! several different commercial cities in the kingdom, to obtain further information, before commencing the agitation of the subject in Parliament. He likewise visited France, to secure the co-operation of the French National Assembly; but this mission was a failure. Correspondence was likewise held with friends of the cause in America, and their co-operation secured, to effect the abolition of the slave trade by our Government. The public mind was operated upon in various ways. A sentiment averse to the use of slave-grown products was cherished in the literature of the country. At one period, the school books, both of England and of the United States, abounded in expressions of this sentiment. "Three hundred thousand persons, at this period, refrained from sugar altogether, perceiving that by using it they were directly supporting the slave system they abhorred. Three hundred and ten petitions were presented from England, one hundred and eighty-seven from Scotland, and twenty from Wales.”—Stuart's Memoir, p. 51-2. Could this sentiment against the use of slave products have arisen to the dignity of a moral principle, in the minds of these philanthropists, and had it been guided by a sufficient degree of reflection and intelligence, it might have suggested the necessity of an enterprise against SLAVERY—which furnishes slave products-as well as against the slave trade. As it was, the country was extensively agitated, and a violent opposition was roused, which was continued for twenty years, led on by some of the principal men of the nation, and sustained by the entire West India interest. In the cities the opposition was violent. At Liverpool, attempts were made to throw Mr. Clarkson into the dock. In the House of Lords, the abolitionists were stigmatized by the Duke of Clarence, afterwards King William IV., "as fanatics and hypocrites, among whom he included Mr. Wilberforce, by name."* Many years afterwards, he had the honor of giving the royal assent to a bill for abolishing, not the African slave trade, but slavery itself, in the West Indies!-A more protracted or a more vio * Clarkson's History, p. 323. lent contest could hardly have been witnessed, had the effort been made against slavery itself. While the ranks of the opposition could have done nothing more, the friends of the negroes would have been doubly armed with the whole panoply of divine truth, and would have been spared those pitiful and indefensible disclaimers that so much crippled and embarrassed them, and their successors, at a later day. We must not forget to notice the important fact, that during the whole of this contest against the slave trade, as in the previous one of Granville Sharp against slavery in England, the conscience and the humanity of the country were neither counteracted nor unsustained by the religion of the country. Churches and Ministers, so far from opposing human progress and liberty, very extensively regarded it their proper business to urge them onward. The Society of Friends, having previously purged their own community, were ready to cast their influence on the right side. But the Friends were not alone. The eloquent and cele brated letter of John Wesley, on his death-bed, (1791) to William Wilberforce, is to be regarded not merely as an expression of his own personal feelings in respect to the pending contest, but as a specimen of the religious sentiment in the midst of which he was moving, and which it was the business of his life to commend and communicate to others, as belong. ing to the sanctification which fits men for heaven. In this letter the opponents of abolition are alluded to as the confederates of "devils," and American slavery is denominated "the vilest that ever saw the sun." This was Methodism, when Methodism was vitalized by the Spirit of God, and clothed with Divine power. But Baptists in England were not behind Methodists, at this period, nor have they since been. It was during the progress of this same contest, and very nearly at the same date, that "one of the ablest writers and soundest divines who have ever adorned the Baptist denomination, good old Abraham Booth," by his preaching and in his correspondence (1792) with brethren in America, bore a similar testimony. He, too, along with Grotius, and Wesley, and Edwards, and Porteus, and Macknight, and Scott, and the American Presbyterian Church, (previous to 1818), understood that modern slaveholding falls under the condemnation of "man-stealing," as prohibited by Moses, in Exodus 21: 16, and condemned by Paul in 1 Tim. 1:10. The sermon of Eld. James Dove was still earlier, (1789,) and had direct and special reference to the same great struggle, in which no good men were neutral. Not only Baptist ministers but Baptist Churches and Baptist Associations in England, came up to the work, in good earnest. The idea that the enterprise was too secular or too political for the co-operation of churches and ecclesiastical bodies, seems not to have embarrassed them.