e friends of the cause. Mr.
Wilberforce, however, resolved that the session should not pass without
an attempt to promote it in another form; and accordingly, on the 14th
of May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish that part of
the Slave Trade, by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with
slaves. This motion was opposed like the former; but was carried by a
majority of seven. The bill was then brought in; and it passed its first
and second reading with little opposition; but on the 5th of June,
notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr. Pitt and of Mr. Fox, and the very
able speeches of Mr. Francis, Mr. Courtenay, and others, it was lost by
a majority of thirty-one to twenty-nine.

In the interval between these motions, the question experienced in the
Lords considerable opposition. The Duke of Clarence moved that the House
should not proceed in the consideration of the Slave Trade till after
the Easter recess. The Earl of Abingdon was still more hostile
afterwards. He deprecated the new philosophy. It was as full of mischief
as the Box of Pandora. The doctrine of the abolition of the Slave Trade
was a species of it; and he concluded by moving, that all further
consideration of the subject be postponed. To the epithets, then
bestowed upon the abolitionists by this nobleman, the Duke of Clarence
added those of fanatics and hypocrites, among whom he included Mr.
Wilberforce by name. All the other Lords, however, who were present,
manifested such a dislike to the sentiments of the Earl of Abingdon,
that he withdrew his motion.

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 XXIX.

--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