moral right, involving a dispossession of human beings then occupying the soil, a full justification was found in a more or less emphasized assertion of a divine prerogative of Christians over and against all heathendom. Very rarely, and always ineffectually, was this sweeping claim challenged or discredited. Roger Williams, from the first and always a radical champion of the natural rights of all men, struck at what he regarded as the fundamental falsehood involved in this claim when he denied the right of a Christian sovereign to give a patent to the territory of the natives on the ground of their being heathens. He wrote in his “Key,” etc., that it was “a sinful opinion amongst many, that Christians have right to heathen lands.” Williams's fellow Rhode Islander, Coddington, wrote from Newport to Massachusetts, in 1640, a letter from his companions, in which, as Winthrop says, the Rhode Islanders “declared their dislike of such as would have the Indians rooted out as being of the cursed race of Ham; and their desire of our mutual accord in seeking to gain them by justice and kindness, and withal to watch over them to prevent any danger by them.”
The Friends, or early Quakers, also stood for the natural rights of the savages. In Penn's interview — as he was about leaving England — with Charles II., the King asked him what would prevent his getting into the savages' war-kettle, as a savory meal for them. Penn replied: “Their own inner light. Moreover, as I intend equitably to buy their lands, I shall not be molested.” “Buy their lands!” said the amazed monarch; “why, is not the whole land mine?” “No, your Majesty,” answered Penn. “We have no right to their lands; they are the original occupants of the soil.” “What! have I not the right of discovery?” asked Charles. “Well,” said Penn, “just suppose that a canoe full of savages should by some accident discover Great Britain: would you vacate or sell?” Yet Charles's great predecessor, William the Conqueror, when he
