passed, the Africans who could not be sold as slaves would be butchered at home; while those who had been carried, to our islands would be no longer under control.  Hence insurrections, and the manifold evils which belonged to them.  Alderman Newnham was certain that the abolition would be the ruin of the trade of the country.  It would affect even the landed interest and the funds.  It would be impossible to collect money to diminish the national debt.  Every man in the kingdom would feel the abolition come home to hit.  Alderman Watson maintained the same argument, and pronounced the trade under discussion to be a merciful and humane trade.

Compensation was also insisted upon by Mr. Drake, Alderman Newnham, Mr. Senniker, Mr. Cruger, and others.  This was resisted by Mr. Burke; who said, that compensation in such a case would be contrary to every principle of legislation.  Government gave encouragement to any branch of commerce while it was regarded as conducive to the welfare of the community; or compatible with humanity and justice; but they were competent to withdraw their countenance from it, when it was found to be immoral, and injurious, and disgraceful to the state:  They who engaged in it knew the terms under which they were placed, and adopted it with all the risks with which it was accompanied; and of consequence it was but just, that they should be prepared to abide by the loss which might accrue, when the public should think it right no longer to support it.  But such a trade as this it was impossible any longer to support.  Indeed it was not a trade.  It was a system of robbery.  It was a system, too, injurious to the welfare of other nations.  How could Africa ever be civilized under it?  While we continued to purchase the natives, they must remain in a state of barbarism.  It was impossible to civilize slaves.  It was contrary to the system of human nature.  There was no country placed under such disadvantageous circumstances, into which the shadow of improvement had ever been introduced.

Great pains were taken to impress the house with the propriety of regulation.  Sir Grey Cooper; Aldermen Sawbridge, Watson, and Newnham; Mr. Marsham, and Mr. Cruger, contended strenuously for it instead of abolition.  It was also stated, that the merchants would consent to any regulation of the trade which might be offered to them.

In the course of the debate much warmth of temper was manifested on both sides.  The expression of Mr. Fox in a former debate, “that the Slave Trade could not be regulated, because there could be no regulation of robbery and murder,” was brought up, and construed by planters in the house as a charge of these crimes upon themselves.  Mr. Fox, however, would not retract the expression.  He repeated it.  He had no notion, however, that any individual would have taken it to himself.  If it contained any reflection at all, it was on the whole parliament, who had sanctioned such a trade.  Mr. Molyneux