he greatest supporters of it; He fostered it in its infancy. If, in his
public situation, he had then set his face against it, where would have
been our hope? He upheld it also in its childhood; and though in this
state of its existence it did not gain from his protection all the
strength Which it was expected it would have acquired, he yet kept it
from falling, till his successors, in whose administration a greater
number Of favourable circumstances concurred to give it vigour, brought
it to triumphant maturity.

Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, having been called to the head of the
executive government on the death of Mr. Pitt, the cause was ushered
into Parliament under new auspices. In a former year His Majesty had
issued a proclamation by which British merchants were forbidden (with
certain defined exceptions) to import slaves into the colonies, which
had been conquered by the British arms in the course of the war. This
circumstance afforded an opportunity of trying the question in the House
of Commons with the greatest hope of success. Accordingly Sir A. Pigott,
the Attorney-General, as an officer of the crown, brought in a bill on
the thirty-first of March 1806, the first object of which was, to give
effect to the proclamation now mentioned. The second was, to prohibit
British subjects from being engaged in importing slaves into the
colonies of any foreign power whether hostile or neutral. And the third
was, to prohibit British subjects and British capital from being
employed in carrying on the Slave Trade in foreign ships; and also to
prevent the outfit of foreign ships from British ports.

Sir A. Pigott, on the introduction of this bill, made an appropriate
speech. The bill was supported by Mr. Fox, Sir William Yonge, Mr. Brook,
and Mr. Bagwell; but opposed by Generals Tarleton and Gascoyne, Mr.
Rose, Sir Robert Peel, and Sir Charles Price. On the third reading, a
division being called for, there appeared for it thirty-five, and
against it only thirteen.

On the 7th of May it was introduced into the Lords. The supporters of it
there were, the Duke of Gloucester, Lord Grenville, the Bishops of
London and St. Asaph, the Earl of Buckinghamshire and the Lords Holland,
Lauderdale, Auckland, Sidmouth, and Ellenborough. The opposers were, the
Dukes of Clarence and Sussex, the Marquis of Sligo, the Earl of
Westmoreland, and the Lords Eldon and Sheffield. At length a division
took place, when there appeared to be in favour