little, thank heaven, contents me. I cannot therefore be supposed to care if a peace takes place with America to-morrow, as far as I am personally concerned; but for your own sakes do not let such a thing come to pass. Nay, were I to go out of office, a situation I never coveted, always disliked, and heartily wished to be rid of, still I hope the American war will be continued." Such pathetic reasoning cannot fail having its effects; and thus it is the Noble Lord induces the members of this house to sacrifice the interest of the constituents, by proving that their own interest is essentially connected with the American war. Was it possible, therefore, that a peace could be obtained with America? "O spare my beautiful system!" (the Noble Lord would cry). "What! shall I part with that! with that which has been the glory of the present reign, which has extended the dominions, raised the reputation, and replenished the finances of my country! No, for God's sake, let this be adhered to; and do with all the rest what you please: deprive me, if you please, of this poor situation; take all my power, all my nour and consequence; but spare my beautiful system, oh! spare my system!!!"

ho

MR. SHERIDAN against MR. M. A. TAYLOR.

1785.

We have this day been honoured with the counsels of a complete gradation of lawyers. We have received the opinion of a judge (Kenyon), of an attorney-general in petto (Bearcroft), of an ex-attorney-general (Lee), and of a practising barrister (Taylor). I agree with the learned Gentleman (Mr. Bearcroft) in his admiration of the abilities of my honourable friend (Mr. Fox). What he has said of his quickness and of his profoundness, of his boldness and his candor, is literally just and, true, which the mental accomplishment of my honorable friend is, on every occasion, calculated to extort even from his adversaries. The learned gentleman has, however, in this insidious eulogium, connected such qualities of mind with those he has praised and venerated, as to convert his encomiums into reproach, and his tributes of praise into censure and invective. The boldness he has described is only craft, and his candor hypocrisy. Upon what grounds does the learned gentleman connect those assemblages of great qualities and of cardinal defects? Upon what principles either of justice or of equity does he exult with

one

one hand, whilst he insidiously reprobates and destroys with the other? If the wolf is to be feared, the learned gentleman may rest assured, it will be ✨ the wolf in sheep's clothing, the masked pretender to patriotism. It is not from the fang of the lion, but from the tooth of the serpent, that reptile that insidiously steals upon the vitals of the constitution, and gnaws it to the heart ere the mischief is suspected, that destruction is to be feared.

With regard to the acquisition of a learned gentleman (Mr. Taylor) who has declared that he means to vote with us this day, I am sorry to acknowledge, that, from the declaration the learned gentleman has made at the beginning of his speech, I see no great reason to boast of such an auxiliary. The learned gentleman, who has with peculiar modesty stiled himself a chicken lawyer, has declared, that, thinking us in the right with respect to the subject of this day's discussion, he shall vote with us; but he has at the same time, thought it necessary to assert, that he has never before voted differently from the minister and his friends, and perhaps he never shall again vote with those whom he means to support this day. It is rather singular to vote with us, professedly because he finds us to be in the right, and in the very moment that he assigns so good a

reason

reason for changing his side, to declare, that in all probability he never shall vote with us again. I am sorry to find the chicken is a bird of ill omen, and that its augury is so unpropitious to our future interests. Perhaps it would have been as well, under these circumstances, that the chicken had not left the barn-door of the Treasury, but continued side by side with the old cock (Mr. Kenyon) to pick those crumbs of comfort which would, doubtless, be dealt out in time, with a liberality proportioned to the fidelity of the feathered tribe.

MR. PITT on the African Slave Trade, April 27, 1792.

Sir, I lament, that my efforts on this subject have hitherto not been successful, but I am consoled with the thought that the house has come to a resolution declarative of the infamy of this trade; that all parties have concurred in reprobating it; that even its advocates have been compelled to acknowledge its infamy. The question now is only the continuance of this abominable traffic, which even ts friends think so intolerable, that it ought to be crushed. Jamaica has imported 150,000 negroes.

in

1

in the course of twenty years, and this is admitted to be only one-tenth of the trade. Was there ever, can there be, any thing beyond the enormity of this infamous traffic? The very thought of it is beyond human indurance. It is allowed, however, that the trade is infamous, but the abolition of it is resolvable to a question of expediency; and then, when the trade is argued as a commercial case, its advocates, in order to continue it, desert even the principles of commerce. So that a traffic in the liberty, the blood, the life of human beings, is not to have even the advantages of the common rules of arithmetic which govern all other commercial dealings!

The point now in dispute is only one year, as I' understand; for the amendment proposes the year 1795 for the abolition, while the year 1796 is only contended for on the other side. As to those who are concerned in the trade, a year would not make much difference; but does it make no alteration to the unhappy slaves? It is true that, in the course of commercial concerns in general, it is said sometimes to be beneath the magnanimity of a man of honour to insist on a scrupulous exactness in his own favour upon a disputed item in accounts; but does it make any part of our magnanimity to be exact in our own favour in the traffic of human blood? When

K 3