God forbid, that we should ever admit such distinctions in this country! But he had gone further, and said, that a thing might be inhuman, and yet not unjust; and he put the case of the execution of a criminal in support of it.

Did he not by this position confound all notions of right and wrong in human institutions?
When a criminal was justly executed, was not the execution justice to him who suffered, and humanity to the body of the people at large?
The noble earl had said also, that we should do no good by the abolition, because other nations would not concur in it.

He did not know what other nations would do; but this he knew, that we ourselves ought not to be unjust because they should refuse to be honest.

It was, however, self-obvious, that, if we admitted no more slaves into our colonies, the evil would be considerably diminished.
Another of his arguments did not appear to be more solid; for surely the Slave-trade ought not to be continued, merely because the effect of the abolition might ultimately be that of the emancipation of the slaves; an event, which would be highly desirable in its due time.
The noble lord had also said, that the planters were against the abolition, and that without their consent it could never be accomplished.

He differed from him in both these points: for, first, he was a considerable planter himself, and yet he was a friend to the measure: secondly, by cutting off all further supplies, the planters would be obliged to pay more attention to the treatment of their slaves, and this treatment would render the trade unnecessary.
The noble earl had asserted also, that the population in the West Indies could not be kept up without further importations; and this was the opinion of the planters, who were the best judges of the subject.