work, they would regard their success as entailing more true glory on their administration, and more honor and advantage on the country than any other measure in which they could be engaged.
On the 10th of June, Mr. Fox, in a speech most luminous and pathetic, followed up the victory which had been just gained, by moving a resolution "that this house, considering the African slave-trade to be contrary to the principles of humanity, justice and policy, will, with all practical expedition, take effectual measures for the abolition of it in such manner and at such a period as may be deemed most advisable." This motion produced a strong opposition, and an interesting debate. It was supported by Milbank, Francis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Wilberforce, Petty, Newport, Canning and Smith. It was carried by a majority of 114 to 15. Mr. Wilberforce directly moved an address to the king "praying him to direct a negotiation to be entered into by which foreign powers should be invited to coöperate with his majesty in measures to be adopted for the abolition of the African slave-trade." This was carried, but without a division. On the 24th June, the lords met to consider both the resolution and address. In order to create delay, a proposition was directly made that counsel and evidence should be heard. This was overruled. Lord Grenville then rose up and introduced the subject. His speech was among the masterpieces of eloquence.
Lord Grenville read the resolution of the commons. This resolution, he said, stated first, that the slave-trade was contrary to humanity, justice, and sound policy. That it was contrary to humanity, was obvious; for humanity might be said to be sympathy for the distress of others, or a desire to accomplish benevolent ends by good means. But did not the slave-trade convey ideas the very reverse of this definition? It deprived men of all those comforts in which it pleased the Creator to make the happiness of his creatures to consist, of the blessings of society, of the charities of the dear relationships of husband, wife, father, son, and kindred; of the due discharge of the relative duties of these, and of that freedom which in its pure and natural sense was one of the greatest gifts of Cod to man.
Having shown the inhumanity, he would proceed to the second point in the resolution, or the injustice of the trade. We had two ideas of justice, first, as it belonged to society by virtue of a social compact; and, secondly, as it belonged to men, not as citizens of a community, but as beings of one common nature. In a state of nature, man had a right to the fruit of his own labor absolutely to himself; and one of the main purposes for which he entered into society was, that he might be better protected in the possession of his rights. In both cases, therefore, it was manifestly unjust that a man should be made to labor during the whole of his life, and yet have no benefit from his labor. Hence, the slave-trade and the colonial slavery were a violation of the very principal upon which all law for the protection of property was founded. Whatever benefit was derived from that trade to an individual, it was derived from dishonor and dishonesty. He forced from the unhappy victim of it, that which the latter did not wish to give him; and he gave to the same victim,
