Sitting of 6 February 1807

MINUTES.
Sir Ralph Milbanke,Chairman of the Saltash Election Committee, informed the house, that the said committee Met this morning, pursuant to their adjournment of yesterday, and G.V. Vernon, esq. one of the members of the said committee, not attending, the committee continued to sit for one hour, and then adjourned till tomorrow. Ordered, That the said Mr. Vernon do attend this house, in his place, upon Monday next.—Mr. Johnson, from the office of the chief secretary for Ireland, presented an Account of the Receipts and Disbursements of the commissioners of Public Accounts in Ireland, for the year ending the 5th of January 1807. Ordered to he on the table.—Ordered, on the motion of Mr. Bathurst, that the committee appointed to search for precedents touching the expulsion of members, have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—A new writ was ordered for the city of Worcester, in the room of Henry Bromley, who since his election had accepted the Chìltern Hundreds.—Lord Temple brought up the Cape of Good Hope Trade bill, which was read a first time.—The house, on the motion of Mr. Vansittart, resolved itself into a committee of supply, and resolved that a sum not exceeding 1,200,000 l. be granted to his majesty, for discharging the Interest of such Exchequer Bills as may have been paid off in the year 1806.

PETITION RESPECTING THE HAMPSHIRE ELECTION.
Mr. Ashton Smithrose to present a Petition to the house from several respectable Freeholders of the county of Hampshire, complaining of the improper interference of persons in office for the purpose of influencing the last election for the county of Hampshire.
Mr. Tierneywished the hon. gent. would state more explicitly the nature and object of the petition he was about to present.
Mr. C. Wynnecould not vote for the admission of a paper, of which he was, as yet, entirely ignorant.
The Speakeracquainted the hon. gent. that in presenting a petition he was bound to open the matter thereof to the house, and also to state the prayer of the petitioners. If the petition contained a prayer, it undoubtedly was entitled to the attention of the house; but, if not, the house could not receive any statements the petitioners might think proper to make, as a petition claiming its consideration.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the petition contained a statement of a grievance, complained of by the subjects, and as such, was entitled to the consideration of parliament.
Mr. Broderickintimated, that the petition complained of a breach of the privileges of that house, and contended, that it ought to be received.
Mr. A. Smithstated, that the petition would not be found defective in any of the usual forms, and took upon himself to affirm, that it did contain a prayer: an alledged grievance was complained against, and it was prayed that that house would interfere to remedy or to remove it. The Petition was then read, and was as follows:—'That the petitioners think it their duty to represent to the house, that, previously to the late election of knights to serve in parliament for the said county, measures of the most unconstitutional nature were resorted to by persons in situations of high trust and authority in different departments of the executive government, for promoting the success of Thomas Thistlethwayte, esq. and the hon. W. Herbert, two of the candidates, whose pretentions were favoured by his majesty's ministers, in violation of the dearest rights of the petitioners, and as they humbly apprehend, of the privileges of the house; that, among other instances of such interference, they think it

