to expect this uniformity. So little do I disapprove of the general character of the motion, that I should have been happy to have seen it introduced as a preamble to one of the bills of military regulation, brought in by my honorable friend (Mr. Windham.) Perhaps the style adopted when the thanks of the house were voted to Sir Charles Gray and Sir John Jervis, on the 20th of May, 1794, would not be objectionable, "This house continues to retain a cordial sense of the zeal and spirit of the yeomanry and volunteers." Whatever may be the result of the proceedings of this night, I will confidently assert, that in any former period in the history of this country, there never was a body of men who deserved more the gratitude of the nation, who merited more highly its love, respect and veneration; and nothing can be more becoming the house of commons, than by a solemn act to record this effusion of public sentiment.

For the previous question 69; against it 39.

FEBRUARY 20, 1807.

WESTMINSTER ELECTION.

Mr. SHERIDAN rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the order for the appointment of a committee to consider the petition upon this subject should be discharged, with a view to move for the further postponement. The right honorable gentleman was so much of opinion, from what had passed when last this question was before the house, that a motion for further postponement would be immediately assented to if required, that he confessed he heard with considerable surprise of the intention to oppose the motion, particularly on the part of the noble lord (Folkstone), by whom a similar proposition was last submitted to the house. Had he happened to have stood in the predicament of being

unable to bring forward such a motion, he really thought that the noble lord would have been ready to propose it himself: at least he felt that he would be warranted, from the noble lord's former language and conduct, in relying upon his readiness to second him in this proposition. Of the grounds of this reliance, and the justice of his opinion, the house would be able to judge from a short review of the history of the case. When the petition before the house was presented, which was about the 23d of December, the first or second day after any petitions could be received, the noble lord announced the desire of the petitioners that the earliest day possible should be appointed for the ballot, and that they were ready at once to go before a committee. Accordingly the 30th of January was appointed: but, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble lord, and the publicly proclaimed resolution of the petitioners, he received, not many days afterwards, a note from the noble lord, stating, that it was thought a mistake he presented the petition so soon, and that the parties were not ready to go into the investigation on the day originally appointed. The noble lord, therefore, requested his consent to a further postponement, as a matter of personal accommodation to himself, and a matter of justice towards the petitioners, who would otherwise suffer through his error. Having had an acquaintance with the noble lord, he was certainly disposed to accommodate him, but yet he felt himself bound, before he complied with the noble lord's request, to consult the opinion of his friends, and they decidedly objected to the delay required. However, when he came down to the house upon the day appointed for the motion, the noble lord applied to him again; and again asking his consent to the motion as a personal favor, he did grant it. So far as he had gone, he believed the noble lord could not say, that what he had stated was not strictly true. But as to the conversation which took place the day the noble lord's

motion of postponement was agreed to, he held in his hand a document which contained it. He knew that he could not distinctly allude to the evidence he had adduced, because, according to the orders of that house, strangers were understood to be excluded. But somehow a memorandum of what was said on the day alluded to, did find its way into print, and certainly it was detailed with considerable accuracy. In looking over this memorandum, it would be seen that all the arguments advanced by the noble lord made against his motion, and of course it was a very natural inference that the motion owed its success to something else. That something was his concurrence and he recollected very well, as it appeared from this memorandum, that he mentioned at the time of his apprehension that the 24th of February would go too near the circuits, which would render a farther postponement necessary, as his counsel would be out of town. Such was his statement then, and it was only upon the express condition that farther delay would be acceded to if necessary, that he gave his assent to the noble lord's motion. This he could aver from his own memory, but there were not less than twenty or thirty gentlemen present, who also heard the noble lord, and who could bear testimony to the noble lord's observation. The noble lord did state upon that occasion, that when he mentioned the 24th of February, he was not aware that the circuits were so near, and that if that day should in consequence become inconvenient, there could be no objection to a farther postponement. This declaration the noble lord was understood to have made by several friends near him. The house, he had no doubt, would agree with him in thinking, that when the petitioners urged the noble lord to move for the former postponement, on the ground that they did not wish for the trial on an early day, that the noble lord was not aware of the resolution relative to a speedy trial, which these petitioners had just before published,

and in all probability the noble lord was equally unaware of this circumstance, that the counsel for the petitioners did not go any circuit, while those retained on his part did. But of this the petitioners were fully apprised, and they would fain urge him to trial without the advantage of his counsel It might be asked, why he did not make this proposition of postponement somewhat sooner. He would candidly answer, because, as he stated before, when this subject was under consideration, he really did not think the petition would be persisted in, but from what he had heard of their proceedings within the last few weeks, he was led to believe that his opponents were much more sanguine, even than he suspected, and that they were resolved to persevere. Upon the whole, however, the right honorable gentleman could not persuade himself to suppose that that house would call on any gentleman to enter upon such an important investigation stripped of the aid of his counsel; and he could not help observing that the attempt to take advantage of him in this instance, was not a very liberal return for the manner in which he gave way to the noble lord's motion upon a former occasion." But his manner of acting

towards the noble lord and his friends in this transaction was, that which perhaps few men would be ready to imitate.

Ayes 162; noes 12.

MARCH 17.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

Lord Percy moved for leave to bring in a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the West Indies.

Mr. SHERIDAN having anxiously expected that the bill passed the preceding night was the preamble of the ultimate measure of emancipation, thought that he should be guilty of the grossest inconsistency in giving a silent vote on the present question. With these sentiments he need scarcely say, that

views;

the noble earl had his thanks for having directed the attention of the house to this important subject, even at that early period. The noble earl's statement had been misrepresented. He had never proposed to enfranchise the living negroes; his measure, as he understood him, was to commence with infants born after a period, which would remain a matter of future parliamentary discussion. The planters were entitled to fair dealing on this subject. If the house meant to say, that by abolishing the slave trade they had done all that duty demanded, and that they would leave the emancipation of the slaves to the hazard of fortuitous circumstances, let them be explicit, and say so; but if there lurked in any man's mind a secret desire to proceed in that business, a secret conviction that more ought to be done than had been done, it was unmanly, it was dishonorable, not to speak out. For one he would boldly declare that he had further he hoped that the young nobleman who had done his feelings so much credit, by the proposition which he had that evening made, would stand to his ground, If he persevered in the pursuit of his object with the same zeal as his right honorable friend opposite had done, he had no doubt that he would meet with the same success, An honorable baronet had talked of a cloven foot; he pleaded guilty to the cloven foot, but he would say that of the man who expressed pleasure at the hope of seeing so large a portion of the human race freed from the shackles of tyranny; it ought rather to be said, that he had displayed the pennon of an angel than the cloven foot of a demon. It was true no immediate connection existed between the abolition of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery, but the same feelings must be roused by the consideration of both questions; and he who detested the one practice must also detest the other. He did not like to hear the term property applied to the subjects of a free country. Could man become the property of man?