But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of
the West India planters. These would consider any such interference by
the British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would
cry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when the
abolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pitt
say to them in the House of Commons? "I will now," said he, "consider
the proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the West
Indians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion of
their legal inheritance. This proposition implied, that Parliament had
no right to stop the importations: but had this detestable traffic
received such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of
the Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? But
if the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for its
perpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the
branches of our national commerce. But _any contract_ for the promotion
of this trade must, in his opinion, _have been void from the
beginning_; for if it was _an outrage upon justice_, and only another
name for _fraud, robbery, and murder_, what _pledge_ could devolve upon
the Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the
commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?"

They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before
mentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction
of it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must not
forget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. "He
had known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of
obstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliament
no choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for such
an exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was,