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, as 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 Messrs; Payne, Este, Lechaiere,
Cawthorae, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favour of it were:
Messrs. Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan,
Barham, and Serjeants Watson and Adair.

While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing through its stages in the
Commons, Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the
examinations, while the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the
House of Lords, moved, that they should be taken in future before a
committee above-stairs. Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, and the Lords
Guildford, Stanhope, and Grenville, supported this motion. But the Lord
Chancellor Thurlow, aided