He had since considered them, but he could not prevail upon
himself to retract them; because, if any gentleman, after reading the
evidence on the table, and attending to the debate, could avow himself
an abettor of this shameful traffic in human flesh, it could only be
either from some hardness of heart, or some difficulty of understanding,
which he really knew not how to account for.
Some had considered this question as a question of political, whereas,
it was a question of personal, freedom. Political freedom was
undoubtedly a great blessing; but when it came to be compared with
personal, it sunk to nothing. To confound the two, served, therefore, to
render all arguments on either perplexing and unintelligible. Personal
freedom was the first right of every human being. It was a right, of
which he who deprived a fellow-creature was absolutely criminal in so
depriving him, and which he who withheld was no less criminal in
withholding. He could not, therefore, retract his words with respect to
any, who (whatever respect he might otherwise have for them) should, by
their vote of that night, deprive their fellow-creatures of so great a
blessing. Nay, he would go further. He would say, that if the House,
knowing what the trade was by the evidence, did not, by their vote, mark
to all mankind their abhorrence of a practice so savage, so enormous, so
repugnant to all laws human and divine, they would consign their
character to eternal infamy.
Pages:
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792