that, in spite of all our exertions and sacrifices, great numbers
of slaves were, even as late as ten or twelve years ago,
introduced from Madagascar into our own island of Mauritius.
Assuredly it was our right, it was our duty, to guard the coasts
of that island strictly, to stop slave ships, to bring the buyers
and sellers to punishment. But suppose, Sir, that a ship under
French colours was seen skulking near the island, that the
Governor was fully satisfied from her build, her rigging, and her
movements, that she was a slaver, and was only waiting for the
night to put on shore the wretches who were in her hold. Suppose
that, not having a sufficient naval force to seize this vessel,
he were to arrest thirty or forty French merchants, most of whom
had never been suspected of slave-trading, and were to lock them
up. Suppose that he were to lay violent hands on the French
consul. Suppose that the Governor were to threaten to starve his
prisoners to death unless they produced the proprietor of the
slaver. Would not the French Government in such a case have a
right to demand reparation? And, if we refused reparation, would
not the French Government have a right to exact reparation by
arms? And would it be enough for us to say, "This is a wicked
trade, an inhuman trade. Think of the misery of the poor
creatures who are torn from their homes. Think of the horrors of
the middle passage. Will you make war in order to force us to
admit slaves into our colonies?" Surely the answer of the French
would be, "We are not making war in order to force you to admit
slaves into the Mauritius. By all means keep them out. By all
means punish every man, French or English, whom you can convict
of bringing them in. What we complain of is that you have
confounded the innocent with the guilty, and that you have acted
towards the representative of our government in a manner