of the slave-trade, though he differed with Mr. Wilberforce as to the mode of effecting it.
The abolitionists, and those on the opposite side of the question, had, both of them, gone into extremes. The former were for the immediate and abrupt annihilation of the trade. The latter considered it as essentially necessary to the existence of the West Indian islands, and therefore laid it down that it was to be continued forever. Such was the vast distance between the parties.
He would say that he agreed with his honorable friend, Mr. Wilberforce, in very material points He believed the trade was not founded in policy; that the continuation of it was not essential to the preservation of our trade with the West Indian islands; and that the slaves were not only to be maintained, but increased there by natural population. He agreed, too, as to the propriety of the abolition. But when his honorable friend talked of direct and abrupt abolition, he would submit it to him, whether he did not run counter to the prejudices of those who were most deeply interested in the question; and whether, if he could obtain his object without wounding these, it would not be Detter to do it? Did he not also forget the sacred attention which parliament had ever shown to the private interests and patrimonial rights of individuals?
Mr. Addington (the speaker) professed himself to be one of those moderate persons alluded to by Mr. Dundas. He wished to see some middle measure suggested. The fear of doing injury to the property of others had hitherto prevented him from giving an opinion against the system, the continuance of which he could not countenance.
Mr. Fox said that after what had fallen from the two last speakers, he could remain no longer silent. Something so mischievous had come out, and something so like a foundation had been laid for preserving, not only for years to come, but forever, this detestable traffic, that he should feel himself wanting in his duty, if ho were not to deprecate all such deceptions and delusions upon the country.
The honorable gentlemen had called themselves moderate men; but upon this subject he neither felt, nor desired to feel, anything like a sentiment of moderation. Their speeches had reminded him of a passage in Middleton's Life of Cicero. The translation of it was defective, though it would equally suit his purpose. He says: "To enter into a man's house and kill him, his wife and family, in the night, is certainly a most heinous crime, and deserving of death; but to break open his house, to murder him, his wife, and all his children, in the night, may be still right, provided it be done with moderation." Now, was there any thing more absurd in this passage, than to say that the slave-trade might be earned on with moderation; for, if yon could not rob or murder a single man with moderation, with what moderation could you pillage and wound a whole nation? In fact, the question of the abolition was simply a question of justice. It was only whether we should authorize by law, respecting Africa, the commission of crimes for which, in this country, we should forfeit our lives; notwithstanding which, it was to be treated, in the opinion of these honorable gentlemen, with moderation.
