Commons Sitting of 6 March 1828

INCREASE OF CRIME.
Mr. Dugdalepresented a petition from the magistrates for the county of Warwick, assembled at the quarter-sessions, stating the great increase of crime in that county, and praying that the House would take the subject into their most serious consideration, and apply such a remedy as its importance demanded. The hon. gentleman observed, that great anxiety existed throughout the county with reference to this subject. The greatest increase was of juvenile offenders. About ten years ago, the magistrates established an asylum in the county of Warwick, for receiving juvenile offenders after conviction, which had been attended at the time with the most beneficial effects. Of late years, however, crime had increased in the county with alarming rapidity. At the late quarter-sessions, of one hundred and fifty-two prisoners convicted, seventy-five, or eighty, were boys under fifteen years of age. It was impossible, of course, to receive so many into an asylum which was maintained by private contributions. A pamphlet had lately been published by a magistrate of the county, sir E. Wilmot, in which, for the purpose of preventing the evils which resulted from the commitment of mere boys to gaol, he recommended that, in certain cases, the magistrates should have the power of summary conviction. Such was also the opinion of many other respectable magistrates. Certain it was, that notwithstanding every effort that had been made, and after every allowance for an increasing population, crime had of late increased in an alarming degree. He trusted that this petition would be referred to the committee now sitting to consider the causes of the increase of crime.
Mr. Lawleylooked upon the evil as one of great magnitude, and mainly attributable to the existing state of the law. Boys were brought before the magistrate, charged with various offences; and under the circumstances, the magistrate had no alternative, but was constrained to commit them to gaol. In gaol, therefore, they
986
might remain for three months before the time of their trial should arrive; and such was the demoralizing effect of prison association, that a boy so committed would inevitably come out of gaol ten thousand times worse than he went in.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he knew nothing more afflicting than to see so many poor children brought to the bar at every assizes. In the county which he represented the increase of crime, and especially among youth, was most alarming. In 1825, there were eighteen children under fifteen years of age convicted in Staffordshire; in 1826, there were thirty-two; in 1827, forty. In 1825, there were eighty-seven young men, between fifteen and twenty years of age, convicted in the same county; in 1826, there were a hundred and thirty-seven; and in 1827, a hundred and sixty-four. This was really a most horrible evil. He believed that many of the magistrates were inclined to think that it would be advisable to give the power of summary conviction in certain cases. The bias of his mind was strongly in favour of such a measure.
Sir T. Lethbridgeentirely concurred in the extent of the evil, and the necessity for some remedy.
Sir J. Wrottesleywas of opinion that the existence of this youthful immorality could not be justly attributed to a want of employment for the children of the poorer classes, as it prevailed in the agricultural counties, where work, was to be had in abundance. He thought it might with more propriety be referred to the too great prevalence of criminal prosecutions. By late returns it appeared that out of ninety thousand commitments, thirty thousand got a discharge without trial, as the bills were ignored by the grand jury. This he could not but believe to be the result of the recent act which permitted prosecutors their expenses, as it naturally tended to increase frivolous prosecutions. After the initiation into all kinds of turpitude, which a gaol was so calculated to effect, it was not a matter of surprise that depravity should extensively prevail throughout the country.
Mr. Portmanthought that separate jurisdictions were injurious; and that there should be no commitments except by two or three magistrates acting together. As to the great increase in the number of juvenile offenders, he did not believe that it originated so much from

987
boys being worse than they were formerly, but from the fact, that for offences, in reference to which it was now the usage to commit the offenders, those offenders were in former times soundly whipped by the individuals against whom they committed the offences, but who were now afraid to take that course, lest an action should be brought against them for an assault.
Referred to the committee on the Increase of Crime.

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION—PETITION OF CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he was commissioned by the general body of the Catholics of Ireland to present to the House a Petition, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which they laboured. The petition he had to present to the House involved such important interests, and embraced concerns of such magnitude to the welfare of individuals as well as of the country at large, that he was induced to break through a general rule he had laid down to himself, of not occupying the attention of the House upon the presentation of petitions. He felt convinced that the condition of the petitioners excited the sympathy not only of a majority in parliament, but of a vast portion of their fellow-subjects in Ireland and in England; and that it would be a great relief to the House and to the country, if parliament would take into consideration the claims of the Roman Catholics, as well as of persons labouring under disqualifications on account of their religious opinions. Upon the hardships under which the Catholics laboured some persons were disposed not to lay so much stress as he did; they thought it no very great grievance to labour under these disabilities; but, in his opinion, nothing could be more galling to the mind of an honourable man, than in his own country to be considered as a proscribed person—to have a mark set upon him for his conscientious religious belief—to be held up as a person unworthy of trust, and incapacitated from receiving all marks of honour and emolument—as a person whose career was arrested in every course of ambition, however beneficial to the individual or to the state—to have the finger of scorn pointed at him, and to be compelled to witness other persons having every possible advantage over him on account of their religious belief: this was
988
not only galling to the mind of the individual, but prejudicial to the interests of the country at large. The pretences on which the disabilities were continued appeared to him to be weakened every day; and when he saw millions of people who were calling for the repeal of those disabilities (for, putting together the Catholics of England and Ireland, they amounted probably to not less, numerically, than one half of the population of the United Kingdom), then adding to them the wishes of such members of the established church, and the other Protestant churches in this country, as were favourable to the Catholics, he was entitled to say that a large preponderating weight of public opinion was in favour of granting the just claims of the Catholics. In behalf of the Catholics of the United Kingdom, he denied all the charges and imputations that had been thrown out against them. He denied that it was true, or founded on truth, that they owed any divided allegiance, or that they had not a common interest with men of every religious persuasion in this country. He denied that they were less desirous of upholding the institutions of the country than any other class of the community. On the part of the Catholics he would declare, that rather than be actuated by the feelings which were attributed to them they would forego the accomplishment of their just claims, by the granting of the little that remained to be conceded, and would willingly endure all the penalties from which they had been relieved. But in behalf of the character of the Catholics, he would appeal from the evidence of interested calumniators and monopolizers of power under the pretence of religion, to the equity of parliament, and would demand for them relief from their disabilities, on the broad, general principle of religious liberty—the principle on which our church and all Protestant churches were founded. If it was reprehensible in the Catholic church to visit with penalties those who dissented from them, it was tenfold more unjust and inconsistent with the principles on which our church was established, to maintain similar penalties on account of the religious opinions of persons of whatever persuasion they might be. In conclusion he trusted that the petitioners would receive that attention which their cause, connected as it was with the great interests of the state, so eminently demanded [hear].

989
The petition was ordered to be printed, and sir F. Burdett gave notice, that on the 29th of April, he would submit a motion on the subject of the Catholic claims.

PRINTING EXPENSES OF THE HOUSE.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was induced to move for some particulars of the expense of printing certain papers by order of the House, on account of the great sums which had been laid out in that way, and the apparent uselessness of that expenditure. He wished to be understood as having no intention of curtailing the right of petitioning, or of having petitions printed. What he principally objected to was the appendices to the reports of the committees, which seemed to convey no information whatever. The appendix to the slavery report, for instance, contained nothing but the names of slaves and their masters and mistresses, accompanied with declarations as to the good or bad qualities of the latter. The expense of printing these papers for the last year was calculated at 80,000 l., and in some years it had amounted to 120,000 l. After stating his intention to move for the appointment of a committee to investigate the subject, the hon. member concluded by moving for returns of the expense attending the printing the reports on slavery, on the Game-laws, on the burning of Hindoo widows, and other subjects.—The motion was agreed to.

REGISTRATION OF FREEHOLDERS.
Lord Althorprose, pursuant to notice, to move "for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Freeholders in England and Wales." He observed that a committee had been appointed last session to consider the mode of taking polls at elections, and a bill was printed by their directions for the use of the House. It would therefore be the less necessary for him to detain them at any length on the present occasion. He would, however, explain briefly the principle of the measure, and the reason upon which it was founded. The great object he had in view was to diminish the expense of elections, by having the poll taken at different parts of the county, instead of bringing the electors from various distances all to the place. The chief objection to the plan was, that it would be difficult to know who were voters and who were not, and that it would be necessary to
990
have, in those different places, the whole machinery of an election, with its counsel, poll-clerks, &c, which would operate as an increase, instead of a diminution, of the expense. It appeared, therefore, indispensable that some arrangement should be made to meet this objection—to settle who had the right of voting. The principle upon which the present bill was founded was to provide, that that which now took place at the election should in future take place before the election; so that the right of the voters should be as well proved and established before they were put on the list, as they were now, after the proofs were gone into on the objection of either party. This was a preparatory measure, and was, in fact, essentially necessary to the great object he had in view. A complete registry of voters would greatly assist in simplifying the business of elections. The principle of the bill was one which he thought likely to meet with general approbation: it was to apply the scrutiny of votes before the election, when men's passions were not engaged, and by that means to obviate the objection to taking the poll at different parts of the same county. The noble lord concluded with moving "for leave to bring in a Bill for the Registration of Freeholders in the different Counties of England and Wales."
Lord Lowtherthought it was right that those who were interested in the elections of counties should have time to examine into the provisions of the bill. For his own part, he was not so sanguine as the noble lord seemed to be with respect to the probable operation of the measure.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

TREATY OF LIMERICK.
Sir Henry Parnellrose, pursuant to notice, to move "that a Copy of the Treaty of Limerick be laid upon the table." Many petitions had, he said, been presented in the course of the present session from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, in which they prayed for a restoration of the civil privileges of which they had been deprived on account of their religious opinions. These petitions stated, that the laws and statutes by which the Roman Catholics were deprived of their civil rights had been, framed in direct violation of the compact entered into between the Irish nation and king William 3rd, the conditions of which compact were comprised in the Treaty of

991
Limerick. When so numerous and important a body as the Catholics of Ireland made statements like those in the petitions presented to that House, he thought the document referred to ought to be before the House, in order that hon. members might understand whether or not those statements were well founded. It was not his intention upon the present occasion to trouble the House with many arguments on the import or particular construction of the articles of the Treaty of Limerick; but there were facts and circumstances connected with the execution of it, which should be stated, in order that the nature of the document might be clearly understood. Many hon. members might think that the Treaty referred to nothing more than the quelling of a popular insurrection, and to a victory easily gained by regular English soldiers over an unprincipled rabble; and that king William 3rd had only to send an army to Ireland to subdue it; but if they examined into the occurrences that preceded the treaty they would find it to be a very different transaction. How did the case stand? Until the period of the Union, Ireland had been an independent country, wholly independent of England, with which she was connected only by the circumstance of her acknowledging that she owed allegiance to the same king. When the Revolution of 1688 took place in this country, James 2nd was expelled, not less for political than for religious reasons; the people of Ireland, being Roman Catholics continued that allegiance to James which his English subjects had withdrawn: accordingly, they acknowledged him for their king, and recognized his authority.
He repeated, it would be found that until the Union, Ireland was a perfectly independent country; and when the Protestant Revolutionary party of this country thought proper to dethrone king James, the people of Ireland did not feel the same necessity, and they continued to acknowledge him as their legitimate king. Lord Tyrconnel, at that time lord lieutenant of Ireland, carried on the government on behalf of James, as the government of an independent State. In August 1689, king William sent his first army to Ireland. The time passed away without any thing being done, in consequence of the sickness of the troops, till the July of the next year, 1690, when the battle, of the Boyne was fought, and a
992
victory gained over James by the English forces. In that year an attempt was made by William to take the city of Limerick, but he was repulsed from the walls by the garrison; James's army still amounting to thirty thousand men. It was not till the month of August, 1691, that the second siege of Limerick was commenced, under general Ginkle; the garrison held out, and defended the city from that period to the October following, when they capitulated, and that Treaty was signed which formed the subject of the present motion.—Thus it appeared that the conquest of Ireland occupied a large army, amounting to about thirty thousand men, successively under the command of William and the most distinguished of his generals, for a period of two years and two months, from the first landing of the English forces to the surrender of Limerick. At the time of that surrender, the affairs of James 2nd were not so desperate as might be supposed; for several towns were still held by his garrisons, and five of the largest counties in Ireland were more immediately in possession of his adherents. Under such circumstances, the House well knew what must have been the value of the surrender of Limerick to the English forces—it was, in fact, not merely the surrender of Limerick which then took place, but the surrender of all Ireland. Let it be recollected also, that at this very time, a French fleet was in full sail to the assistance of the Irish—was, in fact, in the channel, with large reinforcements, and arrived three days after the articles of capitulation had been signed. In consequence of this treaty, a body of eighteen thousand men embarked for France, being a part of the army of Ireland. By this treaty were conceded to king William the garrisons, towns, and all the territory hitherto held for James, by his adherents, in that country, and the regal authority of William was acknowledged. Thus, he said, the Irish people, notwithstanding they had expectations of support, gave up the king of their own religion, and acknowledged the authority of William.
The House would remember that by this treaty William not only acquired possession of Ireland, but obtained a confirmation of the Settlement acts of the Revolution of 1688. The latter circumstance must have been the more acceptable to William, as at that period the party of James was exceedingly powerful, not

