id, had existed in Africa from the earliest
time; and, unless other nations would concur with England in the measure
of the abolition, we could not change it for the better.

Slavery had existed also throughout all Europe. It had now happily, in a
great measure, been done away. But how? Not by acts of parliament, for
these might have retarded the event, but by the progress of
civilization, which removed the evil in a gradual and rational manner.

He then went over the same ground of argument, as when a member of the
Commons in 1792. He said that the inhumanity of the abolition was
visible in this, that not one slave less would be taken from Africa; and
that such as were taken from it, would suffer more than they did now, in
the hands of foreigners. He maintained also, as before, that the example
of St. Domingo afforded one of the strongest arguments against the
abolition of the trade. And he concluded by objecting to the resolution,
inasmuch as it could do no good, for the substance of it would be to be
discussed again in a future session.

The Bishop of London, Dr. Porteus, began, by noticing the concession of
the last speaker, namely, that if the trade was contrary to humanity and
justice, it ought to be abolished. He expected, he said, that the noble
lord would have proved that it was not contrary to these great
principles, before he had supported its continuance; but not a word had
he said to show that the basis of the resolution in these respects was
false. It followed then, he thought, that as the noble lord had not
disproved the premises; he was bound to abide by the conclusion.

The ways, he said, in which the Africans were reduced to slavery in
their own country, were by wars,--many of which were excited for the
purpose,--by the breaking up of villages, by kidnapping and by
conviction for a violation of their own laws. Of the latter class many
were accused falsely, and of crimes which did not exist. He then read a
number of extracts from the evidence examined before the privy council,
and from the histories of those, who, having lived in Africa, had thrown
light upon this subject before the question was agitated. All these, he
said, (and similar instances could be multiplied,) proved the truth of
the resolution, that the African Slave Trade was contrary to the
principles of humanity, justice, and sound policy.

It was moreover, he said, contrary to the principles of the religion we
professed. It was not sup