Thomas Clarkson, “Petition to the House of Commons,” Emancipator and Free American, September 14, 1843.
PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sheweth – That having devoted fifty-nine years of his life to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade, he hopes that he shall not be considered by your honorable House as taking a too prominent part in making the following appeal to you :
Your petitioner states first, that a number of slaves have from time to time fled from the cruelty of their masters in the Southern States of America, in the British possessions in Canada, where, by the permission of the British Government, they have settled and been treated as British subjects; and notwithstanding hundreds have perished in their attempts to escape, upwards of 12,000 souls are now settled in Canada.
Your petitioner further states, that these fugitives during their resident in Canada, have conducted themselves in so exemplary a manner, as honest, sober, industrious, and peaceable subjects of the British Crown, as to have secured to themselves the respect and esteem of the Canadian magistrates and citizens among whom they reside; and, moreover, when the late insurrection broke out in Canada, they offered their services unanimously to the Governor, which services were accepted in full confidence in their loyalty.
Your petitioner also states that there is a bill now before your honorable House, to give effect to the treaty lately entered into between Great Britain and the United States of America, authorizing the surrender of “all person,” citizens of the United States, who, having committed certain crimes there, shall have fled into Canada to escape justice; and that this treaty, in which the words “all persons,” are inserted, making no distinction between the black and white population, may, and in the opinion of your petitioner, will be so construed by the American slave-holders, as to comprehend within its meaning the fugitive slaves in Canada, and thus open a door to their restoration to slavery, contrary to the intention of the treaty.
Your petitioner therefore humbly implores your honorable House to introduce into the bill before mentioned, such provisions as, in your wisdom you may consider best calculated to answer the ends of justice, and at the same time, to give full protection to the fugitive slave; especially guarding against the fabricated charges of an interested and infuriated master, and against the word “robbery” being interpreted so as to include “petty thefts,” from which it is distinguished by English law; otherwise it would, in the opinion of your petitioner, be a complete bar to the escape of any fugitive from slavery.
And your petitioner as in duty bound, &c. &c.
(Signed)
THOMAS CLARKSON.
Playford Hall, 24th July 1843.
Thomas Clarkson to John Beaumont, October 24, 1842, in “Ashburton Treaty: Tenth Article,” Anti-Slavery Reporter, November 2, 1842, pp. 175-176 (selection).
ASHBURTON TREATY : THE TENTH ARTICLE.
Playford HAll, October 24th, 1842.MY DEAR FRIEND, JOHN BEAUMONT, — I have looked into the tenth article of the late treaty with the United States, and I will now give you the result of my thoughts upon it. It was necessary for the American government, considering the extent of the boundary line, and the number of American white ruffians who had taken advantage of it to escape the punishment due to their crimes by flying beyond it – it was necessary, I repeat, to have an article of this sort; and I believe therefore that the American government, and Lord Ashburton too, had no other object in view than to cause the surrender of such of its white subjects as were criminals: but I am decidedly of opinion that the American slave holders will take advantage of this article, not only to go into Canada with their claims as before, but to go more frequently – for the article says, that the proper authorities on both sides (British and American) shall deliver up all persons who, being charged with certain crimes, shall seek an asylum in the territories of each other. Now the words “all person,” evidently include the black (slave) as well as the white population. The words are qualified however, or restricted in their meaning, by their being made to relate only to those fugitives who have committed certain crimes. There is no article in the treaty which allows a fugitive slave to be given up merely for running away. Running away is no crime, according to the treaty, unless actual crime is the cause of it. Let us now see what those crimes are for which a criminal may be surrendered. They are six in number. 1. Murder. 2. Assault with intent to commit murder. 3. Arson. 4. Piracy. 5. Robbery. 6. Forgery. Now I think it is evident by this catalogue of crimes that the American president has in view the white population only, for I never heard of arson, piracy (according to our definition of it), or forgery being committed by slaves. Indeed they cannot commit forgery because there is only here and there a slave who can read or write. I wish it may be that this was the design of the American president, for then things will remain, with respect to Canada, as they were before the treaty; and it becomes our government, or Lord Ashburton, to inquire whether the American president views the treaty in this light. If it is meant to include the slave population, then the treaty will be most disastrous; for though the slaves do not commit some of the crimes specified, yet they are guilty of petty thefts. Now, does the word robbery include petty thefts? If it does, then the door is open to claims without end – to thousands of applications. I am of opinion then, if the treaty takes in the slave population, that the slave owners, encouraged by the case of Nelson Hackett, and having now a legal right to make claims, which they had not before, will pester our government in Canada with thousands of applications (considering that the fugitives now in Canada amount to 12,000 souls) : indeed they will not be able to get through the business without establishing a special court for the purpose of trying the cases which will be brought before them. And such a court, if established, would have many and great difficulties to contend with. Lies without end would be told without scruple by the pursuers of the fugitive, to get him into their possession. Ask a Canadian who lives on the British borders of Canada, what he thinks of these claims as far as they have come within his own knowledge, and he will tell you that he will not believe a word of what these pursuers have to say. The crimes with which they charge the fugitives are mostly fabricated. It may be that a fugitive is now and then a criminal, but ninety-nine in a hundred run away solely to gain their liberty and avoid oppression.
