they did with so much earnestness and activity, that by the latter end of the month of March, 1792, no less than 517 petitions, including several from whole counties, were laid on the table of the house of commons, praying for the total abolition of the slave-trade. Emboldened and supported in this manner by the voice of the people, Mr. Wilberforce introduced the question again into the commons. This was on the 2d of April. After a speech of four hours, during which he added a profusion of new light to the subject, and during which he endeavoured, in the most mild and persuasive manner, to do away objections and prejudices, he moved, that it is the opinion of this house that the African slave-trade ought to be abolished.' This led to a very long and uncommonly interesting debate. Never, certainly, in the house of commons, and never probably in any other place, was so much splendid oratory displayed, as on that night, on the side of the abolition of the slave-trade. It appeared, in the course of the debate, to be the sense of the house that some sort of abolition should take place. Two divisions took place. In the first there were 193 votes for gradual abolition, and 125 for immediate; and, in the second, there were 230 for gradual, and eightyfive for no abolition at all. In this state the question was left till the 23d of April, when Mr. Dundas (afterwards lord Melville) came forward and proposed a plan conformable with the resolutions of the house just mentioned. The outlines of it, however, were opposed by Messrs. Pitt, Fox, and Wilberforce, not only as being very defective, but as built upon false data. The business was accordingly adjourned to the 25th. On that day Mr. Dundas brought forward the subject again. He considered that eight years ought to be allowed the planters to stock themselves with negroes, and therefore moved that the year 1800 should be the epoch, after which no more slaves should be imported from Africa in British vessels to the West Indies. Lord Mornington (now marquis Wellesley), in a most brilliant speech, moved an amendment, which was, that the year 1793 should be substituted for that of 1800. There appeared on a division to be 158 for Mr. Dundas's motion, and 109 for the amendment. On the 27th of April the subject was resumed in the house. Mr. Dundas proposed the year 1800, as before, and lord Mornington the year 1795. His lordship's motion was again lost, but by a less majority than on the former occasion, viz. by 161 to 121, when Sir Edward Knatchbull struck out a middle line, by proposing the year 1796, which motion was carried by a majority of 151 to 132. The gradual abolition having been thus agreed upon for 1796, a committee of the commons carried the resolution to the lords. On the 8th of May the lords met to consider it, when, cruel to relate, a motion was made by lord Stormont, on the part of the planters, merchants, and other interested persons, to hear new evidence. This, after some little opposition, was acceded to. On the 15th of May the first witness on this side of the question was introduced; and on the 5th of June, when only seven witnesses had been examined on the same

side, all further examination was postponed to the next session.

Nothing could be more distressing to the abolitionists than this determination of the lords; first, because there was no saying how many, even years, the hearing of evidence there might take; and, secondly, because they (the abolitionists) had the laborious work to do over again, of finding out and keeping up a respectable body of witnesses on their own side of the question. This latter work was essentially necessary; for it was impossible to allow the persons interested to throw in a weight of testimony for the furtherance of their own cause, and not to take means to counteract it. Mr. Clarkson, therefore, set out again in the month of July, on his old errand. Dr. Dickson, the gentleman before-mentioned, left London about the same time, in order to assist him. He was to take a different route, which had been before settled. They were very successful in their respective journeys, and both returned in the month of February, 1793. The house of commons was then sitting. The only step to be taken there (but this was essentially necessary) was to bring before it, in some part or other of the session, its own vote of the former year, by which the slave-trade was to be abolished in 1796, in order that this vote might be reconsidered and renewed. Accordingly Mr. Wilberforce moved the house upon the subject. It is only necessary to state that his motion was most furiously opposed, and actually lost by a majority of sixty-one to fifty-three. By this determination the commons actually refused to sanction their own vote. In this distressing situation Mr. Wilberforce scarcely knew what to do. He was not, however, to be dismayed by one unexpected defeat. He resolved, therefore, that he would not allow the session to pass without trying the question in some other shape. Accordingly, in the month of May, he moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish that part of the trade by which the British merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. His motion was carried, but only by a majority of seven; and, alas! on the third reading, it was lost by a majority of thirty-one to twenty-nine! During all this time the examination of witnesses had been going on in the house of Lords. Only seven witnesses, however, had been heard there in the course of the whole session. After this session the abolitionists were at a loss how to act for the advantage of their cause. One measure, however, was obviously necessary, viz. to endeavour to keep up a respectable body of evidence to oppose that which should be heard against the abolition in the lords.

