assembly of St. Christopher's; by which it appeared, that too little attention was paid either to the food or clothing of these unhappy creatures. He contended that the shocking accounts given of those parts of Africa, where the traffic prevailed, were strictly true, and not even contradicted by the traveller Mr. Parke. Therefore he thought it was incumbent on the house to do their duty by abolishing the trade, and not content themselves with paltry meliorations, by countenancing a system too execrable for the powers of human language to describe.

Mr. Ellis thought there was too much precipitation in bringing on the question. Gentlemen should have waited until the legislatures of the islands assembled, when their intentions respecting the business could be ascertained.

Mr. Fox (who attended for this evening at the solicitation of the friends of abolition) rose and said, after the repeated discussions which this subject had undergone, he did not wish to detain the house long with a tedious inquiry into the principles by which the question ought to be decided. The gentle men who were against the motion are extremely anxious to have it understood that there was but one opinion of the injustice and immorality of the slave trade; the only difference was, what is the best mode to abandon it? To me (said Mr. Fox) it is a matter of shame and of lamentation that the country should be so degenerate from every sense of virtue, so sunk in hypocrisy, that, however convinced of the enormity of the wickedness, we have not yet abandoned that course which we so unanimously condemn. The British parliament has been acquainted with the guilt

and the reproach with which the nation has been loaded; not two opinions exist upon the subject: and yet not a single step has been taken, till last year, to remove the cause. Those gentlemen who op pose the motion say, we are told that the savage nations go to war with each other; and, that as their prisoners are brought to market, it would be inhumanity not to purchase; and, as the mischief is done, why should not we derive some advantage from it? If a passenger is to be robbed, why may not we be the first to plunder him? Such are the arguments by which one of the greatest wickednesses that ever dis graced a nation is palliated. We are asked, is it not better to send them to the West Indies, than continue in Africa to have their throats cut? Interest, they say, is sufficient to induce kindness. We know (continues Mr. Fox), that such is the nature of man, that the idea of possessing an unlimited authority. so far from inspiring tenderness, produces contempt of the object as worthless. An honourable gentleman tells us, that we ought not to be precipitate, that we ought not to be violent, and that we ought to prefer measures of conciliation to measures of severity, Gracious God! what severity are we about to commit? Are we to suspend the trade for two or three years, till you see whether an act of parliament be necessary to abolish it, or will you trust to the regulation in the West Indies? Mr. Fox said he listened with great attention to what fell from the minister in the debate; and contended that it was impossible to answer the arguments he had u ged in favour of the motion. "He told you (said Mr. Fox) the safety of the West India islands depended on your adoption of the G4

measure."

measure." He (Mr. Fox) was not often in the habit of paying im plicit deference to his assertions; but on this occasion he could have no doubt of the truth of what he said. After passing several encomiums on the chancel.or of the exchequer for his eloquence in support of the motion, he proceeded by saying, what should he think of those who had acknowledged the injustice and inhumanity of this trade, but who nevertheless would vote against the motion, rather than make a sacrifice of their interests? Mr. Fox remarked, that if he asked those gentlemen who were against the motion, when they would abolish the slave trade? they would answer, when the islands are cultivated. None of these gentlemen agreed in any thing like a definitive answer; but each had an answer of his own, and each tending to the saine point; viz. to oppose the abolition of the slave trade for ever. What is the nature of the bill proposed to be brought in? Why, in its nature it must be a measure calculated to give them notice when the trade shall be abolished; for the motion is, "That you do now resolve yourselves into à committee to consider of a motion, that the slave trade be abolished at a time to be limited." What time do these gentlemen require? Why, till all these objections to the abolition be done away. Mr. Fox observed, if notice be the object, this motion was the object, this motion was pecul arly adapted to that purpose; and should the house give leave to bring in the proposed bill, he should, when the blank came to be filled up in the committee, most certainly vote for the direct and immediate abolition of this trade; being mindful of this ground, that the house was bound

to abolish a trade, which they had declared to be a trade of injustice and immorality; being mindful also that the minister had declared that the safety of the islands depended upon it. Mr. Fox said he had now delivered his opinion upon the subject, though he was no sanguine in hopes of success. With regard to what had been said to-night, viz. that individuals might have been cruel, and that we ought not to judge of the slave trade from the possibility of some persons having misconducted them selves in it-if man had not been cruel, slavery would never have been complained of in this world; indeed if man were not cruel, slavery would not exist.