993
only in Ireland, but also in England —a state of things the more dangerous to William, as he was frequently obliged to be absent from his more immediate territories, on account of the contest in which he was engaged with Louis 14th. About this period, William's forces and those of his allies had sustained considerable reverses when opposed to the French troops. All these occurrences made the settlement of Ireland a matter exceedingly desirable to William; and when that object was accomplished, he was enabled to turn his arms more easily against Louis 14th: and, having placed our foreign relations on a more satisfactory footing, he finally fixed his power on a firm basis, and established that free constitution which the country at present enjoyed. The first article of the Treaty to which he had alluded was the following. Before he quoted it, he should premise, that it was one of the articles on which the Roman Catholics mainly relied—
"That the Roman Catholics of this country shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles 2nd, and their majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such farther security, in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of their said religion."
That, he repeated, was the principal article on which the Roman Catholics relied; but there was another, the 9th, which was also deserving of consideration, and was in the following terms:—
"The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit themselves to their majesties' government shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other."
It was not the intention to go into any arguments on the purport or construction of this treaty: he would only observe, that the Roman Catholics were secured against any disturbance in the exercise of their religious privileges in the 1st article of the treaty; and that by the 9th article they were only required to take the oath of allegiance to their majesties. Be it remembered, that this was the short and simple oath of allegiance, and not similar to some oaths or declarations subsequently devised, as it embraced nothing except a declaration of loyalty to the reigning monarch.
994
With regard to the circumstances supposed to have occurred since the execution of that treaty, he wished to say that, in his mind, what was advanced against the construction put upon it by the Roman Catholics was not tenable. One of the leading arguments against the efficacy of the treaty, arose out of the length of time since its execution; and the opponents of the Roman Catholics contended, that if they could claim any thing under the treaty, their claim was now obsolete, because they had permitted a long interval to elapse without preferring it. In reply to this, he wished to state, that the Roman Catholics had never permitted any opportunity to pass away of pressing their claims, as founded on the basis of that treaty. In confirmation of this opinion he referred the House to the work of Dr. Currie, on the "Civil Wars of Ireland," where they would find, in the conduct pursued by sir Theobald Buller and sir Stephen Rice, before both Houses of the Irish parliament, in relation to this treaty, a full refutation of the argument referred to. During the administration of lord Halifax, the Roman Catholics applied to be allowed the benefits of the treaty, and in 1792, in their petition and memorial presented to the king, they again refer to these articles, and claim the enjoyment of the privileges promised them. He repeated, there had been no occasion since the period when these. articles were framed, which the Roman Catholics had not embraced, to put forward their claims as founded on the Treaty of Limerick. On their part he might therefore argue, that by their continual reference to the articles of the treaty, they had proved that they had not forgotten the value of the claim which that treaty enabled them to make. Smollett calls the Treaty of Limerick the Charter of the Liberties of Ireland. If so, it is certainly not one of great effect. High authorities might be quoted on this subject, and opinions which would have the greater weight, as they had been delivered in that House. Dr. Laurence, than whom there was no more respectable authority, repeatedly declared his opinion, that the articles of the Treaty of Limerick had been violated by the continued exclusion of the Roman Catholics from the enjoyment of civil privileges on account of their religious belief. Lord Plunkett's sentiments on the subject were similar, as was well known to the House, which had frequently heard them

995
expressed. But he now came to an opinion which carried still more weight along with it, and deserved to be received with the highest respect—he meant the authority of Mr. Burke. The opinion of that great man and profound statesman, as it appeared in the edition of his Posthumous Works, published in 1812, fully corroborated the view which he (sir Henry) took of the case. Up to the period of the publication of the tracts to which he referred, those who entertained similar opinions to those of Mr. Burke on the subject of the treaty, had not had the benefit of his authority; at least, were unable to quote it in an authentic form. He would now read a few lines from Mr. Burke's tract on the Popery Laws, contained in the 9th vol. of the 8vo. edition of 1812:—
"It will now be seen, that even if these (the Popery) laws could be supposed agreeable to those of nature in these particulars, in another, and almost as strong a principle, they are yet unjust, as being contrary to positive compact, and the public faith most solemnly plighted. On the surrender of Limerick, and some other Irish garrisons in the war of the Revolution, the lords justices of Ireland, and the commander-in-chief of the king's forces, signed a capitulation with the Irish, which was afterwards ratified by the king himself by inspextinces under the Great Seal of England. It contains some public articles relative to the whole body of the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, and some with regard to the security to the greater part of the inhabitants of five counties. What the latter were, or in what manner they were observed, is at this day of much less public concern. The former are two—the first and the ninth. The first is of this tenour:—'The Roman Catholics of this kingdom (Ireland) shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their Religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles 2nd, and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour, to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion.' The ninth article is to this effect:—'The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit themselves to their Majesties' Government shall be the oath aforesaid, and no other, viz.—
996
the Oath of Allegiance made by Act of Parliament in England, in the first year of their Majesties' reign, as required by the second of the Articles of Limerick.' Compare this latter article with the penal laws, and judge whether they seem to be the public acts of the same power, and observe whether other oaths are tendered to them, and under what penalties. Compare the former with the same laws from the beginning to the end, and judge whether the Roman Catholics have been preserved, agreeably to the sense of the article, from any disturbance upon account of their religion; or rather, whether, on that account, there is a single right of nature or benefit of society which has not been either totally taken away, or considerably impaired."
These were the opinions of Mr. Burke on the subject of the Treaty of Limerick, and of the treatment which the Roman Catholics had experienced, and he sincerely trusted, that before the subject of the Catholic claims came regularly under discussion, honourable members, previous to giving their votes, one way or the other, would take the trouble to recur to those opinions of Mr. Burke, and, assisted by the light they afforded, endeavour to come to a correct judgment on that important topic.
He had now little more to say, and should only refer shortly to what tended strongly to confirm his views, in regard to this subject; namely, the nature of the arguments used by the opponents of the Roman Catholics. He was prepared to assert, that the weakness of those arguments afforded to his mind as strong a conviction of the propriety of conceding the Roman Catholic claims, as did the cogency of the arguments adopted by those who held the same sentiments as himself. He repeated, that if he could wish for any thing to confirm the view he had taken of the Treaty of Limerick, it would be found in the arguments used by those writers who took a different view of the question. There was a pamphlet of Mr. Arthur Brown, formerly member for the University of Dublin, who gave a construction of the article different from that which he (sir Henry) had stated; but he had been able to discover nothing in Mr. Brown's arguments that did not confirm, rather than weaken, the construction usually put upon the Treaty. Among other violent opponents of the Roman Catholics was the late Dr. Duigenan. That learned gentleman wrote against the view taken by

997
the Catholics of the Treaty of Limerick; but he confessed that the learned doctor's arguments had no other effect upon his mind, except to confirm his conviction of the accuracy and justice of the construction put upon the Treaty by the friends of the Roman Catholics.
There was another topic to which he had already alluded, but, if the House would permit him, he would again recur to it. The length of time that had elapsed since the Treaty was agreed on, had been urged as an argument why it could not apply to the present occasion. And it was also inferred, that the acquiescence of the Roman Catholics in the disabilities imposed upon them, or at least the fact of their forbearing to urge the provisions of the Treaty, as arguments against deprivation of civil rights, afforded a conclusive proof that they could not rely upon the provisions of the Treaty. Before arriving at this conclusion, the House would do well to take into its consideration the state to which Ireland had been reduced by the Penal-laws, and the condition in which the Roman Catholics had been placed by their operation. Under these laws, the Roman Catholics were deprived of all political power, and reduced to such a state of degradation as almost to justify him in saying, that they were deprived of the use of their understanding. Such was the condition of the Catholics under the operation of these laws, the effect of which was to inflict on them civil death, from the reign of queen Anne up to the relaxation of the penal code. Considering that this was the state of the Catholics from 1703 to 1793, or within a few years of that period, it was not wonderful that they acted as they had done. If, in all that time, it so happened that they had never referred to the Treaty of Limerick, or attempted to claim under it those privileges which they now pretended it guaranteed, the circumstance was by no means incapable of explanation, when their degraded situation was considered, and when it was recollected what was the nature of the grievances which pressed upon them.
He again expressed his opinion, that it ought not to be wondered at if, during that long period, no great effort was made on their part to enforce their claim. That period, then, ought to be put out of consideration, for the population of Ireland was oppressed and stupefied by the weight of the penal code. As soon as
998
their moral and political feelings were restored, as soon as they thought they could perceive any hope of getting rid of the burthen that weighed them to the earth, they put forward their claims, founded upon the articles of this Treaty; claims which he contended were now as good as they were on the first day when the Treaty was entered into. Mr. Burke had stated it to be his conviction, that the faith of England was solemnly plighted to Ireland by the Treaty of Limerick; that the king was bound to observe the articles of that Treaty, and that the enactment of the Penal-laws was a breach of a distinct promise given at the time of the capitulation of Limerick. Fortified by this opinion he should not add anything of his own to weaken the force of the authority. He would only say, that the faith of England was plighted to afford the Irish Catholics relief; and, if possible, compensation for the evils inflicted on them. The hon. baronet concluded with moving, for "a Copy of the Letters Patent wherein the Civil Articles for the Surrender of the Treaty of Limerick in the year 1691 were ratified and exemplified by king William the 3rd and Queen Mary."
Mr. H. Grattansaid, he rose to second the motion, and he did so in the persuasion that the case of the Catholics of Ireland would be made out by the document, Indeed, he had not a doubt upon his mind but that if twelve honest men were placed at the bar to decide on the meaning of the articles, they could not hesitate to adopt the interpretation for which the Catholics and their friends contended. The question, as it appeared to him, resolved itself into a mere matter of fact: it was merely whether such a Treaty had ever been completed; for on the meaning of the terms there could be no dispute. He thought at the same time that his hon. friend would fall short of his object if he persisted in confining his motion to the civil articles; for there were two copies of the Treaty originally published—one in Ireland, and the other in England; and it was curious to observe that the one printed in London omitted to state that the king had sanctioned them. This had, to him, the appearance of an intention, from the beginning, to break through the articles. Such conduct was not without example in the transactions of this government. The Crown had disowned what its servants had done for Ireland, both in the reigns of

999
Elizabeth and of Charles 1st, when money was refused which had been voted for public purposes. They ought, therefore, to have the two documents before them, in order to show that at the very outset the Treaty was conceived in a spirit of insincerity. The first article stipulated, that the Catholics should enjoy their religion without obstruction. What was the meaning of that? It did not merely mean that they should be permitted to enter their chapels, and worship according to their own forms; nor did it mean that their clergy should dress in canonicals according to the institution of their order; but it meant, if it meant any thing, that the people should not be injured in their civil rights on account of the religion they professed. But what was the state of the law of Ireland at the time? He would deny that it contained any statute excluding Catholics from sitting in parliament.—He would next advert to the privileges enjoyed by the Catholics in the time of Charles the 2nd. The House would be surprised to hear that the only mode in which Catholics were prevented from coming into parliament was by a simple resolution of the House of Commons. Such a resolution could not be considered law, any more than other resolutions of the same period. There was a servile appeal of a committee of the Irish House of Commons to the Lords Justices, recommending that Catholics should be driven, not only out of the House but out of the town. Such was the spirit of legislation at that period: and would the House believe that the same parliament had passed an act, calling upon the Catholics to surrender themselves within three days at the walls of Dublin under a penalty? Such was the act completed by two traitors sitting in the castle of Dublin, and aided by a profligate and corrupt parliament. He asked whether that was a law which any man could rely upon as a bar to the articles of the Treaty of Limerick? But what, during this time, was the conduct of the House of Lords? For, unless it could be proved that they had acted pari passu with the House of Commons, it would seem as if they had doubted the propriety of the proceedings of the House of Commons. And there was no. room for hesitation on this point, for this resolution would be found upon their Journals—"Resolved, that a bill be introduced to make valid the resolutions of the House of
1000
Commons with respect to Roman Catholics." The absurdity of such a measure was only equalled by its illegality. The House of Lords again met in 1641, and there was no allusion to be found in their Journals to the ceremony of administering the oath of supremacy. The same was the casein 1642,1643,1644,1645, and 1646; and yet it was now contended, that to exclude Roman Catholic peers from sitting in parliament was not a violation of the Treaty of Limerick, because they had not enjoyed that privilege previously to it. He would show the want of foundation for such an assertion by reference to another resolution on the Journals of their lordships' House. On the 20th of May, 1661, it was resolved that all the lords, who were members of the Church of England, should be at the cathedral of Christ-church by a certain hour, to receive the communion. Now, what was the meaning of this resolution, supposing that there were no lords, save those who were members of the Church of England, in the House? But on the 7th of June, 1661, a resolution was passed, which entirely removed all doubt upon the question; for it was then ordered, that all the lords who were members of the Church of England should, when they were absent from prayers, pay a fine of Is.; and that all the lords who were Roman Catholics should, if absent a quarter of an hour after prayers, were ended, also pay a fine of Is. Now, after these entries upon the Journals of the Irish Houses of parliament, could any man. doubt that the Roman Catholics were accustomed to sit there as members down to the reign of Charles 2nd? If, then, they enjoyed that privilege up to that time, could any man pretend to argue, that when the Treaty of Limerick secured to the Catholics-all such privileges as they enjoyed in the reign of Charles 2nd, it was not violated; when the privilege of sitting in parliament was taken from them? It was said, however, that the Treaty of Limerick was only intended to protect the Irish inhabitants of the city and county of Limerick, and the adjoining counties. But there was evidence to rebut that notion, which he thought would have great weight with gentlemen on the other side of the House. The evidence to which he alluded was that of bishop Burnett, who was, as every body knew, deep in the confidence of king, William. Bishop Burnett, in that part of his work which related to the Treaty of-

