was fixed upon for renewed exertion. Among the reasons for fixing upon this year, one may be assigned, namely, that the Irish members, in consequence of the union which had taken place between the two countries, had then all taken their seats in the house of commons; and that most of them were friendly to the cause.

This being the situation of things, Mr. Wilberforce, on the 30th of March, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the slave-trade within a limited time. Mr. Fuller opposed it. A debate ensued.

An amendment having been proposed by Mr. Manning, a division took place upon it, when leave was given to bring in the bill, by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to forty-nine.

On the 7th of June, the second reading of the bill was moved. Upon a division, there appeared for the second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.

On the 27th of June, the bill, though opposed in its last stage, was carried by a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was then taken up to the lords; but on a motion of Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of that house, the discussion of it was postponed to the next year.

The session being ended, the committee for the abolition of the slave-trade increased its number by the election of the Right Honorable Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeck, as members.

In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year. Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Fuller, and Mr. Gascoyne opposed it. Leave was given to introduce his bill.

On the second reading of it a serious opposition took place; and an amendment was moved for postponing it till that day six months. The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone. The latter could not help lifting his voice against this monstrous traffic in the sinews and blood of man, the toleration of which had so long been the disgrace of the British legislature. He did not charge the enormous guilt resulting from it upon the nation at large; for the nation had washed its hands of it by the numerous petitions it had sent against it; and it had since been a matter of astonishment to all Christendom how the constitutional guardians of British freedom should have sanctioned elsewhere the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world. He said that a curse attended this trade even in the mode of defending it. By a certain fatality, none but the vilest arguments were brought forward, which corrupted the very persons who used them. Every one of these were built on the narrow ground of interest; of pecuniary profit; of sordid gain; in opposition to every higher consideration; to every motive that had reference to humanity, justice, and religion; or to that great principle which comprehended them all. Place only before the most determined advocate of this odious traffic the exact image of himself in the garb and harness of a slave, dragged and whipped about like a beast; place this image also before him, and paint it as that of one without a ray of hope to cheer him; and you would extort from him the reluctant confession that he would not endure for an hour the misery

to which he condemned his fellow-man for life.

How dared he, then, to use this selfish plea of interest against the voice of the generous sympathies of his nature? But even upon this narrow ground the advocates for the traffic had been defeated. If the unhallowed argument of expediency was worth any thing when opposed to moral rectitude, or if it were to supercede the precepts of Christianity, where was a man to stop, or what line was he to draw? For any thing he knew, it might be physically true that human blood was the best manure for the land; but who ought to shed it on that account? True expediency, however, was, where it ever would be found, on the side of that system which was most merciful and just. He asked how it happened that sugar could be imported cheaper from the East Indies than from the West, notwithstanding the vast difference of the length of the voyages, but on account of the impolicy of slavery, or that it was made in the former case by the industry of free men, and in the latter by the languid drudgery of slaves.

As he had had occasion to advert to the eastern part of the world, he would make an observation upon an argument which had been collected from that quarter. The condition of the negroes in the West Indies had been lately compared with that of the Hindoos. But he would observe that the Hindoo, miserable as his hovel was, had sources of pride and happiness to which not only the West Indian slave, but even his master was a stranger. He was, to be sure, a peasant, and his industry was subservient to the gratifications of an European lord. But he was, in his own belief, vastly superior to him. He viewed him as one of the lowest cast. He would not, on any consideration, eat from the same plate. He would not suffer his son to marry the daughter of his master, even if she could bring him all the West Indies as her portion. He would observe, too, that the Ilindoo peasant drank his water from his native well; that if his meal were scanty, he received it from the hand of her who was most dear to him; that when he labored, he labored for her and his offspring. His daily task being finished, he reposed with his family. No retrospect of the happiness of former days, compared with existing misery, disturbed his slumber; nor horrid dreams occasioned him to wake in agony at the dawn of day. No barbarous sounds of cracking whips reminded him that, with the form and image of a man, his destiny was that of the beast of the field. Let the advocates for the bloody traffic state what they had to set off on their side of the question against the comforts and independence of the man with whom they compared the slave.

The amendment was supported by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteny, Colonel Tarleton, Mr. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On dividing the house upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but against it only seventy.

This defeat occasioned the severest disappointment. The committee instantly met, when sorrow was seen in the countenances of all present, but they determined to renew the contest with redoubled vigor at the next session. Just at this moment Mr. Clarkson joined them. Eight years of retirement had nearly restored him, and the first moment he found himself able to embark

in the cause, he returned to his post. As it was probable the bill would be passed the next year, by the commons, and if so, that it would go to the lords, and that they might require further evidence, it was judged proper that evidence should be prepared. The band of witnesses which had been last collected were broken by death and dispersion, and a new one was to be formed. This Herculean task Mr. Clarkson undertook. He left London immediately, and returned in January, 1806, after having traveled in pursuit of his object 5000 miles. In this month died Mr. Pitt, who had been one of the great supporters of the cause.

Mr. Clarkson says: "The way in which Mr. Pitt became acquainted with this question, has already been explained. A few doubts having been removed, when it was first started, he professed himself a friend to the abolition. The first proof which he gave of his friendship to it is known to but few; but it is nevertheless true, that so early as in 1788, he occasioned a communication to be made to the French grvernment, in which he recommended a union of the two countries for the promotion of the great measure. This proposition seemed to be then new and strange to the court of France, and the answer was not favorable.

