enough in his notions of government to dread a standing army, and to think that the conduct of it could not be watched with too much caution. He did not clearly understand the argument of the noble lord near him (Beauchamp), who seemed to say, that the standing army of Louis XIV. was the ground of our ancient jealousy of a standing army, and that as France had now an army of another kind, of which she was not jealous, we, as matter of ton, should be no longer jealous of ours. Wishing always to speak with the utmost respect of his majesty, and applying his censure of measures only to his ministers, he would not pay him so absurd a compliment as to say, that the constitution was more secure under him than under his two august progenitors. What motive could then be assigned for being less jealous of a standing army now, than in former reigns? Looking back to the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole as a minister, whatever might be his faults, no man would now accuse him of having ever entertained the thought of trenching on the constitution by means of the army; yet the utmost jealousy of a standing army had subsisted during his administration. Were our present ministers more constitutional than the ministers of those times? Were they more to be relied upon than the men who had a principal share in settling the constitution at the Revolution, and were consequently attached to it from opinion, from honour, and from affection? Were they fitter to be trusted than some of the noble lord's ancestors, who made part of the administration at the period alluded to? Had he in his new zeal to support them, discovered that the manner in which they came into power was better, or their respect for the opinion of the House of Commons greater? He could discover no ground for the noble lord's giving to the present ministers a superior degree of confidence, unless, perhaps, that hope was a stronger principle than gratitude. While we professed to adhere to the constitution, as transmitted to us by our ancestors, we ought also to adhere to the maxims on which they exercised it, one of which was, never to allow the army to become a distinct set of men from the mass of the people, by being separated from the people in barracks.

Next came the argument, that the measures of ministers were not to be questioned, because we are at war. Mr. Pulteney he had never considered as his political model, although he had done on the present occasion what Mr. Pulteney did on the declaration of war against Spain-given his suppor to government in the measures necessary for carrying on the war. But, did Mr. Pulteney, when he made that declaration, tie himself up from inquiring into the particular acts of ministers? So far from it, that whoever would take the

trouble of looking into the journals, would see that the opposition of that time, with more industry and much more success than the present opposition, had brought forward motions of censure on the minister, and divided the House on them. They said then, as he and his friends said now, "We will support the minister against the foreign enemy, but we will not support him against Great Britain." This erecting of barracks was not a measure of war, but a measure of peace, for it was undertaken before ministers began to talk of war, and it effected this country and no other. From the whole of their conduct there was at least as good ground to suspect them of improper designs as any that the honourable general had mentioned for suspecting him, and those who acted with him. In one point he differed from his honourable friend who made the motion. When the When the money for the expence of these barracks came to be voted, he should oppose it. He knew he should be told, that the expence was already incurred, and that it would be hard to refuse payment to men who had given their property or their labour on the faith of administration. This was a difficulty which the practice of ministers, in incurring expences without the sanction of parliament, rendered frequent; but difficult and ungracious as it was to refuse to pay, he would prefer doing that to betraying the constitution. If they felt any respect for the Commons, if any for the people whom they represented, they would take care that the people should be free, not in form but in substance, and that such innovations on their ancient maxims, or, if they chose to call them so, their ancient prejudices, were not attempted till their representatives were consulted. He wished not to revive the subjects which the House had already debated; but surely, if the whole country had been alarmed on points still disputable, it was not being too delicate to feel alarm on such a measure as that now in debate, unless they could persuade themselves that a seditious pamphlet was pregnant with every possible danger, but a standing army perfectly harmless. He knew not whether the House had lost its former jealousy of a standing army; he knew not whether the people had lost theirs; but if they had, it was the duty of their representatives to endeavour to revive it; and he should therefore vote for the motion.

The motion was negatived without a division.

MR.

ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.

February 26.

R. WILBERFORCE moved, this day, "That the House will, upon Thursday next, resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the circumstances of the African slave trade." Upon this, an amendment was moved by Sir William Young, to leave out the words " Thursday next," and to insert the words "this day six months," instead thereof. The amendment was supported by Mr. Buxton, Mr. Cawthorne, Mr. Dent, Lord Sheffield, and Mr. Gascoyne; and opposed by Mr. M. Montagu, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Pitt.

