But in looking further into this question, it seemed to make a material difference which of the two they selected, as far as they had in view the due execution of any laws, which might be made respecting them, and their own prospect of success in the undertaking.  For, by aiming at the abolition of the Slave-trade, they were laying the axe at the very root.  By doing this, and this only, they would not incur the objection, that they were meddling with the property of the planters, and letting loose an irritated race of beings, who, in consequence of all the vices and infirmities, which a state of slavery entails upon those who undergo it, were unfit for their freedom.  By asking the government of the country to do this, and this only, they were asking for that, which it had an indisputable right to do; namely, to regulate or abolish any of its branches of commerce; whereas it was doubtful, whether it could interfere with the management of the internal affairs of the colonies, or whether this was not wholly the province of the legislatures established there.  By asking the government, again, to do this and this only, they were asking what it could really enforce.  It could station its ships of war, and command its custom-houses, so as to carry any act of this kind into effect.  But it could not ensure that an act to be observed in the heart of the islands should be enforced[A].  To this it was added, that if the commitee were to fix upon the annihilation of slavery as the object for their labours, the Slave-trade would not fall so speedily as it would by a positive law for the abolition; because, though the increase from the births might soon supply all the estates now in cultivation with labourers, yet new plantations might be opened from time to time in different islands, so that no period could be fixed upon, when it could be said that it would cease.

[Footnote A:  The late correspondence of the governors of our colonies with Lord Camden in his official situation, but particularly the statements made by Lord Seaforth and General Provost, have shown the wisdom of this remark, and that no dependence was to be had for the better usage of the slaves but upon the total abolition of the trade.]

Impressed by these arguments, the commitee were clearly of opinion, that they should define their object to be the abolition of the Slave-trade, and not of the slavery which sprung from it.  Hence from this time, and in allusion to the month when this discussion took place, they styled themselves in their different advertisements, and reports, though they were first associated in the month of May, The commitee instituted in June 1787, for effecting the Abolition of the Slave-trade.  Thus, at the very outset, they took a ground which was for ever tenable.  Thus they were enabled also to answer the objection, which was afterwards so constantly and so industriously circulated against them, that they were going to emancipate the slaves.  And I have no doubt that this wise decision contributed greatly to their success; for I am persuaded, that, if they had adopted the other object, they could not for years to come, if ever, have succeeded in their attempt.