e 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.

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 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