tainly hit upon the most solid and natural basis on which to build his future superstructure, when he proposes to commence his operations by establishing a system of property among the negroes. Independently, then, of the principles abstractedly considered, the chief questions seem to be; first, how far in a prudential point of view, it is wise in my honourable friend to bring forward the proposition he has now done, as connected with, and introductory to the final abolition of the slave trade; and secondly, what are the means by which he intends his principles to be carried into practice?

My honourable and learned friend who spoke last, seemed to consider this as a debate upon the propriety of adopting the proposition now made to the House, or of deciding for a total abolition. How happy should I feel were that actually the case, and with how little hesitation should I prefer a total abolition! I do not consider that my giving my vote one way or the other this evening, is to be considered as an instance of my receding one step from the ground which I have always taken on the question of the entire abolition of the slave trade. I have pledged myself to the House upon that point. Those honourable gentlemen who have been equally, if not more strenuous than myself in this cause, I do not presume have any intentions of abandoning it; but sure I am, that no session shall pass, while I have the honour of sitting in this House, without my exertions being employed to accelerate this desirable event. I, for one, am determined not to contribute to the increase or perpetuation of that stigma which must ever be attached to this House and to this country, while that abominable traffic is permitted to exist. If, Sir, we were at the beginning of a session, and there was any solid hope that an abolition was likely to take place, I would yield to the argument of my honourable and learned friend: but the bill introduced for that purpose has been lost. I know not exactly, if the forms of the House admit of the introduction of another, for the accomplishment of the same object; or if they did, I see no certainty of better success. When I look forward, I see little rational ground of hope, particularly when I reflect upon the characters and situation of some men who were in the minority on the late question. To say, that men of the greatest power and influence in the country, and of unquestionably great abilities, could throw little weight into the scale in the consideration of any question would indeed be ridiculous. What was actually the case? The question was introduced during the administration and with the approbation of a man, who surely had neither less influence nor less personal talents than any of his predecessors, and yet the plan has failed. If this be so, when, where, how are we to pro

cure success? The plan too, Sir, was defeated, after a solemn decision of parliament; and having disgraced themselves in this shameful manner, what right have I to hope that another occasion will soon be presented for the attainment of this desired object? What, then, does my honourable friend propose? That the House will not totally forget all those honourable, humane sentiments they have formerly uttered upon the occasion; but that if they are not inclined to fulfil all they have promised, they will at least shew a desire of doing something.

I now come to consider the nature of the means by which my honourable friend proposes to carry his proposition into execution; and upon this undoubtedly the whole difficulty rests. The right of taxation and of general legislation have, I conceive, been improperly confounded together. They are, to all intents and purposes, practically different. This dif ference was constantly acknowledged in the great question of American independence. The Americans never found fault with our legislative acts, until they involved the question of taxation. Lord Chatham, in a speech which he made in this House, and I do honour to his memory for the sentiment, said, that he rejoiced in the resistance made by America, to every attempt to tax her, for the purposes of revenue: and in the very same speech he added, (I do not say I go all that length with him,) that he nevertheless would not permit any matter of commerce to take place, not even a hob-nail to be made in America, without the sanction of the British legislature. I mention this chiefly to shew the distinction that has been made betwen legislative acts of the one kind and the other; but in the American dispute there was a difference taken, not only between acts of general legislation and of taxation, but between acts of taxation for the purposes of internal regulation, and acts of taxation for the increase of the revenue. Acts of taxation for the regulation of the Postoffice were quietly acquiesced in. It was only when we offered them the alternative to accept or refuse indiscriminately acts of every description passed by the British senate, that they discovered signs of serious resistance.

With respect to the West Indies, we have already renounced every right of taxation. My learned friend says, we have no right of this kind. So do I. But he says, that he is not ready to admit in what respects legislative acts of any other nature may be passed, and he has brought forward the case of Ireland as in point upon this question. The act passed fourteen years ago put that matter right as to Ireland. In no instance could the difference between acts of legislation and taxation be more clearly ascertained. I from this source

