Sitting of 3 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. RONAYNE, an Account of the Estates belonging to the Endowed School of Clonmel, the Names of the Tenants occupying them, and on what terms, and the Number of Persons Educated on that Foundation, during the last twenty years.—On the Motion of Mr. HODGSON, an Account of the Number of Bonding Warehouses in the several Ports of Great Britain and Ireland, entitled to that Privilege by Act of Parliament; of the Number Licensed by Order of the Lords of the Treasury, &c.—on the Motion of Mr. HALL, an Account of the Annual Amount of Money received as Tonnage levied on Vessels under Acts passed in the 34th, 36th, and 44th years of the Reign of his Late Majesty George 3rd, by the Trustees of the Mumbles Lighthouse, in the County of Glamorgan, and the Expense incurred by Collecting it for each year to the latest possible period.
Bill. Read a third time:—Starch Duties.
Petitions presented. By Lord NORREYS, from the Clergy of Oxford, and Sir RBERT INGLIS, from the Clergy of Rochester,—against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.—By Mr. I., ESTKR, from Poole, against the House and Window Taxes.—By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Greenock, for the Repeal of the Duty on Stamps for Receipts; from Leslie, for Disbanding the Fife Yeomanry; from Glasgow, against the Irish Disturbances Bill; from the Scotch Metropolitan Political Union, for Poor Laws to Ireland; from several Places, for Amending the Law of Scotland; and from the Hand-loom Weavers of Paisley, and other Places, for a Board of Trade.—By Mr. HALL, from several Places, for an Improvement in the Church Establishment of Wales.—By Mr. FINCH, from the Irish Society of London, for having the Church Service per-formed in the Irish Language where that is generally spoken.—By Sir JOHN HANMER, from the Clergy of Salop, for a Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. HALLYBURTON, and Mr. R. OSWALD, from several Places, for altering the present System of church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford, for a Reduction of Taxation.—By Sir GREY SKIPWITH, from Kenilworth, for a Repeal of the Duties on Malt and Hops.—By Colonel LYGON, from Worcester, for Inquiry and Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Lord GEORGE LENNOX, from Littlehampton and Climping; and by an HON. MEMBER from Ipswich, in favour of the Sea Apprentices Bill.—By Messrs. PRINGLE, DUNLOP, and R. Fergusson, from several Places, for Alterations in the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. DUNLOP, from Kilmarnock, against the Soap Duty,—By Mr. W. STEWART, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.—By Lord NORREYS, and Messrs. WILKS, DUNLOP, and M. ATTWOOD, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Lord PALMERSTON Lord NORREYS, General SHARPE, Major HANDLEY, and Messrs. SHAWE, WILKS, BROTHERTON, A. PKLHAM, R. FERGUSSON and LAHRERT, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By Mr. WILKS, from Boston, against the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act; from the same Place, in favour of the Jewish civil Disabilities Bill; and from several Dissenting Congregations of Guisborough, for Redress of their Grievances.—By Mr. C. FITZSIMON, from several places, for a Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Mr. W. STEWART, and Sir W. INGILBY, from several Places,—against the Malt Duty.—By Sir W. INGILBY, from the Directors of the Louth Savings Bank, against the Savings Bank Annuities Bill.—By Mr. GOUL-JUTRN, from the Clergy of Winchester, against the Irish Church Temporalities Bill.

WELCH CHURCH.
Mr. Hallsaid, he had a Petition of rather a novel description, intrusted to him. It prayed for an alteration with regard to the Church Establishment in Wales; and in presenting it to the House, and declaring that it had

301
his warm support, he felt it to be his duty to say a few words upon its prayer, and to request the attention of the House to the principal points contained in it. The grievances complained of were those which were common to nearly the whole of Wales and which had been slightly touched upon in that and another place; but, besides the duty which devolved upon him of particularizing the distresses of those persons belonging to the same diocese as himself, he considered this petition well worthy of notice, because it not only proved the declining state of the Welch Church, but it prayed for a remedy, at once simple and self-evident, and which, if applied in time, might tend to prevent the total destruction of the Church Establishment in the Principality. It prayed, that all incumbents, from the Bishop downwards, might be henceforth selected from persons conversant with the language of the country, He was well aware that this was not a proper period for entering into a discussion upon the state of the Established Church generally; but it might be right for him to comment upon the state of the different parishes named in the petition, in which, from local knowledge, he was enabled to declare that he considered the cause of the Established Church to have materially suffered from the appointment of ministers ignorant of the language of the country; from the great disproportion between the population of the parishes and the number of resident Welch pastors; and finally, from the benefices being, with few exceptions, conferred upon non-residents, which was not only injurious to the interests of the Church, but was unjust and disheartening to the natives, amongst whom were men of learning and piety, and capable of filling, with honour and credit, the various ranks of ecclesiastical preferment. He would only cite two instances, named in the petition, in order to prove, that the Established Church was little more than a name in those parishes; as in one, containing a population of above 3,000, only 240 attended divine worship in the church and chapel whilst, in the other, having a population of 8,000, only 100, according to a calculation lately made, frequented the church. There being two Welch curates having the charge of these 11,000 souls, one of whom had to perform duty in another populous parish adjoining. He would not take up the time of the House by commenting on the miserable stipends paid to those valuable members of society,
302
the Welch curates; but trusted he had said enough to convince every unprejudiced mind that it was not an unreasonable boon for the Welch to expect to have the preferment conferred solely, for the future, upon those who understood the language of the country. The inhabitants would not renounce their language, and it would be well to prevent them from renouncing their chruch entirely, and adhering to the tenets of those who consoled them in sorrow, comforted them in sickness, and prayed with them in affliction, in the language which they best understood. As some remarks had been made, that petitions of this description were directed against the right reverend Prelates at the head of the Welch dioceses, he thought it right to mention, before he sat down, that no such feeling existed in the bosoms of the petitioners. For his own part, he entertained the greatest respect for the high classical attainments and deep learning of the present Bishop of Llandaff, and acknowledged with due feeling, the charitable and liberal assistance which he had so often rendered to the distresses of the clergy; but, at the same time, it was not possible for an English Bishop to do that justice; to a Welch diocese which was expected by the natives. The petitioners hoped that they might in future have those preferments conferred upon natives only. They desired not to dispossess present incumbents of their benefices, but they wished, that instead of constant translation, their own countrymen should live and die in the same diocese; and with regard more particularly to the second order of clergy, they hoped that, during the lives of non-resident Englishmen, there might be an increase in the number of curates, with better salaries for their support.
Sir John Hanmersaid, that the inability of the Welch clergymen to discharge their duties had been very much exaggerated.
Mr. Jervisobserved, that it was a cause of great complaint, and, in his opinion, a very just one, that clergymen who held the principal livings in Wales were not sufficiently acquainted with the language of the country to administer that spiritual consolation to their parishioners which they required and expected. They might know enough of the language to be able to go through the service in the pulpit, but they did not know enough to converse with their parishioners, and give them religious assistance at their own houses.
Petition to lie on the Table.

RELATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.
Colonel Evanssaid, that before the House resolved itself into a Committee upon the Order of the Day, he felt it his duty to put a question to the noble Lord upon the state of the kingdom of Portugal, and of the political relations between Great Britain and that country. It must be in the recollection of the House that six or seven years ago Don Miguel had rebelled against his father, the sovereign of Portugal, who had been obliged to fly for safety and to take refuge on board of an English ship of war then lying in the Tagus. In consequence of this he had been enabled to recover his power, and Don Miguel had applied for leave to go into exile to Vienna. On the death of Don John, the father of Don Miguel, the title of Don Pedro was acquiesced in by the kingdom, and to that acquiescence he believed, that no sort of disagreement was intimated by any of the powers of Europe. Don Pedro, in consequence of his situation in the Brazils, had abdicated, conditionally, his right to the succession to the throne, on the understanding that his daughter Donna Maria should succeed him. In that conditional abdication all the Powers of Europe had acquiesced, and a Regency had been established on the basis of it. One of the princesses of the royal family of Portugal had been appointed to that office, and, upon an understanding between the different Courts of Europe, Don Miguel had come over to England, and had pledged himself to support the rights of his niece and uphold the Constitution, and upon faith in those pledges he had been allowed to return to Portugal. A body of English troops was then in Lisbon, under orders to embark for England, but a private order was given to the commanding officer that, whatever might take place, under any circumstances whatever, the royal family was to be protected. Don Miguel availed himself of this, and shortly after his return, while the British troops were yet at Lisbon, he overthrew that constitution which he had so solemnly sworn to defend both in London, Vienna, and Lisbon. This conduct had been denounced by different Courts, and Don Miguel had been referred to by this Government and the past Government of England as a perjured usurper, and spoken of in every term of opprobrium. The usurpation of Don Miguel had not been acknowledged by any Power, and Donna Maria had not only been treated by the European Courts as the Queen of all Portugal de jure, but as the Queen de facto
304
of a part of Portugal, as well as of the Azores and of the seas of Portugal. He had hitherto abstained, upon grounds of expediency, from putting any question to his Majesty's Ministers on this subject, in consequence of the distressing state of the relations with Belgium. Now, he was glad to say, that a treaty had been most satisfactorily entered into by Government, and this relieved him from any embarrassment upon the subject of questioning Ministers upon the matter of Portugal. He trusted that the noble Lord, whom he saw in his place (Lord Palmerston), would put the House into possession of some information upon a subject of such great importance to the country. Both in a political point of view, and with respect to the commercial interests of the community, it was of the highest consequence that the connexion between Great Britain and Portugal should be restored, and that the rights of Donna Maria should be recognized. He wished to know if those rights had been duly recognized by the Court of England and by the different Courts of Europe.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he should not answer in detail several of the points of the hon. Gentleman's speech, because they were well known to the House already. He was well aware that the suspension of relations between England and Portugal, and the present condition of the latter country, must be attended with very great inconvenience and positive injury to the mercantile interests of Great Britain. He could only say, that his Majesty's Ministers wished that the day might speedily arrive when the large body of the merchants and manufacturers might be relieved from the inconvenience which they at present suffered. The House well knew, that Donna Maria had been acknowledged as queen of Portugal de jure, not by the present Administration, but by the Administration which they had succeeded, and that a correspondence had taken place on the subject between the Duke of Wellington and Donna Maria's ministers, the Marquess Barbacena and the Marquess Palmella, in which Donna Maria had been recognized, de jure, as queen of Portugal. But the nature of the hon. Member's question went less to the recognition of the right than to ascertain whether his Majesty's Ministers were prepared to take measures to seat Donna Maria on the throne. As soon as she had established herself in her dominions the British Government was.

305
ready to acknowledge her; but his Majesty's Ministers had not yet seen any reason to induce them to depart from that line of strict neutrality which they had adopted from the first, and which they had rigidly observed throughout the contest. With respect to the other branch of the question the House would see that, although Donna Maria's authority was acknowledged throughout the Azores, in a part of Portugal, and in the Portuguese seas, it could not be said that her possession of only those parts of her dominions made her, in point of fact, the reigning sovereign of Portugal. Whenever events should place her in that situation it would follow, as a matter of course, that those powers which had recognized her rights de jure should recognize her right de facto.

FACTORIES COMMISSION.
Lord Ashleybefore the House resolved itself into a Committee, wished to make a few observations upon the bad faith of his Majesty's Ministers with respect to what had been the understanding of the House in relation to the appointment of the Factory Commission, and of laying a copy of their instructions before the House. It had been promised, that a Return of the names of the Commissioners, with a copy of the instructions under which they acted, should be laid on the Table, in order that the House might have an opportunity of objecting to either should it sec cause. He did not mean to say, that he should have objected to any of the Commissioners, but against some of the instructions, he should undoubtedly have protested; and he should have appealed to the House whether it was not clearly understood that there was to be a fair and open examination of the operatives, and that every word uttered should be taken down by a shorthand writer. The instructions had not been laid on the Table of the House three weeks after the Commission had been voted and six weeks after they had been promised. He appealed to the noble Lord, who was a just and honest man, whether it was fair that the evidence of any man (and he spoke from knowledge, because one man had been examined) should be taken in private, and kept secret. The evidence had not been taken down by a short-hand writer. He had a right to expect, that the whole testimony should be laid on the Table of the House, and, if this were not done, he for one would protest against all the evidence of every individual which was
306
calculated to affect the evidence which had already been taken before the Committee of the House. Did the noble Lord think it right to exclude the short-hand writer, or did he think that the House would attach the smallest weight to evidence collected under all the suspicions which belong to secret proceedings?
Lord Althorpconceived, that it was the duty of the Commissioners to have the evidence taken correctly, and laid on the Table of that House. With reference to the other parts of the question, in the present excited state of the country, he thought that objections might be made to the publicity of examinations, although it was the duty of the Commissioners to select men perfectly competent to take down the evidence they received. It had been the sense of the House, that impartial persons should be sent to ascertain the state of the children in the manufacturing districts. He had certainly forgot to lay the instructions before the House, but they were very full, and consistent with what had been the understanding of the House. It was the wish of Ministers, that the examination should be a fair bonâ fide examination.
Lord Stormontsaid, that it was well known that the evidence of one man had already been taken, and that it had not been given in the presence of any shorthand writer. The whole of the evidence already taken, or which might be taken in a similar manner, would go for nothing.
Lord Ashleywould speak from the documents, a copy of which had appeared in the newspapers. There was a letter from Mr. Drinkwater, in which he positively objected to the presence of a short-hand writer; and if this were his instructions from the head Commissioners in London, he should protest against the whole evidence.
Mr. Robinsonthought it was the duty of Ministers to see that the Commissioners were pursuing that course which would lead to a satisfactory result. As this was a Secret Commission, and intended to conflict with proceedings of the Committee of that House, the public mind would never be satisfied that the Commission was fair and honest. If the Commissioners were to make a report adverse to the opinion of the Committee, the House would be involved in a mass of contradictory evidence, when it came to legislate on the subject, and the public mind would not he satisfied that the question had been fairly dealt with. He feared that no Report would be made by the

307
Commissioners in time to legislate on the question, and he protested against the doctrine, that it was not the duty of Ministers to see that the Commissioners were pursuing a course that could lead to a satisfactory result.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodcomplained of the delay in the proceedings. The Commissioners had declared, that they would proceed in the manner of the Judges in taking their own notes, and the noble Lord could not pretend that that was a method calculated to satisfy any honourable mind. The Commission had been appointed, on an understanding that the inquiry should be available to the purposes of the Bill to be carried through Parliament in the present Session. Such was the understanding expressed in the Resolutions to which the House had come. If Ministers had not made this principle the foundation of all their proceedings, they had not acted with good faith towards the House. The instructions to the Commissioners had nothing in them of a nature to make the inquiries available to legislation before the end of the Session. It would be the duty of the House, on the 17th of June, to proceed as if the Commission never had existed.
Lord Ashleysaid, he was empowered by the operatives of Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and of Scotland, to say, that it was their wish that publicity should be given to their evidence. Although publicity might be injurious to one or two individuals, it would be beneficial to the general body, He had just as much right to say, that he was empowered to speak the sense of the operatives, as any hon. Members had a right to say, that they were empowered to speak by their constituents. Delegates had been sent to him from the manufacturing districts on the subject, and they had been as fairly elected as any Member bad been by any constituency.
Sir George Phillipsprotested against the noble Lord styling himself the Representative of the operatives. If the Commissioners adopted an open examination, the objects of the Commission would be defeated. The Commissioners, in his opinion, were taking the right way to learn the state and condition of the operative classes, and their object was, to terminate their inquiries as soon as possible.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the inquiry before the Committee had been at the desire of the operatives, and they had wished for no concealment or secrecy. The present
308
inquiry was at the desire of the masters, and now the plan was to take evidence in secret. The bad faith of the proceeding was obvious.
Lord Ashleyhad no intention to take upon himself a power which he did not in reality possess. All he had stated was, that on this question, and on this alone, the operatives had intrusted their case into his hands. When he had said, that he was empowered to demand an open examination by the delegates, he alluded to the fact, that four delegates were in London who had been elected (the vote having been taken by universal suffrage) by the operatives of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and of Lancashire; and they having intrusted their case to his care, he was entitled to say, that he was as much the Representative of the operatives as any Member of that House was the Representative of his constituency.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the subject of Colonial Slavery.
Mr. O'Connellcommenced by assuring the Committee of his desire to state his sentiments with as much brevity as possible. The subject, however, on which he was about to address the Committee, was one, the importance of which it was difficult to describe, and perhaps impossible to exaggerate. They were called upon to decide between the freedom, or the continued slavery of 800,000 of their fellow-creatures. The question also embraced, in a greater or less degree, the pecuniary interests of at least 2,000,000 of the King's subjects. The House was now called upon to act under a most awful responsibility, and it therefore became a matter of the highest importance, that they should understand the precise position in which they stood, and in which the question stood at the present moment. One feature of the present state of the question was, the abolition of slavery was demanded by the almost unanimous voice of the whole country. The annals of Parliament scarcely furnished an instance in which so many petitions were presented from so many different petitioners. By the last Report of the Committee on Public Petitions, it appeared that 1,200,000 signatures had been affixed to petitions against slavery; and since that Report was made, he had no doubt that the number had been increased to a million and a half—yes, a million and