685
right to state more particularly that W. H. Fremantle, esq. one of the secretaries of the treasury, a gentleman who, they believe, has no property in the county, applied distinctly to the Barrack Master General, recommending the above candidates to his favourable influence and support, and desiring him, as a very particular favour, to mention the same subject, with the same view, to the other gentlemen in the Barrack Department; in pursuance of which requisition, the most active exertions were used in that department, under the specious pretence of carrying on his Majesty's service, to influence unduly various freeholders, and to controul the exercise of the elective franchise: these allegations the petitioners are prepared to prove at the bar of the House, in the humble hope that such measures may be taken, as to the wisdom of the house may appear most effectual, to prevent a recurrence of such unconstitutional practices, practices which, with all due deference to the superior wisdom of the house, the petitioners venture to describe as calculated to bring into discredit the government of the country, and to shake the confidence of the people in the honour and independence of the house of commons; the petitioners have therefore felt it their bounden duty, not only to themselves and fellow subjects, but especially to the house, to bring under their notice these outrages, as they deem them, against the liberties of the country; and they have been cneouraged the more to do so, by the Resolution which stands recorded in the Journals of the house, which declares, that it is highly criminal in any minister or ministers, or any servant under the crown, directly or indirectly, to use the powers of office in the election of representatives to serve in parliment, and declares, that an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by the house, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independence, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject throughout the empire, and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy constitution."
Mr. Ashton Smiththen moved, that the petition do lie on the table, and at the same time gave notice that he should submit a motion to the house on the subject, on this day se'nnight.
Lord Templegave his full and unqualified consent to the motion that this petition
686
should lie upon the table. But, whilst he concurred in this motion, he begged to recall to the recollection of the house that, he would not say this particular petition, but a petition of a similar nature, had been determined upon by the petitioners to be presented to that house, previously to the meeting of parliament. As the allegations of the petition involved a question respecting the privileges of that house, it ought to have been brought forward on the earliest opportunity; and it appeared to him somewhat extraordinary that the hon. gent. had kept it back till the present moment.
Mr. Canningapprehended that when any petitioners resolved on presenting a petition to that house, complaining of a specific grievance, they had a right, as well as the hon. member who was to present it, to choose the time that might appear to them to be most convenient or favourable for that purpose.
Mr. Tierneycertainly thought that, if the petition was intended as a party question, it might have been desirable for the framers of it to have public opinion for some time previously directed to the subject. But if the petition was really intended to bring the fact of a breach of the privileges of that house under the consideration of parliament, no time should have been lost in presenting it. These gentlemen. who knew of such transactions as amounted to a breach of the privileges of that house, should not have suffered those unworthy ministers of the crown to remain so long exempt from the exposure which their conduct merited. The house, however, would hereafter be able to judge of the motives of the petitioners in keeping back the petition, and also of the motives of those gentlemen who might since have been persuaded to give their support to this proceeding.
Mr. Percevalsaid, he should not impute to the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, any party motive for the observations he had made (a laugh); but he was clearly of opinion, that the persons who had signed the petition, and the gent. who had undertaken to present it, had a right to chuse the time that appeared best to them. The right hon. gent. no doubt, would have been better pleased if the petition had been presented on the first day of the session, because then it would have been liable to an objection, if it had been proposed to take it into consideration previously to the last day for presenting
Elec-

