It was generally thought that the reason for this postponement, and
particularly as it was recommended by a prelate, was that the Chancellor
might have an opportunity of forwarding this humane bill. But it was
found to be quite otherwise. It appeared that the motive was, that he
might give to it, by his official appearance as the chief servant of the
crown in that house, all the opposition in his power. For when the day
arrived which had been appointed for the discussion, and when the Lords
Bathurst and Hawkesbury (afterwards Liverpool) had expressed their
opinions, which were different, relative to the time when the 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.
Pages:
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513