309
a half of their fellow-subjects in this quarter of the world had called upon them to liberate their brethren at the other side of the Atlantic, and to put an end to negro slavery for ever. There could not be a more complete expression of public opinion than those petitions presented—they were signed by persons in every grade, and of every age, and of every class; und both sexes united in demanding, that slavery should be put an end to throughout the territories of this nation. Some persons had been found to attempt to east ridicule upon the petitions to which he had been alluding, on the score of their having been signed chiefly by females. He would say—and he cared not who the person was of whom he said it—he would say, that that person had had the audacity to taunt the maids and matrons of England with the offence of demanding that their fellow-subjects in another clime should be emancipated. He would say nothing of the bad taste and the bad feeling which such a taunt betrayed—he would merely confine himself to the expression of an opinion, in which be was sure that every Member of that House would concur with him, namely, that if ever the females had a right to interfere, it was upon that occasion. Assuredly, the crying grievance of slavery must have sunk deep into the hearts, and strongly excited the feelings of the British nation, before the females of this country could have laid aside the re-tiredness of their character to come forward and interfere in political matters. Novel-had there been so much reason for their doing so—had there been no instance but that one case, in which thirty-nine lashes were inflicted upon a naked female for an offence of no very aggravated nature, if she were guilty at all, and those thirty-nine lashes repeated, merely because she presumed to say that she had not deserved such treatment. That was the wanton cruelty of a ruffian at the other side of the Atlantic; and he hesitated not to say, that the man, whoever he might be, who had taunted the females of Great Britain with having petitioned Parliament—the man who could do that, was almost as great a ruffian as the wielder of the cart-whip, which gave occasion to that interference. He would again call their attention to the position in which the question stood. The first fact was, that the people of England desired the emancipation of the negroes. The second of these important facts was, that the Government had agreed
310
to emancipation. And the third was, (and of all it was the most important) that even those who had hitherto been opposed to emancipation, now acknowledged its necessity. The Committee had listened to the speeches, on the first night of the pre sent debate, of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, and the late Under Secretary for the Colonies. He had subsequently read the report of the right hon. Secretary's speech, and he was glad to trace there the identical words used by him in the House. The noble Lord, he was happy to see, had published his speech under his own sanction. Now, the statements of both right hon. persons proved indubitably the case of the anti-slavery advocates, of whom he was proud to acknowledge himself a humble supporter, and thus the satisfactory truth would now appear on the records of Parliament, that the Secretaries for the Colonies were witnesses to the truth of that cause to which the slavery abolitionists were devoted. The way in which he came at the evidence on the subject of slavery was this: here on the one side was the testimony before the Committee of that House relative to the condition of the slave population; and then, on the other hand, the owners of what was alleged to be 165 millions of money, were pledged to disprove that evidence. Had they done so? They had certainly contradicted the most flagrant of the statements made against the planters; but had they disproved them? The statements—founded on evidence, as he could not but believe, for the Committee had elicited evidence—the statements of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, had been assailed, as was believed, by the assailants, in three of their most vulnerable points. The first attack was upon his assertion relative to the peremptory power of the planter to give his slave thirty-nine lashes without reference to any authority than that of his overseer. The next was a denial that the Colonial Legislature had done nothing since 1823, when Mr. Canning's resolutions passed a Committee of that House. And the other ground of attack was the total repudiation of his assertion with respect to the mortality of the negroes in the sugar plantations. How stood the first? The case of Henry Williams would be a full and sufficient proof of the fact, that the horrible and tyrannical power possessed by the planters, of inflicting at once thirty-nine lashes, was yet in full fort-C The slave, Henry Williams, was convicted, in his owner's mind, of attending an Inde-

311
pendent meeting-house, and he was punished by thirty-nine articles [Immense laughter.] He had been happy and unhappy in his mistake; he meant thirty-nine lashes were inflicted upon this human being, because he attended an establishment not countenanced by that which was based on the thirty-nine articles. Well, he was laid down, tied fast, and lashed, and his sister, with true fraternal affection, sighed to see a man, her brother, thus degraded. Her sigh reached the ear of the planter, her owner, and he instantly exercised the power of brute force with which he was endowed, and exposed her naked back to the same number of lashes. Did any one ask for proofs? Let him refer them to Lord Goderich's despatch. There the circumstances were stated, and from that official document were his assertions drawn. So much for the first attack on the right hon. Secretary's statement. And now for the second. It was denied that the Colonial Legislature had done nothing towards bettering the condition of the negroes since 1823. He need do no more than refer the Committee to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for a triumphant refutation of this assertion; and as for the declaration, that the negro population was under an extraordinary ratio of decrease compared with that of other countries, he would only state the fact, that, taking the average of deaths in England and the West Indies, he found, that in every 1,720 persons, there were sixty-five deaths in the West Indies to thirty-one in England. Those were facts which no man would deny, and every Member who seemed to advocate the views of what were called the West-India body, from the hon. Baronet, the member for Bristol, to the member for Kidderminster, all agreed that not only must slavery be abolished, but that the time had arrived for that abolition. The negroes, no doubt, would be made aware of the fact, that such had been the unanimous decision of the British Parliament, and of the British nation, and the only real danger in the matter would be to palter with their feelings, and trifle with death and destruction. For himself, if the House sat till Christmas, he was ready to go through with it, because the Parliament was required to wash the stain of slavery away. Indeed he was willing to postpone all other business whatever, in order to get through this most momentous struggle. The case of St. Domingo presented an awful example of the danger of
312
delay. He would not detain the House by going into the details of that case, which had been already touched upon by more than one speaker, but he could not avoid referring to it as one which presented to them an awful warning. The first step which led to some of the calamitous events in that colony was the declaration of the National Assembly, that the slave population was free, and then the attempt to palter and go back from that declaration. There were three conflicting parties on the island, the Catholics, the Royalists, and the Republicans. The Catholic priesthood were so incensed against the infidel Republicans, that they, one and all, roused up a spirit of insurrection, and led the slaves forth to fight against their masters. That was a curious historical fact. It was, in fact, the whites alone who caused the dreadful scenes which subsequently occurred in the island. The British Government sent over an army, and there were three years of bloody war, of which the British army were the greatest victims. Who put an end to that war? A slave, Toussaint, one of the greatest and most humane men that ever lived, who restored as many whites as possible to their estates. Napoleon, in his madness for colonies, sent an army of 18,000 men to reconquer St. Domingo, and that army devastated the country. In 1826 the French government acknowledged their independence, and they have since doubled in population, and fast increased in civilization. He had heard some hint thrown out, that if the slaves were emancipated, they would spend their time in lascivious idleness. Every thing which experience had shown went to prove, that this imputation was unfounded; they had shown as much disposition to industrious exertion as any other set of men. Need he go beyond St. Domingo for proofs? The leader of the opposition there was a pure negro, a practising barrister, and a man of considerable ability. Some of the most important offices in that colony were ably filled by pure negroes, or men of colour; and he might add, that the best work on botany was written in that colony by a pure negro. They should not judge of the negro by what they found him in a state of slavery; let them look at what he was capable of doing, and what he had done, when in the full enjoyment of freedom. When such was the negro character, why should he be hampered with the unnecessary restrictions of the right hon. Secretary for the colonies? He was fit for freedom, or he

313
was not, and he considered that the main question was, and the reason why he should oppose the Resolution of the right hon. Secretary was, that he thought the House ought to divide on the grand point of slavery or no slavery. The time for tempo rising was too late, and this probationary period, now at length proposed, ought to have begun ten years ago, when Mr. Canning's Resolutions were passed. It was his opinion that the men who showed that they could bear slavery, most assuredly afforded a very strong presumption that they could bear freedom. With respect to three-fourths of the negro's time being given to the planter, and one-fourth allowed to the negro, it was in human nature probable that the planter would make as much use of the time allowed to him as possible, that he would make every effort to make it valuable, and endeavour that the period of one-fourth allowed to the negro should be of as little use to the negro as possible. There was certainly a novelty in the right hon. Gentleman's plan—it introduced a new state of society. There had been nations of hunters, and of shepherds, and of agriculturists, and of masters and slaves; but never before had they heard of a nation of masters and apprentices. An old woman of eighty was to become an apprentice, and she was to be told that if she lived till ninety-two, she would be out of her time, and might commence a life of gaiety and jollity on her own account. They were to send out stipendiary Magistrates to compel the negroes to work—it would be more wise to call in the police to scold and punish the servants in every house in London. It could not be even tried without ridicule, or something worse. It would do nothing more than cause continued irritation and quarrelling between the negro and the master; it would mitigate no single evil; but, on the contrary, would increase ten-fold the difficulties of the planter. What would be the feeling of the slave during his period of absence from labour? What would he say when he understood that he was free for one-fourth of his time, and that he was compelled to labour three-fourths of the day for his master? In what way would he be compelled to labour for his master three-fourths of the day? Not by the lash, surely, for that was no longer to be used. The plan was, that stipendiary Magistrates were to be sent out, and these Magistrates were to watch over the working of 325,000 negroes, in Jamaica for example, where there
314
was more than that number during five days of the week! Nothing could be more ridiculous than such a plan. In every point—in point of theory and of operation, it was decidedly bad. There was but one scheme to be pursued—the only one that could succeed—and that was, first the liberation of the negro, and then, when that was done, let the planter's case be taken into consideration. He would call, therefore, on Ministers to abandon their impracticable scheme of apprenticeship—a scheme as yet untried by experience—the consequence of which would be ridicule, if it were not attended by something worse and more serious. What could be intended by that part of the measure—was it for the sake of economy? If so, it would fail, for he maintained that in every state and clime free labour was proved to be in the end cheaper than forced or slave labour. When he proposed the entire liberation of the negro, he did not seek to take away from the planter any one thing that was his legitimate property—he did not seek to take away his plantations, his lands, his houses or anything that was his—what he proposed to take away was the negro, as he was not the property of the planter. He said emancipate the slave first, and then if the planter had a claim for compensation hear him. He thought he had no claim, because the abolition would be a great benefit to him, by giving him security. With respect to a provision for the old age of the negro, he would not advise exactly Poor-laws, though what he was disposed to advise was something like them, since he thought, that the aged slave should be recompensed for the amount of labour performed when he was capable of working. If the negro became an idler, let him share the fate of the idler—let him perish. His own opinions were fortified by the statements of Mr. Jeremie, who, in his work, showed that negroes would work without compulsion when freed and left to themselves. It was proved by Dr. Clarke who was an unwilling witness, that Sir Charles Price, by emancipating the best negro on his estate every year, greatly increased the value of his property, so great was the effect of the hope of procuring emancipation. And that was in Jamaica. In several instances when emancipated, they had established manufactories and worked for themselves, actuated by the same motives as European artizans. In Antigua, no less than 407 captured negroes had been liberated in 1827, and the result was, that they turned out the most useful part of the population

315
there. If Trinidad were taken, a similar instance would be found. In that island 774 negroes, the property of the Crown, were emancipated, and the result was, that in eight years their population increased to 973. what was more, the officers of the Crown reported of those negroes that they had not only increased in population, but that they had become industrious, fulfilled every moral duty, and had become extremely religious. What was the cause of this amelioration in their condition? All that was done for them was, that liberty was granted to them—but that was everything, and all they required. Now, let the slaves in the sugar colonies be compared with those liberated negroes. It would be found that in the sugar colonies they were decreasing in numbers in consequence of their treatment; that under the lash their number diminished, and that their sufferings and sorrows ascended to Heaven in cries of blood. He would again take the two free settlements at Surinam, and he would show, according to Mr. Austin, that, notwithstanding the unhealthiness of that climate, the free negroes there were increasing in population and in wealth. It would be the same if the condition of the free negroes of Demerara and Mexico were considered. He begged to mention a fact relative to 1,500 negroes apprenticed at the Cape of Good Hope. So long as they were in a state of apprenticeship they were perfectly useless to those for whom they worked; but when they were liberated things changed, and they became most useful and industrious. How did the liberated negroes of the Caraccas behave? Why, it was they who fought the fight of freedom against the veteran troops of Spain—against those troops who had distinguished themselves against the French, who had fought side by side with the English, and must have profited by their example. Yes, those liberated Cacadores under Bolivar fought with great bravery, and better troops than they, were, perhaps, never known. All these facts he considered fully sufficient to prove, that the Negro deserved his freedom, and that compulsion was not necessary to make him useful and industrious. In the troubles of the South American contest did the negroes avail themselves of any single opportunity to show their rancour against the Whites? They did not—they showed themselves throughout those troubles excellent and peaceable citizens. The Negro, then, might be emancipated with security,
316
and with advantage to the planters. Enough had been said about their working under the lash. But had anybody as yet brought forward any evidence to show that the negroes would not work if they were set free? No such evidence had been adduced—no such fact had been proved. They were beings of the same flesh, bone, and muscle as ourselves—they were imbued with the same immortal spirit—they were rendered heirs, by the same blood, to the same glorious eternity as we—and was it to become in these days a question and a doubt whether they were entitled to the first birthright of mankind—freedom? He would put a case: suppose that the hon. member for Lancaster who had so ably and eloquently defended the cause of the West Indians, was taken prisoner on his way out to the West Indies, by a corsair, and sold for a slave, should he remonstrate and say he had primitive as well as rational rights which interdicted his being considered as a slave, he would doubtless be told there was a law in that country making him a slave, and thirty-nine lashes would be his least reward for talking reason to his master. There was no doubt it was law perhaps in his mind, and that of every Mufti in Algiers; but in defence of the natural rights to liberty of British subjects our fleets had been commissioned, and justly and heroically, to blow up the batteries, and huge mounds, and the proud Goletta of the Barbarian, and teach him there were rights which no law of any nation under Heaven could wrest from human beings. The hon. member for Kidderminster had contended for the claim of property in the slave. He said if he purchased a slave, it was his property, as much as a steam-engine or any other property, either in England or Jamaica. That was true; if he purchased an engine in England, it was his property in Jamaica; but let him purchase a slave in Jamaica, and bring him to England, and then claim his property. One half-minute in the King's Bench would set aside his claim of property, and set the negro free. In the case of the slave Somerset, Lord Mansfield said, that a slave was property by custom, and not by law; and that Custom was bad, and would not be pleaded when it related to the liberty of the individual. A Judge of the land had condemned the custom as bad in law. Blackstone had laid it down as a principle that the English Constitution protected all those to whom it extended. It afforded its protection to the slave, and if a