drew my arguments during the American war. In every case either of external or internal regulation, the Irish were perfectly submissive; but if the bare intention of raising a tax for the purpose of revenue had gone abroad, it would inevitably have produced resistance. I must confess, at the same time, that to legislate for colonies, is at no time desirable; it ought only to be done when necessity calls for it. How far is this the case at present? I do not wish, it must be observed, upon this occasion, to repeat the mere letter of the law. My learned friend, and every other professional man, would certainly tell me, that a statute that relates to any transaction as passing in Jamaica, would be as binding as if it took place in Middlesex; but I am not fond of unnecessarily exercising this legislative authority over persons not actually represented, and where the local situation is almost totally unknown. But we are at present reduced to an unfortunate dilemma, and I am obliged to put this question to myself, "Whether it be better to make use of a partial remedy which may in some respects be exceptionable, or permit the evil in its full extent to continue?" I have been accused of throwing out the threat of independence upon the subject of the West India islands. I do, in answer to that, most decidedly affirm, that if it were to become a question, whether these islands should be connected with this country, and in consequence of that connection, all the stigma attending the abominable system of slavery should be ignominiously continued, or that their complete independence should take place, I should not have one doubt on the subject. I am by no means blind to the danger of such a separation. I desire it not: but if the colonies were inclined to refuse their assent to so wise and humane a proposition as has now been made for the amelioration of the state of the slaves, I should not feel myself inclined to employ either armies or navies to reduce them to subjection, but would, in the language of a gentleman, who, though not present, I cannot name, as being a member of this House, desire them to" go and be happy in their own way," if happiness could be found by acting contrary to every principle of justice, policy, and humanity. If, however, it be acknowledged that the British parliament has the power of general legislation, and that it may in some cases of necessity be exercised, I ask, what case of greater necessity can be put, than a case which involves the character and honour of the British name? I have occasionally said, that a war to preserve our honour is the only justifiable war. Even this principle, were it necessary, I should not find myself at a loss to support; but if in any case a legislative act is demanded for the purposes of interest, policy, aggrandisement, or the increase of commerce,

are any such objects to be compared with that of removing the national dishonour, which must ever be connected with the support and continuance of this trade in any of its branches? I shall for these reasons unquestionably vote for the introduction of this bill.

Were any person to give me a reasonable ground to hope that an abolition of the slave trade would speedily take place; were it held out to me that any other step would be taken towards an amelioration of the state of the slaves in the West Indies; were I to be told that a recommendation should come from the throne to effect the desirable purpose, I might perhaps be silent upon this occasion; but let me no longer hear of expectations from the acts of colonial assemblies! When I look at the infernal code of laws under which the poor negroes languish, when I see they are not considered as men, and reflect one moment upon the penalties to which they are subjected, and the oppression under which they labour, I expect nothing from assemblies who give countenance to such proceedings.

It was urged as an argument by my learned friend, that the question of abolition to which he so heartily gives his assent, by no means involves the dispute on the right of legislation, but that every provision in that bill comes within the acknowledged authority of this House; but permit me to say, that the opposers of that bill, and some of them high in authority, constantly held out as an argument of some weight, the opinion which those immediately upon the spot in the West Indies, or immediately connected with them, might entertain upon the subject. This, therefore, is no fair ground for opposing my honourable friend's motion. As to the question of representation, the West Indies are not, properly speaking, represented in this House, nor is it practicable, perhaps, that they should be so; neither is Ireland; neither was America. As to their representation in the West Indies, it might be called a pure representation of property, in consequence of the number of blacks. But we ought, in this case, to consider the difference between a real and a virtual representation, and the proportion which, in this respect, the West Indies bear to any other instance known in this country. Were we even to bring to our recollection the time when so many Irish landholders resided in this country, and held seats in this House, and when so much land in Ireland was under mortgage in this country, yet would that bear no proportion to the power and influence of West India proprietors at the present moment. A country may, undoubtedly, be virtually represented. I do not say it is in every

instance the best mode; but standing where I now do, I must acknowledge the fact; and, surely, if any country was ever virtually represented, it is the West Indies in this House. Does not every gentleman who hears me, feel, from the fate of the bill for the abolition of the slave trade, that they are both virtually and powerfully represented in this House? In short, Sir, no case can appear to me to call in a more pressing manner upon the legislative authority of the British parliament than the present, unless we consider as nugatory all we have ever heard, either from those who promote or oppose the abolition of the slave trade. Good God! Mr. Speaker, have we come to a solemn decision upon the subject, and yet pass year after year, without taking a single measure to carry our resolutions into execution? We are guilty of hypocrisy of the basest sort. I am constrained to vote for any measure of the kind proposed, in order to prove that there is yet some sincerity left in the House of Commons.

I hoped, Sir, that my learned friend in opposing this motion, and with the anxiety he expresses for a total abolition, would have thrown out some prospect of such an event being likely to take place; but I am sorry to say, I see none such at the present period. After what took place in the year 1792, and the subsequent flagrant breach of promise that has been exhibited, all assurances coming from this House must naturally be looked upon as vain and frivolous. At the same time, I confess I even now think it would be something, were the House, during the present session, to come to some solemn resolution on the subject. I have already said, that a vote on this question must necessarily be given with some degree of difficulty; but I give mine clearly and conscientiously, because such a measure, with all the obstacles attending it, is less objectionable, and less contrary to humanity and justice, than doing nothing to alleviate those miseries which are at this moment attached to slavery in the West Indies. Were an entire abolition of the trade to be proposed in 1796, or were it now to be proposed at any fixed period, I should probably object to any regulations of an inferior nature; but the question of abolition is lost, and I have no option left. It is indeed, come to this, that the British parliament have refused to abolish the abominable traffic in human flesh, and the slaves in the islands are to be left to the humanity of the West India proprietors! If it were apparent from authentic documents that the colonial assemblies would pass those acts which humanity demands, or that an abolition of the trade would be effected by parliament, there would be no occasion for any such measure as the present; but if no such thing is