687
tion petitions. But the allegations of the petition were of so grave and serious a nature, that if any one of them even could be proved, it would be of small comparative importance whether the petition were presented a day, or a month, earlier or later.
Mr. C. Wynnecontended, that it had never been insinuated from his side of the house, that the charges in the petition were of a slight or unimportant nature. He appealed to the recollection of the house whether they had not, in every instance, been admitted to be of the last importance to have brought forward. The charges contained in the petition would be highly important if proved; they would also be important if not proved, as he trusted would be the case, because they would then fall back upon the heads of those who had given birth to them.
Mr. Hurstdid not think it of the smallest moment whether the petitioners were influenced by a sense of duty, or by sinister motives; they took upon them to bring against certain persons certain charges, and he rejoiced that it would be now soon decided how far the charges were warranted by proofs, from the rumours that had been so industriously circulated, not alone through the county concerned, but through the country. He was glad that the petition had found its way into that house, and that those rumours would be for ever silenced by the paramount decision of the people's representatives, for he had no hesitation in saying that he anticipated with confidence an issue honourable to the parties so calumniated.
Mr. Rosewas not willing to question the impartiality of the hon. member who spoke last, but as it had been urged as an objection to the petition, the time of its being presented, he would beg leave to set gentlemen right upon that head. Parliament had met this session at a very unusual time, when few country gentlemen were able to attend. It was desirable to have as full an attendance of that description of members as possible on the discussion of this subject, and it was not till the present period that many of them had attended in the house. As to the motive for bringing forward the petition, he was sure the hon. gent. opposite could not impute any to the hon. member, who had presented it, that he could not fully justify.
Mr. Sturges Bournehighly approved of the candid and honourable manner in
688
which the petition was brought forward. The matter to which it related was acknowledged on all sides to be of the utmost importance, involving no less considerations than those of the dearest rights of the subject, and the privileges of that house. He insisted that it would have been trifling with either to hurry on the discussion before there had been a sufficient attendance to give it adequate consideration. He repeated his sense of the candid and honourable way in which it had been submitted to the house.
Mr. Fremantleadverted to the state of the house, and asked whether it could be considered such an attendance as the hon. member had thought desirable? As to the petition, he was extremely gratified that it had been produced, and gave his full assent to the motion, that it should be laid upon the table. He was confident that he should be able to shew, that the circumstances of the case had not the bearing represented in the petition, when the question should come to be discussed. He had only one word to add respecting the manner in which this proceeding had been conducted. He had always understood it to be the practice in that house, when any charge was to be brought forward against a member, that some intimation of the proceeding was communicated to the individual concerned. In this case, not a word had been expressed to him on the subject, and though rumours might have reached him respecting the allegation of the petition, it was not till he came down to the house this day, and the hon. member had proposed to present the petition, that he had any certain information upon the subject.
Mr. Sturges Bourne,in explanation, said, that in speaking of the necessity of a full attendance, he did not mean any allusion to the numbers then in the house. The petition was not then to undergo consideration, but now that the members in general had come up to their parliamentary duty there was a certainty of a full meeting whenever this petition was to come before the house.
Lord Howickthought, that as the charges alledged in the petition were of the most weighty kind, so did they exact from that house the strictest scrutiny, and the most mature consideration. They went to question the honour of that house, and the freedom of the country; for that house could not be honourable, if constituted by the undue influence of power and corruption;

689
nor could the country itself be free if robbed of its elective franchise. Thinking then, as he did, of the importance of the petition, he could not conceal his surprise that it had not long before that period been presented to the house. When it was considered that it was the practice of that house to postpone all other kinds of considerations to the paramount one of its privileges; when it was considered that the hon. member who presented this petition must have known the serious nature of the charges it contained; when it was considered that every member, having charges to adduce, involving the privileges of that house, had felt dispatch to be his first duty in submitting such charges to that house, it would be difficult to reconcile a strict sense of parliamentary duty with the alledged necessity for delay. The hon. member who spoke last panegyrized the candid and honourable manner in which, there had been a plain statement of strong charges explicitly laid before the house. He for his part, should hesitate to term a charge candid, merely because it was a gross one, but should rather feel it his duty to look for evidence in some degree proportionate to the character of the accusation; but however candid or honourable it might be to bring such charges, he was sure that it was not either candid or honourable to circulate industriously through the country rumours calculated to hurry the unthinking into inconsiderate prejudices against those persons whom their accusers had so long delayed to charge before the proper and recognized tribunal. Did the hon. gent. think it very candid to present to that house a paper reflecting in the most serious manner upon a member of that house, without giving that member the slightst intimation of such a proceeding, though such a notice was warranted, or rather required by all the usages of parliament? He should be anxious until the petition was decided upon, and hoped that if the charges therein contained were found, upon due examination, to be slight and frivolous, the house Would feel it due to their own dignity, and to the aspersed honour of one of its members, to make the persons who advanced them, feel the consequence of wanton accusation—The petition was then ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday se'nnight.