317
writ of Habeas Corpus was given to the West Indies, the moment the negro appeared in the Court of King's Bench he would be emancipated, as in the case of the slave Somerset. Political rights were intended only to protect natural rights: they did not precede natural rights. Liberty was a natural right, and no one untainted with crime could be deprived of it. Slavery continued to the present day a crime on the annals of mankind. The first filching of the man from his home in Africa was a crime, but the crime was doubled in retaining the man's son as a slave. Every step of the proof of property was more deeply dyed in iniquity. The story of the Wolf and the Lamb was not its parallel in guilt as to the principle it comprised. It was a fact, not a nuisance to be abated, but an abomination to be trampled by us Christians in the dust. Let this Legislature avoid the example of the political hypocrites of America, who, when in rebellion against this country, adopted the famous maxim—"That all men were born equal and free," but who even yet unblushingly continued the hateful system of negro slavery in its must hateful form. He hoped that this country would set the Americans an example of true freedom, and stigmatise their conduct in continuing slavery, as tyranny and robbery. He called on the House to extinguish the hateful system—not only in justice to their own country, but to the world. He would not then enter into the question of compensation; but he hoped that in considering that, and the whole question, all jealousy, and all hankering after a system which was tolerable to its advocates only from its long standing, would be laid aside, as was well recommended by the hon member for Lancaster, in his beautiful and eloquent speech on a former evening. He hoped that fear would not prevent the House from doing justice to that large portion of their fellow-men, but that, on the contrary, they would be just, and fear not.
Lord Dalmenysaid, that much as he admired the eloquence of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he could not agree with him in opinion, that immediate emancipation would be a safe or proper measure in the present state of the slaves. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as if immediate emancipation were synonymous with the happiness and comfort of the slaves themselves, and with the prosperity of the colonies. He should as soon think of removing the shackles from all the in-
318
mates of a madhouse, and letting them loose upon society. The negro population of the colonies were not yet in such a state of moral or intellectual advancement as to be capable of profiting by freedom. Whatever might be their natural faculties and powers, they were hitherto allowed to run waste, and without gradual preparation for a state of freedom, in place of being a blessing, it would only be a curse to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as if the mere circumstance of emancipation would be sufficient of itself to fit them immediately for all the duties and enjoyments of civilised society. This was contrary to the principles of human nature, which proved that some degree of previous preparation and education were necessary to fit men for freedom. He was apprehensive of that burning desire for vengeance which had been more nourished than repressed by long ages of tyranny. Revenge was in their bosoms only a cold and sleeping serpent; let it be only warmed into life by the day of liberty, and it would spring upon its victim. Immediate emancipation would only deliver the slaves up to the dominion of their own bad passions, which would be found far worse even for the slaves themselves than the dominion of the planters.
Lord Sandonsaid, he had never defended the system of slavery; but, on the contrary, had always been inclined to consider the best means of getting rid of it livery Gentleman connected with the West Indies, who had spoken on the question, admitted the necessity of the emancipation of the slaves, and he thought it hardly fair, therefore, that the odium should be thrown upon them, of being entirely opposed to it. If that debate on the question had happened last year, it might perhaps be excusable that some Members should make an appeal to popular feeling; but it being now admitted that slavery must be abolished, it was not right to bring odium upon the West-India proprietors, without whose concurrence emancipation could not be effected. He believed that the cruelties and tyranny exercised towards the slaves had been much exaggerated, at the same time that he would admit that slavery was one of the deepest sources of moral degradation. He even believed that it was worse in its moral effects on the master than on the slave. That, however, was not now the question. The question was, how it could be abolished with least injury to individuals, and least danger to the State. He believed

319
also, that the statement made of the decrease of the number of the slaves from overworking and bad usage had been much overrated. He would rest the truth of his doubts upon that subject, upon the arguments made use of by one of the greatest advocates of emancipation—the hon. member for Weymouth—who said, that if wages were given to the negroes, they would work more than they did at present, without doing themselves any injury. If that were true, what became of the argument that overworking and over-labour caused the decrease? Among other evidence which corroborated him in his views, was that of Mr. Taylor, who said in his evidence before the Committee, that he had seen slaves go to market in coats which he would not himself be ashamed to wear, and that they were fully fed all the year round. But even those who most strongly advocated the effect of overworking on the state of the population, were obliged to admit that much of the decrease was attributable to the inequality in the sexes. In stating his views on this question, he would consider it in regard to the many numerous classes interested in its settlement. He would consider it, first, as regarded the West-India planters; secondly, as regarded the manufacturers of this country; then as regarded the shipping interest, and the interest of all the industrious classes of this country, who obtained much of their subsistence from labour paid for by the West-India capital; and, lastly, as regarded our finances, which derived eight millions from the same source. And he would ask, after stating that so many interests were concerned, what question could be more important or more deserving of strict and careful inquiry, before they proceeded to make experiments concerning it? With regard to the interest of the planters, he found that the total value of the sugar, molasses, &c. raised in our West-India plantations, amounted to 7,857,000 l.; the exports from Great Britain to the West Indies in the shape of stores, was 2,500,000 l.; and that the freight and sailing charges upon those stores, amounted to 1,600,000 l. This made the total amount of exports to the West-India colonies 4,600,000 l., which being deducted from the imports, left a balance of 3,257,000 l.; and this balance being the difference between what was sent from the colonies to this country, and what was sent from this country to the colonies, he considered about the income of the West-India proprietors. Now, it should be recollected that that three millions were almost wholly
320
spent in this country—its effect was found in this and every town in the kingdom, and there was not a town in the kingdom but would feel the bad effect of any diminution in our revenue from the colonies. Then, with regard to our manufacturers, he would beg to ask if they, in their already depressed and struggling situation, could afford to lose such a market as the colonies opened to them? With regard to our shipping interest, he found that 250,000 tons of British shipping were engaged in carrying produce from, and stores to, the West-India colonies, besides 80,000 tons employed in the West Indies themselves, in carrying provisions from the neighbouring shores of America, but which still were British shipping. This was the great interest which the British shipping had in the preservation of the colonies; and suppose the proposed experiment did not succeed, what would be the consequence? That 250,000 additional tons would be thrown into the market. They should likewise recollect the immense capital invested in our refineries and warehouses in this country, all of which would suffer seriously should produce cease to arrive from the colonies. He knew that in Liverpool alone the loss in warehouses would be enormous. Nor should they leave the interest of the colonists and of the slaves out of view. Looking to all those important interests, and looking also to the effect which the loss of the colonies would have upon our monetary system, the House would see, that as the question was no longer the continuance or non-continuance of the slavery system, they ought carefully to consider in what manner emancipation might be effected so as to do the least possible injury to all concerned. It ought to be recollected, too, that there was humanity on the one side as well as on the other, and that thousands, nay millions, were dependent on the colonies for support who had as good a claim to the humanity of the House as the slaves. They ought to look to the question, then, not with a view of getting rid of it, but with the view of so settling it, that not only the slaves should be free, but the colonies productive. What, then, was the first element of such a settlement to be considered? It would be easy to abolish slavery, but how were they to create a wholesome state of society, fit for the reception of freedom? In his opinion the passing of the slaves from a state of slavery to one of freedom was an experiment, the success of which was very problematical, and they had no instances of its success in any other country. They

321
were indeed told of Mexico and Venezuela, where the slaves had been emancipated without subsequently murdering all the white population; but was the experiment ever tried with success in countries where the black population bore such a large proportion to the number of whites, as it did in our West-India colonies. It should be recollected, that in Venezuela, where the transition was said to be from slavery, even from black slavery, to happiness and content, the slaves were not more than one tenth of the whole population, scattered, too, over the face of the country, and in so small a proportion to the whites as to remove all apprehension of danger. The same might be said of the other parts of South America. But was there any analogy in these cases to that now under consideration? It should be remembered, besides, that the experiment was made in South America when the country was under the excitement of a civil war, and when the minds of the slave population, as well as others, were absorbed by other considerations. They had no safe experiment to guide their conduct, no precedent upon which they could securely rely, either in ancient or modern times. There was nothing to guide them safely, even in the experiments made in modern times of a transition from mere political slavery to liberty. The experiments made in Italy, in Greece, in South America, even the great experiment of the French revolution, proved that a sudden transition from political slavery to freedom was not very safe. In effecting the great object proposed they must seek the assistance of the planters themselves and proprietors, who must be brought, not merely to acquiesce in the plan, but co-operate in it. An experiment proceeding upon any other grounds must fail, or perhaps end in a civil war of extermination. It should be recollected, that they had to deal with men who were in a state of excitement and irritation. They must not say to them: "If you resist, our forces are sufficient to put you down." It was true 16,000 whites, among a population of 300,000 slaves, might be easily put down; but here it was not a question of war, but of a peaceable transaction. The planters had a claim on their justice to carry the object into effect in the least objectionable way. He would not go into the abstract question—was slavery lawful? The question the House had to consider was, whether it had not been recognized as such by this country, and considered as lawful by the parties interested? The responsibility of Parliament in this measure involved the wel-
322
fare of 800,000 human beings at present dependent upon their will. But it did not end there; for, if the experiment succeeded, the example would, no doubt, be followed by all other slave-holding countries. If it failed, the slaves in the hands of other countries would be subjected to new rigours. How important then was it that every means of securing the success of the experiment should be adopted? Within the last twenty-four hours he had become enabled to make to the Government a proposal which, if acceded to, would go far towards rendering the experiment safe and practicable; for it would ensure the co-operation of the planters. A number of Members of that House, in the interest of the West-India body, had that morning mot at his house, for the purpose of discussing the means of securing their co-operation. They had agreed to certain Resolutions on the measure of the right hon. Secretary, and having submitted those Resolutions to the Acting Committee of the body of West-Indian merchants and proprietors, they had received their entire concurrence. In these Resolutions they had begun by adopting the first Resolution of the right hon. Secretary, for the immediate abolition of slavery in the British colonies. They had next resolved, that a sum of twenty millions should be appropriated by Parliament as compensation to the planters and slave-owners. Upon the next Resolution he entreated the Committee to suspend their judgment until he had stated the grounds upon which it had been adopted. It was to the effect, "That in order to secure the co-operation of the colonial assemblies, his Majesty should be enabled further to advance as a loan upon colonial securities the sum of ten millions." With respect to the twenty millions as compensation, it was important to observe, that the planters were called upon by the Government measure to pay full wages in lodging, clothing, food, and other allowances to the slave for a term of years, and at the same time they were required to give up one-fourth of the time of the slave; in other words, of the consideration for which the wages were given. It was no more than just, in the opinion of the West-India body, to estimate the value of the sacrifice, and make compensation for it. The question, then, was, what was the worth of this and other sacrifices which the planter was called upon to make? It was to be considered that, at the end of the term of years, the planter lost what he might term the fee-simple of his property, and many of the proprietors of slaves in the West Indies

323
possessed nothing else. In order to estimate the value of a fourth, they must look at the value of the whole of the produce of the West Indies. That would be found to be about 6,100,000 l. annually, including what was consumed in the colonies with what was exported. One-fourth of that was 1,500,000 l., the sum which was annually to be taken out of the pocket of the slave proprietors. Twelve years' loss of 1,500,000 l. gave 18,000,000 l. Then, allowing a couple of millions for the compensation of those who lost every thing by the emancipation of their slaves, the sum of 20,000,000 l. would be made out, which the West-India body thought would be no more than a fair compensation, and upon which being granted they would be willing to give their co-operation to the plan of the right hon. Secretary. This was clearly a great desideratum, and the House ought not to be too niggardly in the means of securing an advantage by which so much of the danger of this dangerous measure would be averted. He would next advert to the proposed loan of ten millions. This loan was proposed as a means of alleviating the distresses of those who had heavy mortgages on their property. To set them from their embarrassments would operate as a stimulus, and give them not only heart and encouragement, but the means of aiding the new system of cultivation which the proposed change would render necessary. A loan was strongly recommended by the Committee which Mat last year; and it would have the advantage of embarking this country in the same boat with the colonists. It might be said that the loan would not be repaid. If, however, the hopes held out by this measure should be realised, there could be no doubt that property to the amount of 100,000,000 l. would be good security for a loan of ten. The produce shipped to this country might first be taken to repay the loan. If, however, the colonists were to lose all their property by this experiment, surely ten millions would be but a moderate compensation for this country to pay, for the ruin it was resolved to inflict. If, on the other hand, they were to throw the colonies out of cultivation by being niggardly towards them, the result would be, that the country would be more heavily taxed By the increased price of sugar and colonial produce consequent upon a diminished supply. He thought he had at least laid strong grounds for a consideration of these proposals which he made on behalf of the West-India body, and upon the
324
adoption of which they were prepared to give their co-operation to the plan of his Majesty's Government. It was not intended to put the House to the trouble of a division on the part of those whom he represented. They were but a small fraction of the House, and could hope nothing but in the Justice of the House. If they should be able to make any impression upon the sense of justice and of policy of the majority of the Members of that House and the Government it would be all well; but if they failed in that, he felt that for fifty or sixty Members to struggle against the great majority of the House and the sense of the country, urged on in this cause he firmly believed by religious principle, would be worse than useless. If he failed in convincing the House of the justice of these proposals, then the responsibility of miscarriage, in a cause in which the interests of justice, humanity, and civilization were more deeply involved than in any other now pending, would rest upon that House, not upon the West-India body. They, at least, would have the consolation of knowing that they had discharged their duty according to the dictates of their conscience. [The noble Lord sat down without proposing any Resolutions.]
Mr. Fitzgeraldobserved, that the question at the outset was whether there could or could not be property in slaves. If there was no such thing as property in man, there could be no doubt that the House was bound at once to go the length of the right hon. Secretary's Resolutions. If, on the contrary, property could exist in the labour of the negroes, the question assumed a more complex shape. It was, however, clear to him from the Statute-law, from the time of Elizabeth downwards, that the slave-trade and the right of property in slaves, were recognized by various Acts of Parliament. Such being the case, it was impossible, with any pretence of justice, to take away a species of property recognized by the Legislature, unless we consented to compensate the owners. Whatever measures were finally adopted, it was of the utmost importance that the colonists and the colonial Legislatures should cordially concur in it, otherwise it never could be rendered satisfactory and effectual.
Lord Sandonsaid, that he had forgot at the conclusion of his speech to read the Resolutions which he intended to propose as an amendment for the adoption of the Committee, and he would now take the opportunity of doing so. The noble Lord,

325
accordingly, read the following Resolutions.

"1. That it is the opinion of this Committee, that immediate and effectual measures he taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies, under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes, as may combine their welfare with the interests of the proprietors. That towards the compensation of the proprietors in his Majesty's colonial possessions, his Majesty be enabled to grant to them a sum not exceeding 20,000,000 l., to be appropriated as Parliament shall direct. That in order to secure the success of this object, and the co-operation of the colonial Legislatures and authorities, his Majesty be enabled to advance, by way of loan, on colonial security, a further sum, not exceeding 10,000,000 l. sterling; these payments to be made to the colonies, upon their respective authorities passing laws in conformity with this and the following Resolutions.

"2. That it is expedient that all children born after the passing of any Act of Parliament for this purpose, shall be declared free, and be subject to such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary and equitable, in consideration of their support and maintenance.

"3. That all other persons, now slaves, be registered as apprenticed labourers, and acquire thereby all rights and privileges of freemen, subject to the restriction of labouring, under conditions, and for a time to be fixed by Parliament, for their owners.

"4. That his Majesty be enabled to defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient stipendiary Magistracy and police in the colonies, and in aiding the local authorities in providing further religious and moral education of the negro population to be emancipated."

