In this situation, the committee could only console themselves by the reflection, that they had done their duty.  In looking, however, to their future services, one thing, and only one, seemed practicable; and this was necessary; namely, to complete the new body of evidence, which they had endeavoured to form in the preceding year.  The determination to do this rendered another journey on my part indispensable; and I undertook it, broken down, as my constitution then was, beginning it in September 1793, and completing it in February 1794.

Mr. Wilberforce, in this interval, had digested his plan of operations; and accordingly, early in the session of 1794, he asked leave to renew his former bill, to abolish that part of the trade, by means of which British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves.  This request was opposed by Sir William Yonge; but it was granted; on a division of the House, by a majority of sixty-three to forty votes.

When the bill was brought in, it was opposed by the same member; upon which the House divided; and there appeared for Sir William Yonge’s amendment thirty-eight votes, but against it fifty-six.

On a motion for the recommitment of the bill, Lord Sheffield divided the House, against whose motion there was a majority of forty-two.  And, on the third reading of it, it was opposed again; but it was at length carried.

The speakers against the bill were:  Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield, Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham and Messrs; Payne, Este, Lechaiere, Cawthorae, Jenkinson, and Dent.  Those who spoke in favour of it were:  Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.

While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing through its stages in the Commons, Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the examinations, while the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the House of Lords, moved, that they should be taken in future before a committee above-stairs.  Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, and the Lords Guildford, Stanhope, and Grenville, supported this motion.  But the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, aided by the Duke of Clarence, and by the Lords Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and others, negatived it by a majority of twenty-eight.

At length the bill itself was ushered into the House of Lords.  On reading it a second time, it was opposed by the Duke of Clarence, Lord Abingdon, and others.  Lord Grenville and the Bishop of Rochester declined supporting it.  They alleged as a reason, that they conceived the introduction of it to have been improper, pending the inquiry on the general subject of the Slave Trade.  This declaration brought up the Lords Stanhope and Lauderdale, who charged them with inconsistency as professed friends of the cause.  At length the bill was lost.  During these discussions the examination of the witnesses was resumed by the Lords; but only two of them were heard in this session[A].