MASSACRE AT VELLORE.
Mr. Howardrose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. the president
690
of the Board of Controul (Mr. Tierney,) respecting some transactions that had recently taken place at Vellore, in India. Some time had elapsed, since letters from Madras had brought accounts of the mutiny that had taken place at that town, and of the carnage that followed, in which above 1000 British and native lives had been lost. Rumour ascribed this disaster to some dangerous and unprecedented measures, which had been resorted to in that presidency, and deserved the most severe animadversion. He should not then enter into any detail of the melancholy transaction; but when the importance of an investigation, both to the interests of British subjects in India, and to the stability of British power in that quarter was considered, he was sure it would be felt that he was entitled to the information he called for. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. gent. whether any authentic accounts of that transaction had been received by the Board of Controul, or by the Court of Directors? There were vessels now going out; and a new governor-general and commander in chief were on the point of setting out for India. He thought it, therefore, material to know, for the consolation of the friends of the British subjects now going out, and already settled in India, what information had been received, and whether any instructions as to the measures to be adopted respecting this affair had been sent out. He was of opinion, that it was necessary to shew, that if mismanagement or misconduct had been practised in India, the circumstances would, be investigated in England, and decided in a manner consistent with the interests of all parties.
Mr. Tierneywas not at all surprised at the anxiety felt by the hon. gent. For some time past rumours of the transaction had been in circulation, but unhappily he was unable to give any answer to the hon. gent. on this subject, as no authentic accounts had yet been received either by the Court of Directors or the Board of Controul. But he would assure the hon. gent. that, as soon as the accounts should arrive, they would be laid before the house, so far as they could consistently with a proper regard to the public interest. What steps would be taken, or what instructions sent out, it it was not possible to state before the official accounts should arrive. But the hon. gent. could surely not think that the officers now on the point of setting out ought to

691
be detained till the accounts should arrive. On the contrary, it was desirable that they should proceed to their destination with all expedition, in order to take such measures as their good sense and experience would point out under all the circumstances of the case.

MINUTES.
On the motion of the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Exeter was desired to preach before their lordships in Westminster Abbey, on Wednesday, the 25th instant, being the day appointed for a General Fast.

SLAVE TRADE ABOLITION BILL.
The house resolved itself into a committee on the bill for abolishing the Slave Trade. The preamble having been postponed,
Lord Grenvillesaid, with respect to filling up the blanks in the bill, that the time which he intended to propose as the period for the abolition of this trade, might, perhaps, appear somewhat at variance with that eager desire which the house had expressed for the abolition, but the gratification arising from the near pros-
678
pect of at length carrying into effect this great measure, would, perhaps, induce them to give way, in a small degree, to circumstances, and not to insist upon an abolition to take place immediately. He proposed that the time to be fixed for the abolition of the trade to the West Indies should be the 1st of January, 1808, but that the period after which no ships engaged in the trade should clear out from the ports of this country, should be the 1st of May in the present year. His object in proposing these periods was, that the vessels at present engaged in the trade might have a fair opportunity of clearing out from the ports of this country, previous to the 1st of May next, and afterwards of taking in their lading in the ports of Africa, and of carrying their cargoes to the West Indies, previous to the 1st of January, 1808. As it might happen, however, that from unavoidable circumstances some vessels might not be able to complete their cargoes on the coast of Africa, so as to carry them to the West Indies previous to that period, he intended to submit to the committee a proviso for the purpose of allowing vessels under such circumstances to trade to the West Indies with their cargoes.
Lord Hardwickewished to know in what light the Black Corps in his majesty's service were to be considered, whether as freemen or slaves.
Lord Grenvillereplied, that he should have always considered them as freemen; but that at all events particular provision would be made for that case in the Mutiny bill for the year.
Lord Redesdalehinted, that the bill, as it was now worded, might extend to our settlements in Asia Minor, and in the East Indies.
Lord Grenvilleobserved, that no slaves had been imported to either for some time. He was aware, however, that both in the East Indies and in Asia Minor, there were many Christians who kept a number of slaves, but he did not conceive that this bill could be construed to extend so as to injure them in their property. He would, however, again consider the subject, and, if necessary, a clause to prevent the effect of any such construction might be proposed.—The blanks having been filled up, the noble lord proposed a proviso, allowing such vessels as should have cleared out from the ports of this country for Africa, previous to the 1st of May next, and should not have been able to complete their lading