The Chairmanintimated to the noble Lord that, as there was another Amendment already before the Committee, the noble Lord Could not move his Amendment until it was first disposed of.
Lord Sandonsaid, that after that Amendment was disposed of, he should move his Resolutions, for the purpose of having them inserted on the journals.
Admiral Flemingspoke as follows: Having been alluded to by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, when he so ably and clearly explained the plan now under consideration, I feel it a duty to the House to express my most perfect concurrence in the correctness of the statement the right hon.
326
Gentleman has made, of the condition of the negro slaves in the British colonies; an opinion which I am enabled to give without fear of misleading anyone. From a knowledge of the West-India colonies for more than thirty-five years, from having visited almost every one of them—resided in some of them, and having held the chief naval command there; it was not only my duty, but I had opportunities of informing myself of the real state of the coloured population; and it is with pain and sorrow I am bound to declare, that from the first time I visited those countries in 1796, until I last left them in 1830, no material amelioration in the treatment of the negro slaves had taken place; for, although many proprietors, treat them with mildness and humanity, and their condition is materially altered, from their being almost all creoles, speaking the English language, and generally professing the Christian religion, it is a matter of great doubt with me whether they are not more unhappy now that they feel the degradation of their situation—those insults and injuries inseparable from their unfortunate state—than when in ignorance, and little removed from savages. There are few things more difficult than to come at a knowledge of the real state of the West-India slave; and I must confess, that although I very early in life became convinced of the necessity of abolishing negro slavery, not only as an act of justice, but one of true policy, and for the best interests of the colonists, I was very far from believing that this country would have permitted it to continue to the present hour: for it must have been visible to all who would or could see, that it was drawing-fast to a close, and that the horrid system would either blow up, as it has done, or end in insurrection, or the total extinction of the negro race. Sir, I did expect that the Resolution entered into by this House in 1822, would have had the effect intended; and when I returned to the West Indies in 1827, I did expect to find the negro slaves on a much better footing than they really are—a delusion which was continued by my first landing on the Bahamas, where I had never been before, and where slavery is as light as it can be. The very day I arrived in Jamaica the curtain was drawn up, and exposed the dreadful scene still existing in that island; on the very beach I saw a chain gang, which I will not attempt to describe, because I have not the power of conveying the slightest idea of its horrors. I soon found, that

327
Councils of Protection, and all their boasted laws in favour of the slave, were a hitter mockery, and that there was not only no real protection for the negro, but that the same excess of forced labour, the same scarcity of food, scantiness of clothing, and inattention to healthy lodging, produced the same melancholy waste of human life. I have heard many express their surprise that the right hon. Secretary should have mentioned what fell from a witness before the Committee last year—namely, that a slave might be punished by his master for looking at him; but as a proof of how little regard is paid to such punishments, I will mention a circumstance which took place while I was in Jamaica. The road leading to the house where I resided passed through a coffee plantation, and the naval officers coming and going from my house soon became acquainted with the negroes employed in its cultivation, and used frequently to give them cigars and snuff, of which the negroes are very fond—sometimes they threw them small pieces of money—thus the negroes were encouraged to put themselves in their way instead of avoiding them, as they generally do whites. One of them, whose name was "Sampson," used to amuse the young men in singing negro songs and dancing in mimicry; one day he met two officers on their way to me, and asked them for cigars; out of mere joke they called to the driver to give him thirty-nine, throwing him at the same time tobacco; they were soon out of sight, and little dreamt that an order so carelessly given, would be obeyed; nor did the poor wretch complain, supposing it no doubt a common occurrence; and it was not until next day that the fact was communicated to the officers, who immediately informed me of it, expressed their infinite sorrow, and requested me to explain to the owner how it had taken place. I did so, and was answered, "Oh, curse his blood, it will do him good." The negro driver never thought of inquiring as to the propriety of the punishment, but when I spoke to him, answered, "What can poor negro do? Massa Buckra tell him give him fum fum." Sir, it is not possible to convince the great majority of the managers and overseers of estates, that any other means but the whip will induce the negroes to work—the mere mention of it generally produces the reply, that you are humbugged by the saints, or misled by Brougham's canting and hypocritical harangues. I never in my life attended an Anti-slavery Meet-
328
ing; indeed, with the exception of the Lord Chancellor and the learned Doctor (Lushington), I am not known to any of those who have so distinguished themselves in favour of Emancipation, and to whom the country in a great measure owes the tranquillity of the colonies, by keeping alive that hope, which is now, thank God, shortly to be realised. In 1796 I first saw a slave ship—I had seen Turkish slaves before—slaves in the galleys at Genoa, and slaves in Algiers, but I had not the slightest notion of what the cupidity of man could inflict on his fellow man, until that period; believing the ship I saw to be the worst of her kind, I visited another, and found her no better; I never could persuade myself to go to a third; and I can truly say, that when I was elected, a few years afterwards, to a seat in this House, the highest gratification I felt was, that I should be able to lift my voice against this beastly and inhuman traffic; whenever I heard Mr. Fox declare that it was to cease, I felt as relieved from a burthen that oppressed me. I did not require the eloquence of my noble friend; he had not been admitted to the House, and only just commenced his distinguished career; neither had I access to the papers in the Colonial Office to convince me of the absolute necessity of the abolition of slavery. I had even stronger excitements to become an advocate for that most desirable event. I saw slavery—I saw its degrading effects on the negro—I saw its pernicious effects on white men, ay, and women too—I saw the pollution of all connected with it; but I will not tire the House with a further description of it, nor is it necessary. It is of little consequence now whether my hon. friend, the member for Lancaster is correct in the statement he makes, or the slaves are as I saw them. Are they contented? No. Look to the insurrections in Jamaica, Demerara, and Barbadoes; can you keep them any longer in their present state? No. Then the only question is, which is the best mode to emancipate them? My opinion is, the plan now proposed by the Government, although it goes further than I should have been inclined to go, will I am sure be received with unbounded joy—and it will bind the negroes to this country by their interest, and rivet them to it by gratitude and affection; but its success depends on the co-operation of those who have been so long its advocates; a false step taken by them now might tarnish all their glory, and involve the unhappy negro

329
in ruin and bloodshed produced by despair. I, therefore, most earnestly entreat them to weigh well their words here—they do not know their power—they will be received as oracles on the other side of the Atlantic, where all eyes are turned to them and all ears pen to them. With respect to the negroes working after they are free, I have not the slightest doubt of it, although much depends on the conduct of the colonists. St. Domingo has always been held up as a proof to the contrary, but I think most erroneously; I do not judge from hearsay, but from what I saw: true, they do not produce sugar, but they import it, and so does Jamaica refined sugar, and that is, I think, a pretty good proof of their civilization. I saw no poverty in the island; I saw no naked men; I saw people working in their fields; I saw them clad and well fed, being the happiest negroes I saw in the West Indies; but I am told they are idle and will not work—that they will not cut down wood to load vessels. Now it happens, when I was in the West Indies, two complaints were made to me of vessels cutting down the wood by their crews, and carrying it off—in fact stealing it; and thus they blame the negro for not cutting-it. Again, it is said, that they have no enterprize; they are indolent, and fast going back to a savage state. I will give the House a proof to the contrary. In the month of April, 1829, I left It a Guyra, in the Barbara, intending to touch at Curaçoa, to inquire into some captures (said to be made by pirates), on my way to Jamaica: in consequence of a current which was generally felt over that part of the West Indies, and which occasioned the French Admiral and two English ships of war to get aground, the Barham was run ashore on the weather part of Buenos Ayres; after great exertion by her crew, she was got off and conducted into Curaçoa by the assistance of two Dutch ships of war. At that time there had been no rain for two years, the cattle had all died, and as I had supplied all the ships with provisions, reserving only a week's, it became a matter of great importance to procure sufficient provision for the crew. I despatched a schooner to Antigua; on her way she touched at St. Thomas's, where there happened to be a Haytian vessel; she immediately sailed for the city of St. Domingo, and soon appeared at Curaçoa with a cargo of timber for repairing the ship, and forty-seven live bullocks. There was not a white man on board of her, all were black, and yet these are
330
the people who are falling back into barbarism. But let us pass the Caribbean sea. My hon. friend, the member for Lancaster, told the House the other night that there were only five or six sugar estates working in Venezuela, and these by slaves. I cannot tell where he got his information, but I myself saw upwards of thirty sugar estates worked by free negroes, and it is an absolute fact, that slaves are seldom used in making sugar in Venezuela, the proprietors finding it to be cheaper and better done by freemen. Sir, I resided on many of these estates and saw the people at work; I saw them refining sugar, cultivating indigo, and I was assured by many of the overseers that work was better done now, and cheaper by freemen than slaves. Formerly it was customary to have a slave for every 1,000 plants of cocoa; now, a free man can manage 6,000 or 8,000, and everything else in proportion. Many of the proprietors, who are obliged by law to keep their slaves, found it more beneficial to pay them; in fact, a more complete proof of the success of free labour cannot be given. I know the fact of rum being carried into Trinidad, and the estate from which it went. I know more: Venezuelian rum has been sent from Curaçoa, a free port, to Jamaica; and there is very little doubt when that country has a few years peace, the free labour will drive slave labour out of the market.
Mr. William E. Gladstonesaid, that he had to complain of the reference which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) had made to an estate of his (Mr. Gladstone's) father in Demerara, called Vreeden's Hoop, in proof of a position laid down by that noble Lord, that the increase in sugar cultivation was indirect ratio with overworking and loss of life on the part of the slave population. He thought he had a right to complain of the noble Lord's bringing forward a charge of that description without any previous communication to the parties interested, while two members of the family to which it referred had seats in that House. It was a charge affecting moral character, for what man's character would not be affected if he should see, from the reports from his estate, that while the sugar cultivation was increasing his slaves were dying off in equal proportion; and if, under such circumstances, he should continue the same system of management? But he denied, that the noble Lord's statement, with regard to his father's estate, was correct. The noble Lord stated, that

331
the mortality generally amongst the slaves had been fourteen, per cent., while, in fact, it had only been about two per cent. But he could mention an estate where, with a decrease in the slave population, there had been a small, almost amounting to nothing, increase in the sugar cultivation. He alluded to that of Mon Repos. Upon that estate there were 470 persons, and from 1817 to 1822, they produced from 600 to 900 hogsheads of sugar a-year; and during the whole of that period the diminution of life as compared to previous periods was only one-and-a quarter per cent, on that estate. The estate to which the noble Lord had alluded, had come into his (Mr. Gladstone's) father's possession about five years ago. There were 560 slaves on it then, 140 of whom were ailing and infirm persons. Perhaps the noble Lord would say, that that fact only proved that their previous treatment had been harsh and severe, and that his position, that the increase in the cultivation of sugar was attended by the overworking and mortality of the slave population, remained untouched. Now, what was the fact?—that in 1825 this estate produced only 1,200 pounds of sugar for every person employed in it, which was, according to the noble Lord's own admission, the lowest average for any estate. In fact, on the purchase of the estate, from the necessary decrease that was apprehended in the number of the slaves, owing to the infirm state of some of them, 250 were immediately added to the gang. As to the punishment inflicted on this estate, he would Just mention, that he had a letter in his pocket from the estate, dated the 20th of April; and it appeared from it that the number of punishments inflicted there from the 1st of January up to that date amounted exactly to one. He was sorry to trouble the Committee, but these details were necessary to show that, while honourable and respectable branches of his family had held West-India property, they were not inattentive to the wants, the wishes, the feelings, and the interests, of the negro population connected with their plantations. He need not remind the House that the proposition of the noble Lord, adopted by the right hon. Secretary, as to the threefold connexion between increase of sugar cultivation, increase of labour, and decrease of human life, was of immense and vital importance, not only to West-India proprietors, but to the country generally; for if the cultivation of sugar were an occupation of the murderous kind described
332
by the right hon. Gentleman; and if, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin said, "the blood of the negro cries to God from the ground" then the title of the West Indians to their property would be materially affected; because the fact of their persisting in the cultivation of sugar with such results involved such a degree of inhumanity—and recklessness of human life—as would deprive them of the right to appeal to justice. He would contend, however, that the calculations of the hon. member for Lancaster had not been shaken. They were made with reference to Demerara only; but the hon. Member took Demerara because it was the worst case. It was true that his statement did not refute the whole theory of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton) had said, that in every case, the number of males and females was almost equal. But in Demerara, according to the census of 1829 the creole males were 20,000, creole females 21,000; whereas, the African females were 10,000, and the African males 16,000? If the hon. member for Weymouth would, in the teeth of that fact. undertake to prove, that the number of males, and the number of females were anything like equal, his power must surpass that of arithmetic. The hon. member for Weymouth said, "Give me the quantity of sugar, and I will give you the decrease of life." He (Mr. Gladstone) would apply this theorem to a particular case. In St. Vincent's there was an increase of 122 persons in twelve years; in Santa Lucia there was a decrease of 1,962. In Santa Lucia, the produce of sugar had been 6 cwt. per man: how much ought that in St. Vincent's to be? He had not worked out the problem, but the answer, he was aware, according to the rule, would be very different indeed from the fact, which gave no less than 10 cwt. per man. He could not answer for the correctness of these statements; but taking them as he found them, and as they were admitted, they certainly overthrew the argument of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the connexion between the decrease of life and amount of punishment—In Trinidad, the decrease had been much greater than in any other colony of the British West Indies. It amounted, according to the hon. member for Weymouth, to twenty-five per cent in thirteen years; and according to other calculations—those of Mr. Macdonnell—to twenty per cent, for the same period of thirteen years, in Jamaica, for the same

333
period, the decrease was only five or six per cent; consequently, by the rule which the right hon. Secretary was pleased to adopt, the treatment of the slaves in Trinidad ought to have been far more cruel than in Jamaica; but, on the contrary, it appeared from the evidence of the hon. and gallant Admiral who spoke last, that the slave in Trinidad was better protected than the slave in Jamaica, for in Trinidad, he was under what the hon. Admiral termed, "the excellent laws of old Spain," which were the mildest among all the codes of the slave-holding nations. He begged not to be misunderstood. He did not say, that the cultivation of sugar was as favourable to life as the cultivation of cotton or coffee, but the extent of that had been much exaggerated. It should be recollected, that no two professions or trades in this country were in the same degree favourable to human life; it was entirely a question of degree—but the pursuit of no particular trade or profession was relinquished because it was less favourable to human life than another. If, indeed, the statements which they had heard were true, to their full extent—nothing could be said on behalf of sugar cultivation; but, if the manufacture of sugar were so essentially and necessarily destructive, they ought not to stop till they had passed a law prohibiting its importation altogether. The hon. member for Lancaster had made some statements as to the effects of particular trades in this country upon human life, which were astounding; and certainly the accounts of a similar description published by Mr. Thackrah, showed, that the extent of injury to life from many even of the most ordinary trades in this country, was almost beyond belief, and far exceeded the effects of the cultivation of sugar. He would mention one case: that of the grinders. Those who were called dry grinders lived only from twenty-eight to thirty-two years; while those who were called wet grinders, survived to between forty and fifty! No man who had investigated this subject could deny, that the charges against the West-Indian planters, were wholly untenable; and admitting the sugar cultivation to be less favourable than that of cotton and coffee, be would deny that it was injurious to the extent supposed, or caused the decrease, which had been stated to result from it. Sugar was best grown in damp soils: and in such, of course, more decomposition and putrefaction took place under a tropical sun; and it was
334
consequently less favourable to life. But he would take the case of Barbadoes, to show how little comparatively this had to do with the decrease. In Barbadoes, forty years back, when the average annual produce of sugar was 12,000 hogsheads, there was a very large decrease in the population; but at present, when 25,000 hogsheads annually were produced, that population was in the increase. Now, how could that be accounted for, upon the principles of the noble Lord, the right hon. Secretary, and the hon. member for Weymouth? True, they might produce cases in accordance with their rule; but then he could produce cases which contravened it. He could also account for the cases they adduced from other causes, arising often from the habits of the Africans themselves; but could they account, in like manner, for those cases which be produced against them? If they could not, their rule fell to the ground, for unless it included all cases, it was valueless. It was well known, that manufacturing processes, as a general rule, were less favourable to life than those which were agricultural. The hon. member for Weymouth compared the case of sugar with the cases of cotton and coffee, but forgot to remind the House that the production of sugar in the colonies involved a manufacturing process, while the production of cotton and coffee were purely agricultural. They ought, therefore, to advert to the importance of these considerations upon sugar cultivation. Cases of cruelty had often been brought forward against the colonists; and with shame and pain he confessed that cases of wanton cruelty had occurred; and they always would exist, particularly under the system of slavery; and unquestionably this was a substantial reason why the British Legislature and public should set themselves in good earnest to provide for its extinction; but these cases of cruelty could easily be explained by the West Indians, who represented them as rare and isolated cases, and who maintained that the ordinary relation of master and slave was one of kindliness and not of hostility. They had, however, been upheld by the calculations of the hon. member for Weymouth, upon the decrease of the population—which he had persuaded people was owing to general excessive labour and ill treatment, connected with I the cultivation of sugar. Thus those calculations now formed the basis and the gravamen of all charges against the West Indians, because they appeared to prove, that cruelty must be the

