The Daily Dispatch: March 23, 1865., [Electronic resource]

It may not be without interest to narrate particularly, and in detail, the connection of England with slavery and the slave trade in this country.

The first historical mention which is made of its inauguration by Great Britain is the grant of a charter by Queen Elizabeth to a company, in which she was herself a shareholder, formed for the purpose of supplying slaves to the Spanish American colonies. At a later date, in 1662, under the reign of Charles II., a monopoly was granted to a company placed under the auspices of the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York, which company was authorized to export to the colonies three thousand slaves per annum. The King was so anxious to give success to this enterprise that he issued a proclamation inviting his subjects to colonize here, and tendering a grant of one hundred acres of land for each four slaves that they would employ in cultivation. The monopoly created in favor of this company so cramped the trade of the London merchants to the slave coast that they besieged the House of Commons with their complaints, until, finally, in 1695, the House passed a resolution "That, for the better supply of the plantations, all the subjects of Great Britain should have liberty to trade in Africa for negroes, with such limits as should be prescribed by Parliament." Under William III., an act was passed partially relaxing the monopoly, the preamble to which states that the trade was highly beneficial and advantageous to the kingdom, and to the plantations and colonies thereunto belonging." In 1708, the Commons, still importuned by the merchants, again resolved "That the trade was important, and ought to be free and open to all the Queen's subjects trading from Great Britain." In 1711, they again resolved "That this trade ought to be free in a regulated company; the plantations ought to be supplied with negroes at a reasonable rate; a considerable stock was necessary for carrying on the trade to the best advantage, and that an export of £100,000 at least, in merchandise, should be annually made from Great Britain to Africa. " At last, the popular complaints completely prevailed in the passage of an act, under George II., throwing open the trade, and declaring "the slave trade to be very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying the plantations and colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of negroes at reasonable rates."

In the meantime, the colonies sought in vain, by petition, by remonstrance, by legislation, to diminish the evil. In 1760, an act was passed by South Carolina prohibiting the farther importation of African slaves. The act was not only rejected by the British Crown, but the governor was reprimanded, and a circular was sent to all the governors of all the colonies, warning them against presuming to countenance such legislation.

News reaching Great Britain in 1765 that a similar bill had been twice read in the Assembly of Jamaica, instructions were sent to the governor of that colony, in conformity with which he forbade any farther progress of the bill. Nevertheless, another attempt was made by the Legislative Assembly of Jamaica in 1774, whereupon the Earl of Dartmouth, then Secretary of State, wrote to the governor that "these measures had created alarm to the merchants of Great Britain engaged in that branch of commerce," and forbidding him, "on pain of removal from his government, to assent to such laws." And, at last, in 1775, after the Revolutionary War had commenced, the Earl of Dartmouth, in answer to a remonstrance from the agent of the colonies, replied: ‘"We cannot allow the colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a traffic so beneficial to the nation."’

We do not propose to speak here at length of the slave trade of England to other than her own colonies. Some idea of it may be formed from the fact that, in May, 1713, the British Government made a formal treaty with Spain, by which England undertook, for the term of thirty years then next to come, to transport, annually, four thousand and eight hundred slaves to the Spanish American colonies, at a fixed price.--And, a question arising as to the true legal character of the slaves thus to be exported to the Spanish American Colonies, the twelve Judges of England decided: ‘"In pursuance of His Majesty's order in council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our opinion to be that negroes are merchandise."’ Even white slavery was protected by the common law of England down to James II., and the only way it ever disappeared from that country was by the sale, by the lord, to the slave himself of his right over him. With this, however, we have nothing to do. That which is apposite, however, and undeniable, is the fact that England is the responsible party for the compulsory establishment of slavery in this country, and that as lately as 1775, after the first blood of the Revolution had been shed, not a hundred years ago, she peremptorily refused the entreating of the colonists to diminish the slave trade, declaring that "we cannot allow the colonies to check or discourage, in any degree, a traffic so beneficial to the nation."

And this is the nation which is now moving Heaven and earth to pull up by the roots the institution which she forced upon the American colonies. For thirty years she has had that thing steadily in view, and is now making the United States a cat's-paw for her infamous purposes. Not that the abolition of slavery is the end — only the means to a far more important object. Ninety years ago — not more than the lifetime of some men — she would not allow the colonies to "check," or even "discourage," the traffic, because it was "so beneficial to the nation." The same reason actuates her in her crusade against slavery. Now, it is "so beneficial to the nation" that a commercial and manufacturing rival in America should be destroyed; and the anti-slavery agitation being the only means of accomplishing that object, she, the great slave-trader of the world, turns, like a bloodhound, upon her own offspring in this country, and the United States, her gullible and demented dupe, joins in the furious hunt. All this under the guise of philanthropy and virtue!

Her ruling principle of action can no longer be hidden from the most simple and credulous. What is "beneficial to the nation,"--that is her conscience. No matter how others suffer; no matter what injustice, what crime, what misery, may be the consequence to other countries, that which is "beneficial to the nation" is the keystone of British policy. She takes no more into calculation the results of her selfishness outside those specks on the ocean called the British isles than the inhabitants of this planet take into account such an imagination as the influence of their actions upon the other spheres that compose the universe. To Britain, the British islesare the world, and their benefit the great use of the rest of mankind. Whether her hard-hearted selfishness towards America will be crowned with ultimate success remains to be seen. At present, it is evident enough that she has done more to cripple her American rival, and build up her own fortunes, than could have been accomplished by a war of fifty years, with all the armies and fleets of Europe at her command. We are not more horror-struck by her diabolism than amazed by her sagacity.