679
in Africa, so as to carry their cargoes to the West Indies, previous to the lst of January, 1808, to trade nevertheless to the West Indies with such cargoes. He also stated, that as some persons might take advantage of the interval allowed, to make two voyages with the same vessel, he intended, therefore, to propose a clause to prevent that advantage from being taken. —The provisions of the bill having been gone through, the preamble was again taken into consideration.
Lord Hawkesburydeclared his disinclination to enter into any discussion of the merits of the measure, after the opinion which a great majority of their lordships had, on a former occasion, pronounced. But, with the conviction he entertained of the impropriety of introducing abstract principles into the preamble of the bill, he conceived it his duty to submit to the Committee an amendment, which should exclude the terms "justice and humanity," and confine the necessity of abolishing the slave trade, solely to the inexpediency of its continuance. He could not see what objections the warmest advocates for the abolition could have to the amendment. The preamble, as it then stood, unnecessarily mooted a point, on which a great difference of opinion existed, and which, if suffered to be made a part of the law of the land, and of the colonies, might be productive of mischievous and fatal consequences; of those consequences which the noble baron, who introduced the bill, so strongly deprecated; he meant any ill-grounded conclusions which the Negroes in the West Indies might infer, relative to their emancipation, as connected with the measure of abolition. Indeed, it was a conclusion natural for men in their circumstances to make, when they found the law of the land declaring that system unjust and inhuman, by the operation of which they were detained in a state of slavery. Some allowance should also be made for the feelings and characters of those who had embarked their property in the African trade; and as the end was obtained, it was exceeding even the practice of hostile parties, to continue and promulgate an imputation, which nothing but the inability of succeeding in the object could justify. It might be objected, that the resolutions of the two houses of parliament had already expressed the same opinion; but he begged leave to state a marked difference in the two cases. The resolutions of the two
680
houses were not obligatory, they were limitted to the members; but the act became obligatory upon the whole empire, upon those very colonial assemblies, whose opinions and feelings were known to be widely different. He therefore trusted, as the noble lords had carried the measure, for the accomplishment of which they appeared so anxious, that they would join in an amendment, in no manner hostile to the principle, but which, in its operation, might have the effect of promoting its success, by the reconciliation of the different interested parties. The noble lord then moved, "That the words inconsistent with the principles of justice and humanity,' be left out of the preamble of the bill."
The Earl of Carnarvonassured their lordships, that, with the feelings which actuated him, and the views he entertained of that unjust and execrable traffic, he could by no means acquiesce in the amendment of the noble lord. To palliate guilt and compromise injustice he never would consent, nor should he think of shrinking from the exposure of a system, as illegal as it was iniquitous. The laws of the country equally extended to every part of the British empire, as well on the high seas as to the colonies; and if the necessity of cultivating the waste lands of the West India islands was a sufficient plea for the violation of justice, upon equal principles of propriety, the peasantry of this kingdom might be dragged from their homes, to till and labour in the inclosure of waste lands. (A cry of "Order.") Noble lords might accuse him of not being in order, but he felt he was acting perfectly orderly, and, therefore, should continue to exercise his own judgment, in exposing a system of oppression and rapine, which, if suffered to continue, would be ultimately extended even to this country.
—"Malum quo non aliud velocius ullum; Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo; parva menu primo: mox sese attolit in auras, Ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit."
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the expression in the preamble having been admitted by the noble lord (Hawkesbury) to be true, it followed that it ought to be retained. What was the objection of the noble lord last night? It was, that this trade ought not to be abolished, except in conjunction with foreign powers, and now the noble lord, by his motion, would take away the only ground upon which we could ask other powers to co-operate in the abolition

