Bartoleme Las Casas [pp. 829-851]

Barfoleine Las Casas.
of the good with his bones supervened. Instead of quoting Shakespeare, a few lines written by the
great British statesman, George Canning, for the Anti-Jacobin, in his ode
to the "New Morality," would be more
applicable to Mr. Helps himself:
" Give me th' avowed, erect, the manly foe,
Bold I can meet, perchance avert his blow;
But of all plagues, good heavens! thy wrath can send,
Save, save, oh! save me fronm the candid friend."
The memory of Las Casas has suffered greatly from many of those
unthinking, unsearching plagues, who
are ever ready to confess what "it is
due to candor to state," etc. A dozen
at least might be counted of names
high in the roll of literature: Llorente,
Washington Irving, Mr. Prescott, are
among the number. The time has
come to explode this bubble about
his want of fixed principles. All are
pleased to admit he was a good man,
leading a virtuous life, with a noble
purpose in view; but that he was inconsistent in recommending negro
slavery, while advocating the emancipation of the Indians. Now, if one
be in his right mind, and yet inconsistent in opinions or conduct, he cannot be virtuous in principle or practice. The expressions are incongruous. How can he be accounted virtuous, if at times he is vicious? How
can he be received as good, when he
has advised what is bad? Rectitude is
wanting. In public life an inconsist ent man is dangerous; because he
destroys order and promotes dis order; he creates distrust in the
absence of integrity in purpose. In
private life no dependence can be re posed in him; he is not respected,
and if the infirmity be great, his
friends send him to an asylum for
the insane.
Navarete thus states the charge
against Las Casas:
memory. He has been charged with gross
inconsistency, and even with having originated the inhuman traffic in the new world.
This last is a grievous charge; but historical facts and dates remove the original sin
from his door, and prove that the practice
existed in the colonies, and was authorized
by royal decree long before he took part in
the question."*
This charge was first made against
the bishop by Dr. Robertson, in his
History of America. in 1777. The
doctor therein contrasts himn with
Cardinal Ximenes, Prime Minister of
Spain, observing:
"Cardinal Ximenes, when solicited to encourage this commerce, peremptorily rejected
the proposition, because he perceived the
iniquity of reducing one race of men to slavery, while he was consulting about the
means of restoring liberty to another. (Herrera Dec. ii. lib. ii. cap. 8.) But Las Casas,
from the inconsistency natural to mnen who
hurry with headlong impetuosity toward a
favorite point, was incapable of making the
distinction." (HIerrera Dec. lib. ii. cap. 20.)
If Ximenes had been living when
this exalted morality was accorded to
him, his astonishment would have
been great; he claimed no morality
of that kind.
In turning to Herrera, at the eighth
chapter, referred to by Dr. Robertson, it will be found the doctor has
drawn upon his imagination for the
paragraph on Ximenes. The cardinal
was not thinking about morality, but
about money. Herrera states it thus
"At the same time it was ordered that ne gro slaves should not pass to the Indies;
which order was understood at once; for, as
they went out, in the scarcity of Indians, and
as it was known that one negro did the work
of four, whereby a great demand had arisen
for them, it appeared to the Cardinal Xime nes, that he might place some tax on their
exportation, from whence would result a be nefit to the treasury."
But Herrera, in the twentieth chap ter, does, with truth, connect Las
"It is this expedient of Las Casas which * Navarete, Viages and Descubriamentas. Tom.
has drawn down severe censure upon his iii. p. 418.
84r