_Continuation from July 1792 to July 1793--Author travels round the kingdom
again--Motion to renew the resolution of the last year in the
Commons--Motion lost--New Motion in the Commons to abolish the foreign
Slave-trade--Motion lost--Proceedings of the Lords._
The resolution adopted by the Commons, that the trade should cease in 1796,
was a matter of great joy to many; and several, in consequence of it,
returned to the use of sugar. The committee, however, for the abolition did
not view it in the same favourable light. They considered it as a political
manoeuvre to frustrate the accomplishment of the object. But the
circumstance, which gave them the most concern, was the resolution of the
Lords to hear evidence. It was impossible now to say, when the trade would
cease. The witnesses in behalf of the merchants and planters had obtained
possession of the ground; and they might keep it, if they chose, even till
the year 1800, to throw light upon a measure which was to be adopted in
1796. The committee found too, that they had again the laborious task
before them of finding out new persons to give testimony in behalf of their
cause; for some of their former witnesses were dead, and others were out of
the kingdom; and unless they replaced these, there would be no probability
of making out that strong case in the Lords, which they had established in
the Commons. It devolved therefore upon me once more to travel for this
purpose: but as I was then in too weak a state to bear as much fatigue as
formerly, Dr. Dickson relieved me, by taking one part of the tour, namely,
that to Scotland, upon himself.
These journeys we performed with considerable success; during which the
committee elected Mr. Joseph Townsend of Baltimore, in Maryland, an
honorary and corresponding member.
Parliament having met, Mr. Wilberforce, in February 1793, moved, that the
House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on Thursday next,
to consider of the circumstances of the Slave-trade. This motion was
opposed by Sir William Yonge, who moved, that this day six months should be
substituted for Thursday next. A debate ensued: of this, however, as well
as of several which followed, I shall give no account; as it would be
tedious to the reader to hear a repetition of the same arguments. Suffice
it to say, that the motion was lost by a majority of sixty-one to
fifty-three.
This sudden refusal of the House of Commons to renew their own vote of the
former year gave great uneasiness to the friends of the cause. Mr.
Wilberforce, however, resolved, that the session should not pass without an
attempt to promote it in another form; and accordingly, on the fourteenth
of May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish that part of the
Slave-trade, by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with
slaves. This motion was opposed like the former; but was carried by a
majority of seven. The bill was then brought in; and it passed its first
and second reading with little opposition; but on the fifth of June,
notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Fox, and the very able
speeches of Mr. Francis, Mr. Courtenay, and others, it was lost by a
majority of thirty-one to twenty-nine.
In the interval between these motions the question experienced in the Lords
considerable opposition. The Duke of Clarence moved that the House should
not proceed in the consideration of the Slave-trade till after the Easter
recess. The Earl of Abingdon was still more hostile afterwards. He
deprecated the new philosophy. It was as full of mischief as the Box of
Pandora. The doctrine of the abolition of the Slave-trade was a species of
it; and he concluded by moving, that all further consideration of the
subject be postponed. To the epithet, then bestowed upon the abolition of
it by this nobleman, the Duke of Clarence added those of fanatics and
hypocrites! among whom he included Mr. Wilberforce by name. All the other
Lords, however, who were present, manifested such a dislike to the
sentiments of the Earl of Abingdon, that he withdrew this motion.
After this the hearing of evidence on the resolution of the House of
Commons was resumed; and seven persons were examined before the close of
the session.