o interpose, every
parliamentary delay in their power.

On the 21st of May, the subject came again before the attention of the
House. It was ushered in, as was expected, by petitions collected in the
interim, and which were expressive of the frightful consequences which
would attend the abolition of the Slave Trade. Alderman Newnham
presented one from certain merchants in London; Alderman Watson another
from certain merchants, mortgagees, and creditors of the sugar-islands;
Lord Maitland, another from the planters of Antigua; Mr. Blackburne,
another from certain manufacturers of Manchester; Mr. Gascoyne, another
from the corporation of Liverpool; and Lord Penrhyn, others from
different interested bodies in the same town.

Mr. Wilberforce then moved the order of the day for the House to go into
a committee of the whole house on the report of the privy council, and
the several matters of evidence already upon the table relative to the
Slave Trade.

Mr. Alderman Sawbridge immediately arose, and asked Mr. Wilberforce if
he meant to adduce any other evidence, besides that in the privy council
report, in behalf of his propositions, or to admit other witnesses, if
such could be found, to invalidate them. Mr. Wilberforce replied, that
he was quite satisfied with the report on the table. It would establish
all his propositions. He should call no witnesses himself; as to
permission to others to call them, that must be determined by the House.

This question and this answer gave birth immediately to great disputes
upon the subject. Aldermen Sawbridge, Newnham, and Watson; Lords Penrhyn
and Maitland; Messrs. Gascoyne, Marsham, and others, spoke against the
admission of the evidence which had been laid upon the table. They
contended that it was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that
it was _ex parte_ evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers;
that it was founded chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it
was false; that it had undergone no cross-examination; that it was
unconstitutional; and that, if they admitted it, they would establish a
dangerous precedent, and abandon their rights. It was urged on the other
hand by Mr. Courtenay, that it could not be _ex parte_ evidence, because
it contained testimony on both sides of the question. The circumstance,
also, of its being contradictory, which had been alleged against it,
proved that it was the result of an impartial examination. Mr. Fox
observed,