not exceed that of other trades in the tropical climates.  But the same documents, which proved that twenty-three per cent, were destroyed in this wasting traffic, proved that in West India ships only about one and a half per cent. were lost, including every casualty.—­But the very men, under whose management this dreadful mortality had been constantly occurring, had coolly said, that much of it might be avoided by proper regulations.  How criminal then were they, who, knowing this, had neither publicly proposed, nor in their practice adopted, a remedy!

The average loss of the slaves on board, which had been calculated by Mr. Wilberforce at twelve and a half per cent., had been denied.  He believed this calculation, taking in all the circumstances connected with it, to be true; but that for years not less than one tenth had so perished, he would challenge those concerned in the traffic to disprove.  Much evidence had been produced on the subject; but the voyages had been generally selected.  There was only one, who had disclosed the whole account.  This was Mr. Anderson of London, whose engagements in this trade had been very inconsiderable.  His loss had only amounted to three per cent.; but, unfortunately for the Slave-traders of Liverpool, his vessel had not taken above three fourths of that number in proportion to the tonnage which they had stated to be necessary to the very existence of their trade.

An honourable member (Mr. Grosvenor) had attributed the protraction of this business to those who had introduced it.  But from whom did the motion for further evidence (when that of the privy council was refused) originate, but from the enemies of the abolition?  The same gentleman had said, it was impossible to abolish the trade; but where was the impossibility of forbidding the further importation of slaves into our own colonies? and beyond this the motion did not extend.

The latter argument had also been advanced by Sir William Yonge and others.  But allowing it its full force, would there be no honour in the dereliction of such a commerce?  Would it be nothing publicly to recognise great and just principles?  Would our example be nothing?—­Yes:  every country would learn, from our experiment, that American colonies could be cultivated without the necessity of continual supplies equally expensive and disgraceful.

But we might do more than merely lay down principles or propose examples.  We might, in fact, diminish the evil itself immediately by no inconsiderable part,—­by the whole of our own supply:  and here he could not at all agree with the honourable baronet, in what seemed to him a commercial paradox, that the taking away from an open trade by far the largest customer, and the lessening of the consumption of the article, would increase both the competition and the demand, and of course all those mischiefs, which it was their intention to avert.

That the civilization of the Africans was promoted, as had been asserted, by their intercourse with the Europeans, was void of foundation, as had appeared from the evidence.  In manners and dishonesty they had indeed assimilated with those who frequented their coasts.  But the greatest industry and the least corruption of morals were in the interior, where they were out of the way of this civilizing connection.