_Continuation from July 1793 to July 1794--Author travels round the kingdom
again--Motion to abolish the foreign Slave-trade renewed in the
Commons--and carried--but lost in the Lords--further proceedings
there--Author, on account of his declining health, obliged to retire from
the cause._
The committee for the abolition could not view the proceedings of both
Houses of Parliament on this subject during the year 1793, without being
alarmed for the fate of their question. The only two sources of hope, which
they could discover, were in the disposition then manifested by the peers
as to the conduct of the Earl of Abingdon, and in their determination to
proceed in the hearing of evidence. The latter circumstance indeed was the
more favourable, as the resolution, upon which the witnesses were to be
examined, had not been renewed by the Commons. These considerations,
however, afforded no solid ground for the mind to rest upon. They only
broke in upon it, like faint gleams of sunshine, for a moment, and then
were gone. In this situation the committee could only console themselves by
the reflection, that they had done their duty. In looking, however, to
their future services, one thing, and only one, seemed practicable; and
this was necessary; namely, to complete the new body of evidence, which
they had endeavoured to form in the preceding year. The determination to do
this rendered another journey on my part indispensable; and I undertook it,
broken down us my constitution then was, beginning it in September 1793,
and completing it in February 1794.
Mr. Wilberforce, in this interval, had digested his plan of operations; and
accordingly, early in the session of 1794, he asked leave to renew his
former bill, to abolish that part of the trade, by means of which British
merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. This request was opposed by Sir
William Yonge; but it was granted, on a division of the House, by a
majority of sixty-three to forty votes.
When the bill was brought in, it was opposed by the same member; upon which
the House divided; and there appeared for Sir William Yonge's amendment
thirty-eight votes, but against it fifty-six.
On a motion for the recommitment of the bill, Lord Sheffield divided the
House, against whose motion there was a majority of forty-two. And, on the
third reading of it, it was opposed again; but it was at length carried.
The speakers against the bill were; Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield,
Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham, and Mr. Payne, Este, Lechmere,
Cawthorne, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favour of it were; Mr.
Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and
Serjeants Watson and Adair.
While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing its stages in the Commons,
Dr. Horsley, bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the examinations, while
the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the House of Lords, moved,
that they should be taken in future before a committee above-stairs. Dr.
Porteus, bishop of London, and the Lords Guildford, Stanhope, and
Grenville, supported this motion. But the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, aided by
the Duke of Clarence, and by the Lords Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and
others, negatived it by a majority of twenty-eight.
At length the bill itself was ushered into the House of Lords. On reading
it a second time, it was opposed by the Duke of Clarence, Lord Abingdon,
and others. Lord Grenville and the Bishop of Rochester declined supporting
it. They alleged, as a reason, that they conceived the introduction of it
to have been improper pending the inquiry on the general subject of the
Slave-trade. This declaration brought up the Lords Stanhope and Lauderdale,
who charged them with inconsistency as professed friends of the cause. At
length the bill was lost. During these discussions the examination of the
witnesses was resumed by the Lords; but only two of them were heard in this
session[A].
[Footnote A: After this the examinations wholly dropped in the House of
Lords.]
After this decision the question was in a desperate state; for if the
Commons would not renew their own resolution, and the Lords would not
abolish the foreign part of the Slave-trade, What hope was there, of
success? It was obvious too, that in the former House, Mr. Pitt and Mr.
Dundas voted against each other. In the latter, the Lord Chancellor Thurlow
opposed every motion in favour of the cause. The committee therefore were
reduced to this;--either they must exert themselves without hope, or they
must wait till some change should take place in their favour. As far as I
myself was concerned, all exertion was then over. The nervous system was
almost shattered to pieces. Both my memory and my hearing failed me. Sudden
dizziness seized my head. A confused singing in the ears followed me,
wherever I went. On going to bed the very stairs seemed to dance up and
down under me, so that, misplacing my foot, I sometimes fell. Talking too,
if it continued but half an hour, exhausted me, so that profuse
perspirations followed; and the same effect was produced even by an active
exertion of the mind for the like time. These disorders had been brought on
by degrees in consequence of the severe labours necessarily attached to the
promotion of the cause. For seven years I had a correspondence to maintain
with four hundred persons with my own hand. I had some book or other
annually to write in behalf of the cause. In this time I had travelled more
than thirty-five thousand miles in search of evidence, and a great part of
these journeys in the night. All this time my mind had been on the stretch.
It had been bent too to this one subject; for I had not even leisure to
attend to my own concerns. The various instances of barbarity, which had
come successively to my knowledge within this period, had vexed, harassed,
and afflicted it. The wound, which these had produced, was rendered still
deeper by those cruel disappointments before related, which arose from the
reiterated refusal of persons to give their testimony, after I had
travelled hundreds of miles in quest of them. But the severest stroke was
that inflicted by the persecution, begun and pursued by persons interested
in the continuance of the trade, of such witnesses as had been examined
against them; and whom, on account of their dependent situation in life, it
was most easy to oppress. As I had been the means of bringing these forward
on these occasions, they naturally came to me, when thus persecuted, as the
author of their miseries and their ruin. From their supplications and wants
it would have been ungenerous and ungrateful to have fled[A]. These
different circumstances, by acting together, had at length brought me into
the situation just mentioned; and I was therefore obliged, though very
reluctantly, to be borne out of the field, where I had placed the great
honour and glory of my life.
[Footnote A: The late Mr. Whitbread, to whom one day in deep affliction on
this account I related accidentally a circumstance of this kind, generously
undertook, in order to make my mind easy upon the subject, to make good all
injuries, which should in future arise to individuals from such
persecution; and he repaired these, at different times, at a considerable
expense. I feel it a duty to divulge this circumstance, out of respect to
the memory of one of the best of men, and of one, whom, if the history of
his life were written, it would appear to have been an extraordinary honour
to the country to have produced.]