Charles Stuart to “My Friend,” October 5, 1842, in “Ashburton Treaty: Tenth Article,” Anti-Slavery Reporter, October 19, 1842, pp. 167-168.
ASHBURTON TREATY – THE TENTH ARTICLE.
We insert another letter which Captain Stuart has written in this deeply interesting subject to a member of the Anti-Slavery Committee. A remark or two of our own will be found elsewhere.
“Redruth, October 5th, 1842.
“My Dear Friend, — The Tenth Article of Lord Ashburton’s Treaty, appears more and more horrible to me, as repeated consideration seems to develop its character. My reasons are as follows : —
“In all slave states of the United States, in one at least of the free (Ohio), the coloured, whether enslaved or free, have no evidence in law. When accused, therefore, no evidence except that of free white persons can be legally received in their favour; but, whenever the contest is with free white persons, you see at once, how hopeless to them, generally speaking, such a defence must be. Was Lord Ashburton aware of this? Or is there one amongst us, who, excluded entirely from those of his own class, could be content to repose the question of his honour, his liberty, or his life, upon the testimony and judgement of his deliberate and exasperated enemies?
“Now, suppose a free coloured subject of the United States is reclaimed from our government with the legal affidavits, as a fugitive criminal. By the treaty, as a I read it, we are bound to give him up; but to what do we give him up? To a fair trial? This must have been Lord Ashburton’s idea. To a fair trial? Possibly; but certainly not once in a hundred times. To a fair trial? No; but to the power of a law system which has already deprived him of almost all possibility of proving his innocence, if innocent; and which leaves his acquittal or condemnation to a judiciary, outrageously at war with his safety, his honour, and his happiness. The ninety-nine probabilities out of a hundred are that he will be judged with fearfully partial severity. Yet, if he belong to the free states, there is still a mitigation – a sacred mitigation in his case. After undergoing the awarded punishment, he will be free – he will be restored to his manhood. But should he belong to the slave-states, his crime, by the laws of the state in question, may direct or sanction his being sold into slavery, either immediately, or after he has undergone some other dreadful penalty.
“I am not willing to believe that Lord Ashburton contemplated this; nor, as long as it is possible to doubt, will I believe, that our government will sanction the article in question, without expressly and effectually providing against such results.
“But a still worse evil is involved in the treaty. The slave, whoever he is, wherever he comes from, as soon as he touches British ground, is free. Glorious feature of our country! Well, a slave from Arkansas, we will say (Nelson Hackett will serve for a complete illustration), accused of theft, escapes to Canada, and from the moment that he arrives there is a free man. British law, in this particular executing the divine, restores to him his inherent manhood and tLo Egis of British power is nobly spread over him. But he is accused of theft, and the United States government, supplying the legal certificates, reclaims him for trial – Lord Ashburton doubtless presumed, for a fair trial by his peers. By his peers! Alas! he was none, but the cattle which graze his master’s field, or the furniture which adorns his master’s habitation! For a fair trial? What! a fair trial with no evidence admissible by law in his favour except the evidence of exasperated enemies! What! a fair trial of a runaway slave by indignant slave-masters! And, after all, when he has been tried for theft, when, of course, he has been found guilty, and when he has undergone the worst rigours of the law – what, ah! what, becomes of him if he survives? Will his liberty, which God had restored to him by British instrumentality, be given back by the slave-holder, exulting in the recovery of the runaway slave, and in the fearful example which he has made him to his fellows against similar transgressions of slave laws? Will he be at liberty to return openly and without impediment to Canada? Alas! he is in Arkansas – he is in the fangs of his tyrants; he was long ago legislated by them into a thing, and all his fair claims to equal manhood have of old been spurned with infinite indignation. And how would the coward pride and the tyrant selfishness of the slave-system quail and writhe in every nerve at the departing glories of slavery, should a slave’s claim to the common and inalienable manhood with which God has endowed every man, and to its fair and equal rights, be thus publicly acknowledged!
“Lord Ashburton meant, I presume, that criminals on both sides should be equitably restored, in a friendly manner, to fair trial and judgment; and so far, every honest mind will applaud and support him.
“Nelson Hackett’s case affords a fine opportunity of testing the question. If the Americans be honest in the treaty, they will scrupulously restore him to Canada, should he survive, after undergoing the punishment they may award him for theft; and how would my soul exult with thanksgiving should they do so! But, if he perish, or, if they retain him in slavery, and we be consenting to it, how criminal, debased, and dastardly will be our posture – how daringly shall we again begin to violate the Divine commandments, Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, and James v. 1-4, &c. My heart’s prayer is, that the Sovereign Mercy which so long spared us amidst all the abominations of our recent slave system, and which so graciously led us out of it in peace, my here again preserve us, nor suffer us to make ourselves kidnappers of freemen – for let us always remember that, one on British ground, the slave is restored to his liberty by British laws, as he always was entitled to it by Divine – nor suffer us, I say, to make ourselves kidnappers of freeman, out of regard to a supremely hypocritical power, the tyrant republic, which will be the first to detect our shallowness and to despise our pusillanimity, whilst it boasts of our brotherhood in corruption, and superciliously smiles upon our tame subserviency to its idol guilt.
“CHARLES STUART.”