1001
Limerick, used these expressions:—"Those of Limerick treated not only for themselves, but for all the rest of their countrymen that were yet in arms. They were all indemnified and restored to all that they had enjoyed in king Charles's time. They were also admitted to all the privileges of subjects upon their taking the oaths of allegiance to their majesties, without being bound to take the Oath of Supremacy." He would here state, that the Irish oath of allegiance was not like that taken in England, coupled with the Oath of Supremacy; and in the 9th article of the Treaty of Limerick, it is distinctly stated, that the oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their Majesties' government, shall be the Oath of Allegiance and no other.—He would here state, that if it were necessary to adduce further proof that Roman Catholics had seats in the parliament of Ireland previously to the Treaty of Limerick, it was to be found in the letters of lord Orrery, and in the memoirs of colonel Allardyce. The latter gentleman, who was an Englishman, and had resided for upwards of twenty-five years in Ireland, had left behind him a list of the peers who sat in the parliament of 1681, and had placed the names of the Protestants in one column and those of the Catholics in the other. In the list of Roman Catholics were seven earls, and several viscounts, two of whom, lords Louth and Iveah, had been actually given as hostages by the Catholics to king William in return for colonel Coutts, and three or four other English people, who had been given as hostages by king William to the Catholics for the due observation of the suspension of hostilities during the negotiation preceding the Treaty of Limerick, which lasted from the 27th of September, 1692, to the 4th of October in the same year. The length of the negotiation, added to the fact that the garrison would not sign the Treaty, till the justices had come from Dublin to examine it, was a proof that the garrison were particularly anxious that the Treaty should be worded in an accurate legal form. He might also say, that king William had himself shown great anxiety on obtaining the execution of this Treaty; for, on his receiving the intelligence of it, which Ginckle sent express to him in Ireland, the Tower guns were fired, and other symptoms of joy exhibited for the entire settlement of the kingdom, as he believed it was at that time called in the
1002
Gazette. He must apologize to the House for the length of time which he had intruded upon its attention. He had made no appeal to their passions, because he conceived that such appeals were rarely calculated to produce conviction on subjects of this nature; but he would venture to implore them, by all that was dear to man, not to lose sight of the present condition of Ireland. It was idle to suppose that things could remain in that country in their present situation. No country was so terrible to live in as Ireland. He should always be prepared to support the Protestant establishments of that country; but he would rather be hacked in pieces himself, and see his children mangled round him, than forswear his hostility to the Penal-laws which oppressed his Catholic fellow-subjects. The country had recently been told, that those laws were to be continued. Scarcely had the tocsin of that annunciation been sounded in Ireland, before the Roman Catholics met peaceably and simultaneously in every parish within its confines, and immediately on their being called to pay the tax levied upon them for the expense of getting up petitions for the repeal of those laws, the Catholic rent rose from 40 l. and 50 l. a week, to 800 l. in the first week, 600 l. in the second, and 500 l. in the third. He repeated it, scarcely had the triumvirate, which recently acceded to the Cabinet, got safely into their seats, before the Catholic rent swelled 5,000 l. in amount. Could a system which produced such effects on the population of a whole country, last much longer? Was it not mischievous in the highest degree? Was it not calculated to impair and destroy the attachment which ought to subsist between England and Ireland? He should not trouble the House further at present, as another opportunity would shortly arise in which he could give his opinion more fully on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. He trusted that, when that opportunity should arrive, hon. gentlemen would sacrifice their differences of opinion on the altar of their country, and would permit the incense of their harmony to ascend to heaven as a propitiation to their God for the offences they had committed against their fellow-countrymen.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that whatever credit the hon. gentleman might claim to himself for discretion, he thought that he would not obtain it, if he claimed it for a

1003
temperate, dispassionate, and conciliatory consideration of the claims which the Roman Catholics had under the Treaty of Limerick. He would not be provoked by the example of the hon. gentleman to travel out of the record then before the House. He would rather pursue the course which had been recommended by the hon. baronet in originating this motion, and would postpone to another opportunity an examination of the legitimate import of the wording of that Treaty: for he agreed with him in thinking, that if that Treaty was to be discussed on a future opportunity, the most expedient course for hon. members to take would be to move for the production of the Treaty now, and to reserve their sentiments upon it until the period of the promised discussion. When he came into the House that night, he was perfectly prepared to acquiesce in the motion of the hon. baronet. He had no objection whatever to the production of the Treaty, and if the hon. baronet had moved for it without adding a word, he should have acquiesced in the motion with equal silence. But whilst he made that statement, he was obliged by the speech of the hon. member for Dublin to add, that having studied very carefully the words of the Treaty, and having referred very industriously to the construction put upon it in the works of cotemporary writers, he had come to a decided conviction that no privilege was at present withdrawn from the Catholics, which they had the power to claim under that Treaty. He was ready at any time to discuss that question temperately and dispassionately; but he must say, that, having resorted with great diligence to all the cotemporary sources of in ormation, he was convinced, not that the Treaty of Limerick had not been violated by the statute of queen Anne—but that the privileges which were now claimed for the Roman Catholics could not be demanded as a matter of right under that Treaty. The hon. gentleman had said, that certain persons were inclined to consider that Treaty out of date, owing to the length of time which had elapsed since its ratification, and to argue that whatever might have been the stipulations of it at the time, the Roman Catholics of the present day had no right to claim any benefit from them. Now, he would frankly declare that, if any such persons did exist, he was not one of them. He did not mean to say that no reference ought to be made to the political considerations which might have grown up
1004
since the ratification of that Treaty and that an over-ruling necessity might not have justified parliament in deviating from the strict sense of its stipulations. His view of the question of Catholic emancipation would certainly be altered, if he could bring himself to believe that the Roman Catholics had resigned certain advantages, which they held at the time of signing that Treaty, upon the faith of receiving others which were now withheld from them. In resorting to that treaty, he thought that the real question which the House had to decide was simply this—were the Roman Catholics admitted by it to seats in parliament? The hon. gentleman had referred to two articles in the Treaty of Limerick,—the first and the ninth,—which he says opens to the Roman Catholics of Ireland all the privileges which they had in the reign of Charles the 2nd, upon their submitting to take the Oath of Allegiance, "I am surprised," said Mr. Peel, "that the right hon. gentleman should say, that by the terms of the ninth article, it was evidently the intention of king William to leave the privileges of the constitution as open to the Roman Catholics as to the Protestants of Ireland. The first article is couched in these terms:—'The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of king Charles 2nd; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon 3 parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbances upon the account of their said religion.' And. the ninth article, on which the hon. gentleman also relies, is worded thus:—'The oath to be administered to. such Roman, Catholics as submit to their Majesties' government, shall be the oath above said, meaning the Oath of Allegiance, 'and no other.' Now, to what class of persons do these two articles refer? Not to the whole Catholic population of Ireland, but to those persons mentioned in. the second article) who should submit to take the Oath of Allegiance to his majesty's government. And what are the terms of the second article? That ' all the inhabitants or residents of Limerick, or any other garrison now in the possession of the Irish, and all officers and soldiers now in arms under any commission of king James or those authorised; by him

1005
to grant the same, in tire several counties of Limerick, Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Mayo, or any of them [and all such as are under their protection in the said counties,] and all the commissioned officers in their majesties quarters that belong to the Irish regiments now in being, that are treated with, and who are not prisoners of war, or have taken protection, and who shall return and submit to their majesties' obedience, and their and every of their heirs, shall hold, possess, and enjoy all and every their estates of freehold and inheritance, and all the rights, titles, interests, privileges, and immunities, which they and every or any of them held, enjoyed, or were rightfully and lawfully entitled to in the reign of king Charles 2nd, or at any time since by the laws and statutes that were in force in the said reign of king Charles 2nd.' And then follows, as I before stated, the ninth article, which states the oath that shall be administered to those who seek to obtain these immunities. Now, I ask the hon. baronet, whether it is possible for him to contend, upon the language of those articles, that all the Roman Catholics of Ireland are to be admissible to seats in parliament, on merely taking the Oath of Allegiance? If it be, as he contends, what reason does he give for the government of king William inserting an article in the Treaty which should place the Roman Catholics of Ireland even on a more favourable footing than their Protestant countrymen? But it is quite plain that the version which the hon. baronet has put upon these articles cannot be correct; for what says the 7th article of the Treaty? 'Every nobleman and gentleman comprised in the said second and third article shall have liberty to ride with a sword and case of pistols, if they shall think fit; and keep a gun in their houses for the defence of the same, or for fowling.' Is it possible to suppose that such an article could have been introduced into the Treaty, if it had been intended to admit every nobleman and gentleman, to a seat in parliament, on his merely taking the Oath of Allegiance? Now, let me ask the House to look at the state of Ireland at that time; for as this is a question of dry law, and unconnected' with political considerations, we may look at it without any of that warm political feeling which intrudes itself too often in spite of ourselves into Our debates, when we look at the present state of Ireland. It is argued, that it was intended fey; the first article of the treaty of Limerick
1006
to admit all Catholics into parliament on taking the Oath of Allegiance. Now I think that there is sufficient evidence to shew that neither of the contracting parties to the Treaty of Limerick, contemplated the possibility of admitting Roman Catholics into parliament. For, as I asked before, what was then the condition of Ireland? The treaty was signed in 1691, and a parliament had been sitting in Dublin, under the authority of king James in the latter part of 1689. I will not ask of what description were the? acts of that parliament, for I wish not to introduce any irritating topics into the debate but I will ask of what persons did it consist? It consisted of 241 members; it sat for two years, and during all that time it had only six protestants in its numbers. Now, is it possible to conceive, that with the experience of that parliament before him, king William would have been so impolitic as to allow Roman Catholics to sit in parliament, upon such terms as the hon. baronet has represented? It seems too great an absurdity to suppose that, when the Roman Catholics had for some time been excluded from parliament by the Oath of Supremacy, a matter of such importance as their re-admission to it would be settled at once without any discussion, and under such a general form of words as that 'they shall enjoy such Privileges in the exercise of their Religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland.' Why did not the Roman Catholics, with all th6 legal talent which they had at their command—for sir Toby Butler was with them at Limerick —get the words ' political privileges' inserted in the Treaty, supposing that king William was willing td grant them such extensive political privileges as were now claimed for them? Why did they not insert some form of words which would have avoided all cavil as to the extent of their privileges, re-fleeting, as they must have done, on this importance of having them clearly and positively defined? —But I have another reason for saying that the possession of such privileges, as were now asked for them, was never in the contemplation of the Roman Catholics of Limerick. Does the hon. baronet recollect the terms on which they insisted previously to the signing of the Treaty? The House will, perhaps, excuse me for shortly recapitulating them. Previously to the capitulation of Limerick, the Roman Catholics sent a proposal for a cessation of arms to general

1007
Ginckle. It was granted. The next day they submitted their proposals to him in the seven propositions following:—'1st. That their Majesties will, by an act of Indemnity, pardon all past offences whatever; 2nd. All Irish Catholics to be restored to the estates of which, they were seized or possessed before the late Revolution; 3rd. To allow free liberty of religious worship, and one priest to each parish, as well in towns and cities as in the country; 4th. Irish Catholics to be capable of holding all employments, civil and military under the Crown, and of exercising all trades, professions, and callings whatsoever; 5th. The Irish army to be kept on foot, and received in their present condition into their Majesties' service, in case they be willing to serve their Majesties against France or any other enemy; 6th. The Irish Catholics to be at liberty to reside in cities and towns corporate, to be members of corporations, and to exercise all corporate franchises and immunities; 7th. An act of Parliament to be passed for ratifying and confirming these conditions.'—Now I think it is quite evident that the conditions which the Roman Catholics then asked for are by no means equal in importance to those which the Roman, baronet says were granted to them by the 9th article of the Treaty which was subsequently concluded. And what does the House suppose was general Ginckle's answer to them? The propositions submitted to him were so extravagant that he refused to grant them. He said that, though he was almost a Stranger to the Jaws of England, he could see that they were equally inconsistent with those laws and his own honour. Having rejected them for these reasons, he ordered a new battery to be erected against the town, and at the same time sent in twelve propositions to the besieged, stating that he would grant them those terms and no others. The hon. gentleman opposite has said something about additions made to the Treaty on its ratification by king William, of which I heard for the first time this night with a very considerable degree of surprise. I shall say nothing upon it at present, except that I hope that this motion will include every syllable connected with this ratification. I wish that hon. gentlemen, before we come to the discussion of this Treaty, would read the argument of sir Toby Butler upon it. For they will then
1008
find, that, when sir Toby appeared in the year 1702, at the bar of the House of Commons, to argue against a bill which was then passing through it, he did not say one word respecting the injustice of excluding Roman Catholics from seats in parliament. At least such is my present belief. The House will find his argument at length in 'Plowden's History of Ireland;' and also in the ' Historical Apology for the Roman Catholics,' by Mr. William Parnell. The hon. gentleman opposite has referred to the authority of bishop Burnett, with the intention of showing that he conceived that the garrison of Limerick treated not only for themselves, but for all the rest of their countrymen who were in arms. He says that bishop Burnett was high in the confidence of king William, and that his testimony was most important on that particular point. I must here entreat the House to give me its attention whilst I state one fact In the year 1692, I think it was immediately after the ratification of the Treaty of Limerick, the Oath of Supremacy was required to be taken in the Irish parliament, by an act passed in the English parliament. I am not now called upon to say whether such an act was legal. All I say is, that it was acted upon in the Irish parliament. Bishop Burnett—the very bishop whose testimony the hon. gentleman deems so conclusive—with a full knowledge of that circumstance thus commences the third volume of his history—'I now begin on the 1st of May 1705, to prosecute this work, and I have now before me the reign of king William and queen Mary.' He was therefore at that time perfectly well aware of the construction put upon the Treaty of Limerick, and the practice which prevailed under it. He states the manner in which the Roman Catholics had entered into that treaty, and then he proceeds, after the quotation which had been made imperfectly by the I hon. gentleman, to observe that ' the articles of the capitulation were perfectly and impartially executed, and that some doubts which had arisen out of the ambiguous manner in which the treaty was worded, had been explained in favour of the Irish Catholics.' That is the construction put upon the treaty by a person whose authority is declared by the hon. gentleman to be most cogent, because he was in the immediate confidence of William 3rd. If, then, the due execution of the

