The scandalous conduct of the house of Commons in persevering in the iniquitous traffic, had a suitable effect on the nation at large: meetings were held in every county in the kingdom to promote the abolition, and by the month of April, 1792, there were no fewer than five hundred and nineteen petitions presented in favour of the abolition, whilst there were only four presented for its continuance. Mr. Wilber force once more brought forward his motion: little new could be expect ed in argument, but the hon. member stated some instances of greater atrocity, if possible, than what had before occurred. He stated, that in the preceding August, the captains of six British ships, which were anchored off the coast of Calabar (a place which had, a few years before, been the scene of a dreadful massacre) thinking that the natives asked too high a price for their slaves, set the town on fire, and thus, after much devastation had been committed, compelled the inhabitants to supply them with slaves on their own terms: new horrors were like wise brought forward respecting other branches of the trade. The wretches whose hearts were steeled against every principle of justice and huma nity, stuck to their old argumentINTEREST. It was, however hoped, the friends of the abolition would have triumphed; when two trimming politicians, who have generally taken due care of themselves, Mr. Harry Dundas, now Lord Melville, and Mr. Addington now Lord Sidmouth, agreed together in a motion for a gradual abolition of the trade, that is, in about ten years from that time; the ten years indeed expired, but these gradual abolitionists always thought that a few years hence was the proper time for the abolition, and of course supported the trade to the last. Lord Hawkesbury, now Lord Liverpool, likewise proposed his measure of regulation,

which was, in fact, to offer a price for stealing female negroes for the purpose of prostitution, that the islands might be supplied with an increase of slaves: the abominable proposition was negatived: Mr. Fox, with the firm friends of the abolition, opposed all delay, but the gradual abolitionists prevailed. Mr. Dundas's motion was carried by 193, to 125; whilst 85 voted against any abolition.

There were various subsequent debates respecting the year in which the trade was to terminate. Mr. Dundas moved for the year 1800, others for the year 1795. At length the motion was put and carried for the year 1796.

Although the minister, spoke and voted in these various divisions on the side of the abolitionists, it was remarked that his bosom friends, Mr. Dundas, Mr. George Rose, and others, to whom the lifting of his little finger was on all other occasions a sufficient hint, generally voted against their master; and the minister himself even whilst speaking in behalf of the measure could not help shewing his contempt for the popular voice, and thus weakening one of the main arguments for the abolition. Mr. Clarkson, although he has given the debates pretty much in detail has not noticed this circumstance: it well deserves, however, to be recorded. Mr. Pitt alluding to the five hundred petitions, observed, "that much stress had "been laid on them; but for his

part, they "did not weigh with him "either in one scale or the other; "he merely considered them as af"fording a display of the humane "disposition of the people:"-It is plain he did not wish the house in their deliberations to be influenced by the public voice; another striking proof of his lukewarmness and hypocrisy on this great subject.

The resolutions of the Commons were ordered to be carried to the

Lords for their concurrence, but the upper house, owing to the strenuous opposition of the friends of the odious traffic, headed by the Duke of Clarence, did nothing more during the Pitt administration than examine witnesses.

In Feb. 1793, Mr. Wilberforce moved, "That the house should re"solve itself into a committee of the "whole house to consider of the circumstances of the slave trade;" which was in fact only proposing that the house should consider the proper mode of carrying into effect their resolutions of the preceding session. After a debate in which the arguments so often advanced on both sides, were repeated, the motion was negatived by a majority of 61 to 53. Mr. Wilberforce endeavoured, during the same session, to bring on the business in another form, and moved "for leave to bring in a bill to abo"lish that part of the slave trade, "by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves," which motion was carried by a majority of 7, but in one of its after stages, was lost by a majority of 31 to 29. Poor Mr. Pitt! Although he spoke in favour of both the above motions, yet having lost all his influence in the house, or all inclination to use it on this occasion, was left in both instances in a minority! Early in the session of 1794, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion for an abolition of the trade as it respected foreigners; the bill after much opposition passed the Commons, but was thrown out in the the Lords. The cause thus seemed, to use Mr. Clarkson's words, "in a desperate" state, and these repeated disappointments, seriously affected him in his health and spirits. Many of those who had given evidence tending to display the enormity of the trade, were persecuted in various ways; the late Mr. Whitbread, however, generously undertook to make good all injuries which should in fu

VOL. IX.

ture arise to individuals from such persecution, and he repaired these injuries at different times at a consider able expence.

In February 1795, Mr. Wilberforce moved for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the trade, agreeably to the resolution of that house, that the trade should cease in 1796. The motion was lost by a majority of 78 to 57. A similar effort was made in the spring of 1796; the bill was read twice, but the motion for the third reading was opposed in a long speech by the gradual abolitionist Mr. Dundas, and was negatived by 74 to 70.-In the year 1798, Mr. Wilberforce's motion for the abolition was again rejected by 87 to 83.

In the year 1799, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion, which was again rejected by 82 to 74. A new motion was, however, shortly made by Mr. H. Thornton on the same subject, tending to confine the trade within certain limits: this bill, after much opposition, passed the Commons by a majority of 38 to 22, but was rejected by the Lords by a majority of 68 to 61.

The years. 1800, 1, 2, and 3 passed over without any farther motions on the subject, except for papers. In 1804, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his bill, which, after various debates and divisions, passed the Commons by a majority of 69 to 36. In the house of Lords, on the motion of Lord Hawkesbury, the discussion of it was postponed to next year! The next year, 1805, when the bill was again brought into the house of Commons, it was on the motion for the second reading rejected by 77 to 70.

