831-Trial of Mr. Knibb-His return to England-Increased agitation--Memorials of Missionary Societies-Government orders the demolished chapels to be rebuilt-Orders insolently disregarded-Committees of Inquiry in Parliament-Pretended preparations for freedom-Witnesses examined before Parliamentary Committees-Feeble defenses of the Slave party-Plans of emancipation-Passage of the Act of AbolitionApprenticeship-Final Results-Testimonials-Slavery abolished in the British East Indies-Lessons of instruction.

THE slave trade and the slavery of this country, during its colonial state, were substantially the same with the slave trade and the slavery of the other British American Colonies, including the British West India Islands. A common origin, a common character, and a common relation to British law and to the British Government, pertained to them. They grew up together, claiming the shelter of the same royal grants, the same acts of Parliament for regulating the trade to Africa. They claimed the benefit of the same judicial precedents and legal opinions. The friends of liberty in England, for a cen

tury past, have sympathized and corresponded with those in this country, on the subject. It seems proper to present a brief account of the recent anti-slavery struggle in Great Britain and Ireland, the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, and the results of that measure.

The error of supposing that the slave trade could be, in reality, abolished, while slavery itself was permitted to exist, has been already noticed,* as also the kindred error of supposing that the abolition of the slave trade, even if it could be accomplished, would virtually abolish slavery. These delusions prevailed among the friends of liberty, on both sides of the Atlantic, with few and solitary exceptions. The legal abolition of the African slave trade by Great Britain and America, in 1807-8, was hailed as the grand jubilee of the colored race. The warfare was supposed to have been accomplished, and that nothing more remained but to cele brate the achievement, and immortalize the names of the victors. Celebrations were held, orations were delivered, pictures were painted and engraved, and poems were written and dedicated to noble Dukes. Nothing, in fact, in the way of gratulation, triumph, and glorification, was left undone. Demonstrations, to a certain extent, in this direction, might have been very well, had they been so shaped as to furnish incentives to farther and similar efforts, not forgetting that the slaves were, still left in their chains, that not one of them had been released by the prohibition of the slave trade, and that, in Great Britain at least, the measure had been carried, in certain circles, by arguments conceding the undisturbed continuance of slavery itself. As it was, the gratulation was disproportionate and premature, tending to relax effort, to repress inquiry, and discountenance further aggressive measures. On both sides of the Atlantic has this influence been felt; and in America it is felt still. We content ourselves to garnish the sepulchres of the early British and American aboli tionists, while refusing to give effect to their labors.

* Chapter VII.

+ Chapter X.

Copley's History of Slavery, 811.

It required the whole time from 1807 to 1823, for British abolitionists to recollect that the slaves in the colonies were still in bondage, and to discover that the African slave trade* was undiminished in extent and horrors. Even then the measures adopted were inadequate to the exigency.

In 1823 was formed the "Society for the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery throughout the British dominions," of which the "Patron and President was the Duke of Gloucester." Among the Vice Presidents, twenty in number, were the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Bristol, Earl Nugent, Lord Suffield, Lord Calvert, Henry Brougham, M. P., Thos. Fowell Buxton, M. P., Thomas Clarkson, Stephen Lushing ton, LL.D., M. P., and William Wilberforce, M. P., &c. Among the Committee were James Cropper, Esq., of Liverpool, Samuel Gurney, Esq., Zachary Macauley, Esq., T. B. Macauley, Esq., Thomas Sturge, Esq., Wm. Wilberforce, Jun., Esq., and Rev. H. Venn.

The ground of immediate and unconditional emancipation was not yet taken by the great body of British abolitionists, as the name of this society gives evidence:

"About this time considerable attention was excited by a small tract, widely circulated, entitled 'Immediate, not gradual, Abolition, or an Inquiry into the shortest, safest, and most effectual means of getting rid of West Indian Slavery.' This tract, though published anonymously, was generally understood to be the production of a talented and benevolent Lady, Miss Hope, of Liverpool."-Copley's History, p. 329.

The more common and prevalent account, however, is, that Elizabeth Heyrick was the first public advocate, in England, of the doctrine of immediate and unconditional abolition, as

*It should be mentioned, perhaps, that Messrs. Stephen and Wilberforce, in 1816, introduced and supported in Parliament the Registry Bill, designed to "pre vent the illicit introduction of slaves from Africa," which was carried against a strong opposition from the Colonists and their partisans. But the history of the slave trade, since that time, as already shown (Chap. VII.), demonstrates the utter inefficiency of all measures for its suppression, during the continuance of slavery.

On inquiry, since writing the above, we have been told, on authority of John Scoble, of London, that the pamphlet here attributed to Miss Hope was written by Elizabeth Heyrick (or rather Herrick, which is now said to be the correct spelling.)

before taught by Hopkins and Edwards in America, and that she was the author of a pamphlet in vindication of that doe trine. Vide British Reforms and Reformers, by H. B. Stanton.

Another advance position, of almost equal importance, was, about this time, taken, in a pamphlet by the venerable Thomas Clarkson. The reader will recall the fact, already noticed, that little progress was made in Parliament towards the legis lative prohibition of the slave trade, until William Pitt demonstrated, on a certain occasion in the House of Commons, that the slave trade (all its high pretensions of legality notwithstanding) had been, from the beginning, illegal. A similar position was now taken by Mr. Clarkson, concerning slavery itself, in the British Colonies. In doing this, however, he only revived and re-affirmed the old doctrine of Granville Sharp.*

In this pamphlet Mr. Clarkson showed, to the satisfaction of the British people, that there never had been any legal slavery in any of the British Colonies. All had been usurpa tion and assumption from the beginning.

He affirmed "that the planters can neither prove a moral nor a legal right to their slaves." Having examined the moral right of the claim, he proceeded to argue the illegality of slavery:

"He brought the slaveholder's claim to the test of original grants, or permissions of Government, act of Parliament, charters, or English laws." He showed "that neither the African slave trade, nor West Indian slavery would have been allowed at first, but for the misrepresentations and falsehoods of those engaged in them "—" that the original Government grants and permissions had their origin in fraud and falsehood; and if the premises fall, all conclusions and concessions grounded on them must fall, too.""Then, as to charters-slavery had indeed been upheld and kept together by the laws which the charters gave those Colonies power to make; that now SLAVERY, NEVERTHELESS, WAS ILLEGAL, for in all the charters it was expressed that the laws and statutes made under them must not be repugnant, but conformable to the laws of Great Britain. But these did not allow of slavery." ."—"Indeed, the slaveholders themselves admitted that if debarred whatever was repugnant to the laws of England, they did not see how they could have any title to their slaves, likely to be supported by

+ See Chap. VI.