1009
Treaty of Limerick is to be decided by the authority of bishop Burnett, we must conclude that the stipulations of it were faithfully executed, and that the ambiguous parts of it were explained in favour of the Irish Catholics.—I am un-feignedly sorry, that the hon. baronet, who brought forward the motion, and also the hon. gentleman who seconded it, have entered at present into argument upon the construction of the Treaty; for the subject embraces topics, and is connected so closely with documents that appeared at the time of the treaty, that it is impossible to discuss it as we ought, without some previous deliberation. I have looked at the subject, at different times, with great interest and attention, because I wished to consider it fairly and impartially. From all I have read upon it, I have a strong impression on my mind, that at the time of signing the treaty, it was not in the contemplation of either of the contracting parties, that the Catholics should be allowed to claim under it admission into parliament, or into the high and efficient offices of the State. I admit that the passing of the Penal-laws was a violation of that treaty, and that if it were not justified by circumstances at the time, it was a violation for which no sufficient excuse could be alleged. But I say, at the same time, that no privilege is now withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, which they have a right to claim in consequence of that treaty. That is the view which the Catholics took of their condition in 1793, when the first act was passed for their relief and benefit, and that is the view which I believe to be the correct one. I do not mean to say that the ancient date of the treaty is any bar to the faithful execution of it at this moment. If I were satisfied that the object of that treaty was to admit Roman Catholics into parliament on merely taking the Oath of Allegiance, I should be so far from thinking that the age of the treaty was of no avail, that I should permit it to have full influence on my judgment, whenever the Roman Catholics came to this House to ask for the fulfilment of their claims. I am, however, satisfied, by reference to cotemporary documents, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have no claim upon us from the Treaty of Limerick; and that being my opinion, I shall not say one word on the general question, until it is brought regularly under our consideration."
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he claimed equal credit for sincerity with the right hon. gentleman, when he declared his firm belief in favour of a different construction from that which the right hon. gentleman had put upon the articles of this great national stipulation—a treaty, not contracted, as lawyers would say, without a consideration, but which at once transferred to king William the full possession of the kingdom of Ireland. How happened it, that when the right hon. gentleman depended so much upon bishop Burnett's authority in behalf of his opinion that no violation of the treaty had taken place, he had overlooked the strong fact, that at the very time the bishop was writing, in 1705, some of those penal laws, which were infractions, had actually been enacted?
Mr. Peel.—"Bishop Burnett was, you know, only writing the history of William and Mary."
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that was true, but in point of date, the bishop was engaged in writing the work after 1704, when some of those penal acts had actually passed. That horrid act against the education of Catholic children —the most wicked that ever disgraced a statute book —had previously passed under the cognizance of bishop Burnett. Both the law and the fact were upon this point against the historian. But the bishop was good authority in another part of his work, where he spoke of the occurrence of direct facts under his own eye, and stated, in plain terms, that so intent was the government to obtain an end to the war in Ireland, that the commissioners were instructed to keep their terms in good faith (alluding to this very treaty), "to the no small grief," says Burnett, "of some English who wished to ruin the Irish for their own purposes." The passage in Burnett was as follows:—"When they came to capitulate, the Irish insisted on very high demands, which were set on by the French, who hoped they would be rejected; but the king had given Ginckle secret directions that he should grant all the demands they could make that would put an end to the war. So every thing was granted, to the great disappointment of the French, and to the no small grief of some of the English, who hoped this war would have ended in the total ruin of the Irish interest. Those of Limerick treated not for themselves alone, but for all the rest of their countrymen who were yet in arms. They were

1011
indemnified, and restored to all that they had enjoyed in king Charles's time. They were also admitted to all the privileges of subjects upon their taking the oath of allegiance to their majesties without being bound to take the oath of supremacy." By the first article of the treaty of Limerick, or of Ireland as it was more properly described, the Catholics were restored to all the privileges which they had enjoyed in the time of Charles 2nd, to be admitted to all the privileges of all the other subjects, without taking any other oath except the Oath of Allegiance. All the privileges constituted a comprehensive description, and necessarily included the right of sitting in parliament—a right subsequently and violently taken away, by the enactment which added two oaths to the qualification by the Oath of Allegiance. The articles in the Treaty were these:—"1 The Roman Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of Charles 2nd, and their majesties, as soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion."—"9. The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics, as subjects to their majesties' government, shall be the oath aforesaid (of allegiance) and no other."—He would here take the opportunity of referring to a curious tract which threw some additional light upon this subject. It was entitled "Great Britain's Just Complaint for late Measures and present Sufferings,'' a Jacobite tract, by W. J. Montgomery, printed by Ralph, and reprinted in Lord Somer's Tracts:—"The prince has taken as. large and broad steps towards a dispensing power as any that can be charged on king James. The Irish treaty furnishes us with a convincing proof of this, where such indulgences were granted to them solely and singly by his own authority, with relation to the exercise of their religion, dispensation from oaths, &c, as were directly contrary to the laws of the land/and the safety, rights, and privileges of the protestant subjects of that kingdom. This treaty I do acknowledge was afterwards ratified by parliament, but the new life commenceth only from the date of their sanction," "But," said the right hon.
1012
gentleman opposite, "did not the original rejection of the Irish proposals involve a striking contradiction of the supposed construction which was now contended for?" Certainly not; for what were the original propositions? The Irish proposals rejected by Ginckle were, free liberty of worship; Papists to be eligible to all employments civil and military; Irish army to be kept on foot and paid; corporations opened, and a public establishment of a priest for every parish. These were what Ginckle rejected; and surely they were very different from those for which the supporters of the Treaty of Limerick now contended.
Mr. Peel.—"No; what General Ginckle said, was, that these propositions were contrary to the laws of England."
Mr. Spring Riceresumed and said, so it was, to have an Irish priest established in every parish: if he did not mistake, the right hon. gentleman had, on a former occasion said the same; and sure he was that the earl of Liverpool had made such a declaration, when the motion was made for assigning a stipend to the Catholic clergy. That noble earl had then said, that such a demand went to the overthrow of the Protestant religion, and to a breach of the coronation oath. Turning to the conduct of general Ginckle, it would be seen, that on the 1st of August, 1691, the government had addressed a letter to him, urging him, in the strongest terms to put an end to the war in Ireland. The letter from Coningsby to Ginckle, of the 1st of August, 1691, represented how absolutely necessary it was for the affairs of Christendom, that the war in Ireland should be ended this summer. He represented how averse people were generally from giving the Irish any conditions, but that such persons did not consider the misery of the country, and less understood the circumstances of affairs abroad. At that time there were two contending parties in the field-councils of the different armies. There were in the Irish camp a French party, urging them on to extreme demands; while with Ginckle there was an English party, insisting that the Irish should receive no terms short of confiscation. Between these two inflamed parties the Irish government were desirous of moderately mediating. "But," said the right hon. gentleman, "see the length of time which elapsed before any complaint of this kind was made respecting the alleged in-

1013
fraction of the Treaty." To this assertion he would reply, that so far from no complaint having been made, the very earliest opportunity when a question arose was taken by sir Toby Butler and sir Stephen Rice, when the privileges secured by the Treaty were denied to the Catholics. Sir Toby Butler was heard against the clauses of the act prescribing the declaration and oath of abjuration contrary to the 9th article, and he said, that "the 15th prevented Catholics from voting for members of parliament unless they take the oath of abjuration, which to oblige them to is contrary to the Limerick articles, which says that the Oath of Allegiance and no other shall be imposed on them. And if there was no law in force in the reign of Charles 2nd against these things as there certainly was not, and if the Catholics have not since forfeited, as for certain they have not, these clauses are against the articles, and a violation of the public faith." This was an answer, and a complete one to the right hon. gentleman's statement, that they had made no complaint fresh upon the infraction of the Treaty. If there was no law, as there certainly was not, in the reign of Charles 2nd, to exclude Catholics from parliament, and if they had not since, as was equally clear, forfeited their rights under this Treaty, then the case was clear in their behalf, and the articles of the Treaty had been violated. This doctrine had, he repeated, been broached at the bar of that wicked parliament which had violated the immutable principles of justice, as well as the solemn faith of treaties. Notwithstanding such a departure from right and law, the speech of counsel remained on record as a protest against the injustice. The right hon. gentleman said, why did not the Irish at the time appeal to the English throne, or parliament? Who ever heard of the voice of the weak and the prostrate being raised against the strong in the zenith of their power? and to whom could they have appealed? To that parliament who had heard Molineux's celebrated book ordered, to be burnt, who had voted the Irish linen trade a nuisance. To the parliament of Ireland he had shewn they had already appealed. Was it to king William, whose situation was so difficult at the time, that he could scarcely venture to do justice to the Catholics of Ireland without encouraging the Jacobites in England, who were seeking to sap the foundation of his throne? William's govern
1014
ment was not then powerful enough to enable him to consult in this particular instance his feelings of justice. The government of William was well described by Somerville, as composed of persons associated in administration, and placed in responsible offices, but alienated from each other by former animosities, and actuated by incompatible interests, they entered not into any previous concert, and often differed publicly in opinion. Hence arose procrastination, inconsistency, and feebleness, in the executive branches of government. "Potestne in tam diversis mentibus pax aut amicitia esse?" He hoped there was no government subsisting at this time deserving the same character. For if there were, neither the English, the Irish, nor any other class of his majesty's subjects, could expect any very strong or useful measure to emanate from their hands. He was as ready as the right hon. gentleman to praise many of the great names who had figured in king William's government. The master of the Mint, for instance, of that monarch was the illustrious sir Isaac Newton. Still, that government was paralyzed and perplexed by contending difficulties, and compelled to be neutral in many instances where they ought to have been more just. He had trespassed thus long upon their attention, from his deliberate conviction, that his construction of the Treaty of Limerick was the only just one. One of his own ancestors had been engaged in preparing it, and his fellow-countrymen claimed the fair benefit of so solemn an enactment. Respecting the Oath of Supremacy, he begged to say a few words. That oath was never enjoined to be taken, according to any law, by any member of the Irish parliament. Resolutions of the Houses had been certainly voted, but these in themselves did not constitute law. In the reign of Charles 2nd, the parliament had nothing at heart so much as the exclusion of Catholics. On the 14th of May, 1661, a committee was appointed to consider how the oaths of allegiance and supremacy may be taken by all who are or may be hereafter members of this House. On the 15th May, 1661, a committee was appointed to attend the lords justices to pray the issue of a commission to administer the Oath of Supremacy. On the 21st of May, 1661, a committee was appointed to request the primate to appoint persons to administer the sacrament to the members

1015
of the House. On the 3rd of March, 1662, a committee sat to prepare the heads of a bill disenabling members to serve in parliament that shall not take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and also heads of a bill against popish hierarchy; and on the 17th of March, 1662, heads of a bill against popish hierarchy, were reported singly; also English laws against popery referred to a committee. On the 10th of April, 1663, major Ormsby reported the heads of a bill enjoining oaths of supremacy and allegiance; and there followed a petition to the duke of Ormond, that the provision made by law, in England, hath tended to the preservation of the peace, &c.; and that since the government is the same, the necessities of both the same, the reasons of state the same, and such as doth require the same laws; in consideration whereof we offer to your Grace the heads of a bill declaring who shall take the Oath of Supremacy. On the 21st of May, 1663, the prorogation continued to the 26th of October, 1665; and in August, 1666, the parliament was dissolved. So that up to the declaratory law of 1782, none of these acts had received the sanction which was necessary to make them binding. It was a curious thing to find the Irish parliament endeavouring to enforce an English statute as binding, while they were at the very time inquiring what other laws of England were fit to be re-enacted: thus, in the one case, adopting, as a matter of course, to serve a particular passion, what in the other they were determined only to have after it had received their own legislative sanction. He concurred with the right hon. gentleman in wishing that there existed any great legal tribunal before which this case of the Treaty of Limerick could be tried. If any man doubted the construction for which he contended in behalf of his country, let him consider the relative positions of the parties who were at the time engaged in the conflict. The one the weaker party, who had, with honourable and scrupulous fidelity, fulfilled its hard terms, though at the very moment had they agreed to this fulfilment, a French reinforcement had arrived in the river with succour: yet, notwithstanding this solemn adherence to their plighted faith, at the same moment a prelate was found, from the pulpit of a church in Dublin, to inveigh against keeping faith with the Irish, because they kept no faith themselves. It was always a principle in the construction of treaties, that they
1016
should be construed in favour of the weaker party; he appealed to the British parliament to give the descendants of those who had so faithfully observed their part of the stipulations the benefit of their contract. He appealed to that great military captain who was at the head of the present Administration, and who was conversant with treaties made in the field, for his aid in doing justice to his fellow countrymen. From the days of king William to the present the violation of this Treaty had been complained of, and he, lastly, implored justice for those to whom it had been so long denied.
Mr. G. Mooresaid, he did not mean, in discussing this question, to inquire whether the Treaty had been punctually fulfilled, but he would view it as res integra as if it were a question coming for the first time before the House. He would not consider it as a question for a jury, nor would he decide it by any strict and technical construction; but would view it as a great political question, which it was competent to judge, not by the literal meaning of the words, but with reference to the intentions of the parties. He would first call the attention of the House to that part of the subject on which so triumphant an answer had been given by his right hon. friend, as to the ninth article, by which it was provided, that all the Roman Catholics who submitted to king William should take the Oath of Allegiance, and no other. He contended that, if the provisions of the Treaty had been so extensive as the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and the hon. baronet, were disposed to contend, it would have been wholly unnecessary to make additional provisions for those numerous classes of Catholics whose situation was particularised and provided for in the other articles of the Treaty. If the provisions of the articles to which he alluded were so extensive, then he must say, that the provisions of the second article, granting to all trades, professions, and callings of the Catholics the free use and enjoyment of their respective rights, must be considered wholly superfluous, if the parties themselves were of opinion that they came fairly within the operation of the ninth article. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to argue, that the whole of the articles, notwithstanding all that was said to the contrary, must be considered as referring solely to religious liberty, and not to political privileges. In support of this opinion