Mr. Fox observed, that the question was, whether that House would now proceed, or at once lay it down as a rule that they would do nothing whatever upon the subject this session, although, after a long discussion, deliberate resolutions had been entered into during the last; although the subject had been in agitation for between five and six years; and although they had from that time gone on year after year, and had, as was natural in the cause of justice, reason, and humanity, arrived by discussion nearer and nearer to the point of truth, and from step to step advanced, until at last they came to a determination, that the slave trade from Africa to our colonies and plantations should cease on the 1st of January 1796. That was the object now before the House. He then called the recollection of the House to the circumstances of the present question, and dismissed all the arguments that had that evening been brought forward on the hardships to which the planters would be exposed on the revival of these resolutions, by observing, that on the bringing forward of the bill by an honourable baronet, (Sir William Dolben,) for the regulation of the middle passage, these gentlemen and their advocates cried out, that if this bill passed, the trade would be ruined. Had that been true, the House would not be debating the subject now before them; as little reliance had the House on the suggestions of these gentlemen with respect to the dangers to the trade from the resolutions of last year; and the question was, whether the House would or would not go into a committee on Thursday upon this subject?

It was said that the abolition should be with the concurrence of the legislative body of our colonies, before it could be effectual. Upon what principle it was that we were to

anticipate their refusing to concur with us, he knew not; nor, if we had no influence whatever over them, and they were determined to thwart our intentions, how far it might be deemed prudent for us, under such circumstances, to continue our connection with them, he would not now discuss; but of this he was sure, that the House had power over the trade of this country, and could say under what regulations it should be carried on, and when it should cease, or how long they would suffer by an acknowledged evil. He adverted to the observation, that this trade was to be abolished by menaces, and maintained that nothing at any time, particularly at the present, ought to be more strongly guarded against, than that of holding out to the public an idea that the proceedings of that House were influenced by the dread of menaces, reproaches, or even the loss of popularity; that their votes were the effect of compulsion, and that the moment they dared to do so, they would rescind them. He trusted to God that the vote of every one who assented to the resolutions of last year, was the result of conviction; he trusted, too, that a vote so much to their honour, and which had entitled them to the applause of all Europe, would not now be abandoned. He said he had heard it hinted, that a time of war was improper for the discussion of this subject. He confessed he did not see the propriety of that objection; at all events, if it was an objection, it was such as would be very well discussed in a committee; and then it might be determined, whether the circumstances of this war were such as to call upon parliament to continue the evil of the slave trade. He should be of a contrary opinion, and contend, that all the arguments upon the danger of tumult and insurrection, would not apply to the present subject. He therefore should advise the House to regard the present as a very fit time to take this subject up, and to shew to all Europe that the parliament of Great Britain never lost sight of the principles of honour, justice, and humanity; that their government was honourable, that their pledge was faithfully adhered to, that while they declared they detested anarchy and confusion, they also loved the principles of real liberty, that they sincerely wished for the happiness of mankind, and revered the rights of nature.

Mr. Fox then observed, that if there were any objections to the late resolutions in any particular part, such objection would come regularly before the committee on Thursday, and could then be argued; for as to the danger of agitating it, he confessed he differed entirely from those who expressed their apprehensions upon that subject; or, if there was any danger in that respect, it must arise from its not being agi

tated while there was a difference of opinion; agitation was necessary to set that difference at rest. Indeed, he once hoped that the House would not now have had to debate the question at all, and that the abolition would by this time have passed into a law. He should not now pretend to anticipate the discussion of the House of Lords; he hoped, that their decision would be agreeable to the principles of justice and humanity; in the mean time, the House of Commons should not slacken its efforts. If the course of the discussion in the other House should lead to such a length, or should take a turn that would render hopeless the thought of its coming to a conclusion this session, then he should advise the bringing forward of some other measure that might give efficacy to the resolutions, which had for their object the immediate regulation of the trade, independent of the total abolition in the year 1796.

Mr. Fox next took notice of the trial of Captain Kimber, on which so much stress had been laid. He said he could have wished that it had not been alluded to at all, because it was not regularly before the House; but, as it had been alluded to, he would only say, in the most constitutional language he could, that as Captain Kimber had been acquitted, he hoped and trusted that he was innocent, and, as Mr. Devereux was acquitted also, he hoped and trusted that he was innocent; but he believed there were none in that House who voted for the resolutions last year solely upon the representation of the subject which brought Captain Kimber upon his trial; if there were, let such person vote, if he thought proper, against the resolutions in the committee upon this occasion; at all events, the House had no reason for refusing to go into the subject this session.

Upon the point of humanity, which had been so much urged on a former occasion in favour of the West-India planters, he must do the honourable gentleman who originated this subject in that House the justice to say, that he had always allowed to these observations their full force, and that he had admitted the truth of many specific acts mentioned in support of the humanity of these planters; at the same time, he did not see any thing in the nature of the traffic of these planters, or any thing in the spirit of slavery, to induce him to suppose that those who dealt in it surpassed their fellow-creatures in the offices of tenderness and humanity, nor any thing in the nature of absolute power, that was likely to exempt its possessors from the common frailties of our species; or, if these gentlemen had these feelings in so eminent a degree, these resolutions were so far favourable to them, as to set them free from a station so obnoxious.