Sir Archibald Edmonstone rose, and asked, whether the present motion went so far, as to pledge those who voted for it, to a total and immediate abolition.

Mr. Alderman Watson rose next.  He defended the Slave-trade as highly beneficial to the country, being one material branch of its commerce.  But he could not think of the African trade without connecting it with the West Indian.  The one hung upon the other.  A third important branch also depended upon it; which was the Newfoundland fishery:  the latter could not go on, if it were not for the vast quantity of inferior fish bought up for the Negros in the West Indies; and which was quite unfit for any other market.  If therefore we destroyed the African, we destroyed the other trades.  Mr. Turgot, he said, had recommended in the National Assembly of France the gradual abolition of the Slave-trade.  He would therefore recommend it to the House to adopt the same measure, and to soften the rigours of slavery by wholesome regulations; but an immediate abolition he could not countenance.

Mr. Fox at length rose.  He observed that some expressions, which he had used on the preceding day, had been complained of as too harsh and severe.  He had since considered them; but he could not prevail upon himself to retract them; because, if any gentleman, after reading the evidence on the table, and attending to the debate, could avow himself an abetter of this shameful traffic in human flesh, it could only be either from some hardness of heart, or some difficulty of understanding, which he really knew not how to account for.

Some had considered this question as a question of political, whereas it was a question of personal, freedom.  Political freedom was undoubtedly a great blessing; but, when it came to be compared with personal, it sank to nothing.  To confound the two, served therefore to render all arguments on either perplexing and unintelligible.  Personal freedom was the first right of every human being.  It was a right, of which he who deprived a fellow-creature was absolutely criminal in so depriving him, and which he who withheld was no less criminal in withholding.  He could not therefore retract his words with respect to any, who (whatever respect he might otherwise have for them) should, by their vote of that night, deprive their fellow-creatures of so great a blessing.  Nay, he would go further.  He would say, that if the House, knowing what the trade was by the evidence, did not by their vote mark to all mankind their abhorrence of a practice so savage, so enormous, so repugnant to all laws human and divine, they would consign their character to eternal infamy.