Try this counterfactual

Try this counterfactual: suppose Britain had acquiesced in say, 1775, to allowing for North American representation in Parliament. Then what reason can Whitehall give for denying additional parliamentary representation to British sugar planters in the West Indies?

Historically these planters (and their investors back in Bristol, etc.) were richer than anyone else in the 18th century. They didn't see any need to agitate for representation--they simply BOUGHT OFF MPs from British constituencies, rotten or not. But give them elected MPs in addition to those from the royal colonies of the Carolinas, Virginia, etc., and you create a large, well-funded pro-slavery bloc that I could easily see dragging out the abolition of the slave trade for a long time past 1833, and the continuation of colonial slavery for years beyond that.

Context.