For this purpose Mr. Clarkson, at the request of the committee, once more traversed the kingdom. He began his journey in September, and returned in February, 1794. Mr. Wilberforce, in the interim, moved in the commons for leave to renew his former bill for the abolition of the foreign slave trade, as carried on by British subjects. He carried it, though with great difficulty, in all its stages, through the house of commons; but it was almost directly lost in the house of lords. In this latter house only two evidences

tion.

had been examined in the course of the session. At this time Mr. Clarkson was in such a wretched state of health as to be unable to lend any farther assistance to the committee. The incessant labor of body and mind for so many years, aggravated by anxiety and disappointments, had made a very serious inroad upon his constituHis nervous system had been literally shattered to pieces; his hearing, memory, and voice, were 'nearly gone. He was, in short, utterly incapable of any farther exertion; and he was therefore obliged, though very reluctantly, to be borne out of the field, where he had placed the great honor and glory of his life. The question was now in a very desperate state; for if the house of commons would not renew its own resolution, and if the lords would not abolish even the foreign part of the slave-trade, what hope was there of success? But neither, however, were Mr. Wilberforce nor the committee to be deterred by the prospect. They determined never to abandon the cause. Accordingly Mr. Wilberforce moved in the commons, in the session of 1795, for leave to bring in a bill for the abolition of the slave-trade. This motion was now necessary, and justifiable on that account, if the trade, according to a former resolution of that house, was to cease in 1796; but it was lost by a small majority.

In the session of 1796 Mr. Wilberforce resolved upon trying the question again, but in an entirely new form. He moved that the slavetrade be abolished in a limited time, but without assigning to its duration any specific date. He wished the house to agree to this as a general principle. After much opposition the principle was acknowledged; but when, in consequence of this acknowledgment of it, he brought in a bill, and attempted to introduce into one of the clauses the year 1797, as the period when the trade should cease, he lost it by a majority of seventy-four to seventy. He judged it prudent, after mature consideration, to let the session of 1797 pass without any parliamentary notice of the subject; but in that of 1798 he renewed his motion for abolition in a limited time. This, however, met with the same fate as the former.

In 1799 he tried the same motion again, when there appeared for it seventy-four, and against it eighty-two votes. He determined, however, that the remainder of the session should not pass without an effort to obtain something, if it were only a small part, of what belonged to the cause. Accordingly his estimable friend, Mr. Henry Thornton, lately deceased, brought in a bill, at his request, to abolish a very small part of the slave-trade. It may be remembered that a colony had been established at Sierra Leona, to promote agriculture and a new species of commerce in its neighbourhood. Now, while the slave-trade was carried on all around it, it was found that these objects could be but little advanced. The bill, therefore, of Mr. Thornton, went only so far as to say that the slave-trade should not be carried on within a certain distance of that colony. This bill was carried through the commons, but though it only asked that an infant establishment, founded on the principles of liberty, and this by parliamentary

sanction, should be protected from the ravages of the slave-trade, it was lost in the house of lords. This latter circumstance was indeed truly disheartening; yet, amidst the clouds which darkened the horizon, one gleam of hope appeared; for the question had been so argued, so sifted, and put into such various lights, that it began now to be understood. The consequence was that conviction flashed upon many, among whom were three planters, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Barham, and Mr. Vaughan. These gentlemen had the candor to rise up in the house of commons, and express themselves in favor of the abolition in one of the last debates.

The question had been now tried and lost in almost every possible shape; Mr. Wilberforce and the committee seemed to have but two alternatives of choice left them, either to persevere against all hope, or to hold themselves in readiness to seize the first favorable opportunity which should present itself fon furthering the cause. It was determined to adopt the latter, and by no means to let the question degenerate into a mere annual motion of form. It was thought proper also, as several members of the house of commons were changing their opinions on the subject, to give others time to digest the powerful eloquence which had been expended upon it. Mr. Wilberforce, therefore, suffered the years 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803, to pass over without noticing it. In 1804, however, he resolved to renew his exertions. The committee resolved to second them, and immediately increased its number, that it might act with extraordinary vigor. The circumstance which marked this year in particular as favorable for another trial was the union with Ireland, in consequence of which a great number of Irish members, generous, and open-hearted, and in general friends to the poor negroes, were added to the British parliament. Mr. Wilberforce, therefore, under these circumstances, asked leave to renew his bill for the abolition of the slave trade within a limited time. This motion was as violently opposed as any of the former, but was carried at length in a very handsome manner: no less than 124 divided in favor of it, and but forty-nine against it. The bill was opposed in its second reading, for which however there were 100, and against it but fortytwo. When a motion was made for going into a committee it was opposed, but carried by seventy-nine to twenty. The bill also was opposed in its last stage, but carried by a majority of sixty-nine to thirty-six. It was taken up to the lords, but on a motion by lord Hawkesbury (afterwards lord Liverpool) the discussion there was put off till the next session.

