ENGLAND'S RECORD ON THE SLAVE QUESTION.
305
where their own material interests prompt them to turn a deaf ear to the arguments of justice.
England was legislating for Jamaica; America was acting for herself. England had very little direct interest in the matter. To half the Union it was a material and vital question.
Is there then—can there be—any just comparison instituted between the grasp which slavery held on the British power, and that which it unfortunately obtained in the United States?
Let us, in the next place, see what means each nation possessed for the immediate eradication of this blighting evil, when public opinion was first forcibly directed toward it, and when the more conscientious class in each country began to clamor for its overthrow. And on the very threshold of this inquiry we must note the great and fundamental difference between the constitutional systems of the two nations as bearing upon this, and indeed, upon every other question which they are called upon to deliberate.
All students of American history are thoroughly familiar with the fact which has already been adverted to—that the English colonies possess no voice in imperial legislation, even though such legislation vitally affects them. Still further, by the theory and in a great measure by the practice of the English constitution, their parliament is omnipotent. Let a law, unequivocal in its terms and plain in its application, be once properly passed and no power exists in the nation by which that law could be declared inoperative. Their courts, unlike ours, possess not the power to declare any act of parliament unconstitutional. The legislative power is supreme; and the courts, though acknowledging the injustice or inexpediency of a law, are bound to carry it into effect till repealed by the same power
which called it into existence. The very parliament which liberated the slaves of Jamaica, if it had so chosen, might have declared every slave in the British dominions free without making any provision for reimbursing their owners, and no power on earth could have declared such an act illegal or void.
It can, therefore, be readily seen how simple and plain a matter was the abolition of slavery in an insignificant trans-Atlantic colony. The advocates of reform, having no strong personal and pecuniary interests counteracting their efforts, had merely to influence in the right direction a majority of parliament, and once having obtained that, their end was secured.
To the student of our constitutional system and political history, it need scarcely be remarked that a similar condition of affairs does not, and never did exist in the United States. By the theory and practice of our system, the constitution is supreme; the people are the fountain of power; and the duties and prerogatives of congress are definitely prescribed and limited. This constitution was revered by our people because they looked upon it as the charter of their liberties and the bulwark of freedom; and especially, because they almost idolized the memory of the revolutionary heroes whose wisdom consummated so grand a scheme of government.
But this instrument was framed with a special view to the protection of the interest of minorities. Its alteration was very difficult where any considerable body of people opposed the change. It is an old aphorism that "large bodies are moved slowly." The people in an extensive section of the Union were, as we have seen, directly and deeply interested in the perpetuation of slavery. That system was recognized and protected by the constitution, and the terms of that institution