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. Henniker 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 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 him.  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. Henniker, 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.