---

Slavery

My Lords, I apologise to the House and ask for its indulgence because, owing to the extension of time for the debate, I will not be able to be present for all the speeches. I have mentioned this already to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, and to the Leader of the House, and I shall read all the speeches carefully afterwards. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, for initiating a historic debate and for doing so with such wisdom, dignity and forcefulness. The terms of her Motion concern Parliament’s abolition of the slave trade and the UK’s role in tackling its legacies. There are, of course, many other examples of this abominable trade, and modern forms of slavery continue to this day, not just in the rest of the world, but also in Britain. Slavery was prevalent in this country long before the Norman Conquest, and Islamic slavery was widespread before the Atlantic trade in black African slaves. I shall summarise the way in which our courts treated black African slavery and the slave trade. I wrote about it in a book 35 years ago, before I had the privilege of helping to make the Race Relations Act 1976. In view of the lucrative benefits that Britain derived from the slave trade, it is not surprising that English courts were ready to recognise the legality of the institution. Their task was made easier because the appalling traffic and its consequences were kept at a convenient distance in remote colonies. The legal aspects of slavery came before our courts only when a master sought to enforce his rights of ownership in a slave. Since there was no intellectual basis for chattel slavery in existing law, English courts upheld the proprietary right of slave owners by relying on the fact that slaves were not Christians and by appealing to the common practice of merchants whose trade in slaves was presumed to be sanctioned by the law of nations. Courts, describing slaves as merchandise akin to musk cats and monkeys, decided that slavery was legal in England because slaves were infidels without the rights enjoyed by Christian men. However, this could not be applied to a slave who was baptised. The courts resolved that difficulty by treating slavery as a relationship created under local colonial law. In that way the judges could uphold the condition of servitude overseas without violating British ideals of personal liberty. Lord Mansfield was not the fearless emancipator of later legend and tried repeatedly to avoid giving judgment. All that he decided in Somersett’s case was that the state of slavery could not be enforced in the English courts while the slave was in England. In 1805, the House of Commons passed a Bill that made it unlawful for any British subject to capture and transport slaves. That measure was blocked by this House, disgracefully. A year later, Grenville, a strong opponent of the slave trade, formed a Whig Administration. Grenville’s Foreign Secretary, Charles Fox, and William Wilberforce led the campaign in the other place. Grenville made a passionate speech in this House, arguing that the trade was, "““contrary to the principles of justice, humanity and sound policy””," and criticised fellow members for, "““not having abolished the trade long ago””." When the vote was taken, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Bill was passed in this House by 41 votes to 20. In the Commons it was carried by 114 to 15. British captains who were caught continuing the trade were fined £100 for every slave found on board. This did not stop the British slave trade. If slave ships were in danger of being apprehended, captains often reduced the fines that they had to pay by throwingthe slaves overboard. It was not until 1833 that Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act. As late as 1860 an English court refused to invalidate a contract made by a British subject for the sale of slaves in Brazil, because the possession of slaves was lawful in that country. The system of indentured Indian labour in the sugar industry in the Caribbean was, of course, often a source of de facto slavery. As regards the UK’s role in tackling the legacies of the slave trade, on 14 March 1996 the House debated a Question by Lord Gifford, asking whether the Government would make appropriate reparation to African nations and to the descendants of Africans for the damage caused by the slave trade and the practice of slavery. The Minister explained why the Government rejected that proposal. In that debate, which I heard, Lord Wilberforce, the great-great-grandson of William Wilberforce and joint president of Anti-Slavery International, accepted in principle that one could not object to the idea of compensation to individuals for wrongs that they had suffered and he noted that compensation had been paid in certain circumstances to individuals who had suffered ascertained wrongs—that is, where there was unquestioned guilt and unquestionable responsibility of a particular person. Lord Wilberforce continued: "““I do not find that those conditions are satisfied, or anywhere near satisfied, in the present case … ever since 1833 when slavery was abolished in the British Empire … British governments have striven by law, by force, by use of their navy, by influence and by the expenditure of money, to have slavery abolished in African countries, to stop the trade in human beings, and to mitigate the consequences””." However, he emphasised that, however difficult, indeed impossible, it is to assess compensation or reparation, we and other countries, "““have a very strong moral responsibility now and always to do two things; first, to bring about as far as possible the abolition of slavery wherever it still exists, and, secondly, to do whatever we can both practically and realistically to alleviate the consequences … Either of pre-existing slavery … or of existing slavery … The main consequences which we can identify and which we are in a position to do something about are well known. They are low prices for commodities and the burden of debt, which is itself a form of slavery … There is also the question of unfair trading””.—[Official Report, 14/3/96; cols. 1406-07.]" When the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, examined the evils of human trafficking, we heard shocking evidence from those working in the field about how trafficking and immigration control and its abuses create the conditions in which modern slavery flourishes, whether for sexual exploitation or for forced labour. Forced marriage also results in sexual slavery. There is a pressing need for effective action to abolish modern slavery and its causes in Britain today, as well as beyond our shores. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, emphasised, we need also to tackle racial discrimination, disadvantage and prejudice and to promote racial equality, not only by means of public education and good governance, but by means of coherent and workable equality legislation, vigorously enforced by the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, the Government and the judiciary.