1017
he read an extract from the journal of the rev. George Storey, in which were to be found the provisions of an amnesty proposed by the lords justices to the Irish, several years before the Treaty of Limerick, and which amnesty, it was observed, contained all the provisions afterwards granted under the formal Treaties of Limerick and Galway. The hon. member concluded by observing, that he had carefully abstained from touching upon any subject which could excite any feelings of irritation. He had merely argued the question with reference to the general understanding upon historical documents. Of these documents he took a very strong view, and he most earnestly hoped, that the hon. baronet would see the propriety of moving for a copy of the Declaration of the Justices of Ireland at the time to which he alluded, in addition to the copy of the Treaty of Limerick.
Mr. A. Dawsonsaid, he could not avoid saying a few words in reply to the right hon. Secretary. That right hon. gentleman had observed, that the parliament of James the 2nd was composed exclusively of Catholics, to the number of two hundred and forty members. That parliament afterwards attainted all the Protestants in Ireland, and confiscated their estates. Nothing, however, could be more absurd than to argue that a parliament, elected afterwards in Ireland, was likely to be composed wholly of Catholics. On the contrary the boroughs and counties of Ireland, which were settled as protestant, and in which the protestants had a preponderance, were so numerous that the parliament must have afterwards had a clear majority, both in the House of Lords and Commons. It appeared, indeed, by a work of a colonel Lawrence, that in the year 1680, there were seventy-nine Protestant peers in Ireland, and only thirty-two Catholic. When, therefore, the contending parties negociated at Limerick, there could not have been any fear of the consequences from the granting political privileges to the Roman Catholics. No danger could possibly have been apprehended from the predominant influence of the Catholics in the-parliament of Ireland. That question, indeed, never came before Ginckle, because BO such idea ever entered the heads of those who were called upon to negociate. It was true that the conditions first proposed to Ginckle were returned, because they were inadmissible; but other conditions
1018
were afterwards allowed, not much worse than those originally offered. Ginckle, however, was a Dutchman, and knew too well how to drive a bargain, to accept the first proposition which was offered him. It was absurd, however, to say, that these conditions had any reference to seats in parliament. Offices civil and military were mentioned, but then it was well known, that civil and military offices did not comprehend seats in parliament. Seats in parliament were not mentioned, because the Irish knew they had that privilege already. Ginckle knew it too. He knew that the Protestants had a majority in the House of parliament, and he knew that there was no danger to the Protestants from the Catholics continuing to sit in that parliament. There was another point upon which he wished to say a few words. The right hon. gentleman had not attempted to account for that most remarkable resolution of the lords upon the subject of prayers. All Protestant peers were compelled to attend by 10 o'clock to hear prayers, under the pain of forfeiting a shilling; but, as they knew the Catholics could not attend these prayers, a certain time, a few minutes or so, was allowed them to attend under the forfeiture of another shilling. Now, if there were no Catholic peers in the House, what was the meaning, of that resolution? It could be considered as little better than a mere Irish blunder, to make resolutions apply to Catholics, if no Catholics were members of their lordships' House. The right hon. gentleman had observed upon the fact of gentlemen being allowed to carry a carbine and pistols; but that referred solely to the officers of the army, and not to Catholic gentlemen in general. The hon. member then proceeded to refer to the assertion, that the terms of the Treaty of Limerick had been strictly complied with, and admitted that they had been punctually adhered to, because the Catholics were allowed to sit in parliament; and this he took to be one great reason why no mention of the matter was to be found in the speech of sir Toby Butler at the bar of the House of Lords. That speech referred only to some particular infringement of the Treaty; and sir Toby, beside that he had no reason to speak to the point of seats in parliament, well knew that he would have been stopped by the lord Chancellor, if he had attempted to enter upon a branch of the question which was not contained in the petition

1019
he appeared to support. If any of these things could raise a doubt in the mind of the right hon. gentleman, he had expressed a determination to give the question further consideration; and it was to be hoped, that if such doubts were once raised, the right hon. gentleman would allow his doubts to incline to that side which was favourable to the people of Ireland.
The motion was then agreed to.

SCOTCH LAW OF ENTAIL.
Mr. Kennedy, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Scotch Law of Entail, expressed his determination, in the amendments he had to propose, to consult, as far as he possibly could, the feelings and the prejudices of the Scotch Aristocracy. The statute he wished to amend, was of very ancient date. It was passed in the year 1685. By its provisions, the owner of the fee simple of an estate in Scotland was enabled to limit the succession by a series of entails through ages. Possessing the fee simple, he had the power to name his unborn heirs, and to settle the succession to his property through a series of ages, without the possibility of any future possession altering the nature or terms of the entail. The consequences of this extended nature of entail were most injurious to all the transactions of society: for when all other properties were found liable to debts contracted by their proprietors, the owners of entailed estates found their possessions exempt from any obligations. A record was kept of the entails settled according to this statute, and he had procured a return of the numbers of properties which had been progressively entailed, through periods of twenty years, in order to shew how rapidly they were increasing, and how injurious that increase must prove to the prosperity of the kingdom. In the first forty years there were 313 estates entailed: in the next period of twenty years there were sixty-nine; in the next 138; in the next 272; then 360; then 459; and in the last period there were 54: making in the whole, 1,645 estates entailed under the statute, besides a vast number of other properties left in the hands of trustees for the same purpose. It was a fact worthy of notice, that large quantities of English capital were gradually finding their way to Scotland, in order to its being placed under the security of the same restrictions, tending to increase the evil, and
1020
to produce a still greater mischief—a numerous absentee aristocracy. It might, indeed, fairly be said, that one half of all the landed property of Scotland was at that moment placed under the system of entail permitted by the statute of 1685; and he might venture to predict, that, if some check was not speedily applied, the whole of the landed property of that country would soon be placed in the same condition. The owners of estates entailed in this manner found their properties, as he before observed, free from the obligations imposed upon others; and it was, therefore, not unnatural to suppose that many of them looked upon their creditors in a very different light from that in which they must regard them if their properties were settled in the ordinary manner. The hon. gentleman went on to contend, that this statute produced a state of things very uncongenial with the opinions of the times in which we lived, and calculated to retard the progress of improvement. In England an estate, it was true, might be entailed to a certain extent, but when the son came of age, the father might come to an understanding with him for their mutual benefit, and cut off that entail. In Scotland no such good understanding could prevail between the father and the son; and this want of harmony in families was one of the evils resulting from the system which he proposed to alter. Scotland had, of late years, made rapid strides towards improvement; but great as that improvement had been, it must have been much greater had not the peculiar nature of these entails presented an obstacle to the proper exertions of speculators upon the large tracts of waste land which it contained. In 1757, lord Hardwicke addressed himself to lord Kaimes, one of the ablest lawyers who ever lived in Scotland. Lord Hardwicke expressed his entire concurrence in the opinion entertained by lord Kaimes, as to the evils of the law of entail in Scotland, which had the effect of quite locking up the property in that country. In 1764 an act was passed upon this subject, and in 1770 another act was passed with the view of making some improvements, but which was attended with great confusion and inconvenience. Again, in 1824, a statute was introduced, which was brought forward with the best feelings, and for the best purposes. By that statute, a small part of the estate was made liable to certain contingencies, but it was not pas-

1021
sible for the heir, under any circumstances, to alienate the greater portion of it; and; whatever might be the demands upon it, two thirds of the estate were strictly preserved by the law of entail. He would for the present merely state the general object of his bill, which was to alter and amend the law of entail. The proposition upon this subject 'did not originate with him. It was one earnestly recommended in a very able work published by Mr. Irvine. The idea of the necessity of altering and amending the law upon entail was also strongly recommended in an admirable book upon the subject, by an eminent lawyer, Mr. Simpson. A disposition towards such an alteration prevailed throughout Scotland. It was upon such authority as he had cited, that he had undertaken this business. He wished it to be understood, that in any alteration which he might propose, he intended to make an exemption in favour of the aristocracy of Scotland. He would make this concession to what some might consider the prejudices of the aristocracy that no fine should be levied, or recovery suffered, which would cut off the entail, by which estates were transmitted in the families of the aristocracy. Indeed he was anxious that any change which he might be instrumental in introducing should not affect the natural interests of any individuals. He would not make the improved law of entail, obligatory upon any persons. Those who wished to abide by the present system of the strict law of entail, would be at liberty to do so, but then he wished that a freer and more unrestricted system should be introduced, for the benefit of those who might wish to avail themselves of it. He would not propose a sudden and compulsory measure, but make it voluntary and gradual, and thereby render the adopting of it more generally acceptable. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Law of Entail in Scotland."
The Lord Advocatesaid, he did not object to the manner in which the hon. member proposed to bring the subject before the consideration of the House, as during its progress the country would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this important measure. It was the more necessary to give the country this opportunity, as it was the obvious tendency of the bill to do away with entails entirely
1022
in Scotland. [No, no! from Mr. Kennedy.] He could not see what other tendency the giving every heir the power of disentailing one third of his entailed estates could have; for thus, in the course of three successions, the whole of an entailed estate might be alienated. He thought the people of Scotland were not prepared for so violent a measure. If the bill had given the power of disentailing the whole estate at once, he did not think there would have been much opposition to it, as there were few who would ever think of doing such a thing. With respect to extending the operations of the bill to the present holders of entailed property, he thought there would be muck objection to it, on account of the interests of the presumptive heirs, which were bound up in the present law. Indeed, he did not think the holders themselves would go along with his hon. friend in his views.
Mr. Sugdenthought, that any change which would affect the statute of 1685, by which the real property of Scotland was settled and established, would be productive of much inconvenience and litigation. He would not say that the law of entail in Scotland was not susceptible of improvement; nor would he advocate the expediency of strict entail: on the contrary, in this commercial country, he thought that property should be comparatively open; whilst a due regard should be held for the principle of non-alienation, for the preservation of property in families, and the other salutary purposes for which it was instituted. Much litigation and confusion ensued from many parts of the law affecting real property and its entailment in Scotland; but that confusion would, in his opinion, be only increased by any precipitate interference with the principal on which entail property, consisting as it did of nearly half the whole property of Scotland, was settled.
The Attorney General, recommended the dividing the proposed measure into two distinct branches, the prospective and retrospective. Upon the propriety of touching existing relations, great difference of opinion prevailed. He did not understand for what reason the peerage was excepted from the operation of the prospective clauses.
Mr. Kennedy, in reply, said, he never meant to unsettle the relations of property in Scotland: his object was to remedy an-

1023
noyances and inconveniences which were admitted to exist under the present system.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, that before he proceeded to enter on the motion which stood for that evening, he felt it necessary to make an observation with respect to some circumstances that had recently occurred. Yesterday a conversation arose on a petition being presented relative to the situation of negroes in the colonies, and the learned member for Winchelsea then made several observations which he had declared his intention of answering when he brought forward the motion of which he had given notice. The learned gentleman had then requested him to put off the discussion until seven o'clock this evening; and afterwards the learned gentleman wished him to postpone it altogether. He was obliged to notice this, because many gentlemen were anxious that the discussion should come on immediately. He, however, would be guided by the feeling of the House [cries of "go on."] The motion, then, which he meant to propose to the House was, "that the minutes of evidence taken before his majesty's privy council, in the matter of the Demerara and Berbice manumission order in council, be laid before this House." And he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to those circumstances which induced him to consider such a course as highly expedient. He begged it to be distinctly understood, that the step he was taking was not in the slightest degree influenced by any communications with the members of his majesty's government. He, as a privy councillor, attended the original investigation, and, in the performance of his duty as a member of parliament, he now brought the question forward. Gentlemen were aware, that in May 1823, certain resolutions were passed in that House, which pledged the House to pursue a certain course of policy with respect to slaves. The resolution which was then proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton) set forth, "that the state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British constitution, and of the Christian religion; and that it ought to be gradually abolished throughout the British colonies, with as much expedition as may be found consistent with a due regard to the well-
1024
being of the parties concerned." That resolution was rejected by the House, and the following resolutions were substituted:—"1. That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for ameliorating the condition of the slave-population in his majesty's colonies. 2. That through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave-population, such as may prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his majesty's subjects. 3. That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose, at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property."—The House were aware of the-effects which these resolutions produced; and it was necessary, if gentlemen wished to be able to judge of the extreme delicacy of the situation in which that House and the government were now placed with reference to these resolutions, that they should look minutely at all that had occurred since they were passed. If gentlemen felt an "interest in the well-being of the slaves themselves," and were anxious, while they furthered that well-being, for "the fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property," they would attend, for once, to that series of circumstances which led to the present state of things in the colonies. He begged leave to read the prayer of the memorial which had been laid before his majesty in council, from Demerara and Berbice. The memorialists prayed "that your majesty will be pleased not to send forth any order in council for the manumission of slaves, until your majesty shall be graciously pleased to hear the appellants by their counsel." He wished to call the attention of the House most particularly to the clause for compulsive manumission. That clause arose thus:—After the resolutions of 1823, pledging the government to a specific course, and pledging the House to look to the well-being of the slave as well as to the interests of his master, were passed, lord Bathurst, in the month of July, sent out to the colonies a certain despatch, and he directed those to whom it was addressed, to adopt measures in