In 1805 Mr. Wilberforce renewed his former motion. Leave was at length given him to bring in the bill, but not till after a most furious opposition. On the second reading of it the opposition increased, and an amendment was proposed, viz. to put it off to that day six months. This amendment was actually carried by a majority of seventy-seven to seventy. This defeat occasioned the abolitionists the severest disappointment. The committee instantly met, when sorrow was seen in the countenances of all present. Their first object was to endeavour to de

velope the causes of the miscarriage now mentioned. It appeared clearly, after the most minute examination, that these were accidental, The committee, therefore, resolved upon renewing the contest with redoubled vigor the ensuing year. Just at this moment who should join them but Mr. Clarkson! Eight years' retirement had nearly restored him, and the first moment he found himself able to embark again in the cause, he returned to his post. As it then seemed probable that the question would be carried the next year through the commons, and, if so, that it would go to the lords, and that the lords would probably require farther evidence, it was judged proper that evidence should be prepared. But, alas! the noble band of witnesses which had been last collected, had been broken by death and dispersion, and a new one was to be formed. Herculean task! Tremendous, however, as it was, Mr. Clarkson undertook it. He left London in two or three days afterwards, and returned in January 1806, after having travelled in pursuit of his object above 5000 miles. In this month died Mr. Pitt, who was then prime minister, and who had been one of the great supporters of the cause.

This great question was once more ushered into parliament on the 31st of March, 1806, under new auspices, namely, under the administration of lord Grenville and Mr. Fox. It was thought proper that Mr. Wilberforce should be as it were in the back-ground on this occasion, and that the attorney-general should introduce it. The latter accordingly brought in a bill, one of the objects of which was to prohibit British merchants and British capital from being employed in the foreign slave trade. This bill passed both houses of parliament, and was therefore the first that dismembered this cruel traffic. In the debate which ensued upon it, it was declared in substance, both by lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, in their respective houses, that they would do every thing to effect the abolition, and, should they succeed in such a noble 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. Conformably with this sentiment, Mr. Fox himself, on the 10th of June, 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 an opposition as before, and an interesting debate. It was supported by Sir Ralph Milbank, Mr. Francis, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Wilberforce, lord Henry Petty (now marquis of Lansdown), Sir John Newport, Mr. Canning, and Mr. William Smith. It was carried by a majority of 114 to fifteen. Mr. Wilberforce directly moved an address to his majesty, praying him to direct a negociation to be entered into, by which foreign powers should be invited to co-operate with his majesty, in measures to be adopted for the abo

lition of the African slave trade.' 'This was also carried, but without a division. On the 24th of June, the lords met to consider both the resolution and address. A proposition was directly made in that house (in order to create delay), that counsel and evidence should be heard. This, however, was happily over-ruled. Lord Grenville then rose up and introduced the subject. His speech was among the master-pieces of eloquence. He was supported in the debate, which followed, by the lord chancellor (Erskine), the bishop of London (Dr. Porteus), the bishop of St. Asaph (Dr. Horsley), earl Grosvenor, earl Stanhope, earl Spencer, earl of Suffolk, and the lords Holland and Ellenborough. The resolution and address were at length both carried, by a majority of forty-one to twenty. After this a belief was generally prevalent that the slave trade would fall in the next session. This occasioned a fear in the abolitionists, lest it should be carried on in the interim, being as it were the last harvest of the merchants, to a tenfold extent, and therefore with tenfold murder and desolation to Africa. It was therefore thought necessary, as the session was about to close, to introduce another bill into parliament, and this as quickly as possible, that no new vessel should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa for slaves. Accordingly a bill to that effect was prepared, and it passed both houses. In the month of October following, after these great and decisive victories, died the right honorable Charles James Fox, one of the noblest champions of this noble cause. He had lived just to put it into a train for final triumph. This triumph, however, he enjoyed in anticipation. The prospect of it soothed his pains, and cheered his spirit in the hours of his sickness. At this melancholy season it became with him a frequent topic of conversation, and the hope of it was perceived to quiver on his lips, in one of the last moments of his life.

The session of 1807 had scarcely commenced when the contest was renewed. Lord Grenville judged it expedient, at this crisis, to reverse what had been hitherto the order of proceeding, that is, to agitate the question first in the house of lords. On the 2d of January he presented a bill there, which he called an act for the abolition of the African slave-trade. It was very short; he proposed that it should be printed, and that it should then lie on the table for a while, that it might be maturely considered before it was discussed. On the 4th no less than four counsel were heard against it. On the 5th the debate commenced. Lord Grenville took a brilliant part in it. He was supported by his highness the duke of Gloucester, the bishop of Durham (Dr. Barrington), the earls Moira, Selkirk, and Rosslyn, and the lords Holland, King, and Hood. The bill was at length carried, at four in the morning, by a majority of 100 to 36. On the 10th of February it went to the commons. On the 20th counsel were heard against it there. On the 23rd a debate ensued upon it, on the motion of lord viscount Howick (formerly Mr. Grey, and now lord Grey), who urged the commons to confirm it. The other speakers in favor of it were Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Fawkes, Mr. Lushington, the lords Mahon and Milton, Sir

