fubjected their property to be feized by our enemies, and employed to our detriment, it was an act of justice to ourselves to prevent their intentions, by detaining this property in our own hands in fo doing, however, the ftricteft faith fhould be kept with thofe individuals to whom it belonged, and to whom it fhould inviolably be remitted, whenever it could be done with fafety to ourfelves. He would, therefore, propofe to ftop the payment of whatever might be due in the line of property to individuals now refident in France, whether foreigners or natives of that country; taking, at the fame time, every precaution to keep in the profoundeft fecrecy the names of thofe French individuals who poffeffed property in this country, left they fhould, by a detection, become liable to fufpicions, and fall in confequence the victims of the barbarous policy of their inexorable enemies. After fame immaterial objections, the propofal was paffed into an act, making it high treafon to violate it, and fecuring, at the fame time, the pay ment of the property to the lawful

owner.

The fubject fo long agitated of the flave-trade, was again renewed by its original mover, Mr. Wilberforce. Shortly after the opening of the feffion, he introduced a bill for the abolition of that branch of the trade by which we fupplied with flaves the islands and territories be longing to foreigners. Hereby, he obferved, their poffeffions would receive less cultivation, and become lefs able to maintain a competition with our own. Thofe who contended for the neceffity of an ample fupply of flaves, could not,

he faid, confiftently with fuch a requifition, refufe to fecond his propofal; and thote who had declared, that if there were no flavetrade, they would oppofe the ef tabliliment of fuch a trade, were no lefs bound, if fincere in their declaration, to unite with him in oppofing that branch of it he was now endeavouring to abolith; and which was already fo much on the decline, that to prohibit its further continuance would be of little confequence to any one.

Sir William Young replied, in oppofition to the motion, that the whole of the flave-trade being in a state of gradual abolition, it were more prudent to let it fall of itself, without any further acceleration. He was feconded by Colonel Caw. thorn and Mr. Deni.

It was obferved by Mr. Dudley Rider, in anfwer to thefe and fome other allegations of the fame tendency, that the general intention to abolish the flave-trade having been approved of as a laudable meafure, and gradual abolition allowed to be the most prudent and advifcable method of proceeding, it would be unreasonable to reject the bill now propofed, which coincided evidently with that method. The argument, that other nations would take up this branch of the trade were we to relinquish it, was no justification. The motion tended completely, and at the fame time without the leaft precipitation, to effect the ultimate purpose in view, and was therefore unobjec tionable.

The fentiments of Mr. Pitt were equally favourable to the motion. It could not, he faid, be the inten tion of the Houfe, after confenting to abolith the flave-trade by dePS

grees,

grees, to ftop in the midst of its progrefs, and never to accomplish its abolition. The refolution to this intent was to take place in 1796. An immediate abolition had been moved by the original propofer of the defign; but the ferious inconveniences and loffes that must have fallen upon individuals by fo fudden a meafure, induced the Houfe to proceed gradually. But the prefent motion anfwered fo precifely this determination, that it well deferved to be received favourably. Mr. Wilberforce's motion was paffed by 63 against 40.

In the mean time, petitions had been prefented against the bill moved for by Mr. Wilberforce, on the behalf of the Weft India merchants of London and Liverpool. When laid before the House, they occafioned a multiplicity of difcuffions, fimilar to thofe already produced by this long debated fubject. Among other particulars, it was afferted by Mr, Vaughan, that the negroes in our Weft India islands were well acquainted with the tranfactions relating to them in parliament. They were no longer to be confidered in the fame ftate of ignorance as formerly; and though not to be kept in order without the exertion of authority, yet much more would now depend upon good policy. The my lattoes and negroes that had obtained their freedom, ought, thro kind treatment, to be fecured in our intereft; which alfo required a larger number of fmall fettlers than heretofore, while the negroes were implicitly fubmiffive. Mr. Fox was decidedly of opinion, that parliament should exprefs itfelf unequivocally on the prefent occa

fion, and openly declare a fixed re folution to perfevere in its reprobation of the flave-trade, and finally to abolish it; otherwife, the fupporters of this infamous traffic would avail themselves of their filence on the fubject, to infift, at a convenient opportunity, that parliament had given, as it were, a tacit confent to its existence. The Houfe of Lords not having come to any precife determination on this matter, it was the more incumbent on the Houfe of Commons to be firmly attentive to it, and to remind their Lordships of the neceffity of paying it the like attention. From their judgment and equity, he promifed himself a concurrence with the Commons in a bufinefs of fo much weight and importance.