1025
furtherance of the instructions contained in that despatch. In that paper, however, no allusion whatever was made to compulsory manumission: but the governor of Trinidad, sir Ralph Woodford, was told that all the matters contained in it were sanctioned by the government, and by the West-India body resident in England. Now, sir Ralph, in obedience to the orders of lord Bathurst, sent back to his majesty's privy council a draught of the Spanish law, as it existed in the colony of Trinidad. This was done, because Mr. Canning, when he brought forward his motion, in March, 1824, for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves, laid it down as wise and expedient, to gather all the laws with respect to slaves which were known in the West Indies, to concentrate them, and to make them part and parcel of the law by which the slave-population was to be governed and regulated. This clause for compulsory manumission being found to be part of the law of Trinidad, was included in the new code, of which it then formed a part. Mr. Canning had stated this. The law was laid on the table of that House, and the clause of compulsory manumission would be found in it, with very little alteration from the law of Spain on that point. Now it was necessary to state to the House, that neither on the part of those gentlemen who were supposed to represent the slaves, nor on the part of those who, on the other hand, were supposed to represent the planters, had any opposition been given to this measure. No reclamation had been made with respect to it, on the part either of the abolitionists, or of the proprietors. But no sooner was it extended, or announced that it was to be extended, to Berbice and Demerara, than the court of policy there, combining and interweaving the Dutch law with it, put a wrong construction on it, expressed themselves hostile to it, and sent home a representation on the subject to the Secretary of State. They required that the law should either be modified or repealed altogether, and they declared that they could only submit to it on account of the overruling power, with regard to the colonies, which the mother country possessed. There had been laid on the table, from time to time, since that period, a series of voluminous despatches, bearing on this subject; but, though much information was contained in them, still no law had yet been passed,
1026
with respect to compulsory manumission, differing from that which sir Ralph Wood-ford had stated to be the Spanish law in the colony of Trinidad. What he wished to impress on the House was this,—that neither the abolitionists, nor their opponents here were perfectly aware of the consequences of that law, or of the very different situation in which the colony was placed in 1823, when the law was promulgated, compared with former times. And he would go the whole length of saying, that, if the abolitionists, as he had heard them declare in that House, meant to stand or fall by this law of Trinidad, they would find it wholly inoperative; they would find that it would not provide for the well-being of the slave, or for the private interest of his master. By the Spanish law, the slave, invito domino, might claim his right to manumission; and at a time when there was an unlimited market for slaves,—when there were abundance of slaves in the Spanish colonies,—the working of that law created no inconvenience or difficulty, because vacancies occasioned by the appeal of slaves to this lex non scripta (for that it was a law, no man could doubt, though it could not be traced to any distinct record) were easily supplied. The process was very simple. The slave went to his master and claimed his freedom. The latter employed an appraiser, who adjudged the price of the slave. The individual had then only to proceed to the market and purchase a slave of equal value. In the West Indies, even after the slave trade was done away, little inconvenience was felt from the operation of this law, in consequence of the large importation of slaves from islands, the soil of which was poor, into Trinidad. Now, he would show where the defects existed in the Trinidad order in council. By a clause in that order, it was required that the owner should receive a fair and just value for his slave; that in case of any dispute arising in the appraisement of the slave, the owner and the protector of slaves should each appoint a referee. Nothing could be more simple than this clause; but then it contained nothing to direct the principle on which the appraisers were to make their valuation. Where there could be a reference made to a market, there was no difficulty; but here was no market, and the principle of the appraisement ought therefore to be defined. The whole of this question, and the whole of the

1027
difficulties connected with it, turned on one point; namely, the degree of probability of the owner being able to supply the place of his slave. In 1823, the country was deluged with assurances that it was the greatest of all mistakes to suppose that free labour would not be found as effectual as the labour of slaves in the cultivation of sugar. Although no one wished more heartily than himself that these assurances might prove true, he doubted their correctness. The event had proved that his doubts were not unfounded. To find out the manner in which this fact bore upon the general question, was his intention, and for that reason he had been induced to move for the production of these papers. The measure resolved on was, that the appraiser should replace an equivalent to the slave removed on the estate of the owner. Now, there were great difficulties in putting this measure into practice. He freely admitted that the resolutions of that House in 1824, showed that the House looked forward to the slave-population arriving, by progressive stages, to a state of perfect freedom. But the House had also resolved, that this should be done with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property; and here the difficulty was to be found. The master derived profit only by working his estate, and if the labour was abstracted from him, how could he obtain any profit,—how could his interests be fairly and equitably considered? The whole difficulty turned on this:—the market for slaves was limited, and the cultivation of sugar was carried on by a body of slaves, because it was necessary that the work should be continuous, that there should be no interruption, that the labourers should be available at all periods. Now, if free labour were introduced in the West Indies, the same effects would prevail as were seen in this country. The liberty which the labourer possessed here of working or refusing to work as he pleased, or as his necessities would allow, would attach also to the emancipated slave. Any gentleman who would investigate the evidence given on this subject would see that in this way a planter might be placed under such circumstances, that labour would be abstracted from him without his receiving an equivalent. All he was anxious about was, that the House should show that they understood these difficulties, that they did not legislate in ignor-
1028
ance, and that they might prove to the inhabitants of the colonies, that it was their wish to give a candid investigation of all the difficulties of the question before they legislated upon it finally. If the House rested upon the Trinidad order, they rested upon a law which was inoperative. To make a law, and not to point out the means by which it could be carried into effect, was unjust. It was a very great mistake to suppose that all slaves were to be estimated at an equal value. The large cultivator expected a larger return than the individual who cultivated less. The former having invested more fixed capital on his estate than the latter, the abstraction of the labour of the former was more detrimental to him than the abstraction of the labour of the latter would be to him. Suppose, in England, that there were two farms, on the one of which 12,000 l. had been expended, and on the other only 1,000 l.; then, although the labour on both might be equal, yet, if the labour were abstracted from both, the owner of the former would lose a great deal more than the owner of the latter, because he had laid out much more upon the estate which he was precluded from working. It had been suggested, that it would be a wise plan to purchase the children of slaves; but the same argument applied to this proposition. The man who had the greater proportion of fixed capital, would be more injured than the man who had the lesser portion, if they were both compelled to sell the children of their slaves at the same price. Notwithstanding these difficulties, he would not shrink from the avowal, that human ingenuity could devise no mediate course, no alternative between waiting for that length of time, which some witnesses had declared might be centuries, and compulsory manumission. Unless, indeed, they were prepared actually to purchase the whole of the property of the West-India Islands. Let the House, therefore, consider the difficulty in which they were placed. On the one hand, they were called upon to protect the interests of private property; on the other, to effect the freedom of the slaves. If gentlemen would condescend to look into this difficulty, and show the West-Indians that they were as anxious to secure their property to them, as they were to provide for the well-being of the slaves, they would be more likely to obtain the concurrence of the legislative

1029
power of the colonies in the measures which they might be inclined to adopt. He regretted that his learned friend, the member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham) was absent,—not that any thing that he had said required his presence, or that of any other person; for he had invited no argument, he had merely invited the House and the country to investigate, in order that they might understand the difficulties which he had pointed out, and agree that these propositions ought to be modified. It was of paramount necessity, that the West-Indians should be convinced that the House had no desire to overlook their interests, while it insisted on measures of melioration. The learned member for Winchelsea had last night introduced the analogy of the silk trade, and had said that, upon the introduction of some late regulations, the persons engaged in that trade might as well have asked for compensation as the slave-owners. But he would point out to the House one plain reason which disposed of that sort of analogy altogether. The compensation claimed by the slave-owners was for property abstracted, and not a claim founded upon incident. In this country, if a canal were cut, or a street built, the interest of individuals was made to yield to the public interest; but then it was well known that the individuals always received a compensation. Now, the West-Indian had property which he could only work by means of slave-labour; and was he not, therefore, equally entitled to compensation, if deprived of that labour, as the man in this country was, who had his property destroyed, either by the building of a street or the construction of a canal? In either case, the compensation was for property abstracted, and not for loss accruing from incident. They never yet heard of people claiming a compensation, because a duty had been imposed upon any particular article. If a man who lived in Bond-street were to come forward and claim compensation because Regent-street had been built, he would very properly be laughed at; but a man who lived in Swallow-street, and whose house was pulled down to make way for Regent-street, had a claim for compensation, and his claim was allowed.—The West-Indian must be insane, who would not rather employ free labour than slaves, if the former would answer his purpose; but then, he said, very fairly, "You are bound to shew me that there is a chance
1030
of free labour succeeding." As long as an equivalent slave could be produced to the master, not in theory, but in practice, there would be no inconvenience. The West-Indian did not complain of such a substitution. What he complained of was, that, in the letter of the law, the House had not followed the principles it had professed. It had been said, that this compensation could not be estimated in money. He could not agree in this. Indeed, he thought that there was no quality, either mental or corporeal, which, more or less, money would not compensate for. It had been asked, too, what was to be done when equivalent slaves could not be purchased? This case was not provided for, and though it was a prospective case, yet it had been pleaded as a difficulty. The learned member for Winchelsea had imputed to him (Mr. W. Horton) the expression, that a scale of compensation ought to be agreed upon before anything else was done; but he had never said so. What he had said was this—let the House recommend as strongly as it pleased, but when it legislated on property, the difficulties of the question ought to be seriously considered, and the House ought not to pledge itself irrevocably to do an act of substantive injustice, for the sake of conforming to certain resolutions which it had passed. He had also been accused by the same learned gentleman, of being an opponent to the abolitionists. But when that learned gentleman told him, that he was an opponent to the abolitionists, he must beg leave to ask, who were meant by the term abolitionists? They were all pledged in one way—all had agreed to the resolutions of 1823—all were bound to carry them into execution; and he challenged any honourable member to say that he had ever done anything which did not tend to the accomplishment of these resolutions. As he had before observed, those resolutions contemplated the ultimate attainment of perfect freedom by the slaves: but they also intended, that private property should be respected; and they did therefore involve tremendous difficulties. Slavery had been represented to be an excrescence which was not wanted, and which would be removed the moment free labour came into operation. The event had proved that this representation was incorrect. He could assure the House that the common sergeant, Mr. Denman, and Mr. sergeant Bosanquet had been requested to find out, if possible, any persons who could

1031
shew that the Berbice appellants suffered less difficulty than they represented themselves to be labouring under. They were told that every assistance should be furnished them in their inquiries; but no person came forward. If any contrary evidence was to be obtained, he called upon hon. gentlemen to tell the House where it was to be found, and show that the difficulties which he had pointed out were ideal. He could not admit that this question ought to be disposed of by an arithmetical computation of what orders had been complied with, and what had not: though he saw no reason why those which one colony had complied with could not be complied with by another. If they did wish to conciliate the slave and the proprietor, the difficulties must be investigated. The interests of the master and the slave must be kept up, but not placed in collision; for if they were placed in collision, no pecuniary advantage would result to the master, and no benefit to the slave. The preservation of the two interests was a delicate matter. In this country, if property were put into the hands of trustees, to be applied to the use of children, but according to the interests of their father, no one could doubt that, in the performance of the trust, these parties would be very likely to be brought into collision. And thus it was with the interests of the slave and his master. But this he would venture to say, that the master who most consulted the benefit and happiness of his slave paid the greatest attention to his own interests. In considering this subject, it ought particularly to be recollected what the condition of the slaves was at the present time. It ought not to be forgotten, that there was a vast difference between the slave now, and the slave who, just imported from Africa, was bursting with indignation against his captors, and fretful and uneasy under fetters which he then were for the first time; sighing after the freedom he had lost, and grieving, among strangers, at the recollection of his friends and kindred from whom he had been torn. These were feelings, and this a situation of which the Creole slave was ignorant. He had been born in slavery, and never knew what freedom was. It ought to be recollected, that measures which might be adapted to the slave when first imported were not measures applicable to the present state of slavery in the West Indies. The right hon. gentleman concluded by declaring that it was not his
1032
object to vindicate the conduct of the colonial legislatures; but if the House was anxious to prevent ill consequences, it would show the colonies that, in proportion to its power to enforce, so was its inclination to reason guardedly, and to act with forbearance, upon a subject of much delicacy. One fact ought never to be lost sight of; namely, that the gratuitous benevolence of the House affected those hon. members who were believed to exhibit it neither in purse nor in person. Some lenity was due to those who felt it possible that their nearest interests, and those of all who were dependent upon them, might perhaps be hazarded, not by malevolence, but by the mere haste of acting without competent information. He should sit down with moving, "That a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that the minutes of evidence before the Privy Council, in the matter of the Demerara and Berbice manumission order, be laid before the House."
Mr. Keith Douglasseconded the motion; but the hon. member was not audible in the gallery. We understood him to support the arguments of his right hon. friend, and to contend, while he approved of the resolutions of that House, that they ought to be enforced with equity and mildness. Great caution was necessary in their proceedings, particularly in the absence of the requisite information. This point had been much insisted on by the Colonial Legislature of Jamaica, and was the object of one of their resolutions in 1826. As to the Slave Trade, he was afraid the introduction of slaves into the foreign islands had not diminished, and that the restrictions we had imposed on that trade subjected the slaves, during the passage, to increased privations and hardships. He referred to several authorities to shew that parliament was greatly uninformed as to the true situation of the slaves in the West Indies.
Lord Nugentdid not rise to oppose the motion, but for the purpose of making a protest against some of the doctrines laid down by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman had deprecated going into any controversial matter; but he had stated some opinions, against which he found himself obliged to protest. He agreed with the right hon. gentleman in what he had said of the two resolutions of that House, with the exception of one word. There was a higher power than parliament,

