the other hand, feels it incumbent upon him to acknowledge, that some of them came up as evidences, from a sense of duty, and this against their own apparent interest, and under the threats and prospect of suffering considerably for such a conduct.
Of the Evidences, on the other hand, brought forward by the slave-merchants and planters, there are few indeed who are not deeply interested in the testimony they have given, and the event of the decision. In the African part of the question, all but two are immediately concerned in the slave-trade, and in the West-Indian, the Admirals only can be fairly excepted. And of what does their information consist but of round and general assertions, without any specifick facts? These assertions, however, are in behalf of the planters, and tend to prove the comforts and happiness of their slaves.
We have no right to suppose that persons of their character had any intention of misleading the publick in a question of so much importance to the interests of mankind; but we may suppose, that in their situation they had little or no opportunity of observing the treatment of the slaves; and this is actually the fact. The Admirals, when on shore, were almost entirely in the towns. Now all the evidences for the petitioners of England are unanimous in asserting that the slaves in the towns appear to be better treated than those in the country. Hence the Admirals may have been in some measure warranted in saying what they have done, but they ought to haveobserved