335
general rule, and not the exception. He deprecated cruelty—he deprecated slavery; it was abhorrent to the nature of Englishmen; but, conceding all these things, were not Englishmen to retain a right to their own honestly and legally acquired property. If cruelty had existed, he was sorry for it; he did not believe in its existence. It was not, however, alleged against the present colonists, that they practised it; and thence he really saw no reason for the attack which had recently been made upon the West-Indian interest. He put it to the House to consider whether the country had not falsified its obligations to communicate the Christian religion to the slaves. He thought, however, that it was extremely cruel at the present period to hold up the West-Indian planters as an isolated class, instead of taking them as what they really were, one example among many of a general system. He trusted, that the House would make a point to adopt the principle of compensation, and to stimulate the slave to genuine and spontaneous industry. If this were not done, and if moral instructions were not imparted to the slaves, liberty would prove a curse instead of a blessing to them. The right hon. Secretary seemed not aware of the extent of the claims of the West-Indian interests. The estimate of 1,500,000 l. annually was not near the mark. He had omitted in his calculation the incomes of resident proprietors, the interests of the owners of job-gangs, and, lastly, the interests of the owners of provision estates. The West-Indian property he held was created by the Legislature, and might be destroyed by the Legislature. It was not an abstract, but a conventional property. The question was, whether it was property within the limits of the power of the House to deal with it. The House never did or could do anything with respect to abstract nature, but he was satisfied that the property was within the power of the Legislature. The Legislature had done all in its power to make this property, and by its own acts it must be guided. He for one deprecated the entertaining of abstract questions. The point of property in this measure was a point proper to be discussed here. What was the ground of the grant proposed to be made in this case? The West Indians asked the House whether it ought not to take on itself to a moderate extent the risk of a total
336
stoppage of their plantations. What could be more reasonable; for if the measure worked well, the House would be repaid the money it advanced; and if it should work ill the consequence would be that the country would lose only ten millions, whilst the West Indians would lose sixty millions. He knew the opinions entertained of the omnipotence of Parliament, and that it could crush the West Indian Legislatures, This, he trusted, was not the object of any man. He was convinced that it would be in the power of the local Legislatures to prevent the plan, at least as a satisfactory plan. Whilst the competition of foreign manufacturers was daily becoming more formidable, it might be by the colonies, and by the colonies alone, that the country might yet flourish. For passive resistance and for the production of evil the power of the local Legislature was immense. The House might consume its time and exert its wisdom in devising plans of emancipation; but without the concurrence of the Colonial Legislatures, success would be hopeless. He thought that there was excessive wickedness in any violent interference under the present circumstances. What were these circumstances? Ministers commenced an inquiry into the West-Indian interests, and by their own organs of the Press, declared that that inquiry was not finished; and even the Governor of Jamaica had pledged his Majesty's Ministers that nothing should be done definitively till the Report of the Committee should be made. Ministers were still in the midst of that inquiry; and having given that pledge, they had no right to take the wayward course they were now pursuing. The Legislature of Jamaica had pledged itself to enter into the negotiation on the bonâ fide principle of emancipation; and whilst Ministers were in the state of inquiry it did appear to him that to pursue the measure proposed at the present moment was to commit an act of great and unnecessary hostility against the island. It was the duty of the House to place as broad a distinction as possible between the idle and the industrious slaves, and nothing could be too strong to secure the freedom of the latter; but, with respect to the idle slaves, no period of emancipation could hasten their improvement. If the labours of the House should be conducted to a satisfactory issue, it would redound to the

337
honour of the nation and to the reputation of his Majesty's Ministers, whilst it would be delightful to the West-India planters themselves, for they must always feel, that to hold in bondage their fellow men must always involve the greatest responsibility. But let not any man think of carrying this measure by force. England rested not her power upon physical force, but upon her principles, her intellect, and virtue; and if this great measure were not placed on a fair basis, or were conducted by violence, he should lament it, as a signal for the ruin of the colonies, and the downfal of the empire.
Lord Howickwished to say a few words in explanation, after what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If the slaves to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded were in a weak state of health, how came it that they produced double the quantity of sugar produced in other islands. The Hon. Gentleman had quoted the cases of St. Lucia and St. Vincent's, but he had taken periods when great hurricanes had occurred. In the three years, between 1826 and 1829, when natural causes only were in operation, there was a small increase in the population. All that he had argued was, that the manner of cultivating sugar was destructive of human life. In Demerara there was a great temptation to exact an undue quantity of labour, and slaves were fast perishing. In Barbadoes labour was less valuable, and there was not the same temptation to encroach upon the slave. He saw nothing in the statements of the hon. Member who had just sat down, that could shake his former arguments upon that point. Before he sat down, he would shortly state the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Resolutions before the Committee. He would not support any of the Amendments which had been already proposed on these Resolutions. He considered, that those who were for liberating the negro would follow the example of the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, and not force the House to a division at that early stage of the proceedings. He trusted, that all those who were for the emancipation of the slaves would agree with him, that the Amendments should not be supported, and that there was nothing in the first Resolution inconsistent with the opinion that liberty should be granted to the slaves. That Resolution, therefore,
338
might be allowed to pass, in order to show, by a unanimous vote of the House, that the necessity of granting emancipation to the slave was allowed. After that principle was established by such a unanimous vote, it would be then time enough to consider the two other Resolutions. He rusted that his right hon. friend would not force those Resolutions upon the House, nor require that they should be passed, since they were not essential for his measure, and might endanger its success. If those Resolutions were forced upon the House, it would prevent future modifications, and would not leave to the Colonial Legislatures that latitude that ought to be left to them.
Mr. Powell Buxtonproceeded to say, that he rose to refute a charge that had been made against him by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken a few minutes since (Mr. Gladstone). He was astonished that the hon. Gentleman should have so far mistaken what he (Mr. Buxton) had said, when it was already published in three different forms. He was moreover astonished at the cheers that accompanied the hon. Gentleman's misconception. The charge was, that in his evidence he had stated that the females in Demerara equalled the number of males. He could not understand how such a charge could be brought against him. He never did say that, for what he said was, that the males in that island amounted to 37,000, and that the females amounted to 32,000. He was stating conjecturally the number of females, it was a general statement, and what he said was, that according to the last returns, the whole female population of the colonies was about 340,000, and that the male population amounted to 330,000. With respect to the decrease of population in Demerara and Trinidad, what he had said was, that taking the average decrease for the last twelve years, it would be found that such decrease would destroy the whole population of the former place in a century, and in the latter place in about a quarter of that period. There was also another point upon which he had been misconceived. What he had stated was, that he would support the noble Lord at the present stage of the proceeding, but that he could not support the Resolutions throughout. It would be impossible for him to do so, for he could never support a resolution that proposed an apprenticeship which was to last twelve years. He might have supported some shorter appren-

339
ticeship, perhaps, but for the sake of the negro, it should be as short as possible. He really did not understand this part of the plan, for he did not see how it could be expected that the negro would work for twelve years without compulsion or without receiving any wages. The slave would do no work unless he were paid for it. That part of the plan he would resist. He begged to remind the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, not to be too extravagant in his demands for the West-India proprietors—not to ask too ranch—lest he should get nothing. For his own part he did not think the planters were, on principle, entitled to any indemnification. The noble Lord should bear in mind the resolutions of Mr. Canning in 1823, and that if the planters had agreed to them, the question might have been almost settled, at least the agreeing to those resolutions would have prevented the exaggerated demands of the public, which had arisen since. What he would say, in the way of cautious advice, to the West-India planters, would be, not to exaggerate their claims to compensation; for if the question was not settled during the present Session, the consequence would be, that the people would come forward with increased zeal, and that emancipation of the negroes would be obtained without limit or compensation.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in the whole course of his parliamentary experience he had never approached the discussion of any question in which the interests involved appeared to him to be of equal magnitude to those connected with the subject then under discussion. He never recollected any question in which the difficulties to be surmounted were so appalling; he never recollected any one in which a single false step increased the hazards of the consequences so immensely, or which would make them more lamentable or more irreparable. He admitted the just claims of the West Indians to a compensation—to a compensation on fair and equitable terms—for the losses to which their property might be exposed in consequence of this measure of emancipation; but he did not rise to discuss the question as a partisan of the West-Indian interests. The least part of the difficulties which the question involved was, in his opinion; that of the quantity of compensation for losses to be sustained. It was certainly no consolation to him to learn, that the property of the West Indians amounted to 30,000,000 l.,
340
or to understand that such was the extent of the claim which the West-Indians could prefer for compensation. The country could very well settle that amount of payment. Whether the claim to be liquidated were 15,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l., or whether it were 30,000,000 l., it would not exceed the means of the country to provide the pecuniary compensation; but there were other and higher interests involved than this, for which, if they were sacrificed, no powers on earth could devise a compensation. There were interests of a still higher magnitude than any interests of property merely, which could be involved in the present measure. When he looked at the extent of the revenue raised from the West-India trade—when he looked at the general state of the revenue, and when he considered the existing, the long, progressive, and hourly increasing, impatience of the country with reference to fiscal impositions—when he looked at the amount of the revenue that the Government were putting to hazard—an amount at least of 5,000,000 l. a-year he could not but confess, that the question in this respect alone involved consequences that ought to make the House most anxious to come to a conclusion, as little as possible productive of evil. When he recollected all those interests which were involved in the question—the interests of property and the claims of the West-India planters—he considered it one of immense importance. He assumed, that he was addressing a House of Commons prepared to run the hazard of every sacrifice to ensure the emancipation of the negroes. He would put aside the importance of that determination to those interests which he had just mentioned, however strongly he felt the consequences which it must produce upon the happiness and welfare of society, upon the commercial industry and financial prosperity of the country; and he would address himself to the House upon that ground on which his address would be for the most part founded, namely, the degree in which the interests of humanity would be affected by it; he meant that large, enlightened, and comprehensive humanity which was alone worthy the consideration of a statesman. He was confident, that in the decision to which the Committee was about to come, hon. Members would not look to the mere redemption of any hasty and inconsiderate pledges which they might have given to their constituents upon the hustings. He was confident that they would not look to the

341
achievement of any triumph over the West-Indian assemblies. The object of that House would not be to punish the colonial legislatures, but to lay the foundation of future prosperity and tranquillity in those countries of which they formed a constituent and important part. Their object would not be to pass a hasty vote recognizing the expediency and justice of negro emancipation, but to alter safely and prudently the state of society in a hemisphere different from that in which they themselves lived;—to amalgamate two distinct and separate races and supply a better stimulus to negro labour, than the old base and degrading stimulus of the whip. The object would be, not to create a dominion of free blacks content with the mere necessaries of life, but to train the present slaves into a taste for the comforts and even for the luxuries of existence, to accustom them in that manner to the habits of honest industry, and to place them in that state of moral discipline which would enable the House, in unloosing their fetters, to feel that it was not acting inconsistently with the safety of the whites, or the happiness of the negroes themselves. Was that the object of parliament or was it not? If it were the object of Parliament, then he was bound to say, that this question was encompassed with greater difficulties than either the majority of the petitioners to that House, or the majority of the House itself were prepared to anticipate. He was not about to state the difficulties which encompassed the question for the purpose of proposing an indefinite delay. It was now in such a state, that some step in advance must be taken. Greater evil would arise from leaving it in its present condition, and from attempting to get rid of it by an indefinite postponement, than by meeting the difficulties of it fairly, and by endeavouring to lay the foundation of a better and more stable condition of society. The mere circumstance of the King's Government having recommended emancipation constituted a new era in the history of this question. That recommendation essentially affected the interests of all West-India proprietors, and ought to make them sensible of the danger likely to accrue from further delay, and indeed from any part taken by the House of Commons which looked like shrinking from the difficulties by which they were surrounded. At the same time that he said this, he felt that in settling this question it was important that the Committee should not be insensible of
342
the difficulties of another description by which it was environed. In the West Indies the great majority of numbers, and the great superiority of physical strength were on the side of those who were in bondage. There were physical as well as moral causes, which would, he was afraid, present obstacles to either a speedy or a satisfactory settlement of the question. The circumstances under which slavery was extinguished in Europe were very different from those which existed at present in the West Indies. Slavery was gradually extinguished in most of the countries of Europe, and also in the East, because it was found more profitable to the master to employ the slave as a free labourer than as a slave. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman near him, that the sole difficulty of this question arose out of the operation of moral causes. Hon. Gentlemen might argue, that because the slave was in a state of degradation, therefore he was unfit for freedom; but then the answer to that argument was easy—"You have placed the slave in that state of degradation, and it is not just that you should take advantage of the wrong which you have done him, to say, that because he is degraded he shall therefore remain degraded for ever; on the contrary, you ought to raise him yourselves from that degradation by instilling into his mind moral habits and principles, and so qualify him for that freedom from which you now debar him, on account, not of his misconduct, but of yours." He repeated that this view was at least imperfect if not incorrect, for there were physical as well as moral causes which obstructed the settlement of the question, and made it one of great embarrassment. There was the distinction of colour. He did not allude to that as implying any inferiority between the black and the white—he merely alluded to it as a circumstance which threw a difficulty in amalgamating the slave population with the free, which did not exist either in any country of Europe, or in any country of the East where slavery was extinguished. If hon. Gentlemen looked to the United States, or to any other of the democratic States now existing, which recognized the equality of all classes, they would find, that long after slavery was nominally abolished, the amalgamation between the slave and the free population, which all must admit to be desirable, did not take place in a full or a satisfactory manner. In the West-Indies also the climate, the aversion to labour, and facility of obtaining subsist-

343
ence were perpetual obstacles to success, which consisted in substituting a stimulus for forced labour in a country where all labour must be forced. In other countries the stimulus to labour arose from the necessity of procuring the articles necessary to subsistence. In the West-Indies, after you abolish the stimulus of labour from coercion, you cannot substitute the stimulus to labour from the necessity of procuring subsistence. The labour of a few days is all that is necessary in those countries to procure not merely the necessaries of life, but also articles of luxury. The evidence was conclusive, that so fertile is the land in most of the West-Indies, that a slave, by a very small portion of corporal exertion indeed, can obtain all that is sufficient to support existence. When you say, that the slave has already a motive which will induce him to better his condition, you say that which to a certain extent is undoubtedly true. He has got a taste for finery, and thus he has within him the seeds of habits, from which, with care and attention, you may perhaps extract hereafter the stimulus to labour. But at present the elysium of his existence is repose. In the climate which he inhabits, the great bless-sing of life is the absence of labour—that labour for which you are now attempting to create in his mind a stimulus. These were some of the difficulties which beset the settlement of this question—difficulties which ought not to induce the House to abandon the attempt to settle it, but which ought to induce us to have a salutary distrust in our own powers, and to take every step which we were now about to take with great precautions against failure. The question really came to this—"Is it safe to rest where we now are? Is it safe to trust to the colonial legislature for the fulfilment of the Resolutions to which this House came almost unanimously in the year 1823?" Now he admitted, that we had arrived at a state in which standing still would be more dangerous to the safety of the West Indies than proceeding onwards. He thought that the step recently taken by his Majesty's Government in compliance with the almost unanimous wish of the people precluded the House from staying where it now was. To leave the slaves under the influence of zealots, who would be daily dunning into their cars that for a certain number of years emancipation was not to take place in deference to the wishes of their white proprietors, to add that new subject of agitation to those which
344
already existed, would, in his opinion, be to expose the colonies to dangers more aggravated than any of those in which they were involved at present. Did he deny the competency of Parliament to deal with this question? If he did, that would at once be a fatal objection to these Resolutions. But he who had voted for the Resolutions of 1823 and that too upon due deliberation, was not prepared to dispute the constitutional right of the Imperial Legislature to deal with this question—"Shall the negro population of the West Indies amounting to 800,000 remain longer in a state of slavery or not?" He readily admitted that there was a difference between the question of abolishing the slave trade, and that of abolishing the existence of slavery. The slave trade was carried on upon the open sea—the slaves were the inhabitants of the mainland; and yet the course taken by Parliament on the slave trade did certainly affect the interests of the proprietors of slaves quite as much as the present Resolutions. The establishment also of a system of slave registration, by the authority of the Imperial Parliament affected the internal regulations of the colonies. It did not, in point of fact, affect them directly; but in regulating, that it should be necessary, to give validity to any encumbrance upon an estate, that all the slaves upon it should be registered, the Legislature unquestionably interfered with the domestic economy of every estate in every colony in which a slave existed. Indeed, it appeared not only reasonable, but natural, that in a case affecting 800,000 of the King's subjects, there should be a power in the King and in the Parliament to make regulations for their safety and well-being. If that power did not exist in the King and in the Parliament, what would be the result? That each colony would have to decide for itself whether it would abolish slavery or not within its confines. The right to abolish it or not being, then, vested in each colony would lead to such a variety of regulations so pregnant with danger of every description that all of them would be glad to fly for refuge to the Imperial Parliament from the conflicting decisions of each other. Besides, if the House of Commons were not competent to decide this question, all its present discussions were vain—for there was undoubtedly power in each colony, if it disputed the authority of Parliament to obstruct its designs. He therefore admitted the right and the competency of the Imperial Legislature to