1033
and parliament could never guarantee a right against which nature had set her face. The law of nature and the law of God, said that man could not have a property in man; and therefore he must deny that the colonists had any claim to compensation for the manumission of their slaves, as a matter of right. He was ready to grant them that as a boon; he would deal liberally with them; but he must deny that they had any right to compensation. He could never admit, and he rose to protest against this doctrine, that any compensation could be legally claimed for a loss of property, which could not be acquired without a violation of all natural rights.
Mr. W. Whitmorediffered in one point from his right hon. friend. His right hon., friend had argued that, because there was no market-price for slaves, the appraisers could have no principle by which to determine their value. Now, he would contend, that there was a market price for slaves, they were still, and they would be, transferred—this would give a market-price, and by this the appraiser might regulate his conduct. There would be some evil, however, in settling the price this way, for as the demand for them outgrew the supply, the price would rise. But still he would contend that there must, even on this principle, be a market-price for slaves. Those who owned land that yielded a profit of six or twelve per cent, would transfer their slaves to those who owned land that yielded eighteen per cent; and as long as a difference of this kind existed between estates, there must, and would be transfers of slaves, and a market-price. Certainly, they could not enforce compulsory manumission at a fixed price, but he was persuaded that our colonies would never be in a flourishing condition until all the slaves were converted into free labourers. This was what he looked to to give security to the planters themselves. In his opinion, the time was not far distant when the whole cultivation of the West Indies would be carried on by free labourers, and this was a state of things that would be, he was persuaded, infinitely more advantageous to the planters and the negroes than their present state. It must not be said that a vertical sun and a tropical climate would prevent this; for the House must know, that sugar was cultivated in Mexico by free labourers. Let the House look also to the East Indies: there sugar was culti-
1034
vated by free labour. However long this wholesome system might yet be delayed, he was persuaded that it was only upon this system that the West Indies could flourish, and sooner or later it would be forced on them.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, he must protest, as he ever had done and should do, against the doctrine, that the ownership of slaves could be assimilated to the laws applicable to any other species of property. Man never could become the legal property of man. There was a maxim "nullum tempus occurrit regi;'' so it was with the imprescriptible rights of man. No prescription in slavery could render it just. He should like to know, whether any white man in this country would consent to give up his freedom, because ages back his ancestors were bondsmen. He would maintain that no right whatever existed to compensation; but he thought it possible, if any benefit had acccrued from the labour of those slaves, that other parties who had given the semblance of a right, or a temptation to continue in the acquisition of such property, ought to give a compensation for any damages that might be proved to have arisen; always provided that those who looked for that compensation had used that property as they ought, and that the loss they suffered did not arise from their own fault. That, however, was a right which could not affect negro property in itself, nor deprive negroes of that indefeasible claim to freedom which was the right of every man.
Mr. Baringsaid, he would not follow the line of argument pursued by some of his hon. friends as to the abstract right of property in the negro, or how far slavery was inconsistent with the laws of God; but he could not avoid remarking, that that mode of argument must naturally tend to excite distrust in the minds of the West-India proprietors towards those who had voted for the resolutions on a former occasion". When he heard such arguments as those of the noble lord, and of his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, as to compensation, he begged to ask them if they could get rid of the resolutions of parliament in 1823, which were founded on the rights of property? His hon. friend who spoke last had said, that no man had any right of property in another man. Now if he were a West-India proprietor, which he, was not, he should think, from the tenour of the resolutions of parliament

1035
in 1823, that he was entitled to some compensation; but he must own that he could expect but little from the tone of his hon. friend. Without going into the abstract question of slavery, he thought that under the different modifications of the relations between the rich and poor, in which the labours of the many were for the benefit of the few, his hon. friend would find among many classes of the people, much that required his commiseration, more than the condition of the negro slaves. There was, he thought (and he meant no imputation upon the benevolent motives of his hon. friend), but there was, he thought, a kind of quackery abroad on this question, and a feeling was excited, as if the slaves were in a most miserable and abominable condition. No authority, however high, was sufficient to remove this impression. If a report were presented from a governor of a colony, speaking of the comfortable condition of the slaves, it was at once said that he partook of the planters' turtle and punch, and that he was biassed in his opinion. If a military officer gave a statement on the same subject, interested motives were imputed; and while such authorities were disregarded, calumnies were daily spread abroad, and a state of things was described as related to the slaves, which he was sure only existed in the imaginations of those by whom such reports were circulated. He mentioned this, in reply to the general assertions which he had heard of the state of the slave-population in the West Indies. He, on the other hand, would assert, that the condition of that population, on well-regulated estates, was superior to that of many of the labouring classes in this country; but he would confine this assertion solely to the physical condition of the negroes. He was satisfied, that, as far as respected their moral improvement, the slaves of Antigua would, if examined as Christians by a set of catechists, be found to possess as much knowledge of the Christian doctrines as many classes of the population of the metropolis. He would take, for example, the large parish of St. Giles, and would back the Negro population of Antigua against the labouring classes in that parish, though with the advantage of being in a metropolis where people were in the habit of sitting in judgment on the morality of the rest of the world. He admitted with his right hon. friend, that there were difficulties in the settlement of
1036
this question. He agreed that parliament was bound to endeavour to ameliorate the condition of the slaves; but if those measures were carried to extremes, they would do much injury to the slaves themselves as well as to their masters. There was, it could not be denied, some reluctance on the part of some of the colonial legislatures to adopt all the measures recommended, but they were naturally distrustful of any recommendations from the government at home, when they found that most of those by whom such measures were urged upon the government here, openly avowed that their object was a total emancipation, and maintained the doctrine, that the colonists had no legal property in their slaves. They found hon. members saying one thing one day, and departing from it another. They might truly say, "We cannot trust you; we do not know the whole of what you would wish to do: and until we do, we will not adopt that which you now recommend, and which otherwise we might be disposed to accede to." It was said by some, that amelioration was recommended with a view to ultimate abolition, but his hon. friend (Mr. W. Smith) would go to abolition at once; he would not wait a moment. [Mr. W. Smith denied that he had said so.] His hon. friend might not have said so in direct terms, but that was the inference to be drawn from his line of argument. He differed from his hon. friends on the question of compulsory manumission. He thought that would be attended with difficulties which some of his hon. friends did not believe to exist. Under the Spanish law formerly, no difficulty existed on this score, because the place of the slave who purchased his manumission was soon supplied by the fresh importation which was at that time going-on from Africa; but no such importation now existed, and if the price rose with the increase of manumission, the system would soon cease to work; or if it were carried on even at the increased price, there must be an end of working the sugar plantations; for if the numbers on an estate were reduced very low, the labour of the remainder would be insufficient for its cultivation, and would therefore be of no value. This difficulty would not, he contended, be removed by means of labour. From all he had heard on this subject, he did not believe that in any one island of the West Indies free labour would be

1037
found sufficient for the cultivation of the estates. Where the land was rich, and the negro could procure with a little labour enough for the supply of his wants, no inducement which the colonists could hold out would be sufficient to make him work. He would talk about equal rights (of which they had heard so much from the hon. member for Norwich), and would Work for himself only. The House might learn from Mr. Coleridge's book the kind of value set upon freedom by the negro population of Trinidad, where the slave, in contempt for the freeman, called him a "Wilberforce nigger." He did trust that amelioration would be followed up as far as it was practicable, and that it would be carried on in that temperate tone from which only benefit could accrue to the slave as well as to the master. Now that the country had become rich and flourishing, people did not seem to attach much value to the colonies; but he feared the time would come when we should repent this line of conduct, and have to regret the neglect of those colonies which had served as so great a stimulus to our trade, and so great a mart for our manufactures.
Mr. Secretary Huskissonsaid, that amongst all the difficulties with which government had had to contend, in carrying into effect the measures with reference to the West-India colonies, none were more serious than those founded upon the doctrine of the abstract rights of man, advanced by the noble lord, and by his hon. friend the member for Norwich. This difficulty, great as it was, was very much aggravated by the opposite extremes indulged in by his hon. friend the member for Callington, who endeavoured to impress upon the House and the country, that slavery was in itself unavoidable, and that the condition of the slaves was preferable to that of the average of free labourers in this country. He was not surprised to hear such an unsound and extravagant principle advanced on one side, when he heard it advanced by a noble lord on the other side, that there could be no such thing as a legal right of property—no such thing as an ownership in slaves. He did not know what this last assertion meant, for it appeared to him that the ownership in slaves was similar to other rights established by law. He acknowledged that it was an ownership entirely distinct from any other species of description of property; but let it not
1038
be supposed that he could ever entertain the opinion, that the right, whatever it was, could be violated without a compensation to the owner. He did hope that, when the House came to a discussion of this great question, which had arisen only incidentally upon a motion which nobody opposed, they would agree to avoid any discussion of abstract rights of property, and of abstract rights of man, and attend only to the legal rights of private ownership. Whilst the House did this, he should also wish them to bear equally in mind the resolutions of parliament, which directed the course of government to the gradual change from slavery to one which was to raise the negro to the same condition as the other subjects of the Crown. The present was an occasion oh which it would be altogether undesirable to enter into the merits of the case. When it was stated to him, that an opportunity of compulsory emancipation grew out of the situation of. the government of Trinidad, with respect to the Spanish laws, and that no difficulty arose of applying the principle to any other of the Spanish Islands, he dissented from the doctrine. By the old Spanish law, facilities were offered of supplying, by untutored savages from Africa, the places of what he might call the educated and apprenticed negroes, who were to be liberated. He fully agreed with what had been stated respecting the immensely improved state of the slaves in our old settled islands, subsequent to the abolition of the slave trade. The present negroes, in consequence of the abolition of the slave trade, were a race of beings very considerably raised in the scale of moral intelligence, and they were greatly improved in every thing that constituted moral worth and general utility. They had as much improved within the last twenty years as any people had improved in an equal space of time within the cognizance of history. Within these very few days he had had the opportunity of communicating with an individual who had just returned from Jamaica (he meant the Bishop of Jamaica), and he could assure the House, that the report which that right reverend individual had furnished, was very satisfactory as to the progress of moralization among the slave population since the abolition of the slave trade and, since the efforts made by his majesty's government to ameliorate the condition of the negroes. But it would be greatly to be

1039
lamented, for the sake of the slaves themselves, and of humanity in general, if the House were to interfere with the progress of the measures of government, so as to disturb the settled state of things; which, he maintained, was gradually leading to great improvements in civilization. The hon. member for Callington had said, that the negroes of Antigua were as well informed with respect to their religious duties as the labouring classes of St. Giles's, or of any of the central districts of the metropolis, or as the labouring classes of this country in general. If this were the case, he would ask his hon. friend whether these facts did not give him (Mr. Huskisson) a right to call upon the legislature of that colony to give these well-instructed, religious, and moral, persons, a full enjoyment of their civil rights —the right to be heard in courts of justice, and to have their evidence received in the administration of justice. Was it no part of the rights of a civil member of the community that his evidence should be received in a court of justice? Let any hon. member reflect upon the many incidents in life in which this exclusion of evidence would affect the deepest feelings and interests of the slave population. The negro ought to be able to claim this right, when his property, or the welfare of his fellow-creature, was at stake. The first great act of melioration in the condition of the slave, was the interruption of the supply of negroes from the coast of Africa. It was admitted, that if a slave was emancipated by a compulsory process, another would be furnished to supply his place. An analogy had been drawn from labourers upon a small or upon a large farm; on these different farms there might be different degrees of profit; but the value of each labourer might be the same. The profits were greatest on the largest farm. One effect of what some were pressing in the House would be, that domestic slaves would be transferred to plantation labour. But the question of contingent compulsion was not to be considered at the present moment. In the Resolutions of 1823, two great points were to be considered. One was the amelioration of slavery—the parties still continue in a state of slavery. This was what all parties would acquiesce in. But there was another part of the resolution —the gradual transition from slavery to freedom. The House would not depart from this object. He did not
1040
mean to say that it would not be well to consider what other mode might be substituted, and what modifications of the present regulations might with propriety be introduced. These, however, were matters upon which it was the duty of ministers to wait until parliament took a different view of the question. They had taken one course, and had shown their inclination to adopt it. The next course must be, he would not fix any time, ultimately, securely, and with a view alike to the benefit of the negro, and the interest of the master—to take such measures as will improve his civil and moral condition in a material degree. It was not his intention to detain the House further than by observing, that while ministers advised a revision of the course pursued elsewhere, they must keep their minds firmly fixed upon the principles with which they had set out, and the views arising out of those principles.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid:—I had originally resolved to follow the advice given by the noble lord (Nugent) considering the importance of the subject, the interests that are involved in it, and the absence, upon our part, of the information which the right hon. gentleman possesses. I had resolved to abstain from troubling the House with a single observation. The hon. member for Callington renders it impossible for me to adhere to that resolution. It is incumbent upon someone of those who have advocated the cause of the slaves, to stand up in his place and notice and repel his accusations. Up to the moment when he rose, the debate had been conducted with all possible tranquillity of temper. But the hon. gentleman favours us with a lecture upon temperance, moderation, command of temper, and control of tongue, in a speech just the most immoderate, intemperate, violent, and exasperating, that ever I heard in my life. In order to accomplish his purpose of calming irascible feelings, and banishing from this debate all topics which might create animosity, he is pleased to charge us with exaggeration, misrepresentation, quackery, and nonsense.
I must confess, however, that he has sneered at us in very good company—the rights of man and the laws of God were equally visited by his sarcasm. Now I defy him to prove any one instance of misrepresentation. I challenge him to abstain from general condemnation, and

