280 SLA 
for the abolition of the slave-trade. This motion was now 
necessary, and justifiable on that account, if the trade, ac¬ 
cording to a former resolution of that house, was to cease in 
1796; but it was lost by a small majority. 
In the session of 1796, Mr. Wiiberforce resolved upon 
trying the question again, but in an entirely new form. He 
moved that the slave-trade be abolished in a limited time, but 
without assigning to its duration any specific date. He 
wished the house to agree to this as a general principle. 
After much opposition the principle was acknowledged; but 
when, in consequence of this acknowledgment of it, he 
brought in a bill, and attempted to introduce into one of the 
clauses the year 1797, as the period when the trade should 
cease, he lost it by a majority of 74 to 70. 
He judged it prudent, after mature consideration, to let 
the session of 1797 pass without any parliamentary notice of 
the subject, but in that of 1798 he renewed his motion for 
abolition in a limited time. This, however, met with the 
same fate as the former. 
In 1799, he tried the same motion again, when there ap¬ 
peared for it 74, and against it 82 votes. Soon after, Mr. 
Henry Thornton brought in a bill, at his request, to abolish 
a small part of the slave-trade. It may be remembered, 
that a colony had been established at Sierra Leona, to pro¬ 
mote agriculture and a new species of commerce in its neigh¬ 
bourhood. Now, while the slave-trade was carried on all 
around it, it was found that these objects could be but little 
advanced. The -bill, therefore, of Mr. Thornton, went only 
so far as to say that the slave-trade should not be carried on 
within a certain distance of that colony. This bill was car¬ 
ried through the Commons, but though it only asked that 
an infant establishment, founded on the principles of liberty, 
and this by parliamentary sanction, should be protected 
from the ravages of the slave-trade, it was lost in the House 
of Lords. This latter circumstance was indeed truly dis¬ 
heartening ; yet amidst the clouds which darkened the ho¬ 
rizon, one gleam of hope appeared; for the question had 
been so argued, so sifted, and put into such various lights, 
that it began now to be understood. The cousequence was, 
that conviction flashed upon many, among whom were 
three planters, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Barham, and Mr. Vaughan. 
These gentlemen had the candour to rise up in the House of 
Commons, and express themselves in favour of the abolition, 
in one of the last debates. 
The question had been now tried and lost in almost every 
possible shape 5 Mr. Wiiberforce and the committee, there¬ 
fore, suffered the years 1800, 1801, 1802 and 1803, to pass 
over without noticing it. In 1804, in consequence of the 
union with Ireland, a great number of Irish members, who 
were friends to the negroes, were added to the British par¬ 
liament. Mr. Wiiberforce, therefore, under these circum¬ 
stances, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the 
slave-trade within a limited time. This motion was as vio¬ 
lently opposed as any of the former, but was carried at 
length in a very handsome manner: no less than 124 di¬ 
vided in favour of it, and but 49 against it. The bill was 
opposed in its second reading, for which however there 
were 100, and against it but 42. When a motion was 
made for going into a committee it was opposed, but carried 
by a majority of 69 to 36. It was taken up to the Lords, 
but on a motion by Lord Hawkesbury (now Earl Liverpool) 
the discussion there was put off till next session. 
In the session of 1805, Mr. Wiiberforce renewed his for¬ 
mer motion. Leave was at length given him to bring in the 
bill, but not till after a most furious opposition. On the 
second reading of it an amendment was proposed, viz., to 
put it off to that day six months. This amendment was car¬ 
ried by a majority of 77 to 70. 
On the 31st of March, 1806, this great 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. Wiiberforce 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, 
V E. 
one of the objects of which was to prohibit 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 this cruel traffic. In 
the debate which ensued upon it, it was declared in sub¬ 
stance, both by Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, in their respec¬ 
tive houses, that they would do every thing to effect the abo¬ 
lition, and should they succeed in such a noble work, they 
would regard their success as entailing more true glory on 
their administration, and more honour and advantage on the 
country, than any other measure in which they could be 
engaged. Conformably with this sentiment, Mr. Fox him¬ 
self, on the 10th of June, 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 huma¬ 
nity, justice and policy, will, with all practical expedition, 
take effectual measures for the abolition of it, in such man¬ 
ner and at such a period as may be deemed most advisable.” 
This motion produced an opposition as before, and an in¬ 
teresting debate. It was supported by Sir Ralph Milbank, 
Mr. Francis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Wiiberforce, Lord 
Henry Petty (now Marquis of Lansdown), Sir John New¬ 
port, Mr. Canning, and Mr. William Smith. It was carried 
by a majority of 114 to 15. Mr. Wiiberforce directly moved 
an address to his Majesty, “ praying him to direct a nego- 
ciation to be entered into, by which foreign powers should 
be invited to co-operate with his Majesty, in measures to be 
adopted for the abolition of the African slave-trade.” This 
was also carried, but without a division. On the 24th of 
June, the Lords met to consider both the resolution and 
address. A proposition was directly made in that house (in 
order to create delay), that counsel and evidence should be 
heard. This, however, was happily over-ruled. The re¬ 
solution and address were both carried, by a majority of 41 
to 20. After this a belief was generally prevalent, that the 
slave-trade would fall in the next session. This occasioned 
a fear in the abolitionists, lest it should be carried on in the 
interim, being, as it were, the last harvest of the merchants, 
to a tenfold extent, and therefore with tenfold murder and 
desolation to Africa. It was therefore thought necessary, as 
the session was about to close, to introduce another bill into 
parliament, and this as quickly as possible, that no new ves¬ 
sel should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa for slaves. 
Accordingly a bill to that effect was prepared, and it passed 
both houses. In the month of October following, after 
these great and decisive victories, died the Right Honourable 
Charles James Fox, one of the noblest champions of this 
noble cause. 
The session of 1807 had not long commenced, when the 
contest was renewed. Lord Grenville judged it expedient, 
at this particular crisis, to reverse what had been hitherto 
the order of proceeding, that is, to agitate the question first 
in the House of Lords. On the 2d of January he presented a 
bill there, which he called an act for the abolition of the 
African slave-trade. It was very short; he proposed that 
it should be printed, and that it should then lie on the table 
for a while, that it might be maturely considered before it 
was discussed. On the 4th, no less-than four counsel were 
heard against it. On the 5th the debate commenced. Lord 
Grenville took a brilliant part in it. He was supported by 
his Highness the Duke of Gloucester, the Bishop of Durham 
(Dr. Barrington), the Earls Moira, Selkirk, and Rosslyn, 
and the Lords Hollaud, King, and Hood. The bill was at 
lertgh carried, at four in the morning, by a majority of 100 
to 36. On the 10th of February it went to the Commons. 
On the 20 th counsel were heard against it there. On the 23d 
a debate ensued upon it, on the motion of Lord Viscount 
Howick (formerly Mr. Grey, and now Lord Grey), who 
urged the Commons to confirm it. The other speakers in fa¬ 
vour of it were Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Fawkes, Mr. Lushington, 
the Lords Mahon and Milton, Sir Samuel Romilly, Sir John 
Doyle, Mr. Wiiberforce, and Earl Percy; and it was carried 
by the vast majority of 283 to 16. On the 6 th of March 
the blanks were filled up. It was proposed, first, that no 
vessel 
