It was
inhuman in its beginning, inhuman in its progress, and inhuman to the very
end.
Nor was it more inhuman than it was unjust. The noble earl, (Westmoreland)
in adverting to this part of the question, had considered it as a question
of justice between two nations. But it was a moral question. Although the
natives of Africa might be taken by persons authorized by their own laws to
take and dispose of them, and the practice therefore might be said to be
legal as it respected them, yet no man could doubt, whatever ordinances
they might have to sanction it, that it was radically, essentially, and in
principle, unjust; and therefore there could be no excuse for us in
continuing it. On the general principle of natural justice, which was
paramount to all ordinances of men, it was quite impossible to defend this
traffic; and he agreed with the noble baron (Hawkesbury) that, having
decided that it was inhuman and unjust, we should not inquire whether it
was impolitic. Indeed, the inquiry itself would be impious; for it was the
common ordinance of God, that that, which was inhuman and unjust, should
never be for the good of man. Its impolicy therefore was included in its
injustice and its inhumanity.
Pages:
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496