In further fupport of the bill, Mr. Pitt obferved, that the freedom folemnly granted by the French to the negroes in their Weft India islands, was the powerfulleft argument that could be adduced in favour of Mr. Wilberforce's propofal. We were, in fome meature, compelled by what the French had done, to adopt new methods of proceeding with our own negroes'; not indeed by proclaiming them free, in imitation of the precedent fet up by the French; but by judicious regulations in behalf of our flaves, and by treating them with a due admixture of gentleness and authority. The emancipation of their negroes by the French, rendered the farther importation of flaves into our islands extremely dangerous, as it was evidently an acquifition of ftrength to those of our negroes who were mutinoufly inclined. Thofe newly imported would be the moft likely to join

them,

them, from their difcontent and refentment at being torn from their country, and reduced to bondage. It was clearly, therefore, the height of imprudence to augment the number of our flaves at a time when the French were fetting theirs free. This tranfaction could not long remain concealed from our own; and they might claim from us what the French had given to theirs, and infift upon it in fuch a manner, that we should not dare to refuse it.

After fome remarks by other members, the motion for deferring the bill fix months, was negatived by 56 against 38.

The generality of people were at this time extremely anxious about the issue of the queftion concerning the flave-trade. The tranfactions in the West Indies relating to the negroes, were exceedingly alarming. The Convention at Paris dreaded the difficulties that would attend the prefervation of the French colonies; and that the majority of the planters were inclined to apply to Great Britain for protection against the edict for the emancipation of their flaves, and to become its fubjects on that condition. Hence they used every exertion to retain the poffeffion of thofe valuable iflands in the Weft Indies, that had been the fource of fo much wealth; and were determined, rather than to part with them, to admit the negroes to an ample participation of their benefits. In their principal ifland, St. Domingo, Polverel, the chief agent of the Convention, iffued a proclamation fo advantageous to the negroes, that it could not be doubted they would oppofe, with all their force, any attempt to de

prive them of the advantages it' held out to them, in order to fecure their allegiance to France. By this proclamation, they were empowered to make choice of a mafter every year; and, after the expences of the plantation had been deducted, to fhare one-third of the profits: the bufinefs of the plantation was to be conducted by perfons partly chofen by themfelves. Privileges of this kind would neceffarily intereft them, deeply in the defence of a country where they had fo much property at ftake; and would, at the fame time, ferve as a dangerous precedent to the negroes in our own iflands.

In the midst of thefe difcuffions, the main question, of the total abolition of the flave-trade, remained undecided, to the great difcontent of that numerous part of the nation' which was defirous it fhould, if not immediately, yet gradually, be wholly abolished." The question was introduced into the Houte of Lords on the 10th of March, by Bishop Horfely; who, after urging the propriety of coming to a speedy divifion, complained that three fef fions had elapfed fince the impor tant fubject had been laid before the House. In order to procure. expedition, he moved, that the hearing of counfel and evidence on that trade, be referred to a committee above ftairs,

The Duke of Clarence oppofed the motion, on the ground that it had already been negatived by a great majority. The method of conducting this bufinefs had been already fettled, and it was of a nature to require time. The matureft deliberation was due to a branch of the British commerce P4

and

and navigation, the benefits of which amounted annually to four millions; that employed an immenfe number of feamen; and wherein property was embarked to the extent of seventy millions. The Bishop's motion was fupported by Lord Grenville, as conducing most effectually to a prompt decifion but oppofed by Lords Mansfield and Thurlow, on the impropriety of referring an object of fuch magnitude to a committee. Thofe Lords who could not attend the bufinefs at the bar of the Houfe, could not attend it in the committee. Lord Grenville replied, that the committee being an open one, it ought to be prefumed, that every one convinced of the importance of the fubject, would make it his duty to attend.

The Bishop of London, in an elaborate fpeech, ftrenuoufly fupported the propriety of the committee, as moft conducive to expedition. Property was doubtlefs an object of great confideration; but was it greater than the intereft of fifteen millions of the natives of Africa, who might ftrictly be confidered as petitioning for commiferation and relief from their Lordships? Fourfcore thoufand of them were, by this inhuman traffic, yearly banished from their own country, and condemned to flavery.

Several other members of the House fpoke for and against the question.

Lord Guildford in particular obferved, that, by their fuffering the bufinefs to remain at the bar of the House, it might be protracted to the very term which the Commons had appointed for its total abolition. Such a protraction tended to a delay itill more injurious to thofe whom it affected, as, in cafe their Lordships fhould con cur in the propriety of abolifhing the trade, they might be requested and prevailed upon to permit its duration fometime longer, left the abruptnefs of its abolition fhould prejudice the interefts of thofe concerned in it. The motion, however, was negatived by a majority

of 2.

On the 2d of May, when the bill for abolishing the foreign flavetrade was debated in the upper Houfe, it met with very few fupporters. Lord Grenville oppofed it as improper, while the question itfelf remained undecided." Other Lords joined iffue with him. Thofe who were not friendly to the trade itself, feemed to think that the gra dual abolition of the whole would fuffice, without terminating any branch of it in particular. It was therefore, after a long debate, ne, gatived by 45 to 4.