* The King directed a privy council to consider the state of "The Elders and Messengers of the several Baptist Churches meeting at Falmonth, Chasewater, Plymouth Dock, Plymouth," and (twelve other Churches) "having received letters also from Portsmouth, Sarum" (and twenty other churches -making 38 Churches in all), "being met in association at Plymouth, May 25-6, 1790, a letter received last year from Granville Sharp, Esq., was read, and a third benefaction of five guineas was voted to the treasurer of the truly noble Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, as a further testimony of our high approbation of their zealous efforts to remove so great an evil." "Northampton and other Churches in Association. "It was unanimously voted that five guineas be sent up to the treasurer of the Society for Procuring the Abolition of the Slave Trade," &c. A part of the statement speaks of "the iniquitous, disgraceful practices of slave-dealing and slaveholders." "Baptist Association, Wooten-under-edge, "June 14-15, 1791. "Voted, particularly, a fourth benefaction of five guineas to the Committee for Abolishing the Slave Trade." Similar minutes are on record of the Northamptonshire Association. York and Lancashire Association.-"The ministers, met in association at Salendine, June 15-16, 1791, send Christian salutations to the several Churches with which they are connected" (here follow their names, eighteen in number), &c. Then follows a letter from the ministers to these Churches, urging upon them renewed and continued effort in the cause of abolition, adding: "Ye friends of humanity, heaven will reward and approve your conduct." [See "Facts for Baptist Churches, by A. T. Foss and E. Mathews. Utica: Published by the American Baptist Free Mission Society," 1850-a book of 408 pages, and containing a mass of documentary information, chiefly concerning Baptists in America.] the African Slave Trade, in February, 1788. In May of the same year, the same subject of inquiry was introduced into the House of Commons, by Mr. Pitt, during the sickness of Mr. Wilberforce. The investigation was urged by Pitt, Wilberforce, Fox, and Burke, but delayed by opposition, until, in April, 1791, Mr. Wilberforce moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the further importation of slaves into the colonies. After a long debate, the motion was lost. He renewed his motion in 1792, when an amendment in favor of gradual abolition prevailed in the Commons, but was not acted upon in the House of Lords. "In 1793, Mr. Wilberforce renewed and lost his motion. In 1794, he renewed and carried it in the House of Commons, but the House of Lords rejected it. In 1795-6, the effort was renewed and negatived. In 1797, an address was carried to the king. In 1798-9, Mr. Wilberforce renewed his motion, and was defeated, but Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, in the House of Lords, nobly and effectually vindicated Scripture from the blasphemous imputation of tolerating slavery."—Stuart's Memoir, p. 54. So the argument must needs be made against slavery, though the proposition was only to abolish the traffic from Africa! And the Bible argument, from the lips of religious teachers, must needs precede legislative action. From 1799 till 1804, the agitation in Parliament was suspended; but, in the mean time, public sentiment appears to have undergone a favorable change, and in Parliament the cause was strengthened by the accession of the new representation from Ireland. "In 1804, the bill passed the Commons, but its discussion was deferred in the House of Lords. "In 1805, Wilberforce renewed his motion, but lost it. Mr. Pitt, who had thus far fostered the bill, soon after died. In 1806, a bill was introduced by Sir Arthur Piggott, to give effect to a previous proclamation of the King, restricting and crippling, in some particulars, the slave trade. This bill passed both houses, whereupon Mr. Fox moved "That the House, considering the slave trade to be contrary to the prin ciples of justice, humanity and policy, will, with all practica ble expedition, take effectual measures for its abolition.". "This was carried by a majority of 114 to 15 in the Commons, and 41 to 20 in the Lords. Mr. Fox died before the next session." "In 1807, Lord Granville brought into the House of Lords a Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade." After mature discussion, during which, counsel was heard against it, four days, the Bill was passed in the House of Lords, 100 to 36, and the House of Commons, 283 to 16. It received, almost immediately, the Royal assent. This was March 16th, 1807. The bill provided that no vessel should clear out from any British port for slaves after the 1st of May, 1807, nor land any in the colonies after the 1st of March, 1808.—Stuart's Memoir, p. 54. Clarkson's Hist. passim. Similar action was going on in the Governments of other nations, or soon followed. In the United States, a Statute of Congress, enacted in 1807, prohibited the importation of slaves, after January 1, 1808. In 1818, Congress declared the traffic to be piracy. In 1819, the President was authorized to provide for the removal of imported slaves beyond the limits of the United States. REVIEW OF THIS STRUGGLE. This memorable and protracted struggle is instructive, in many respects. Among other things, it shows how blindly public men may follow mere technicalities and precedents, and how difficult it is to overcome the prejudices associated with these, in the effort to restore the reign of impartial law. A similar struggle had resulted in the decision of Lord Mansfield in the Somerset case, in 1772. The illegality of slave holding was then fully established, under the fundamental principles of the British Constitution and Common Law, which were not then first brought into existence, but had been the same, from the beginning of the slave trade. The decision had labeled ILLEGALITY upon the whole procedure, from beginning to end, upon the slave trade as |