the
Slave-trade?--Yes. This parallel was to be found even in England. The
people of Bristol, in the reign of Henry the Seventh, had a regular market
for children, which were bought by the Irish: but the latter having
experienced a general calamity, which they imputed as a judgment from
Heaven on account of this wicked traffic, abolished it. The only thing,
therefore, which he had to solicit of the house, was to show that they were
now as enlightened as the Irish were four centuries back, by refusing to
buy the children of other nations. He hoped they would do it. He hoped,
too, they would do it in an unqualified manner. Nothing less than a total
abolition of the trade would do away the evils complained of. The
legislature of Jamaica, indeed, had thought that regulations might answer
the purpose. Their report had recommended, that no person should be
kidnapped, or permitted to be made a slave, contrary to the customs of
Africa. But might he not be reduced to this state very unjustly, and yet by
no means contrary to the African laws? Besides, how could we distinguish
between those who were justly or unjustly reduced to it? Could we discover
them by their physiognomy?--But if we could, Who would believe that the
British captains would be influenced by any regulations made in this
country, to refuse to purchase those who had not been fairly, honestly, and
uprightly enslaved? They who were offered to us for sale were brought, some
of them, three or four thousand miles, and exchanged like cattle from one
hand to another, till they reached the coast. But who could return these to
their homes, or make them compensation for their sufferings during their
long journeyings? He would now conclude by begging pardon of the house for
having detained them so long. He could indeed have expressed his own
conviction in fewer words. He needed only to have made one or two short
statements, and to have quoted the commandment, "Thou shalt do no murder."
But he thought it his duty to lay the whole of the case, and the whole of
its guilt, before them. They would see now that no mitigations, no
palliatives, would either be efficient or admissible. Nothing short of an
absolute abolition could be adopted. This they owed to Africa: they owed
it, too, to their own moral characters. And he hoped they would follow up
the principle of one of the repentant African captains, who had gone before
the committee of privy council as a voluntary witness, and that