ONE:
TWO:On the whole, there was a fair amount of religious activity throughout the British islands, and as a consequence drunkenness and vulgar amusements were on the decline. Of the lights of the Establishment, Archbishop Manners Sutton was Primate until his death in 1828, when he was succeeded by the amiable Dr. Howley. Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter was undoubtedly the hardest hitter on the Episcopal bench, and zeal for the welfare of the Church was admirably represented by Bishop Blomfield of London. He was one of the most staunch supporters of King's College, and an earnest advocate of Church extension. It is hardly necessary to mention the name of the witty Canon of St. Paul's, Sydney Smith. During the earlier years of this period the tone of the Church was distinctly evangelical, but a reaction which had its origin in Oxford University had already begun, whose supporters were known as the "Tractarian party," from a series of publications, called "Tracts for the Times," written by Oxford divines, advocating patristic theology, contending for apostolic succession as necessary to the validity of the sacraments, for baptismal regeneration, and the real presence in the eucharist, condemning the Reformation as a great evil, and claiming for the Anglican Church the right to be regarded as the only true orthodox church in England. The growing strength of the party had manifested itself on the occasion of the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford in 1836. Dr. Pusey and Dr. Newman were among the most vigorous of the protesters against that unfortunate divine, against whom the charge was made that his Bampton Lectures contained doctrines which savoured of Socinianism. The outcry was great, and the Hampden controversy threatened to break up the Establishment. Lord Melbourne, however, who had recommended Dr. Hampden on the advice of Archbishop Whately and Bishop Coplestone, declined to cancel the appointment, and the excitement died away for the time, though it was renewed in a milder form when in 1847 Dr. Hampden was created Bishop of Hereford.But the great glory of this session was not the exposure of Davison and his fellow thieves, but the stop put to the operations of a much larger class of rascals. The death of Fox had been a sad blow to Wilberforce and the abolitionists, who had calculated on his carrying the prohibition of the slave trade; but Lord Grenville and his Cabinet seemed to have made up their minds to have the fame of achieving the grand object of so many years' exertion for the suppression of the African slave trade. Wilberforce, to his inconceivable joy, discovered that Spencer Perceval, the leader of the Opposition, and his party were willing to co-operate for this purpose. The king and royal family alone remained as adverse to the abolition of slavery as they were to the emancipation of the Catholics. The abolitionists, however, had so imbued the country with the sense of the barbarity and iniquity of the traffic, that royal prejudice could no longer swamp the measure, nor aristocratic apathy delay it. Lord Grenville brought in a Bill for the purpose into[532] the Peers on the 2nd of January, 1807: the 12th was fixed for the second reading. Before this took place, counsel was heard at the bar of the House against the measure, who repeated all the terrible prognostics of ruin to the West Indies and to Britain from the abolition, with which the planters and proprietors of the West Indies, the merchants and slave captains of Liverpool and Bristol, had so often endeavoured to alarm the nation. The emptiness of these bugbears had, however, been now too fully exposed to the people by the lectures, speeches, and pamphlets of the Abolition Society, and Wilberforce had all along merely to use the arguments in Parliament with which they had abundantly furnished him. Lord Grenville now introduced the second reading by an elaborate speech, in which he condensed and summed up these arguments. He was warmly supported by the Duke of Gloucestera liberal exception to his familyby Lords King, Selkirk, Rosslyn, Northesk, Holland, Suffolk, Moira, and the Bishops of Durham, London, and others. The Dukes of Clarence and Sussex as zealously opposed him, as well as Lords Sidmouth, Eldon, Ellenborough, Hawkesbury, St. Vincent, and many others. The second reading was carried, after a debate which continued till five o'clock in the morning, by one hundred against thirty-six. The third reading was also carried with equal ease, and the Bill was brought down to the Commons on the 10th of February. Lord Howick proposed its reading in an eloquent speech, and it was opposed, with the usual prediction of ruin, by Mr. George Hibbert, Captain Herbert, and General Gascoyne, who said the nation was carried away by sentimental cant, the result of an enormous agitation by the Quakers and Saints. The first reading, however, passed without a division, and the second on the 24th of February, by two hundred and eighty-three against sixteen. The House gave three cheers. Seeing the large majority, and that the Bill was safe, Lord Grenville recommended Wilberforce to strengthen it by inserting the penalties, which he did; but they left a great advantage to the slave merchants by allowing them to clear out their vessels from Great Britain by the 1st of May, and gave them time to deliver their human cargoes in the West Indies till the 1st of January, 1808a liberty which was sure to create a great sending out of vessels for the last occasion, and a fearful crowding of them. However, the accursed trade was now doomed, as far as British merchants could go, though it was soon found that it was not so easy to suppress it. When it was seen that the Bill must pass, Lords Eldon, Hawkesbury, and Castlereagh, who had hitherto opposed it, declared themselves in favour of it. It was carried in both Houses by large majorities, and received the royal sanction on the 25th of March. So easily was the Bill passed, at last, that Lord Percy, the day after it had left the Commons, moved in that House for leave to bring in a Bill for the gradual emancipation of the slaves; but this being deemed premature, and calculated to injure the operation of the Bill for the abolition of the trade, and to create dangerous excitement in the West Indies, the motion was discouraged, and so was dropped.