681
of the trade. If we declared that we abolished the trade on the ground of expepediency alone, then it might be fairly supposed that we did so for reasons applicable to ourselves alone, or to our own colonies; but by stating broadly and distinctly that the trade was contrary to justice and humanity, we took a ground upon which we might fairly call upon other powers to co-operate with us in abolishing the trade. He could not discover any reason for apprehending danger from thus expressing, in a legislative act, their opinion of the trade, whilst the retaining the words objected to, was the best mode they could at present adopt of leading to a general abolition.
Earl Mortonthought the adoption of abstract principles in a legislative act, was inconsistent with the wise and wary language which their ancestors had used on such occasions, and seemed rather like an adoption of that mode of expression which had been so repeatedly used in modern France.
Earl Stanhopeapproved highly of the expressions in the preamble which had been objected to. He thought, however, that this bill would not do much towards the abolition of the slave trade without the adoption of adequate regulations in the colonies. It might, perhaps, be proper to enact, that every slave imported into the islands contrary to law, after the time limited for the abolition of the trade, should ipso facto be free, If the local legislatures would not adopt regulations sufficient to carry the abolition into complete effect, we had the means of compelling them, by imposing additional duties, and in other ways. If we could not speak to their hearts we might to their pockets, and by the latter mode produce a greater effect than could possibly be produced by Demosthenian or Ciceronian eloquence.
Lord Redesdaleexpressed apprehensions that dangers would arise from retaining these expressions in the preamble, and called the attention of the house to the dangerous consequences which resulted in France from the adoption of abstract principles in legislation, which, however true in themselves, were applied in a manner that produced confusion and anarchy in that country.
The Earl of Lauderdalemaintained that the words which it was proposed to leave out, were the most essential words in the bill. How was the great object of general abolition to be attained, if it appeared upon
682
the face of our own proceedings that we were only actuated by considerations of expediency, and that in calling upon other powers to abolish the trade, we made no sacrifice ourselves? This he could illustrate by communications, which he had whilst at Paris, with one of the French ministers on this subject. On his urging to the ministers the abolition of this trade, he was answered, that it could not be expected that the French government, irritated as it had been by the conduct of the negroes in St. Domingo, would readily agree to the abolition of the trade. He replied, that the abolition would have been the only effectual means of preventing the horrors which had occurred in that island. Then the truth came out: he was told by this minister, that England, with her colonies well stocked with negroes, and affording a large produce, might abolish the trade without inconvenience; but that France, with colonies ill stocked and deficient in produce, could not abolish it without conceding to us the greatest advantages and sustaining a proportionate loss. Thus, then, if we were to declare the ground of our abolishing the trade to be expediency alone, we should be declaring that we were actuated by the very policy imputed to us by the French minister; and how, in thus being supposed to make no sacrifice ourselves, could we call with any effect upon foreign powers to co-operate in the abolition?
The Duke of Montrosedeclared himself to be a friend to the abolition, but thought at the same time, that it would be better to leave out the words objected to.
Lord Hollandsaid he could not clearly understand the distinctions which had been attempted to be drawn between justice and expediency. He was of opinion, that if the subject was fully considered, those distinctions would be found to center in the same point. It was not a distinction between justice and expediency with respect to abolition and emancipation; on the contrary, whilst on the one hand it was essentially just that the trade should be abolished, it would on the other be injustice to the slaves in the islands to give them emancipation, because it could only tend to their own injury. He was surprised to hear the noble and learned lord (Redesdale) condemning the introduction of abstract principles into legislation. What did our Bill of Rights contain but abstract principles? He was decidedly of opinion that the words ought

683
to be retained. No danger whatever had resulted from similar conduct in several of the provinces in America, where the trade had been abolished, and slavery still continued.
The Duke of Clarenceurged the danger which might result from retaining these expressions. When the negroes in the islands found that no fresh importations took place, they would naturally inquire the cause, and when they found that the trade was abolished, and declared to be contrary to justice, humanity, and sound policy, would it not have a material effect in their minds with respect to their own situation, and the means by which they were brought there?—The committee then divided on the question, that the words objected to stand part of the preamble. Contents, 33; non-contents, 10; majority 23. The house resumed, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.