moral motives_, how happens it _that she continues slavery_? But if this
_public attempt_ were to succeed, then the abolitionists would see their
wishes in a direct train for completion: for if slavery were to fall in
the British islands, this event would occasion death in a given time,
and without striking any further blow, to the execrable trade in every
part of the world; because those foreigners, who should continue
slavery, no longer able to compete in the markets with those who should
employ free men, must abandon the slave trade altogether.

But here perhaps the planters will say, "What right have the people of
England to interfere with our property, which would be the case if they
were to attempt to abolish slavery?" The people of England might reply,
that they have as good a right as you, the planters, have to interfere
with that most precious of all property, _the liberty of your slaves_,
seeing that _you hold them by no right that is not opposed to nature,
reason, justice, and religion_. The people of England have no desire to
interfere with your _property_, but with your _oppression_. It is
probable that your property would be improved by the change. But, to
examine this right more minutely, I contend, first, that they have
always a right to interfere in behalf of humanity and justice wherever
their appeals can be heard. I contend, secondly, that they have a more
immediate right to interfere in the present case, because the oppressed
persons in question, living in the British dominions and under the
British Government, are _their fellow subjects_. I contend again, that
they have this right upon the ground that they are giving you, the West
Indians, _a monopoly_ for their sugar, by buying it from you exclusively
_at a much dearer rate_ than _they can get it from other quarters_.
Surely they have a right to say to you, as customers for your produce,
Change your system and we will continue to deal with you; but if you
will not change it, we will buy our sugar elsewhere, or we will not buy