John Newport.  Mr. Grenfell observed, that he could not give a silent vote, when the character of the country was concerned.  When the question of the abolition first came before the public, he was a warm friend to it; and from that day to this he had cherished the same feelings.  He assured Mr. Wilberforce of his constant support.  Sir John Newport stated that the Irish nation took a virtuous interest in this noble cause.  He ridiculed the idea that the trade and manufactures of the country would suffer by the measure in contemplation; but, even if they should suffer, he would oppose it.  “Fiat justitia, ruat coelura,” Upon a division, there appeared for the second reading one hundred, and against it forty-two.

On the 12th of June, when a motion was made to go into a committee upon the bill, it was opposed by Messrs. Fuller, C. Brook, C. Ellis, Dent, Deverell, and Manning:  and it was supported by Sir Robert Buxton, Mr. Barham, and the Hon. J.S.  Cocks.  The latter condemned the imprudence of the planters.  Instead of profiting by the discussions, which had taken place, and making wise provisions against the great event of the abolition, which would sooner or later take place, they had only thought of new stratagems to defeat it.  He declared his abhorrence of the trade, which he considered to be a national disgrace.  The House divided:  when there were seventy-nine for the motion, and against it, twenty.

On the 27th of June the bill was opposed in its last stage by Sir W. Young, Messrs. Dickenson, Mr. Rose, Addington, and Dent.; and supported by:  Messrs. Pitt, W. Smith, Francis, and Barham; when it was carried by a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six.  It was then taken up to the Lords; but on a motion of Lord Hawkesbury, then a member of that House, the discussion of it was postponed to the next year.

The session being ended, the committee for the abolition of the Slave Trade, increased its number, by the election of the Right Honourable Lord Teignmouth, Dr. Dickson, and Wilson Birkbeek, as members.

In the year 1805, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion of the former year.  Colonel Tarleton, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Puller, and Mr. Gascoyne opposed it.  Leave, however, was given him to introduce his bill.

On the second reading of it, a serious opposition took place; and an amendment was moved for postponing it till that day six months.  The amendment was opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Huddlestone.  The latter could not help lifting his voice against this monstrous traffic in the sinews and blood of man, the toleration of which had so long been the disgrace of the British legislature.  He did not charge the enormous guilt resulting from it upon the nation at large; for the nation had washed its hands of it by the numerous petitions it had sent against it; and it had since been a matter of astonishment to all Christendom, how the constitutional guardians of British freedom should have sanctioned elsewhere the greatest system of cruelty and oppression in the world.