On the 21st of May, the subject came again before the attention of the House.  It was ushered in, as was expected, by petitions collected in the interim, and which were expressive of the frightful consequences which would attend the abolition of the Slave Trade.  Alderman Newnham presented one from certain merchants in London; Alderman Watson another from certain merchants, mortgagees, and creditors of the sugar-islands; Lord Maitland, another from the planters of Antigua; Mr. Blackburne, another from certain manufacturers of Manchester; Mr. Gascoyne, another from the corporation of Liverpool; and Lord Penrhyn, others from different interested bodies in the same town.

Mr. Wilberforce then moved the order of the day for the House to go into a committee of the whole house on the report of the privy council, and the several matters of evidence already upon the table relative to the Slave Trade.

Mr. Alderman Sawbridge immediately arose, and asked Mr. Wilberforce if he meant to adduce any other evidence, besides that in the privy council report, in behalf of his propositions, or to admit other witnesses, if such could be found, to invalidate them.  Mr. Wilberforce replied, that he was quite satisfied with the report on the table.  It would establish all his propositions.  He should call no witnesses himself; as to permission to others to call them, that must be determined by the House.

This question and this answer gave birth immediately to great disputes upon the subject.  Aldermen Sawbridge, Newnham, and Watson; Lords Penrhyn and Maitland; Messrs. Gascoyne, Marsham, and others, spoke against the admission of the evidence which had been laid upon the table.  They contended that it was insufficient, defective, and contradictory; that it was ex parte evidence; that it had been manufactured by ministers; that it was founded chiefly on hearsay, and that the greatest part of it was false; that it had undergone no cross-examination; that it was unconstitutional; and that, if they admitted it, they would establish a dangerous precedent, and abandon their rights.  It was urged on the other hand by Mr. Courtenay, that it could not be ex parte evidence, because it contained testimony on both sides of the question.  The circumstance, also, of its being contradictory, which had been alleged against it, proved that it was the result of an impartial examination.  Mr. Fox observed, that it was perfectly admissible.  He called upon those, who took the other side of the question, to say why, if it was really inadmissible, they had not opposed it at first.  It had now been a long time on the table, and no fault had been found with it.  The truth was, it did not suit them; and they were determined by a side-wind, as it were, to put an end to the inquiry.  Mr. Pitt observed, that, if parliament had previously resolved to receive no evidence on a given subject but from the privy council, such a resolution, indeed, would strike at