Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/266

 with it; so that another year should not pass before we extended the justice and humanity of the country to the helpless and unhappy inhabitants of Africa.

Earl Fitzwilliam said he was fearful lest the calamities of St. Domingo should be brought home to our own islands. We ought not, he thought, too hastily to adopt the resolution on that account. He should therefore support the previous question.

Lord Ellenborough said he was sorry to differ from his noble friend, (lord Sidmouth,) and yet he could not help saying that if after twenty years, during which this question had been discussed by both houses of parliament, their lordships' judgments were not ripe for its determination, he could not look with any confidence to a time when they would be ready to decide it.

The question then before them was short and plain. It was, whether the African slave-trade was inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. If the premises were true, we could not too speedily bring it to a conclusion.

Earl Spencer agreed with the noble viscount (Sidmouth) that the amelioration of the condition of the slaves was an object which might be effected in the West Indies; but he was certain that the most effectual way of improving it would be by the total and immediate abolition of the slave-trade; and for that reason he would support the resolution. Had the resolution held out emancipation to them, it would not have had his assent; for it would have ill become the character of this country, if it had been once promised, to have withheld it from them. It was to such deception that the horrors of St. Domingo were to be attributed. He would not enter into the discussion of the general subject at present. He was convinced that the trade was what the resolution stated it to be, inhuman, unjust, and impolitic. He wished, therefore, most earnestly indeed, for its abolition. As to the mode of effecting it, it should be such as would be attended with the least inconvenience to all parties. At the same time he would not allow small inconveniences to stand in the way of the great claims of humanity, justice, and religion.

The resolution and address were both carried by a majority of 41 to 20. After this a belief was generally prevalent that the slave-trade would fall at the next session; but for fear that it should be carried on in the interior, being as it were the last harvest of the merchants, to a tenfold extent, and with tenfold murder and desolation, a law was passed that no new vessel should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa for slaves. In the month of October after these victories, died Charles James Fox, one of the noblest champions of this noble cause. He had lived to put it in a train for final triumph — this triumph he enjoyed in anticipation — the prospect of it soothed his pains and cheered his spirit in the hours of his last sickness. The hope of it quivered on his lips in the hour of dissolution.

The contest was renewed in January, 1807. Lord Grenville brought the question first before the house of lords in the shape of a bill, which he called "An act for the abolition of the the slave-trade." On the 4th four counsel were heard against it. On the 5th the debate commenced. The bill was carried at 4 o'clock in the morning by a vote of 100 to 36. On the 10th of