"From this time his efforts were reduced within the boundaries of his own powers. As far, however, as he had scope, he exerted them. If we look at him in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all that he took an active, strenuous and consistent part, and this, year after year, by which he realized his professions. In my own private communications with him, which were frequent, he never failed to give proof of a similar disposition. I had always free access to him. I had no previous note or letter to write for admission. Whatever papers I wanted he ordered. He exhibited also in his conversation with me on these occasions marks of more than ordinary interest in the welfare of the cause. Among the subjects which were started, there was one which was always near his heart. This was the civilization of Africa. He looked upon this great work as a debt due to that continent for the many injuries we had inflicted upon it: and had the abolition succeeded sooner, as in the infancy of his exertions he had hoped, I know he had a plan, suited no doubt to the capaciousness of his own mind, for such establishments in Africa as he conceived would promote in due time this important end."

On the 31st March, 1806, the question was ushered again into parliament, but under new auspices, namely, under the administration of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox. It was thought proper that Mr. Wilberforce should be, as it were, in the back ground on this occasion, and that the attorney general, as a conspicuous officer of the government, should introduce it. The latter accordingly brought in a bill, one of the objects of which was to prevent British merchants and British capital from being employed in the foreign slave-trade. This bill passed both houses of parliament, and was therefore the first that dismembered the traffic. In the debate it was declared, in substance, both by Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, in their respective houses, that they would do every thing to effect the abolition, and should they succeed in such a noble

work, they would regard their success as entailing more true glory on their administration, and more honor and advantage on the country than any other measure in which they could be engaged.

On the 10th of June, Mr. Fox, in a speech most luminous and pathetic, followed up the victory which had been just gained, by moving a resolution "that this house, considering the African slave-trade to be contrary to the principles of humanity, justice and policy, will, with all practical expedition, take effectual measures for the abolition of it in such manner and at such a period as my be deemed most advisable." This motion produced a strong opposition, and an interesting debate. It was supported by Milbank, Francis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Wilberforce, Petty, Newport, Canning and Smith. It was carried by a majority of 114 to 15. Mr. Wilberforce directly moved an address to the king "praying him to direct a negotiation to be entered into by which foreiga powers should be invited to cooperate with his majesty in measures to be adopted for the abolition of the African slave-trade.” This was carried, but without a division. On the 24th June, the lords met to consider both the resolution and address. In order to create delay, a proposition was directly made that counsel and evidence should be heard. This was overruled. Lord Grenville then rose up and introduced the subject.

pieces of eloquence.

His speech was among the master

Lord Grenville read the resolution of the commous. This resolution, he said, stated first, that the slave-trade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity, was obvious; for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the slave-trade convey ideas the very reverse of this definition? It deprived men of all those comforts in which it pleased the Creator to make the happiness of his creatures to consist, of the blessings of society, of the charities of the dear relationships of husband, wife, father, son, and kindred; of the due discharge of the relative duties of these, and of that freedom which in its pure and natural sense was one of the greatest gifts of God to man.

Having shown the inhumanity, he would proceed to the second point in the resolution, or the injustice of the trade. We had two ideas of justice, first, as it belonged to society by virtue of a social compact; and, secondly, as it belonged to men, not as citizens of a community, but as beings of one common nature. In a state of nature, man had a right to the fruit of his own labor absolutely to himself; and one of the main purposes for which he entered into society was, that he might be better protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases, therefore, it was manifestly unjust that a man should be made to labor during the whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labor. Hence, the slave-trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very principal upon which all law for the protection of property was founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade to an individual, it was derived from dishonor and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy victim of it, that which the latter did not wish to give him; and he gave to the same victim,

that which he in vain attempted to show was an equivalent to the thing he took, it being a thing for which there was no equivalent; and which, if he had not obtained by force, he would not have possessed at all. Nor could there be any answer to this reasoning, unless it could be proved that it had pleased God to give to the inhabitants of Britain a property in the liberty and life of the natives of Africa. But he would go further on this subject. The injustice complained of was not confined to the bare circumstance of robbing them of the right to their own labor. It was conspicuous throughout the system. They who bought them, became guilty of all the crimes which had been committed in procuring them; and, when they possessed them, of all the crimes which belonged to their inhuman treatment. The injustice, in the latter case, amounted frequently to murder. For what was it but murder to pursue a practice which produced untimely death to thousands of innocent and helpless beings? It was a duty which their lordships owed to their Creator, if they hoped for mercy, to do away this monstrous oppression.

With respect to the impolicy of the trade (the third point in the resolution) he would say at once, that whatever was inhuman and unjust must be impolitic. He had, however, no objection to argue the point upon its own particular merits; and, first, he would observe that a great man, Mr. Pitt, now no more, had exerted his vast powers on many subjects to the admiration of his hearers; but on none more successfully than on the subject of the abolition of the slavetrade. He proved, after making an allowance for the price paid for the slaves in the West Indies, for the loss of them in the seasoning, and for the expense of maintaining them afterwards, and comparing these particulars with the amount. in value of their labor there, that the evils endured by the victims of the traffic were no gain to the master in whose service they took place. Indeed, Mr. Long had laid it down in his history of Jamaica, that the best way to secure the planters from ruin would be to do that which the resolution recommended. It was notorious that when any planter was in distress and sought to relieve himself by increasing the labor on his estate by means of the purchase of new slaves, the measure invariably tended to his destruction. What, then, was the importation of fresh Africans but a system tending to the general ruin of the islands?

To expose the impolicy of the trade further, he would observe that it was an allowed axiom, that as the condition of man was improved, he became more useful. The history of our own country, in very early times, exhibited instances of internal slavery, and this to a considerable extent. But we should find that precisely in proportion as that slavery was ameliorated, the power and prosperity of the country flourished. This was exactly applicable to the case in question. There could be no general amelioration of slavery in the West Indies while the slave-trade lasted; but, if we were to abolish it, we should make it the interest of every owner of slaves to do that which would improve their condition; and which, indeed, would lead, ultimately, to the annihilation of slavery itself. This great event, however, could not be accomplished at once. It could only be effected in a course of time.