345
dispose of this question; but still no man could feel more strongly than he did, the indispensable necessity for our success that we should dispose of it with the assistance of the Colonial Legislatures; and with the concurrence of the great body of the West-India proprietors. Now, the first Resolution of the right hon. Secretary opposite was, "that it is the opinion of this Committee that immediate and effectual measures be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies, under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes, as may combine their welfare with the interests of the proprietors." Now, upon the practical course necessary to carry this Resolution into effect, he should express his opinions fairly, as he was no partisan. He would at once frankly say, that nothing could be more fatal to the proper settlement of this question, than to connect it with party considerations. His opinions were, he believed, the opinions but of a small minority in that House; but even if he were told that the unanimous voice of the people of England demanded immediate emancipation, and that a great majority of that House would be contented with nothing less, he would say, that such a fact would not release him from what he considered to be his duty—namely, to state his opinion of what was the fittest course to be pursued in the present emergency. Two plans had been proposed to the Committee as the consequences of this first Resolution. Each of them was proposed by high authority. One was proposed by the present right hon. Secretary for the Colonies; the other by a noble Lord, who, though he had held a subordinate office, had acquired much greater experience as to colonial affairs than the right hon. Secretary. One of them advised immediate emancipation; the other proposed ultimate emancipation, with a system of coerced labour for the next twelve years. Now, if the plan of the right hon. Secretary were adopted, he doubted the policy of passing his Resolution in the words in which it was couched at present. He doubted the policy of using the words "immediate and effectual measures shall be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies." Those words were calculated to raise expectations which the plan of the right hon. Secretary by no means warranted, and that was a great evil in establishing a preliminary Resolution. He admitted that this objection was an objection of terms rather than of substance; but still he contended that the first
346
impression, of any man upon reading this Resolution, and especially the first impression of an illiterate and ignorant man, would be this—" You never meant to subject me to coerced labour for twelve years." He thought that measures must be taken on this subject without delay, and that slavery must be ultimately abolished throughout the King's dominions; but if he were inclined to accede to the plan of the right hon. Secretary (which he was not), he should say, that the terms in which the right hon. Secretary had couched his Resolution were impolitic. He thought that the practical liberty secured by the subsequent Resolutions should exceed rather than fall short of the expectations raised by the Resolutions which went foremost. In the words of that Resolution he should like to see an alteration, but he would not move any Amendment; he would not even suggest any form of words; but he would merely say, that in his opinion a distinct and unanimous assurance should be given by the House of Commons, that it would support his Majesty in maintaining the public tranquillity, and in resisting to the utmost any opposition which might be made in any quarter to carrying this law into full effect. Such an accompaniment to the words of the original Resolution he thought would be productive of good. If the House of Commons should determine, first, that it has the power to decide this question, and that it will authorize the King's Government to apply itself to the adjustment of it; and should determine next to recognize the principle of compensation to the West-Indian proprietors; then it would have taken a great step in advance, and would have armed the Government with satisfactory powers to settle this question. By the Resolutions passed in May, 1823, the House merely pledged itself to take preliminary measures to qualify the slave for the possession of freedom. The second Resolution which Mr. Canning proposed was to this effect:—'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. 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 them-

347
selves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property'. By laying down these principles we had obtained the means of settling this question, and by attending to the progressive improvement of the slave we had taken a great step in advance of the resolutions of 1823, and, in point of fact, the only step which we could have taken with safety. He had heard that it was the intention of some hon. Members to propose, as an amendment, the appointment of a Committee to examine into the details of this plan. Such an amendment, if proposed, he could not support. He thought that it was much better to leave the details of this plan in the hands of Government, than to encumber them with useless support in explaining and amending it. He could not vote for either proposition then before the Committee. He could not vote for the noble Lord's proposition for immediate nor for the right hon. Secretary's plan for ultimate emancipation. He felt himself to be so ignorant of all local circumstances, so unacquainted with the affairs of the colonies, as to be unprepared on the first hearing of these Resolutions to say, whether the plan of the right hon. Secretary was or was not the best for the gradual but ultimate abolition of slavery. He would turn to the plan of the noble Lord, which was a plan for effecting the immediate abolition of slavery. Though the noble Lord was ready to support four or five of the Resolutions of the right hon. Secretary, he differed from him on others, for the noble Lord was a friend to immediate emancipation. Now, there were great authorities opposed to the noble Lord on that very point. The right hon. Secretary had referred to the authority of Mr. Burke, and had quoted the language which Mr. Burke had used respecting the confidence to be placed in the benevolent designs of the West India proprietors. The right hon. Secretary had reminded the House of that part of Mr. Burke's letter, in which he said that "he had looked to all that the West Indian legislatures had done; that he had found that they had done little; and that that little was good for nothing—in short, that it was arrant trilling." Mr. Burke stated, that he had no confidence whatever in the Colonial Assemblies; he asserted the competence of Parliament to legislate on these subjects, and contended that the question of the abolition could only be decided by the Imperial Legislature. To the opinion
348
thus given by Mr. Burke he would now oppose another opinion of Mr. Burke given on this question in the spirit of enlarged humanity. Mr. Burke said—'Whenever, in my proposed reformation, we take our point of departure from a state of slavery, we must precede the donation of freedom by disposing the minds of the objects to a disposition to receive it without danger to themselves or to us. The process of bringing free savages to order and civilization is very different. When a state of slavery is that upon which we are to work, the very means which lead to liberty must partake of compulsion. The minds of men being crippled with that restraint, can do nothing for themselves; every thing must be done for them. The regulations can owe little to consent. Every tiling must be the creature of power. Hence it it is that regulations must be multiplied, particularly as you have two parties to deal with. The planter you must at once restrain and support, and you must control, at the same time that you ease, the servant'. These remarks appeared to him dictated by great wisdom. Many years had elapsed since Mr. Burke first advanced those doctrines: but could any man say that the slave was then better qualified than he is now for the possession of freedom That was a question not as to the convenience of the white proprietor, but as to the interests of the slave himself; for the interests of the slave were as much involved as those of the master in the satisfactory solution of this matter. In the course of the discussion, allusion had been made to the opinion of dissatisfaction entertained by Mr. Canning with regard to the proceedings of the West-Indian legislatures. He was compelled to express his full concurrence in the feelings of dissatisfaction entertained by Mr. Canning. He thought that the legislative bodies in the West Indies had not done either all they ought, or all they might. He thought that much of the difficulty of our present situation arose from their reluctance to take measures to satisfy the public mind in this country, and to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in their respective islands. He never could see any objection to qualifying the slave to give evidence in all cases in courts of justice; for he believed that the chief security against falsehood was in the cross-examination to which the slave was exposed; and he could not convince himself that the slave was at present possessed of that skill, and talent, and ingenuity, which would enable

349
him to baffle the efforts of a skilful examiner to sift out the truth before a jury of whites. The question was not, however, whether the legislatures of the West Indies had neglected their duty to the slaves, but whether the slaves, in point of moral improvement, were fit for freedom. It would be no answer to him to say, that the legislatures had neglected their duty, for he should reply, "It matters not; prove only to me that the slave is fit for freedom, and I will confer it on him; but I will not confer it on him, merely because you tell me that the Colonial Assemblies have neglected their duty." Whilst on this subject, he wished the House to recollect the eloquent language of Mr. Canning, who described the negro as a being with the form and strength of a man, but with the intellect only of a child. 'To turn him loose;' said Mr. Canning, 'in the manhood of his physical strength, in the maturity of his physical passions, but in the infancy of his uninstructed reason, would be to raise up a creature resembling the splendid fiction of a recent romance; the hero of which constructs a human form, with all the corporeal capabilities of man, and with the thews and sinews of a giant; but being unable to impart to the work of his hands a perception of right and wrong, he finds, too late, that he has only created a more than mortal power of doing mischief, and himself recoils from the monster which he has made'. On that occasion, what said the hon. member for Weymouth? He was not going to quote now what the hon. Member said then, for the purpose of taunting him with inconsistency; but when the hon. Member told the House the other night, that he had not asked for more for the slave in 1823, because in his opinion the public mind at that time was not prepared for more, he took credit to himself for moderation to which it might be proved from the hon. Member's own mouth that he was not entitled. He would prove that to the hon. Member's own satisfaction, or, if not to his satisfaction, at least to his conviction. The hon. Member did not refrain from asking more for the slave, because he thought that the slave would not benefit from having more—quite the reverse. He said, in as many distinct words, "I think the slave is not qualified at present for freedom—if he were, I would demand it for him at once." The very words the hon. Member used were as follow:—'I now come to tell gentlemen the course we mean to pursue: and I hope I shall not be deemed impru-
350
dent if I throw off all disguise, and state frankly, and without reserve, the object at which we aim. The object at which we aim is the extinction of slavery—nothing less than the extinction of slavery—in nothing less than the whole of the British dominions: not, however, the rapid termination of that state—not the sudden emancipation of the negro—but such preparatory steps, such measures of precaution, as, by slow degrees, and in a course of years, first fitting and qualifying the slave for the enjoyment of freedom, shall gently conduct us to the annihilation of slavery. Nothing can more clearly show that we mean nothing rash—nothing rapid—nothing abrupt—nothing bearing any feature of violence, than this—that it I succeed to the fullest extent of my de sires, confessedly sanguine, no man will be able to say, I even shall be unable to predict, that at such a time, or in such a year, slavery will be abolished. In point of tact, it will never be abolished: it will never be destroyed. It will subside; it will decline; it will expire; it will, as it were, burn itself down into its socket and go out. We are far from meaning to attempt to cut down slavery in the full maturity of its vigour. We rather shall leave it gently to decay—slowly, silently, almost imperceptibly, to die away, and to be forgotten.'* The hon. member for Weymouth said expressly, "I insist on the right of the slave to freedom. I deny that you either have, or ought to have, any property in him. It is from no deference to your wishes, but because I think him yet unqualified for the donation of freedom, that I now decline on his behalf to ask you for it." If such were the opinions of the hon. Member then, was it not necessary now that the hon. Member should prove that the slave is now qualified for freedom? He (Sir Robert Peel) admitted, that the progressive improvement of the slave since that time might impose upon us the necessity of granting him freedom, but if he had not made that progressive improvement, if he remained still unqualified, then it was against the interest of the slave that freedom should be conferred upon him. If there were; any force in this argument in 1823, surely there was as much force in it in the year 1833 as at the former time. He had looked through the evidence which had been collected upon this subject, and he was peculiarly struck with the evidence of
* Hansard (new series), ix. p. 265.

351
Captain Elliot, the protector of slaves at Demerara, who wrote with singular terseness and ability. The leaning of his mind was decidedly against immediate emancipation. He would not detain the House by looking for that Gentleman's evidence; but his opinion was, that the slave was not in a condition to be trusted with the power of labouring for his own subsistence. Instances had been mentioned in which freedom had been conferred upon the slave without any danger to the society in which he lived. A gallant Admiral had stated facts which fell within his own observation, to justify the inference that freedom might be safely granted to the slave. He had mentioned the case of the Caraccas; but there were circumstances which made that not a case in point. The gallant Admiral said, that freedom was then conferred upon the slaves who were labouring in the sugar-plantations; but he added, that the country was then divided by conflicting factions,—that each manumitted their slaves—that the slaves entered the army, and after serving some time in it, returned to their plantations, and were content to work as free labourers. In this case the severe discipline of the army qualified them for free labourers, and supplied the place of their former coercion. No safe deduction could, however, be drawn from what happened in the Caraccas as to what would happen in the West Indies. In Venezuela, the physical distinctions were not so great as in our colonies, and, as was well observed by the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool, the slaves did not constitute more than an eighth of the whole population. Now it might be safe to confer freedom on the slaves, where they formed only a small minority of the community, and yet there might be no safety in conferring it upon them where they constituted the great majority. He was not convinced by what he had heard from the hon. member for Weymouth on the present occasion, he would rather be guided by what he had said in 1823. He would now come to the plan of the right hon. Secretary, who proposed that the slave should be apprenticed for twelve years to his master, but that the slave should be entitled to demand his freedom at any intermediate time on tendering a certain fixed value; but suppose that some slaves should not wish to demand their freedom at any time, but should prefer remaining as they were, what would follow? Why, that there would still be two classes—one of slaves and one of
352
apprentices, and for the one the whole slave code would have still to be continued: would not that be a great and inconvenient anomaly? But it was proposed that they in the present Session should, by an Act of the Imperial Legislature, make a law which was to apply equally to all the colonies, differing, as they did, in so many things in their internal government, some of them being peopled by English, some by Dutch, and others by French or Spaniards. Was this law to be equally applicable to the Mauritius, to Demerara, and to Jamaica? And were they to pass this general Act, applying thus equally to all the colonies, without further inquiry as to whether this plan should be adopted in preference to any other? See how different was the system with respect to the mode of supporting the slave in some of the colonies. In Barbadoes the slave was paid by a sort of truck system,—in Jamaica, he had a certain allowance of provisions given to him, but in each of the colonies there was some peculiar difference. How, he would ask, could they during the present Session arrange all the details necessary for the application of the principle of this resolution to all these colonies? But how was it possible they could do so without the co-operation of the colonists? The House could have no interest in creating angry feelings amongst them, and their co-operation was indispensable to success. The ground which the slave cultivated belonged to his master, as did the house which he inhabited. Was he not to continue in the occupation of both? If he were, was it not of immense importance to the success of the scheme, to have the assistance of the planters? Do not trust to them for granting the principle. Take that from Parliament; but, in carrying it into execution, do Your utmost to secure the good-will of the planters. It might be said, that the Colonial Legislatures would refuse their assistance, and that colonial proprietors would throw obstacles in the way. But armed as his Majesty's Government would be, with the authority of Parliament, it would be for the interest of the Colonial Legislatures and proprietors to co-operate with it; and the House might rely upon their doing so. It was an important part of the noble Lord's plan, that it gave the Colonial Legislatures the choice of the mode in which they would emancipate their slaves. But the plan of the right hon. Secretary took away from them the power of performing this act of grace; and might

