ects from engaging in the foreign slave
trade; and Mr. Fox at Mr. Wilberforce's special request, introduced
a resolution pledging the House to take the earliest measures for
effectually abolishing the whole slave trade. This resolution was
carried by a majority of 114 to 15; and January 2, 1807, Lord
Granville brought forward, in the House of Lords, a bill for the
abolition of the slave trade, which passed safely through both
Houses of Parliament. As, however, the king was believed to be
unfriendly to the measure, some alarm was felt by its friends, lest
its fate might still be affected by the dismissal of the ministers,
which had been determined upon. Those fears were groundless; for
though they received orders to deliver up the seals of their offices
on March 25th, the royal assent was given by commission by the Lord
Chancellor Erskine on the same day; and thus the last act of the
administration was to conclude a contest, maintained by prejudice
and interest during twenty years, for the support of what Mr. Pitt
denominated "the greatest practical evil that ever afflicted the
human race."

Among other testimonies to Mr. Wilberforce's merits, we are not
inclined to omit that of Sir James Mackintosh, who in his journal,
May 23, 1808, speaks thus of Wilberforce on the "Abolition." This
refers to a pamphlet on the slave trade which Mr. Wilberforce had
published in 1806: "Almost as much enchanted by Mr. Wilberforce's
book as by his conduct. He is the very model of a reformer. Ardent
without turbulence, mild without timidity or coolness; neither
yielding to difficulties nor disturbed or exasperated by them;
patient and meek yet intrepid; persisting for twenty years through
good report and evil report; just and charitable even to his most
malignant enemies; unwearied in every experiment to disarm the
prejudices of his more rational and disinterested opponents, and
supporting the zeal, without dangerously exciting the passions of
his adherents."

The rest of Mr. Wilberforce's parliamentary conduct was consistent
with his behavior on this question. In debates chiefly political he
rarely took a forward part; but where religion and morals were
directly concerned, points on which few cared to interfere, and
where a leader was wanted, he never shrunk from the advocacy of his
opinions. He was a supporter of Catholic emancipation and
parliamentary reform; he condemned the encouragement of gambling, in
the shape of lotteries estab