GENERAL 
which was made criminal by the 
proposed act. With respect to 
the first objection, after some dis- 
cussion, a clause was adopted, 
that the bill should have opera- 
tion within three months after its 
enactment, in Europe, Africa, and 
the West Indies; and within six, 
beyond the Cape of Good Hope. 
Different amendments proposed 
of the other clause objected to by 
Mr. Baring were rejected on di- 
visions of the committee. The 
bill does not appear to have met 
with any further opposition in 
the House of Commons. 
On June Ist, the second read- 
ing of the bill in the House of 
Lords was moved by the Marquis 
of Lansdowne, which being done, 
it was committed. Being brought 
under discussion on the 3rd, the 
Earl of Westmoreland objected to 
its provisions on account of the 
risk to which innocent persons 
would be exposed by them. It 
appeared to him that any person 
in this country lending money, by 
his agent, which might be applied 
to the slave traffic, though entire- 
ly without his knowledge, would 
be liable to be tried where the act 
was committed, which might be 
in the West Indies, or on the 
coast of Africa. Lord Ellenborough 
also strongly argued against a 
measure by which a crime, very 
loosely described, was to be re- 
garded as felony. No one more 
ardently than himself wished for 
the abolition of the slave trade 
all over the world; but he could ' 
not give his consent to such crude 
acts of legislation as that before 
their lordships; and he recom- 
mended its postponement. The 
Marquis of Lansdowne then pro- 
HISTORY. [27 
posed some amendments, with 
which the bill was printed. 
The report of the bill being 
moved by the Marquis onthe 16th, 
the Earl of Westmorelund renewed 
his objections to it, which he said’ 
had not at all. been removed by 
the amendments introduced since 
it was last under discussion. He 
understood that further amend- 
ments were to be proposed; and. 
not wishing to object to the prin- 
ciples of the bill, he moved for 
taking the report into considera- 
tion on that day se’nnight. Lord 
Ellenborough said, that when the 
bill first met his eye, it was much 
more defective in mercy and in 
sense than any bill he had ever 
known. He doubted whether it 
would not be better to reject at 
once such a crude production, as 
the labour of reducing it to any 
thing like a proper shape would . 
be incalculable. It not only ad- 
vanced at once to transportation 
for 14 years, but rendered several 
things liable to this punishment 
which were no crimes at all. Afs 
ter some more observations, the 
bili was ordered to be committed 
in the next week. 
The final discussion of the bill 
took place on June 30th, when it 
was opposed by the lord chancel- 
Jor, and lord Ellenborough. The 
latter, in his forcible way of speak- 
ing, called it «an emanation of 
that fanatical irregularity of mind, 
which would render that excellent 
measure, the abolition of the slave 
trade, odious in the West Indies.” 
On the motion for bringing up 
the report, the House divided, 
when there appeared, for the mo- 
tion 19, against it 24. The bill 
was therefore lost, though it had 
