many members with panic in the former sessions, such as that of
emancipation, of the ruin and massacre of the planters, and of
indemnification to the amount of seventy millions, had been industriously
kept up, and this by a personal canvass among them. But this hostile
disposition was still unfortunately increased by considerations of another
sort. For the witnesses of our opponents had taken their ground first. No
less than eleven of them had been examined in the last sessions. In the
present, two-thirds of the time had been occupied by others on the same
side. Hence the impression upon this ground also was against us; and we had
yet had no adequate opportunity of doing it away. A clamour was also
raised, where we thought it least likely to have originated. They (the
planters) it was said, had produced persons in elevated life and of the
highest character as witnesses; whereas we had been obliged to take up with
those of the lowest condition. This idea was circulated directly after the
introduction of Isaac Parker, before mentioned; a simple mariner; and who
was now contrasted with the admirals on the other side of the question.
This outcry was not only ungenerous, but unconstitutional. It is the glory
of the English law, that it has no scale of veracity, which it adapts to
persons, according to the station, which they may be found to occupy in
life. In our courts of law the poor are heard as well as the rich; and if
their reputation be fair, and they stand proof against the
cross-examinations they undergo, both the judge and the jury must determine
the matter in dispute by their evidence. But the House of Commons were now
called upon by our opponents, to adopt the preposterous maxim of attaching
falsehood to poverty, or of weighing truth by the standard of rank and
riches.

But though we felt a considerable degree of pain, in finding this adverse
disposition among so many members of the Lower House, it was some
consolation to us to know, that our cause had not suffered with their