[3] I have referred to this period of the Negroe-trade to Africa, because Acts of Parliament go no farther back in confirmation of it; but its commencement was of much earlier date. It began in this country about the middle of the 15th century, and was carried on by means of letters patent obtained by individual traders for their private emolument, until the growth of the English plantations in America, in the next century, made it an object of such importance, as not only to render the establishment of a company necessary, but of such profit as to engage even crowned heads to be concerned therein. The first charter was granted in the year 1661, in favour of the Duke of York; but being revoked by consent of parties, it was renewed in the year 1663, with more ample privileges than the former. The principal adventurers here, were Queen Catharine of Portugal, Mary Queen of France, the Duke of York, Henrietta Maria Duchess of Orleans, Prince Rupert, and others of the Court. Thus upon the ground of an exclusive Right was this trade continued, till, by the vast increase of the colonies, it became, in the beginning of the present century, a weight too heavy for the support of prerogative; and so falling under the protection of Parliament, was made, as it now is, a free, open, and _national_ concern. [4] Mr. Hargrave says, in his argument, p. 67. “Another objection will be, that there are English acts of parliament, which give a sanction to the slavery of Negroes; and therefore that it is now lawful, whatever it might be antecedently to those statutes. The statutes in favour of this objection are the 5th of Geo. II. ch. 7, which makes Negroes in America liable to all debts, simple contract as well as speciality, and the statutes regulating the African trade, particularly the 23d Geo. II. ch. 31, which in the preamble recites that the trade to Africa is advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary for supplying its colonies with Negroes. But the utmost which can be said of these statutes is, that they impliedly authorize the slavery of Negroes in America; and it would be a strange thing to say, that permitting slavery there, includes a permission of slavery here. By an unhappy concurrence of circumstances, the slavery of Negroes is thought to have become necessary in America; and therefore in America our Legislature has permitted the slavery of Negroes. But the slavery of Negroes is unnecessary in England, and therefore the Legislature has not extended the permission of it to England; and not having done so, how can this Court be warranted to make such an extension?” Now this is the very assertion without proof that I have complained of above, and have there fully answered: but, in truth, the best answer it can receive, is its own futility. Why did not Mr. Hargrave, instead of his _ipse dixit_, produce authorities to set aside this objection? He is on other occasions not sparing of proofs and citations. But what is his _ipse dixit_? It is this: