It remains only to show, that they have no title to them on the
ground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Acts
of Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_.
With respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the case
is very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave trade
nor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been for
the _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were first
concerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe,
first, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the ships
which took them from their native land; and secondly, that they were
conveyed to the Colonies principally for _their own benefit_, or out of
_Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be converted
to Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first assertion, the way in
which Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slave
trade began in England. This great princess seems on the very
commencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seems
to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and indeed, to
have revolted at the very thoughts of it. She seems to have been aware
of the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were
sanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure
the persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have
viewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place to her knowledge, we
may conjecture from this fact--that when Captain (afterwards Sir John)
Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither
he had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill's
Naval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be
carried off _without their free consent_, declaring, "that it would be
detestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers.
Pages:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36