Mr. Addington preferred the year 1796 to the year 1795.

Mr. Alderman Watson considered the abolition in 1796 to be as destructive as if it were immediate.

A division having taken place, the number of votes in favour of the original motion were one hundred and sixty-one, and in favour of Lord Mornington’s amendment for the year 1795, one hundred and twenty-one.  Sir Edward Knatchbull, however, seeing that there was a disposition in the House to bring the matter to a conclusion, and that a middle line would be preferred, moved that the year 1796 should be substituted for the year 1800.  Upon this the House divided again; when there appeared for the original motion only one hundred and thirty-two, but for the amendment one hundred and fifty-one.

The gradual abolition having been now finally agreed upon for the year 1796, a committee was named, which carried the resolution to the Lords.

On the eighth of May, the Lords were summoned to consider it.  Lord Stormont, after having spoken for some time, moved, that they should hear evidence upon it.  Lord Grenville opposed the motion on account of the delay, which would arise from an examination of the witnesses by the House at large:  but he moved that such witnesses should be examined by a committee of the House.  Upon this a debate ensued, and afterwards a division; when the original motion was carried by sixty-three against thirty-six.

On the 15th of May the Lords met again.  Evidence was then ordered to be summoned in behalf of those interested in the continuance of the trade.  At length it was introduced; but on the fifth of June, when only seven persons had been examined, a motion was made and carried, that the farther examinations should be postponed to the next session.

CHAPTER V.

Continuation from July 1792 to July 1793—­Author travels round the kingdom again—­Motion to renew the resolution of the last year in the Commons—­Motion lost—­New Motion in the Commons to abolish the foreign Slave-trade—­Motion lost—­Proceedings of the Lords.

The resolution adopted by the Commons, that the trade should cease in 1796, was a matter of great joy to many; and several, in consequence of it, returned to the use of sugar.  The committee, however, for the abolition did not view it in the same favourable light.  They considered it as a political manoeuvre to frustrate the accomplishment of the object.  But the circumstance, which gave them the most concern, was the resolution of the Lords to hear evidence.  It was impossible now to say, when the trade would cease.  The witnesses in behalf of the merchants and planters had obtained possession of the ground; and they might keep it, if they chose, even till the year 1800, to throw light upon a measure which was to be adopted in 1796.  The committee found too, that they had again the laborious task before them of finding out new persons to give testimony in behalf