at sugar could be imported cheaper
from the East Indies than from the West, notwithstanding the vast
difference of the length of the voyages, but on account of the impolicy
of slavery; or that it was made in the former case by the industry of
free men, and in the latter by the languid drudgery of slaves.

As he had had occasion to advert to the Eastern part of the world, he
would make an observation upon an argument, which had been collected
from that quarter. The condition of the Negroes in the West Indies had
been lately compared with that of the Hindoos. But he would observe that
the Hindoo, miserable as his hovel was, had sources of pride and
happiness, to which not only the West Indian slave, but even his master,
was a stranger. He was to be sure a peasant; and his industry was
subservient to the gratifications of an European lord; but he was, in
his own belief, vastly superior to him. He viewed him as one of the
lowest cast. He would not on any consideration eat from the same plate.
He would not suffer his son to marry the daughter of his master, even if
she could bring him all the West Indies as her portion. He would
observe, too, that the Hindoo peasant drank his water from his native
well; that, if his meal were scanty, he received it from the hand of
her, who was most dear to him; that, when he laboured, he laboured for
her and his offspring. His daily task being finished, he reposed with
his family. No retrospect of the happiness of former days, compared with
existing misery, disturbed his slumber, nor horrid dreams occasioned him
to wake in agony at the dawn of day. No barbarous sounds of cracking
whips reminded him, that with the form and image of a man his destiny
was that of the beast of the field. Let the advocates for the bloody
traffic state what they had to set off on their side of the question
against the comforts and independence of the man, with whom they
compared the slave.

The amendment was supported by Sir William Yonge, Sir William Pulteney,
Colonel Tarleton, Messrs. Gascoyne, C. Brook, and Hiley Addington. On
dividing the House upon it, there appeared for it seventy-seven, but
against it only seventy.

This loss of the question, after it had been carried in the last year by
so great a majority, being quite unexpected, was a matter of severe
disappointment; and might have discouraged the friends of the cause in
this infancy of their renewed efforts, if they had not discovered the
reason of