Samuel Romilly, Sir John Doyle, Mr. Wilber force, and earl Percy; and it was carried by the vast majority of 283 to 16. On the 6th of March the blanks were filled up. It was proposed first that no vessel should clear out for slaves from any port within the British dominions after the 1st of May following, that is, 1807, and that no slave should be landed in the British colonies after the 1st of March 1808. This and almost every other proposition were opposed, but happily without effect. Suffice it to say, that on the 18th, the bill, with the blanks filled up, was carried back to the lords; that in consequence of various amendments, it passed and repassed from one house to the other, but always with opposition; that on the 24th it passed both houses; and that on the 25th, at half past eleven in the morning, it received the royal assent, and the joy it occasioned to the friends of humanity throughout the kingdom was farther heightened by authentic news, just then received from North America, that the government of the United States had passed a similar

bill.

In France, on the re-establishment of the Bourbons, it was proposed to abolish the slavetrade at a distant period. Upon the return of Buonaparte from Elba, however, an order was issued for its immediate abolition; and a decree to the same purpose passed since the expulsion of Napoleon.

SLAV'ER, n. s., v. n. & v. a. Isl. slæfa; Lat. saliva. Spittle running from the mouth; drivel: to be smeared with or emit spittle: to smear with spittle.

Miso came with scowling eyes to deliver a slavering good-morrow to the two ladies. Sidney. Should I

Slaver with lips as common as the stairs That mount the capitol; join gripes with hands Made hard with hourly falschood as with labour. Shakspeare. Mathiolus hath a passage, that a toad communicates its venom not only by urine, but by the humidity and slaver of its mouth, which will not consist with truth. Browne.

Twitched by the slave, he mouths it more and

SLAVERY is a word of which, though generally understood, it is not easy to give a proper definition. An excellent moral writer has defined it to be an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant.' But, may not he be properly called a slave who has given up his freedom to discharge a debt which he could not otherwise pay, or who has thrown it away at a game at hazard? In many nations debts have been legally discharged in this manner; and, among the ancient Germans, such was the universal ardor for gaming, that it was no uncommon thing for a man, after having lost at play all his other property, to stake, on a single throw of dice, himself, his wife, and his children.-Tac. de Mor. Germ. That persons

who have thus lost their liberty are slaves, will ́ hardly be denied; and surely the infatuated gamester is a slave by his own contract. The debtor, too, if he was aware of the law, and contracted debts larger than he could reasonably expect to be able to pay, may justly be considered as having come under an obligation to labor for the benefit of a master with his own consent; for every man is answerable for all the known consequences of his voluntary actions. This definition of slavery seems to be defective as well as inaccurate. A man may be under an obligation to labor through life for the benefit of a master, and yet that master have no right to dispose of him by sale, or in any other way to make him the property of a third person; but the word slave, as used among us, always denotes a person who may be bought and sold like a beast in the market. Cicero defines slavery to be the obedience of a degraded and abject mind, which has no will of its own.' In its original sense, indeed, the word slave was of the same import with noble, illustrious; but vast numbers of the people called Slavi, among whom it had that signification, being, in the decline of the Roman empire, sold by their countrymen to the Venetians, and by them dispersed over all Europe, the word slave came to denote a person in the lowest state of servitude, who was considered as the absolute property of his master.

As nothing can be more evident than that all men have, by the law of nature, an equal right to life, liberty, the produce of their own labor, and the property of their own persons, it is not easy to conceive what can have first led one part of them to imagine that they had a right to enslave another. Inequalities of rank are indeed inevitable in civil society; and from them results that servitude which is founded in contract, and is of temporary duration. He who has much property has many things to attend to, and must be disposed to hire persons to assist and serve him; while those who have little or no property must be equally willing to be hired for that purpose. And, if the master be kind, and the servant faithful, they will both be happier in this connexion than they could have been out of it. But, from a state of servitude, where the slave is at the absolute disposal of his master in all things, and may be transferred without his own consent from one proprietor to another, like an ox or an ass, happiness must be for ever banished. How then came a traffic so unnatural and unjust as that of slaves to be originally introduced into the world? The common answer to this question is, that it took its rise among savages, who, in their frequent wars with each other, either massacred their captives in cold blood, or condemned them to perpetual slavery. In support of this opinion it is urged that the Latin word servus, which signifies not a hired servant, but a slave, is derived from servare, to preserve; and that such men were called servi, because they were captives whose lives were preserved on the condition of their becoming the property of the victor. That slavery had its origin from war we think extremely probable; nor are we inclined to controvert this etymology of the word servus; but the traffic in men prevailed almost universally long