ing money, he stated the circumstance to the House, and, after quoting a precedent, which he caused to be read from the Journals of the 8th of March 1719, by which it appeared that a similar bill, on being sent from the Lords, had been rejected, because it affected the revenue, the Commons followed his advice, and refused to proceed with the present.

But the late Speaker did not confine himself to what might be termed his official duties. He was always an active and efficient member when the House sat in a committee, and a chairman regulated the debates. Few subjects of great national importance but were canvassed by him on those occasions, and he must be allowed, in general, to have added great weight and importance to whatever side he adopted.

Uniformly acting with Mr. Pitt in all grand political questions, it is greatly to be regretted that he should have opposed that gentleman only, when a question of humanity respecting a miserable portion of the human race was agitated, and have taken part with Mr. Dundas, whose equivocal enmity to the slave trade has occasioned its continuance, notwithstanding the Commons of England seem to have been pledged for an abolition.

It is true that Mr. A. termed this traffic "a crime, which he had never heard mentioned without feeling the utmost abhorrence and indignation;" but it is equally true, that he was at the same time feelingly alive to the pecuniary interests of the planters and mortgagees, who, according to his own principles, must have profited by this "crime." Neither is the

reasoning

reasoning to be tolerated, that, "if relinquished by us, it might be carried on in a manner more repugnant to the interests of humanity," as, if this be really an abominable traffic, the guilt and shame ought instantly to be removed.

But, in order to decide on Mr. A.'s conduct, the best mode will be to quote his own arguments, premising at the same time, that it is not here meant to convey the least suspicion of his sincerity.

On Monday, April 2, 1792, after two petitions had been presented, one from the city of London, and the other from the livery of London, against the slave trade, Mr. Wilberforce moved the order of the day, which was "for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the circumstances of the African slave trade." This being done, and Sir William Dolben having taken the chair, the same gentleman, at the conclusion of a long and elegant speech, moved, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the trade carried on by British subjects, for the purpose of obtaining slaves on the coast of Africa, ought to be abolished." Mr. Thornton *, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, &c.

were

In the course of this gentleman's speech he read the following letter from King Naim-bazo, in the neighbourhood of Sierra Leone, complaining that some of his relations had been kidnapped and carried off to the West Indies, where they were at present in a state of slavery: "My subjects, and the subjects of other kings, have been stolen away by the inhabitants of all nations who visit this coast. Three of my own relations have been taken away by a Captain Coxe, and sold for slaves; for what reason I

know

were for an immediate abolition, while Mr. Dundas, General Tarleton, &c. were against it; and, to the surprise of all men, it so occurred, that the premier found himself for the first time in a minority.

In the course of the debate Mr. Addington delivered his opinion, the substance of which follows:

"The Speaker said, he had never listened with greater satisfaction in his life to any speech, than to the whole of that just delivered by his right honourable friend (Mr. Dundas), who had relieved him from the utmost pain and anxiety. He declared, that he was one of those alluded to by his right honourable friend, who had preferred a middle path in regard to the abolition of a trade, or rather a crime which he had never heard mentioned without feeling the utmost abhorrence and detestation. Hitherto he had been silent on the subject, because he had felt that he could not go the length of voting with his honourable friend, who had introduced the question of the abolition of the trade into that House; but now he had heard what he could concur in with ease to his mind, and satisfaction to his conscience. He complimented Mr. Whitbread on his eloquent speech, and agreed with him in thinking that the slave trade, however modified, could not be defended, because no argument could justify the selling of one

know not. I never molest the property or person of others. I love the natives of Great Britain-I have borne many insults from them, which have occasioned me to be silent so long-Whether I shall see my relations again I know not, but those who took them will be called to account for their actions one day or an. other."

man

man for money to the despotism of anotlier man, and tearing him away against his will from his country, his family, and his friends, in order to make him drag out a miserable existence in bondage in a distant country, to which he was an utter stranger. While he turned with disgust from the hateful trade, he saw the necessity of considering the opposite claims, and was also fearful the trade, if relinquished by us, might be carried on in a manner more repugnant to the interests of humanity.

"He thought these opposite interests would be in a great degree reconciled by the scheme of gradual abolition. He suggested, that the imports of slaves into the islands should be limited to ten or twelve years. He contended that negroes, notwithstanding the difference of their colour, ought to be regarded as human creatures. He condemned the slave trade as a measure he had always abhorred. The nervous eloquence of his honourable friend recalled to his memory the observation of a very venerable and eminent judge, now in retirement and in the vale of years (Lord Mansfield), who, when charged with showing too much lenity to a rebel lord, said, that he knew no language which could add guilt to treason. In the same view he knew no language which could add to the horrors of the slave trade; and the proposition now before them would undoubtedly tend to prevent man from preying upon

man.

"Mr. Addington said, the present state of the negroes in the West India islands certainly was in

adequate

adequate to the necessary supply to do the work of the planters; there was too unequal a comparison between the males and females: he not only therefore considered an immediate abolition of the importation of the African negroes as impolitic, but should think a duty on the importation of male negroes would operate as a bounty on the importation of female slaves, and in a few years the defect would be supplied. Mr. Dundas's proposition, Mr. Addington said, appeared to him to be such as could not be opposed by any rational objection; he agreed with him in the whole of it, one point excepted, viz. the making of those negro children free who were born of slaves. He thought rather, that they should have their freedom after a period of service of ten or fifteen years, to pay their masters for the expence of rearing and educating them. A bounty for such as should rear more children, bearing a proportion to the sexes, payable to such negro fathers, might, he conceived, produce the most salutary effects, and greatly tend to increase the population of the negroes. He declared he did not think his right honourable friend would have submitted his ideas to the House, if he had not meant to state them afterwards in the form of a substantial proposition: he therefore hoped that his honourable friend's motion (Mr. Wilberforce's) would not be adopted, but that his end would be answered by other means *."

Notwith

Mr. Fox immediately followed Mr. Addington, and, to adopt the language of one of the reporters," in a most able and

animated