The secretary at war said he should not have been induced to trouble the house this night, had it not been for some of the observations of the right honourable gentleman who had just sat down. He agreed with him, however, in some of his opinions, although he could not agree with him in the reasons which be assigned for them. He observe, t at he had not the least hesitation in declaring, that if the question were now, whether the slave trade should be immediately abo:ished, or be continued until all the lands in the West Inthies should be cultivated? his alter

native would be that of voting for the abolition: but, whether he should vote for the motion now before the house, or leave it to the legislatures of the islands? to whom bythe last address of the house it seemed to have been eptrusted, was a different question; and be couceived that leaving it to their care was the best mode that could be adopted. Much had been said upon the interior situation of Africa, and the horrors of the slave trade,

and

for valuable considerations. In those cases, and where the conditions stipulated for were faithfully performed by the grantees-he thought it fair that certain proportionate compensation should be allowed. The question then being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared-For the motion, 83-Against it, 87-Majority, 4. As parliament has not thought proper to enforce their own resolution, that the slave trade should be abolished in the year 1796, it became necessary to renew, for a limited time, the slave trade carrying bill. On this subject, however, nothing interesting occurred till the 4th of May, when sir William Dolben moved, that the house resolve itself into a committee on the bill for regulating the quality of the shipping employed in carrying

slavės.

Mr. William Smith proposed a clause for making the cubical contents between decks the criterion of

the fitness of ships, instead of their extent of tonnage.

Colonel Porter observed, that the

attendance was too thin for a subject of this importance, there being only thirty-three members. It was, consequently, ordered to be again considered on Thursday next.

On Thursday, 10th May, therefore, sir William Dolben moved that the house resolve itself in a committee, to consider further of the slave-carrying bill.

The house resolved itself accordingly into a committee,

Mr. William Smith proposed a clause for increasing the height of ships between decks, which should not be less, he said, than five feet perpendicular.

General Tarleton opposed the elause, as there were no arguments adduced to prove its necessity. The

mortality he contended was not
near so great as on board the ships
employed as transports for the
the troops to the West Indies.
Sir William Young supported the
clause.

Mr. Sewell opposed the clause ; and, if it should be negatived, he said he would bring forward a clause proposing a certain scale in slave-carrying ships, to regulate their depth; those of 150 tons and under should have 4 feet 4 inches depth; those of 200, 4 feet 6; of 250 tons, 4 feet 10; those above 250, 5 feet 2; and those of 300 tons and upwards 5 feet 8.

Colonel Gascoigne and Mr. Sewell opposed the clause; Mr. Smith and Mr. Vansittart supported it; when the house divided. Ayes 34, Noes 6.

Mr. William Smith next proposed a clause for regulating the superficial space, which he estimated for each slave at 8 feet.

This clause was opposed by colonel Gascoigne, Mr. Sewell, and general Tarleton. After which the house divided. Ayes 34, Noes 5.

The other clauses were agreed to, and the report ordered to be received on Monday. Adjourned.

On the following Monday, sir William Dolben brought up the report of the committee on the slavecarrying bill.

Colonel Gascoigne presented a petition from the merchants of Liverpool, and other great places of trade, stating objections against many of the clauses that were introduced into the bill. The petitioners prayed that they might be heard at the bar of the house against the bill. He intended, after the petition was read, to move that the report be taken into consideration that day se'night.

Mr. William Smith said, that