1041
to put his finger upon that particular in which we have deceived the country. I will do so with regard to him. I will mark out those particulars in which himself has been guilty of misrepresentation. When I first agitated the question of slavery, I adverted to the use of the cart-whip; the hon. gentleman was the man who denied that any such instrument was in use in the West Indies. He termed my statement a gross and unwarrantable calumny. He was followed by a noble lord; who admitted that the whip was exhibited as an emblem of authority and a badge of office, but that it was ignorance, or a worse motive, which could induce any man to assert, that it was employed for any other than those innocent purposes of display. He was followed by an hon. member, who told us that he had resided for twenty years in the West Indies, and that he had never so much as heard of the cart-whip —that he believed it to be a pure fiction invented in this country. What answer could we give to these assertions, grounded as they appeared to be upon experience? We were obliged to yield in silence to such a mass of authority. His Majesty's Government proposed to the West-Indians to abolish the use of the cart-whip altogether. Then we were told by the West-Indians that the extinction of the cart-whip would be the extinction of slavery. "O!" said they, "you must leave us the whip; we cannot do without it."
Again, we stated that there were obstacles to manumission. It was denied, and stoutly; and the debate of this night, and the propositions of the right hon. gentleman show with what truth it was denied. It was asserted by us, that Sunday was the market day—a most vile and groundless calumny. But; when we called upon the colonists to give to the negro that which was equally the right of man and the cause of God—the free use of the sabbath, this was pronounced to be an infringement of property, and a call was made for compensation. The hon. gentleman has dwelt this night upon the felicity of the slaves, and I understood him to say, that they are in a condition to be envied by the British peasant—that they are the happiest of men, and the best of Christians; well fed, well clothed, well instructed, with none of the cares, with all the enjoyments, which pertain to men. But I wish to ask him if the negro is so very good a Christian, why you reject his
1042
testimony in a court of justice, and how it is that you explain your refusal to do so by saying, that the negro does not understand the nature and obligation of an oath, and that he is so false, that you cannot believe a word he says? how happens it that your very good Christian is in this predicament so very degraded and so very false?
Again, these happiest of the happy—will the hon. gentleman solve one difficulty that occurs to me? The negroes are better fed and better clothed, they eat more and work less than any people upon earth-—but how happens it that their numbers decrease —decrease at a rate entirely unequalled in the history of man? The negro population of the West Indies are disappearing at a rate such as no population has ever disappeared, in any of the parts of the world? If the whole family of man were to decrease in numbers at the rate in which the slave population is now perishing in Demerara, the earth would be depopulated in fifty years.
The hon. member has indignantly censured [my hon. friend (W. Smith) for introducing the phrases "rights of men and laws of God," and I do not wonder that he is somewhat provoked at those obnoxious expressions; for one cannot think of slavery without perceiving, that it is an usurpation of the one and a violation of the other. In my estimation, my hon. friend did right in adverting to them. The right hon. gentleman (Wilmot Horton) tells us, that it is impossible to redeem the pledge of parliament, and to adhere to compulsory manumission. We cannot reconcile the promise which we have given for the extinction of slavery with a promise which we have also given for a due consideration of the rights of the parties interested. We are reduced to the alternative, he tells us, of sacrificing the planter to the interest of the slave, or the slave to the interest of the planter. If we are in that predicament, and must decide for the one or the other, my judgment is unequivocally in favour of the slave. And it is a consideration of the rights of man and the laws of God which lead me to that, unequivocal decision. Three parties are before us—the planter, the British public, and the slave: and let us see the respective merits of the parties. From what is the planter's claim derived? From a crime. It is painful to say, but it is the hon. member for Callington who has extracted

1043
from us the truth—it is a crime. [Mr. Gordon here observed that it was no crime, the slave trade was tolerated by law.]
The hon. member has told us that there was no criminality in the slave trade, because the law allowed it. What! is that no crime in itself which our law denounces as a felony? was that perfectly innocent which we now punish as a piracy? Could any planter of that day have been so blinded by his interest, and so insensible to truth, as to think that to go to Africa, to seize the unoffending natives, and commit spoliation, and robbery, and murder —to render a quarter of the earth a ravaged wilderness—to crowd its captured population into the holds of slave ships, and expose them to horrors worse than death—to consign the survivors to perpetual servitude—could the planter, I say, of those days believe that all these were innocent and righteous acts? It was a crime, and they knew it to be so; and that crime is the origin of their right.
The British government, the second party, stands in the shameful predicament of having permitted and encouraged that crime. The only party who comes before us without reproach is the negro, who has been the victim of crimes which have been perpetrated by the one, and instigated by the other. When I heard the right hon. gentleman ask, "Are we to sacrifice the negro to the planter, or the planter to the negro," I put the case to my own mind thus: A and B commit a joint robbery; A being the principle, and B the accessory. The accessory, visited by pangs of conscience, wishes to make all the reparation in his power; namely, restitution of the things stolen to their rightful owner. The principal says, "No! not till you have settled with me. I only did what you recommended. I cannot afford to renounce my share of the spoil, until you have indemnified me from any loss I may sustain, I will give up the property with all my heart, when you have given me an equivalent, and guaranteed me from every possible damage."
But the third party has still to be heard. The slave may ask, "what have I to do with any disputes between those who have conspired to rob me?" He argues, that there are two questions—one, the restitution of the thing stolen to the person to whom it belongs; the other, the adjustment of the proportion of loss between the offending parties. The first is every thing
1044
to the negro—the last nothing. He has no kind of concern or interest in the question between the principal and the accessory, in "the robbery between the West-Indian planter and the British government—and why are disputes between parties who are both in the wrong, to delay, for a single hour, the enjoyment of that which unquestionably belongs to him?
I am not for immediate emancipation —not that I am deterred by any supposed rights on the part of the planter, not that I think that the planter has the smallest title of right on the person of the negro, but because I do believe, that the West-Indians too truly assert, that the negroes are not fit for emancipation. They are so sunk, and debased, and brutalized, by slavery, that they are not fit, perhaps, for the common enjoyment and rights of mankind. I pause, therefore, before I would grant them immediate emancipation But, the more I am convinced of their degradation, the more do I hate slavery, the cause of that degradation. I would give the negro all that I could give him with security. I would do every possible thing to mitigate and sweeten his lot; and to his children I would give unqualified emancipation.
Having done this, I would settle with the planter. I am a friend to compensation, but it is compensation upon the broadest scale. Perhaps the West-Indians may think my notions inconveniently extensive upon the subject of compensation, I am for compensation to all who have suffered by us; and in proportion to the degree in which each has suffered. The slave owner, by the laws of the mother country, has been tempted to embark his property in an unlawful investment. He went to the West Indies at our instigation. This is his claim, but if the planter was led to the West Indies by Our law, the slave was dragged thither by the same law. You have permitted, not forced, the one to commit a crime. You have forced, not permitted, the other to become the victim of that crime. Do you ask compensation for him who has wielded the whip? Then I ask compensation for him who has smarted under its lash. Do you ask compensation for loss of property, contingent and future? Then I ask compensation for unnumbered wrongs, the very least of which, is the incapacity of possessing any property whatever. If compensation be demanded, we re-echo the

1045
demand. It is that which we most fervently desire, only let it be just compensation, dealt out for the many who have suffered, and not confined to the few who may suffer in one particular.
Sir, these are the truths of the case. They have been extorted from me by the hon. member. I had no intention of saying a word, for reasons immaterial to the House. I had resolved to take no part in this or any other discussion during the session, but the hon. member has compelled me to speak the plain truth—and the plain truth is, that be has no right whatever to the person of the negro, though he may have some claim upon the liberality of the British government; and if any man thinks, that it were better not to divulge and insist upon these truths, I tell him that for their proclamation this night, he has to thank the hon. member for Callington, that as often as I shall hear the hon. member make the charge which he has made this night, so often shall I meet him as I have done.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that in the part which he was about to take in the discussion, he should avoid anything like an irritated or angry feeling. He appealed to his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, whether he had not upon all occasions discussed this question calmly and dispassionately; Indeed, he always felt sorry when he found anything like angry discussion introduced into so important a subject. But he was not sorry at finding that the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Weymouth had been elicited that evening. He had taken a fair and manly course, and had given to the House the tone and opinions of himself and his coadjutors in the work (the great work no doubt he and they thought it) in which they were engaged. His hon. friend had at length plainly told them, that he would look to the compensation of the negro before that of the white master [hear, hear !]. An hon. member cheered, but he would tell him, that that was not the wisest course to take, in order to attain the object which his hon. friend had in view. The West-Indians might be a weak body; but if driven and forced together, it might be found that they could muster both strength, and courage to resist those opposed to them, and who attempted to destroy their just rights. The hon. member went on to deny the decrease in the negro population. He was taken by surprise by the assertion, and
1046
was not at that period prepared to contradict it by documents; but he assured his hon. friend, that in many parts of Jamaica, particularly the sea coast, there existed many of the original African stock, who still contaminated the blood of the Creole population, by infusing into them feelings and dispositions of which they had never divested themselves. The hon. member, after adverting to the negro Sunday-market for the produce of their fowls, gardens, and pig-styes, went on to observe, that the Sunday-market was the wish of the negroes, and that they grumbled when the market hours were restricted to eleven o'clock. But were there not many things such as fish of particular kinds allowed to be sold in this country on Sunday mornings for the convenience of the poor? The hon. member had objected to the non-admission of slave evidence. Now, the House of Assembly in Jamaica, had extended the testimony of slaves to capital cases by their late law, and there had actually been two persons of free condition convicted upon slave evidence since the passing of the law. But, in consequence of that law being disallowed by his majesty, those convictions had fallen to the ground. He thought his majesty had been ill-advised in refusing to pass that particular act, which was only a temporary experiment: it had nipped the bud of expectation. He thought the government should speak out. The West-Indian interest had a right to demand from government a plain statement of what they meant to do. That sort of property was now unsafe; especially since it had been declared that it was bottomed in crime.
Mr. Sykesjustified the course pursued by the hon. members for Norwich and Weymouth. He thought the principle of negro slavery so inequitable, it was so unfair, that any body of men should govern their fellow creatures by a system of laws which enacted the penalty of twenty stripes for one offence, of thirty for another, and so on, punishing human infirmities by a self-assumed right as a superior order of beings: he considered this system so abhorrent to humanity, and so essentially repugnant to justice, that he would not detain the House by commenting on it. He maintained, that the slave population was decreasing at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. As to the Sunday-market, he thought the sacredness of that day ought not to be disregarded, and that another

1047
day in the week should be given to the slaves in lieu of it.
Mr. James Wilsoncomplained of the aspersions and insinuations thrown out against the West-India proprietors, whenever an opportunity for doing so occurred. He would say to his compassionate brethren over the way, who were for galloping away thousands of miles from their own country and seeking to bestow their benevolence every where but in those places where it was most wanted, "look at home; go to Ireland and Scotland; there you will find misery and wretchedness enough; there you can be at no loss to discover plenty of starvation. In these places you may find persons, perhaps, related to yourselves, in a state of the utmost destitution, actually starving. When you have done what you ought to do in this respect, when you have relieved the poor of your own country, go abroad as fast as you like; relieve Ireland first, and then I will go hand-in-hand with you in assisting the West Indies, which, however, stands in need of assistance much less than the places already mentioned." He was the owner of a small parish in the north of England, and he had an estate in the West Indies, containing nearly the same number of subjects; and he could say most conscientiously, that the condition of the black-coloured people was infinitely superior to that of the tenantry of his parish in England. If one of his tenants in that parish wanted a glass of wine, he must go without it. Now that was a state of things which he never recollected in the West Indies. The hon. gentleman had thrown out a great deal of abuse upon the West-India planters, but he could say that they had feelings of kindness equal to any of the modern philanthropists. He desired those hon. gentlemen to recollect, that the planters held their estates and their present rights under the authority of acts of that House. Their situation was no act of their own; they went out from this country and purchased or laboured for their property, and left it to the children under the sanction of that House. Widows and orphans were the holders of much of that property, and he called upon the House to pause before it interfered with their rights. He called for protection to them and to himself with as much confidence as he called upon them for protection to his parish in Yorkshire. He spoke as a plain country gentleman, who had seen many ups and downs in life;
1048
he had seen many frosty mornings. He had laboured as much as any man for what he possessed; and though he did happen to be one of the masters of that portion of his Majesty's subjects who had dark complexions—although he was one of their unfortunate masters—he had always been disposed to act by them conscientiously. He had lived among them since he was a boy, in every situation; and he would tell his saintly brethren on the other side of the House, that if he was among the negroes and held but his little finger up, it would be enough. Subordination was necessary. Nothing could be accomplished without obedience to authority. He liked instruction well enough, but it must be in a moderate and temperate way. By doing too much they would do nothing. Emancipation in his opinion, must grow up from the seedlings, like the oak from the acorn. If they went to work temperately, he would lend them a helping hand; and without the cordial assistance of the West-India planter, he could assure the philanthropists they could never hope to be successful in their objects.
The motion was agreed to.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.
Mr. Secretary Peel Mr. Secretary Peel moved, "for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the times of Sitting in Sessions at Westminster." At present there were four sessions in the year in Westminster, and eight in Middlesex. By the terms of their commission the magistrates of Westminster were at liberty, like those of Middlesex, to sit as often as they found it convenient; but at present they could not hold any sessions at Westminster during term, or while the judges of the King's-bench sat in Westminster-hall. The object of his bill was, therefore, to enable the magistrates to hold sessions when they pleased, notwithstanding the sittings of the judges of the King's-bench. At present, they held but four sessions yearly; and the consequence was, that an offender was frequently detained in confinement for three months before he was brought to trial, and then, perhaps he was only sentenced to a confinement of one month; so that, in fact, the confinement of the man, who must be looked upon as not deserving such confinement until he had been convicted, was three times greater before trial than after he was found guilty of the offence. He apprehended, therefore, that it would be a

1049
matter of general convenience, as well as of justice, that the sessions of Westminster should be held as frequently as those of Middlesex; and he should, therefore, move, "for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Justices of the Peace for Westminster to hold their Sessions of the Peace during the Term, and the Sitting of the Court of King's-bench."—Leave was given.