would reflect the greatest dishonour on the British
senate and the British nation. He therefore hoped that the house, being now
in possession of such information as never hitherto had been brought before
them, would in some measure endeavour to extricate themselves from that
guilt, and from that remorse, which every one of them ought to feel for
having suffered such monstrous cruelties to be practised upon an helpless
and unoffending part of the human race.

Mr. Martin complimented Mr. Pitt in terms of the warmest panegyric on his
noble sentiments, declaring that they reflected the greatest honour upon
him both as an Englishman and as a man.

Soon after this the house divided upon the motion of Sir William Dolben.
Fifty-six appeared to be in favour of it, and only five against it. The
latter consisted of the two members for Liverpool and three other
interested persons. This was the first division which ever took place on
this important subject. The other blanks were then filled up, and the bill
was passed without further delay.

The next day, or on the eighteenth of June, it was carried up to the House
of Lords. The slave-merchants of London, Liverpool, and Bristol,
immediately presented petitions against it, as they had done in the lower
house. They prayed that counsel might open their case; and though they had
been driven from the commons, on account of their evidence, with disgrace,
they had the effrontery to ask that they might call witnesses here also.

Counsel and evidence having been respectively heard, the bill was ordered
to be committed the next day. The Lords attended according to summons. But
on a motion by Dr. Warren, the bishop of Bangor, who stated that the Lord
Chancellor Thurlow was much indisposed, and that he wished to be present
when the question was discussed, the commitee was postponed.

It was generally thought that the reason for this postponement, and
particularly as it was recommended by a prelate, was, that the Chancellor
might have an opportunity of forwarding this humane bill. But it was found
to be quite otherwise. It appeared that the motive was, that he might give
to it, by his official appearance as the chief servant of the crown in that
house, all the opposition in his power. For when the day arrived, which had
been appointed for the discussion, and when the Lords Bathurst and
Hawkesbury (now Liverpool) had expressed their opinions, which were
different, relative to the time when th