e bill should take place, he rose
up, and pronounced a bitter and vehement oration against it. He said, among
other things, that it was full of inconsistency and nonsense from the
beginning to the end. The French had lately offered large premiums for the
encouragement of this trade. They were a politic people, and the
presumption was, that we were doing politically wrong by abandoning it. The
bill ought not to have been brought forward in this session. The
introduction of it was a direct violation of the faith of the other house.
It was unjust, when an assurance had been given that the question should
not be agitated till next year, that this sudden fit of philanthropy, which
was but a few days old, should be allowed to disturb the public mind, and
to become the occasion of bringing men to the metropolis with tears in
their eyes and horror in their countenances, to deprecate the ruin of their
property, which they had embarked on the faith of parliament.

The extraordinary part, which the Lord Chancellor Thurlow took upon this
occasion, was ascribed at the time by many, who moved in the higher
circles, to a shyness or misunderstanding, which had taken place between
him and Mr. Pitt on other matters; when, believing this bill to have been a
favourite measure with the latter, he determined to oppose it. But,
whatever were his motives (and let us hope that he could never have been
actuated by so malignant a spirit as that of sacrificing the happiness of
forty thousand persons for the next year to spite the gratification of an
individual), his opposition had a mischievous effect, on account of the
high situation in which he stood. For he not only influenced some of the
Lords themselves, but, by taking the cause of the slave-merchants so
conspicuously under his wing, he gave them boldness to look up again under
the stigma of their iniquitous calling, and courage even to resume vigorous
operations after their disgraceful defeat. Hence arose those obstacles,
which will be found to have been thrown in the way of the passing of the
bill from this period.

Among the Lords, who are to be particularly noticed as having taken the
same side as the Lord Chancellor in this debate, were the Duke of Chandos
and the Earl of Sandwich. The former foresaw nothing but insurrections of
the slaves in our islands, and the massacre of their masters there, in
consequence of the agitation of this question. The latter expected nothing
less than the r