Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

1875 - 1876 - 1876

---

Wednesday 23 February 1876
Morning Advertiser

Fugitive Slaves
On the order of the day.

Mr.Whitehead, who was received with cheers, rose to move the following resolutions:-
"1. That in the opinion of this House a slave once admitted to the protection of the British flag should be treated while on board on of her Majesty's ships as if he were free, and should not be removed from or ordered to leave the ship on the ground of slavery.

2. That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, humbly praying her Majesty that all circulars, instructions, or orders heretofore issued contravening the foregoing resolution, or limiting the discretion of commanding officers in respect of the reception of such persons on board her Majesty's ships, shall be withdrawn."

The hon. gentleman said that in his opinion the time had come when the Government should declare their policy in this respect, especially after the feeling which had been manifested throughout the whole country by all classes and by all parties during the last autumn on the subject. After referring to the various orders which had been issued and withdrawn, the hon.member said he did not intend to hold the scale and mete out the measure of censure which was deserved by various States.

the last circular issued by the Government was aimed at the slave alone. It did not touch the slave-owner, the political refugee, or anyone who might ask for shelter and refuge on board one of her Majesty's vessels. The circular contained many nice technical descriptions as to what constituted the status of slaves. There was no doubt as to the right of slaves to refuge in the open seas; it was only when a ship was within territorial waters that these restrictive regulations came into operation.

In the open sea the need for assistance to save life, or other extreme necessity, was enough to secure and to justify it. In territorial waters the commanding officers of her Majesty's ships were instructed to make careful enquiries before receiving a slave on board in those waters; and the true construction of these instructions, according to his reading of them was, "Be slow to take a slave on board, and be quick to give him up when demanded."

This was, he contended, in direct contravention of the long-established policy of this country - a policy which had been maintained by so many Administrations. He would consider the question under two heads: first, the reception of slaves on board her Majesty's ships on the high seas, and second, the reception of slaves on board such ships in territorial waters.

With respect to the reception of slaves on board her Majesty's ships on the high seas, the law was clear; but when we came to the reception of salves in territorial waters, the question raised was one of policy and not of mere law, and it was time that it should be made clear, not only to the minds of hon. members, but to the mind of the whole country, not what was considered the law, but what the policy of the Government was to be in the future. - (hear hear).

It appeared to him that the circular went as near the verge of conforming to the laws of slave-holding States as it was possible to do. His objection to the document was that it was levelled at the slave, an not at the free man at all. Here he should like to say that to hold out our ships as merely refuges for the slave was not the right way for this country to discountenance domestic slavery. If domestic was to be effectively approached, it must be approached in some avowed and recognised manner, and not dealt with by lifting a few slaves here in one territory and a few slaves in another, and transporting them to some other place.

The result of that would be that they would only embitter the lives of those whom they left behind, and seriously hamper themselves in dealing with the slave trade: but he could not help thinking there were other forces as work which must in time break down the institution.

All he desired them to do on the point of the reception of slaves was to revert to what had been the practice before the issue of those circulars, and to leave it to the discretion of the officers, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances before them.

He would now ask the House to consider what would be the probable working of the circular, and here he would ask what was the plain English of the phrase "not permitting to remain on board." Did it mean that when a fugitive slave came on board one of our ships the officer was to come up to him and say, "I cannot permit you to remain on board," and then give instructions to his men to have him removed? He was quite sure the Admiralty did not wish to construe the words in that sense. It was certainly misleading language, and id not occur in the July document.

Whoever drew up that document knew his own mind and expressed what he meant, although, as was now admitted, his law was bad.

The July circular had his advantage over that of December - that it spoke in clear language. It said to the officer, "You are to surrender the slave." but when he was surrendered it seems the officer was then to make terms for him with the slave-holder. That phraseology was now changed, and the instructions were that the slave should not be allowed to remain on board. It seemed to him that whoever drew up the second circular must have felt how strong had been the indignation of the public on the publication of the first circular, and regarding surrender as an ugly word, endeavoured to get out of it by adopting the language he had just quoted. It was an attempt to please the British public by not saying the man was not to be surrendered, and to please the slave-owner by saying that we would not detain him.

If after a long swim for life and liberty a man got on board, and the captain came to him and said he could not permit him to remain there, what was the man to do? On shore was the slave-owner awaiting his arrival, and in the bay was the shark, both ready to lay hold of him, and he was as likely to obtain mercy from the one as from the other. He was not however, to be put on shore until all danger was past.

This circular was intended only for the instruction of officers; but was it an easy thing for them in all cases to decide when the danger was really past? He could imagine an officer who had received a fugitive on board going off to see the slave-owner, and having succeeded in obtaining a promise from him that if the man were restored to him he would not punish him for his flight, coming back and telling the man the terms he had secured for him.

To carry the picture further he would have the man inquire of the officer if he knew that his only offence had been that he had uttered among his fellow slaves aspirations of emancipation and liberty; that language like that aroused the angry passions of his owner who had threatened to take his life if he ever again indulged in it; and that he could not answer for himself, if restored to his captivity, that he would not at the first opportunity give expression to those sentiments of liberty which, once engendered in the human breast, could never be kept under; that such being the case, to surrender him to his owner was to consign him to certain death.

They might say that such a case was not likely to arise; that the slaves were a degraded race; and that such a man did not exist amongst them. - (Hear hear).

He admitted that the character was a strange one. If it had not been so they would not be now discussing the question of slavery at all, as it would have long since ceased to exist. (Hear hear) He would however, ask them if they thought they could go on dealing with Africa as they had been for some years past, driving roads everywhere through the country for the promotion of commerce and even of sport, teaching the people the use of our weapons, and importing among them the habits of civilised life, without at the same time, teaching them the principles of freedom? - (Hear)

When that time came they would no longer be able to draw a distinction between a runaway slave and a political refugee. - (Hear hear). As he had already observed, this was a document for the instruction of officers, but who had asked for it? He learned from the return moved for by the hon. member Paisley that Sir Leopold Heath was the only officer who had during the last ten years applied to the Admiralty for instructions upon this subject, so that it was clear our officers had not asked for the circular, and therefore he would repeat his question - who asked for it?

Mr.G.Hardy - Lord Northbrook - (Cheers)

Mr.Whitehead could not think Lord Northbrook had asked for it. On the contrary, he considered it was the act of the law officers of the Crown, who considered that by issuing a general circular they would save themselves the trouble of replying to particular enquiries.

- - - continues - - -

---

1876

---

St