Mr. Clarkson in remarking on this severe and unexpected disappointment, again experienced by the friends of the abolition, endeavours to account for it, from several members absenting themselves, and " giv

"that it was safe; and that a canvass

more importunate than had been "heard of on any former occasion, "had been made amongst the Irish "members, who had formerly supported the motion, by those in"terested in the trade." As to the apology here suggested, it is not unfrequently made by members, who neglecting their duty, are ashamed of their conduct: indeed the whole of the paragraph quoted, proves that the enemies of the abolition were much more zealous and active than some of its friends: the grand reason for the failure of the measure nhout, and on every division,

karmness of Mr. PITT; ware firmly persuaded was the cause of the continuance of the slave trade; had that unprincipled statesman continued in existence, and in administration, we are equally persuaded that the farce which he had played with his bosom friends Harry Dundas and George Rose, for the preceding sixteen years, would have been continued to the present day.

But it pleased the Almighty disposer of human events shortly to summon to his bar the guilty statesman, whose ruinous counsels had brought more complicated miseries on his country and on Europe than those of any statesman, perhaps, recorded in the British annals; and the fatal consequences of whose system, will draw down the execrations of unborn millions. Mr. Pitt died in Jan. 1806. Mr. Clarksou" stops to "make a few observations upon his "character as it related to this cause. This," he adds, "I feel "myself bound in justice to do, be

66

.

cause his sincerity towards it has "been generally questioned:" on which we beg leave to remark, that if nothing better can be brought forward in his defence, than what appears in the pages before us, the sincerity of Mr. Pitt" on this great question, has not been "suspected" more generally" than JUSTLY.

That Mr. Pitt as an individual might entertain some desires for the abolition of the traffic, similar to those he had entertained for a reform of parliament, and for catholic emancipation, we are by no means disposed to deny; his language, and his conduct in those instances in which he ran no risk of injuring his parliamentary authority and influence, prove him to have been so far a friend to the measure. But this was far short of what the public had a right to expect from him who had in the senate of the nation declared,

"There was no object he had so "much at heart as the abolition of "the trade." Now, whatever the object be that lies nearest to the heart" of a minister, he will accomplish, or resign his place; this was the case in the year 1801, when Mr. Pitt, finding he could not fulfil his engagements with the catholics, relinquished his places, and the direc tion of that administration of which he had been so long the head, although, we firmly believe, had he not entertained the idea that his Majesty would have yielded his opinions for the sake of preserving his favourite minister, the latter would have yielded his opinions for the sake of preserving his places. In proof of this some of Mr. Pitt's friends asserted in the house of Commons, in a late debate on the catholic question, that when he was again chosen premier, he engaged, "that he never "would again intrude the claims of "the catholics on his Majesty."

Mr. Clarkson proceeds-" If we "look at Mr. Pitt in his parliamentary capacity, it must be acknowledged by all, that he took an active, strenuous and consistent part,

66

66

* Mr. Pitt was however mistaken. The Morning Post, then an opposition paper positively stated, that his Majesty exclaimed on the above occasion" Pitt "has bullied me too long already: I will “ bear his insulence no longer."

"and this year after year, by which "he realized his professions."

"

It

How Mr. Clarkson could so confidently make assertions contrary to the plainest and most incontrovertible evidence, is truly astonishing: so far from the truth of this statement being" acknowledged by all," we should suppose, there is scarcely a person to be found, except Mr. Clarkson, who would have had courage sufficient to have laid before the public a similar statement. is an absolute impossibility, if Mr. Pitt had been thus "sincere and consistent," that he could have been left from "year to year" in such miserable minorities. But what "sincerity or consistency" can be expected from the statesman who had before pledged himself, that “as 66 a man and as a minister he would do every thing in his power to effect a parliamentary reform;" but who afterwards endeavoured by every means in his power to inflict the traitor's doom on those who did not follow him in his apostacy; and who would have bathed the scaffold In the blood of the consistent friends of a reform of parliament, had it not been for the virtuous and firm intervention of British juries.

"

Mr. Pitt's attachment to the cause of the slave trade abolition, was similar to the attachment of professing christians in general to the christianity of the New Testament. They think it a good thing, abstractedly considered; they are wonderfully jealous of their own peculiar notions; but when they come to the grand point, yielding of prejudices, or the sacrifice of worldly interest, they too plainly discover they are as destitute of real, vital christianity, as a Hottentot.

Mr. Clarkson adds,-" I believe "it will be said, notwithstanding what I have advanced, that if "Mr. Pitt had exerted himself as

66

"have carried it." Yes::-we believe this will be said by every impartial person who has duly attended to evidence which he that runs may read. "This," says our author, "brings the matter to an issue, for "unquestionably the charge of insincerity, as it related to this great question," [and indeed to several others] arose from the mistaken "notion, that as his measures in parliament were supported by great majorities, he could do as he pleased there. But they who hold "this opinion, must be informed, "that there were great difficulties against which he had to struggle

66

on the subject. The Lord Chan "cellor Thurlow ran counter to his "wishes almost at the very outset, "Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Dundas "did the same. Granted but if the abolition had been as the minister had declared-the object nearest his heart, he would have acted as he did on another occasion, when he differed from Lord Thurlow, and when he refused to act with him any longer; the consequence was Lord Thurlow's resignation. As to those "wha want me" ministers, Mr. Dundas, and Lord Liverpool, had their places depended on their supporting the abolition, no one will doubt but they would have ranked amongst its warmest friends.

"But the abolition," we are farther informed, "could with this dif"difference of opinion, never become

a cabinet measure." Nor was it to the last, a cabinet measure;" and yet under an administration, the heads of which were sincere and consistent in their endeavours to bring about the great object, the friends of justice and humanity triumphed by a very large majority.

"But a difficulty still more insu-. perable presented itself in an occurrence which took place in the

year 1791, but which is much too "delicate to be mentioned; the ex"planation of which would convince