After this the hearing of evidence on the resolution of the House of Commons was resumed; and seven persons were examined before the close of the session.

CHAPTER VI.

Continuation from July 1793 to July 1794—­Author travels round the kingdom again—­Motion to abolish the foreign Slave-trade renewed in the Commons—­and carried—­but lost in the Lords—­further proceedings there—­Author, on account of his declining health, obliged to retire from the cause.

The committee for the abolition could not view the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament on this subject during the year 1793, without being alarmed for the fate of their question.  The only two sources of hope, which they could discover, were in the disposition then manifested by the peers as to the conduct of the Earl of Abingdon, and in their determination to proceed in the hearing of evidence.  The latter circumstance indeed was the more favourable, as the resolution, upon which the witnesses were to be examined, had not been renewed by the Commons.  These considerations, however, afforded no solid ground for the mind to rest upon.  They only broke in upon it, like faint gleams of sunshine, for a moment, and then were gone.  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 us 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 Mr. Payne, Este, Lechmere, Cawthorne, Jenkinson, and Dent.  Those who spoke in favour of it were; Mr. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.