the root of the privileges of the House of Commons; but it was absurd to suppose that the House could upon no occasion receive evidence, taken where it was most convenient to take it, and subject throughout to new investigation, if any one doubted its validity.  The report of the privy council consisted, first, of calculations and accounts from the public offices; and, next, of written documents on the subject:  both of which were just as authentic as if they had been laid upon the table of that House.  The remaining part of it consisted of the testimony of living witnesses, all of whose names were published; so that if any one doubted their veracity, it was open to him to re-examine all or each of them.  It had been said by adversaries that the report on the table was a weak and imperfect report, but would not these have the advantage of its weakness and imperfection?  It was strange, when his honourable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, had said, “Weak and imperfect as the report may be thought to be, I think it strong enough to bear me out in all my propositions,” that they, who objected to it, should have no better reason to give than this, “We object, because the ground of evidence on which you rest is too weak to support your cause.”  Unless it were meant to say (and the meaning seemed to be but thinly disguised) that the House ought to abandon the inquiry, he saw no reason whatever for not going immediately into a committee; and he wished gentlemen to consider whether it became the dignity of their proceedings to obstruct the progress of an inquiry, which the House had pledged itself to undertake.  Their conduct, indeed, seemed extraordinary on this occasion.  It was certainly singular that; while the report had been five weeks upon the table, no argument had been brought against its sufficiency; but that on the moment when the House was expected to come to an ultimate vote upon the subject, it should be thought defective, contradictory, unconstitutional, and otherwise objectionable.  These objections, he was satisfied, neither did nor could originate with the country gentlemen; but they were brought forward; for purposes not now to be concealed, by the avowed enemies of this noble cause.

In the course of the discussion which arose upon this subject, every opportunity was taken to impress the House with the dreadful consequences of the abolition!  Mr. Heriniker read a long letter from the King of Dahomey to George the First, which had been found among the papers of James, first Duke of Chandos, and which had remained in the family till that time.  In this, the King of Dahomey boasted of his victory over the King of Ardrah and how he had ornamented the pavement and walls of his palace with the heads of the vanquished.  These cruelties, Mr. Henniker said, were not imputable to the Slave Trade.  They showed the Africans to be naturally a savage people, and that we did them a great kindness by taking them from their country.  Alderman Sawbridge maintained that, if the abolition