353
not the right hon. Gentleman advantageously borrow, if time were given him to consider of it, that part of the noble Lord's plan? At present, you propose to give slaves almost all the privileges of freemen, but have taken no precautions against their abuse of those privileges. It was said that the Government was to have the power of appointing stipendiary magistrates; but none were yet appointed. It was proposed at once to confer freedom upon 800,000 slaves, but as yet no precautions were taken to ensure success. If the people of this country, not satisfied with laying the foundations of ultimate liberty, insisted upon immediately granting it, even to the prejudice of the slave; if they were mad enough to force such a project upon the Government, they assumed a responsibility which not only no sane man, but no philanthropist, no real friend to the slave, would be willing to adopt. It was a part of the plan, that all children hereafter born, and all now six years of age, should be free; but would it not be desirable, even for the safety of those children themselves, that preparatory measures should be taken before effecting so great a change? The news that a bill had passed for the emancipation of the slaves in the colonies would reach its destination in September or October, without any preliminary police regulations to ensure the continuance of good order. The master would then have no direct interest in providing for the children of slaves, and the House would have made no provision for their custody, and maintenance. Even in foundling hospitals, no sudden accession of children to be provided for could be met, without previous preparation. How could any man propose such a change as this, then, without changing the laws which govern the support of children? Was it quite certain that this was the best mode by which slavery could be abolished? In other cases a gradual abolition had taken place. In South America, Bolivar gave freedom to certain classes of slaves. Slavery had been abolished in some of the United States, but the slaves were liberated in small bodies. In the State of New York, it had been decreed that slavery should expire in ten years from a certain date. In the Spanish colonies a principle was acted upon which did not apply to the present plan. In the Spanish colonies the slave had a greater number of free days allowed him to work. All the Saints-days were holidays. In Cuba, too, various regulations were made in respect to
354
the time which they had allowed to themselves. They had every Sunday besides, and they were paid for their labour on these days. They might demand their freedom by purchase, or, if they had not sufficient money for this, they might purchase another day, so as to have three days to themselves. He knew not whether such a principle was applicable to their own colonies, but it had the great advantage of holding out a stimulus to exertion while it provided for the gradual extinction of the evil. He was sorry that the hon. member for Weymouth objected to the slave paying any thing. It would act as a stimulus to exertion and industry. He would say, by all means treat the slave with humanity; do not use the whip to force him to work; but could the permanent benefit of the slave be secured without some stimulus to labour? Look at the consequences of emancipation in some of the Eastern States of America, where slavery had been abolished for some time. In those the price of labour was high; the emancipated slaves had every encouragement to labour; no prejudices existed against them as in other parts of the United States, wages were high; yet in these very States, such was the degradation and misery to which the emancipated slaves were reduced, that philanthropists saw no other remedy for the evil but sending them to a colony on the coast of Africa. Mr. Deway, who was represented as one of the warmest advocates for the abolition of slavery in America, said, that so strong was the feeling of the people with respect to men of colour, that it was utterly impossible to raise them in the scale of society, and that the gift of freedom had only tended to diminish their numbers and means of support, without giving them any real advantage in their moral and civil condition. He mentioned this circumstance, not for the purpose of throwing any difficulties in the way of emancipation, but to show that the regulations with which it ought to be attended required the utmost consideration. The same results would follow in the colonies as in the Eastern States of America if these measures were conducted without due caution. It was not their wish or their object to give domination to the blacks over the whites, but to produce an industrious class of cultivators, willing to labour and to reap the profits of their industry. This they might effect if they acted so as to conciliate the good-will and co-operation of the colonists. If the experiment now proposed should fail, it

355
might have the effect of retarding the progress of emancipation in other states, and materially affect the situation of their slave population. Unless they proceeded with great caution, they might, in fact, instead of advancing the liberty only confirm the slavery and do irreparable mischief to the black population. The hon. and gallant Admiral (Fleming), in the course of this debate, told them that the blacks in St. Domingo would not work on sugar plantations, but that they were willing enough to perform work of a different kind; that they raised plenty of subsistence for themselves; that they were not in rags or in distress, but had plenty of food and seemed happy. These observations of the hon. and gallant Admiral might be applicable enough to the question, if the object proposed by them was to raise up twenty St. Domingos, but their object was not to abandon, but to continue, the cultivation of sugar, to enable the white population to remain in the colonies, and to set the example of order and industry to the blacks. If the; plan should fail, what would then be the consequence. There were 4,000,000 cwt. of sugar consumed in this country, the produce of our own colonies. Suppose this cultivation to fail in consequence of this measure, did they think the use of sugar would cease here? Impossible. It had become a necessary of life, and would still continue in as much demand as ever. Now, let those who opposed slavery, who were ready to run any risk for the abolition of it, to endanger life and property for that object, to risk a revenue of 5,000,000 l let them consider what might be the effects on slaves of other states if this experiment did not succeed. The Gallant Admiral informed them that free blacks would not labour on sugar plantations. Well, then, let some stimulus be provided to induce them to labour in the cultivation of sugar, in lieu of coercion; or otherwise, while they emancipated their own slaves, they must aggravate the miseries of the slaves of other colonies. Our colonies might become wildernesses, to morrow they might be all reduced to the same state as Saint Domingo, but sugar would continue to be used. It had become a necessary of life, and no revenue regulations could possibly prevent the introduction of it into the country. What, then, must follow? If the cultivation ceased in our own colonies, other colonies would "supply the demand. In many colonies the traffic in slaves still continued. Would it not still continue when the demand for sugar, the produce of these colonies, would
356
be increased by the demand from this country? Even if the slave trade should be abolished as regarded other states, would not the existing slave population be more hardly worked to supply the increased demand? It might be said, they had nothing to do with the slaves of other states, that their business was only to emancipate those of their own colonies. It might be so legally speaking; but was there no moral responsibility? Would it not be an aggravation of th evil which it was the object of those benevolent individuals to prevent? If our experiment should fail, would not the failure deter other states from following our example? It had been said by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that no pecuniary consideration should prevent their adoption of the principle of emancipation. The question, he said, was one of humanity. That was exactly the language held by the National Convention of France. On the 4th of February, 1794, the National Convention determined on the abolition of slavery. The Assembly was just as impatient to come to a division on the question, as some hon. Members then appeared to be. Two deputies from St. Domingo were presented to the representatives of the nation, and were received with the warmest expressions of interest and fraternity. Several Members spoke of the right of the coloured people to immediate emancipation, and one called upon the Assembly not to dishonour itself by further discussion. The Assembly rose, and voted by acclamation; and the President pronounced the abolition of slavery, amidst cries of "Vive la Republique!"—"Vive la Convention Nationale!" The Deputies were conducted to the President, who gave them the fraternal kiss, which was also given them by the whole Assembly. Tears of joy were in all eyes,—"Vive la Liberté!" in all mouths—and Danton made a speech, in which he proclaimed the triumph of liberty, and the downfal of England. He would abstain from detailing the atrocities which followed in St. Domingo—the House was well acquainted with them. He would only observe, that all the disorders which had been described as occurring there, also occurred in the French colony of Guadaloupe. A general officer, reporting upon the state of that island shortly after the emancipation of the slaves, described all the habitations as ruined, all the proprietors reduced to a state of beggary, and the slaves as having turned pirates to attack neutrals and the English,

357
by whom many of them were taken and sold as slaves. Seeing this wretched state of things, the French governor attempted to enforce in Guadaloupe the regulations adopted by Toussaint in St. Domingo; but he being a white, they resisted the imposition of those regulations. Torrents of blood were shed; and, finally, slaver)-was again established in Guadaloupe, as a less evil than liberty indiscriminately given. With these warnings before them, he implored the House, for the sake of the slaves themselves, to come to no precipitate decision on the question. He implored it, after recognising the principle embodied in the first Resolution, to apply it with discretion, and to take care that they did not, by legislation, increase the hardships of slaves in the Brazils and Spanish colonies, instead of obtaining any mitigation of their lot. Let them not lay themselves open to the taunts—"Had you tried your experiment with more caution, we might have been free." If they proceeded cautiously, they might, probably, have the satisfaction—the highest which a Christian Legislature—which human being—scould enjoy—of setting an example of such wisely-regulated humanity, that it was worthy of being followed by all the world. But if they refused of liberty, to accommodate that principle to the state of society in the colonies—if they proved that the emancipation of the slaves was not accompanied with increased security to life and property—if they induced the United States, with two millions of slaves, to persevere in refusing to them religious education and knowledge of all kinds, for fear of the vise they might make of it, they would sacrifice the interests of England, and would incur, if not the guilt, the grave responsibility of having, by a precipitate attempt to ameliorate the condition of our own slaves, aggravated the hardships of those who were exposed to a more bitter fate in other parts of the world.
Lord Althorpsaid, be concurred almost entirely in the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman. He concurred in the great importance of the measure, not only as it might affect the interests of this country, but also the slave population of other countries; but still he must say, that the danger of remaining as we were was still greater. The only difference between the course recommended by the right hon. Gentleman, and that proposed by the Government, was in the point of time. The
358
right hon. Gentleman thought the House should agree to resolutions for the abolition of slavery, but put off the execution of the plan to some future time. He could not at all agree to such a proposition. Indeed he believed the worst possible consequences would follow from agreeing to resolutions without any practical effect. Different plans had been proposed by hon. Members; put there were none to which he did not see great objections. The right hon. Gentleman had recommended, that coercion should still be resorted to, till the slaves could be brought to such a condition as would fit them for free labour. Now, there was no great difference between that plan and the plan proposed by Government, which still continued, to a certain extent, coercive measures, and at the same time held out an inducement to work. The cases of St. Domingo and Guadaloupe had been quoted, but these were not at all in point; and he would appeal to the House, whether the situation of the slaves in these colonies at the time of the disturbances, were not very different from the situation of the slaves in the British West-India islands now. At the former period, the great proportion of the slaves had been lately imported from Africa, and were in the most barbarous state; whereas the slaves in our possessions, though not civilized, were comparatively so, and had acquired habits of industry which those of Saint Domingo did not possess. Much had been said about the indolence of the slave population, and instances had been cited to prove this; but though some slaves might have exhibited such a disposition, surely it was not to be taken for granted that all were equally destitute of habits of industry. The right hon. Gentleman had laid a good deal of stress on the first Resolution, and had blamed the Government for calling on the House to agree at once to resolutions which would emancipate the slaves immediately. Now, that was not the import of the Resolution. It did not say, that emancipation was to be immediate, but that measures ought to be taken to carry it into effect. His noble friend (the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies) objected to the amount of compensation, and thought 20,000,000 l should be granted, instead of 15,000,000 l. For his part he considered 15,000,000 l. quite sufficient. The whole West-India property had been estimated at 45,000,000 l. sterling, and he thought a third of that sum the fill amount

359
to which the West-India planters were entitled, for taking away one-fourth of the labour of the slaves—that he thought was not an unfair proposition; but he was not at all prejudiced in favour of one sum more than another. The hon. member for Dublin, said the time had now passed, as emancipation had been agreed to by the resolutions of 1823; but it ought to be remembered that though the resolutions were agreed to at that period, the colonial Legislatures had done nothing, and the slaves remained in the same state as in 1823. Looking at the Resolutions in every point of view, he thought them the most desirable for the Committee to adopt, and he trusted that such was the view taken of them by the great majority of Members.
Mr. Humesuggested, that as they were nearly all agreed on the principle of the first Resolution, it would be as well if the hon. member for Kidderminster, (Mr. Godson) would consent to withdraw his Amendment, as he could move it at a future stage of the proceedings.
Mr. Godson consented to that course.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that, as it was not the intention of the hon. Member to divide upon the Amendment, he should observe that, in the future course of prosecuting this measure, it would be necessary for them to have the Colonial Legislatures assisting them; for, without their concurrence, there would be but a faint chance of carrying it into successful execution. It was, however, absolutely necessary, that the British Parliament should take the initiative step, and declare at once explicitly that there was no longer the smallest chance of avoiding emancipation. The first steps taken, the details might be filled up by the Colonial Legislatures; for he was willing to admit, that at this period of the Session, Parliament could not enter into all the various details of a measure of such magnitude. Though he so far agreed with the right hon. Baronet, yet he could not agree with him in thinking that Parliament should only indicate what it wished to be done. He would go a step further, and make a beginning at once, and leave the details to be filled up by the Colonial Legislatures; but he would have even a provisional execution of those measures, that was, that if the Colonial Legislatures did not fill up the outline which we drew by a day to be named, we should, in the next Session, however much time it might take up, or with whatever trouble or dan-
360
ger it might be attended, go through the whole of the details, and take immediate measures for carrying them into execution. In conclusion, and now that the principal Resolution was about to be adopted, he could not but congratulate the House and the country, and the friends of humanity in general, that the fiat of emancipation was gone forth from the British House of Commons, and that all that now remained to be settled was a question of pounds, shillings, and pence.
Sir Robert Peel Sir Robert Peel moved, in order to mark his opinion of the impolicy of any hasty measure, that the word "immediate" be expunged, and the word "effectual" should be substituted. Also that the word "ultimate" should be introduced; so that the resolution should run, "that effectual measures should be taken to secure the ultimate abolition of slavery"—["No, no!"] He should not press it to a division, but as immediate abolition could not take place, he thought the Resolution thus amended would be more consistent with the acknowledged intentions of the Government.
Sir Robert Ingliswas of opinion that the right hon. Secretary, would find himself as unfortunate in the use of the words "immediate abolition," as he had already found himself in the words "extinction of tithes."
Amendment negatived.
The first Resolution put and agreed to.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Paper ordered. On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, an Account from the Deputy Registrars of the Court of Chancery, of the Manner in which the Sums received for Decrees and Orders are divided between them and their Clerks: also the Number of Decrees and Orders drawn up in the years beginning on Hilary Term, 1797, 1806, and 1832.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, and a NOBLE LORD, from two Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Salisbury, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, the Marquess of STAFFORD, the Earls of CARLISLE and UXBRIDGE, Lords DINORBEN and SUFFIELD, and the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By

237
the Duke of RICHMOND, from Nottingham, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By the Duke of GORDON, from the Kirk Session, and Clergy, of Kilmaniraig, to have Church Service performed in Ireland in the Irish Language.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Earl Rodensaid, before entering upon the important Motion which was about being brought forward by a noble Duke, he was anxious to call their Lordships' attention to a breach of the privileges of that House. It was not, however, he must premise, his intention to propose to visit the individual who had been guilty of it with any punishment; but he thought, at the same time, it was most important to show to their Lordships and the public the manner in which reports of what took place in their Lordships House were made in that journal to which he referred. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that on Friday last a petition was presented by a right reverend Prelate, whom he did not now see in his place—he meant the Bishop of Durham. That petition was against any measure of spoliation of the Protestant Church. In the petition, there was an expression which gave rise to an observation from a noble Earl (the Earl of Suffolk), whom he perceived in his place. That noble Earl, with some warmth, said, "If the rights and privileges of the Church were inalienable, how had it become Protestant?" It would likewise be in their Lordships' recollection that a right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), whom he did not now see in his place, informed that noble Earl, in answer to the question, "that the Established Church had become Protestant, not by attaching the temporalities of the Catholic Church, but by changing its spirit; and that the spirit had become more pure." Such was what transpired; but what he had to complain of was what appeared in The Times newspaper, for it was that journal to which he alluded. The noble Earl was made to say, after this, "That Henry 8th, taking possession of the property of the Church, was, after all, only making it more pure." Now their Lordships would recollect that no answer to that effect was made. Not a single word was said by the noble Earl about Henry 8th. What he (Earl Roden) complained of was, that the report which appeared in The Times newspaper was a gross breach of privilege. It was a gross breach of privilege that The Times paper, a newspaper of great notoriety, probably of greater notoriety than character—
238
should put into the mouth of a noble Lord words which he never uttered—a speech which was never made. A noble Lord opposite appeared to smile. He (Earl Roden) thought it was a serious matter, that a newspaper should attribute to a noble Lord, and send it forth to the world as a speech of that noble Lord, sentiments which he had never stated. He (Earl Ruden) was not one of those at all anxious to complain of a breach of privilege in the publication of the proceedings of that House, but he was anxious that what was given should be accurately stated. He thought it important that the public should know what were the feelings and sentiments of public men; but it was mischievous to attribute to them sentiments which they never uttered, and thus become a means of deceiving the people. He should not have thought it worth while to notice this subject at all had this been a solitary instance; but that paper had been guilty of similar practices on other occasions. During the present Session, in the Debate which took place in their Lordships House on the system of Irish education, observations were made respecting himself and a right reverend Prelate not now in his place, as having been uttered by a noble and learned Lord not now in England—he meant the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Plunkett)—which had never fallen from the lips of that noble and learned Lord. Those observations were base and untrue. The noble and learned Lord, with that courtesy for which he was distinguished, waited upon him and the right reverend Prelate the following morning, and disavowed having used such remarks, and he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the report which had appeared that day in the newspaper. He (Earl Roden) told the noble and learned Lord, that it was too contemptible to be worthy of notice, and so no public notice was taken of it. But when such things went forth to the country as having taken place in their Lordships House, he thought it necessary to rise in his place and speak of them, in order that the country might be aware how little regard was to be paid to the reports of such a journal.

RELATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had to apologize to their Lordships for venturing to call their attention at the present moment

239
to a subject connected with the foreign relations of the country. He was well aware how little interesting all observations relative to foreign affairs were at the present time, when all men's minds were occupied with questions of paramount importance relating to the internal concerns of the country, and its commercial and colonial interests. But he was also aware, that if there was any nation for which more than another this country felt, and justly felt, deep interest, it was Portugal; and particularly with respect to the question which he was about to submit to their Lordships' consideration, and which, in his opinion, involved materially the interests and honour of this country. The alliance between this country and Portugal was the most ancient to be found in the history of nations; it was an alliance repeatedly recognized by all Europe—it was one from which this country had derived advantage from a period almost beyond memory, and for the preservation of which this country, in better times, had expanded her best blood and treasure. He had, on more than one occasion, since the formation of his Majesty's present Administration, ventured, in his place in Parliament, to suggest to the noble Lords opposite the necessity of taking measures to prevent the existence of a civil contest in Portugal and the Peninsula between men of extreme political opinions. This advice he had frequently urged upon the Ministers; but he was sorry to say, that from the commencement of the formation of their Government—at any rate from the period when they felt themselves secure in office, they had proceeded in a course most injurious to the government of Portugal; and he would endeavour to prove, before he sat down, that they had done every thing in their power to promote that contest between extreme opinions which now unfortunately existed in Portugal. He would prove to their Lordships, that if the present state of things were allowed to exist, it was absolutely impossible for civil war not to extend from Portugal to Spain, and that, sooner or later, this country must take part in it, if she wished to prevent both those countries falling into the hands of their powerful neighbour. On former occasions he had given the Government full credit for not having been the cause of the invasion of Portugal by the French in the spring of 1831, which led to those unfortunate circumstances
240
in which the country was now placed; but he had then relied on what he had heard stated in that House and elsewhere, and he had not then had an opportunity of seeing the official papers connected with the subject. He had, however, since seen them, and he was now positively convinced, that the measures adopted by his Majesty's Government in April, 1831, aided and assisted the design previously entertained by the French government of invading Portugal. It appeared by the documents now before their Lordships, that on the 2nd of April, his Majesty's consul at Lisbon reported to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that a French squadron, consisting of the Melpomene, of 60 guns, and other ships, had sailed from France and arrived at Lisbon, for the purpose of making certain demands on the Portuguese government. That report was received in London on the 12th of April. Now, one would suppose, that his Majesty's Ministers would have been impressed with the necessity of protecting Portugal against this attack of the French government—that they would have done that which they were bound to do by treaty—endeavoured by their interference to prevail on the French government to act with reason and moderation in the enforcement of its claims, and would have enforced on the Portuguese government the necessity of giving satisfaction with regard to the claims justly made by France. This they would have done if they had attended to the stipulations of treaties; for by them the Government of this country was bound to treat Portugal as a part of Great Britain itself. They were bound to interfere in favour of Portugal on every occasion as much as if that country was a part of Great Britain. Under these circumstances, there could be no doubt that on the receipt of this intelligence from the British Consul, the Government ought immediately to have interfered; and more particularly as it appeared that, with respect to one of the points on which France demanded satisfaction, the Portuguese government was in the right. He would not enter into the details of the case of Bonhomme, but the noble Earl opposite could not deny, that the Portuguese government was right with respect to that case. The report from the British Consul arrived on the 12th of April, and the Government, instead of taking measures to put an end

241
to the state of hostilities, immediately ordered a squadron of frigates to sail to Lisbon, to enforce similar demands on our part against the government of Portugal. Was this a time at which such demands ought to have been made, and in such a manner? In his opinion, this was the very moment which of all others should not have been seized upon to make any claim against the Portuguese government. However, his Majesty's Ministers persisted in sending out this squadron; and as soon as a similar preparation could be made in France, another squadron of French ships was fitted out to make a demand on Portugal on account of the claims of the king of France. The Portuguese, in the first instance, refused to listen to any proposition proceeding from the French admiral, saying, truly enough, that he had no commission to treat with them: they asked for the interference of this Government, but all mediation was refused; and the consequence of this noninterference on our part—the strongest non-interference he had ever heard of—was the seizure of the whole fleet of Portugal, the only fleet which that country had to defend itself against its enemies. But the principle of non-interference could not fairly be acted upon by the Government of this country towards Portugal. We were, in point of fact, bound to interfere in favour of Portugal by one of those treaties which Ministers were daily in the habit of enforcing against that country, and the infraction of which, on the part of Portugal, was the pretence for our sending out a fleet on the 15th of April. When the French arrived, they met with no resistance. In one letter the British Consul said, they did not fire, whilst other documents asserted they did fire, they did not immediately take possession of the Portuguese fleet. Indeed, before the ships were taken possession of, the French Admiral signed a treaty of peace with the Portuguese government, in which he stated, that "France, always generous, makes no fresh demands." The Portuguese fleet was not at that time included in his claims; though it had since been discovered by some law officers of the Crown in this country, that because there had been a war (where it had existed he was at a loss to imagine), and a subsequent treaty, the surrender of the Portuguese fleet was a matter of course, in consequence of ulterior demands made by France, and
242
acceded to by Portugal because she had no means of resistance. But why had she no means of resistance?—because his Majesty's Government had in a manner tied her hands. This, then, was what his Majesty's Ministers called "aiding an ally." This was what they called executing the treaties by which they were bound, they having themselves exacted from Portugal the performance of every article at the point of the bayonet, and having actually sent ships to enforce it by blockading the Tagus. There was a very curious circumstance attending the capture of the Portuguese fleet to which he begged to call their Lordships' attention, as tending to explain the whole nature of these transactions. During the period of this expedition, Don Pedro, the brother of Don Miguel (whom he would not call the king of Portugal, because he was not recognized by this country, though he was unquestionably king de facto), was in Paris. The day after the arrival of the French squadron in Portugal a steam-vessel arrived with despatches to the French Admiral; and it was not until after the reception of these despatches, that any claim was made on the Portuguese fleet. Was there, then, no connexion between the arrival of that steam-boat and the claim afterwards set up for the surrender of the fleet? After the arrival of Don Pedro in Europe a course of transactions commenced quite opposed to the law of nations, and contrary to the usual practice of Europe; he alluded to the equipment in European ports of vessels destined for the Azores, to be employed against the de facto sovereign of Portugal. He did not deny that these proceedings had taken place while he was in office; but he used every effort to prevent the British ports and arsenals being made the means of fitting out an armament against a country to which England was bound by so many treaties. In a short time afterwards, however, increased activity was shown by the agents of Don Pedro; loans of money were attempted to be raised, and a very large body of men was assembled at the island of Terceira. A squadron was also collected there, and it was commanded by officers who had been in his Majesty's service. He must do the Government the justice to say, that they did remove from his Majesty's service the officer who at that time undertook the command of the naval force of Don Pedro; but he was very

243
much surprised to hear the noble Earl opposite, in reply to a question put by him (the Duke of Wellington) the other night—whether a certain officer who had proceeded to Portugal to assume the command of the forces at Oporto had been removed from his Majesty's service, say, that all he knew of the circumstance was from what he had seen in the public newspapers. It was certainly true, that in 1831 his Majesty's Government did dismiss from the service the gentleman who as-sumed the command of the naval forces of Don Pedro; but how had they acted in the months of November and December of the same year? At that period considerable levies of troops were made, which were embarked in shins on the river; among which were the Asia, the Congress, the Fairy, and the Juno. Information was given to Government of the existence of this armament, and of the intention of tilting out other armaments in his Majesty's ports; but his Majesty's Ministers refused to take any notice of the information. The Gentleman who acted in this country for the Portuguese Government then went and gave information to the Commissioners of Customs, they being the persons specially charged by the Act of Parliament passed for the prevention of enlistments for foreign service with its execution. After taking the opinion of their law officers they gave orders that the vessels should be detained; and if the matter had stopped there, nothing could have been more satisfactory; but instructions afterwards came from a superior authority—whether from the Treasury or the Foreign-office he could not say—directing the vessels to be released. Those vessels were accordingly released, and sailed to Terceira, carrying with them the very men who afterwards landed in Portugal. Was this the performance of treaties—was this neutrality on the part of the British Government? The noble Earl would perhaps tell the House, that the law officers of the Crown advised the release of those vessels, detained by the Commissioners of Customs. If the noble Earl made such a statement, he would be bound to produce the affidavits which induced the law officers to come to that conclusion. He did not ask for the case laid before the law officers, or their opinion on it, but he should wish also to see the other affidavits which had been submitted to the Commissioners
244
of Customs, and by them transmitted to the Treasury, in order to decide whether the authorities had done what their duty required, and especially whether their duty had been done by Ministers, who ought never to sanction any thing which would have the effect of bringing the two countries into hostile collision. Now, he would barely state the facts; and what were they? Why, that instead of measures being taken to stop those vessels, they were allowed to sail; and what were the consequences? That the transmission of men from this country to Portugal, the conveying of them from France here, in order to be sent to Portugal, and the sending of arms, ammunition, and every thing necessary to maintain the war, continued from that hour to this. Of that the noble Lords opposite said, they had no knowledge; but it was as perfectly well known to every noble Lord, and to every man in the country, except his Majesty's Ministers, as any fact of daily occurrence. Indeed, these proceedings formed the subject of inquiry before Courts of Justice and before police Magistrates—nay, if he was well informed, the head of the government of Portugal had sent back 100 Englishmen, who had been taken prisoners in Portugal, and had been forwarded home by the assistance of the British consul. Did his Majesty's Ministers know anything of that? It was, then, their bounden duty, if they really had the intention of rendering justice to Portugal, to prevent the recurrence of such transactions. He knew that his Majesty's Ministers would say, that they were strictly neutral; that if, on the one side, Don Pedro had raised as many men as he chose here, cavalry as well as infantry, and if he had fitted out ships and sent out stores and ammunition, so also might Don Miguel, and he had only to send here and take them out. But he would beg to remind the noble Lords, in the first place, what was the law of the country, and, next, what was the law of nations? Upon this subject, Don Miguel, though not acknowledged by us as a rightful sovereign, yet was not and could not be otherwise treated with by this Government than as a king de facto. We enforced on him the performance of the treaties we had concluded with Portugal. There could be no doubt that Don Miguel was in possession of great advantages as a king de facto, and moreover there

245
was the Portuguese nation, which was also interested, and as little doubt that she ought not to be deprived of what was due to her. Then, what was the law of nations? He would read the opinion of one who was still alive, but it was the opinion of a man whose name was never mentioned without exciting in every bosom sentiments of reverence and admiration. This individual had lived to see his admirable decisions adopted by the civilized world as the rule of their conduct—need he say he meant Sir William Scott, now Lord Stowell; and it was his opinion that he (the Duke of Wellington) was about to read respecting the rights of neutral nations, and the necessity there was on the part of every power to respect the rights of others. "Strict neutrality (said Sir William Scott) is a neutrality consisting of a complete abstinence, not only from interfering in warfare, but from giving any kind of assistance to one side or the other." The judge did not say, that a neutral might give assistance to both, but that he should not give any to either. The very meaning of the word was, to withhold succour from both parties, and that was the doctrine held by all the authorities on the subject. The Judge had then referred to Vattel, who said, "In order to view the subject properly, we must consider what a nation ought to do if neutral if there should occur a war between her ally and another state. While she continues thus neutral she should observe the most exact neutrality, and give no succour in arms or troops, or anything, for the purpose of carrying on war." A neutral state should absolutely give assistance to neither party. Sir William Scott said, "the practice of giving succour to either side by individual acts is unjust to one of the parties, by depriving him while in a state of amity with us of the preponderance of power which he would otherwise enjoy." He would apply this to the case of Don Miguel, who had a preponderating power, and he would then ask was it right that we should give aid, or that our government should give its sanction to the giving aid, against his preponderance, so as to deprive him of it? Sir William Scott added—"No country could be released from the operation of her neutrality unless she gave notice that she would change her line of conduct. While nations remained in this situation they could not in practice act
246
contrary to it, and if they interfered they must do so by giving an open notice, or by a declaration of war. No solecism (added the judge) could be more mischievous than that the subjects of a country should assume the right to act hostilely without the intervention of the state itself. It was the right of states, and they solely could assume a belligerent attitude. They had the right and the power to prevent their subjects from interfering. There could be no doubt, then, this country had the right to prevent its subjects from interfering. He (the Duke of Wellington) did not pretend to argue the question of law—that he would leave to others more competent—but this opinion was founded on common sense, that it must be the rule of men's acts, and he would therefore ask whether it was right or just, that Englishmen should be allowed to carry on a private war against a prince de facto, and, above all, against a country and a Government which we were bound by treaties to protect? What he had hitherto said, and what he had quoted from Sir William Scott, referred to the law of nations; but what was to be said when, on coming to the laws of the country, their Lordships saw, that they too required the Government to act on these principles? The Foreign Enlistment Act made it incumbent on the officers of Government to restrain the subject from interfering? The subordinate officers of the Government did perform their duty—they arrested the vessels when about to sail illegally, and they acted according to law. Then, however, the Ministers came forward and said "No, this is not a case for interference, and you shall not do your duty." The question, then, was, had there been a breach of the law of nations and of the law of the land. If both had been observed, and his Majesty's Ministers had done their duty, all this mischief would have been prevented, and a country to which we were bound by an ancient alliance would not have been the seat of war for nearly twelve months, and would not have been exposed to the disasters of foreign invasion. All the evil of which he complained, was the consequence of this neglect of duty. But that was not the only ground he had for censuring Ministers. He had lately seen in the newspapers the publication of a correspondence between his Majesty's Government and the Spanish ambassador at this court re-

247
specting the conduct to be expected from Spain in this contest, and it appeared, that his Majesty's Ministers had very properly insisted that Spain should remain neutral in the contest between the princes of the house of Braganza, making an engagement at the same time that this Government should also remain neutral. He would ask, then, was neutrality the line of conduct which had been adopted by this Government? Was it true that this country had been neutral during this war? Was it not, on the contrary, the fact that the war was carried on in Portugal by means derived from this country—by men, ships, arms, and ammunition obtained from his Majesty's subjects? Then he should wish to know whether the Ministers had not broken faith with Portugal, and if they had not broken faith with Spain? Had we, in fact, been neutral? He was sure, that there was no one who heard him could doubt, that the engagement with Spain had been broken, after what occurred in November and December, 1831. In fact, the sending of reinforcements continued up to this very moment. It had never ceased, and except the impediments of the weather, and the hostilities at the mouth of the Douro, the reinforcements had received no obstruction. There never was a detachment of the British army sent from this country which had received more constant aid in every way from England. Lastly came the fact of a few days' old, that of an officer, a distinguished officer of his Majesty's navy, going with steam-boats and transports, and this officer was to invade Portugal by the Tagus, and to capture Lisbon. He had heard of this, and for the honour of the country he had asked the noble Earl (Earl Grey) whether he knew of it, and his answer was, that he had only read it in the newspapers. Of this expedition a great part had been collected at Spit-head. The officer to whom he had alluded was there, and the vessels were anchored amidst the ships of his Majesty, and it appeared his Majesty's Government had no communication of this from those authorities, which were in constant and daily communication with the Ministers. It appeared also, and this fact was extraordinary, that there had been a mutiny on board one of the vessels of this expedition, because some of those which were called Volunteers felt rather inclined not to go, and they did, as sailors often do, lower
248
a boat with the intention of running away. They made a mistake, however, in not cutting the painter. It was not cut altogether, and five or six of these unfortunate people were drowned, and to save them the vessel never hove to. He did not know whether there ought not to be a Coroner's inquest, and judicial inquiries into this matter. He was sure, that measures ought to be taken to prevent practices which had given rise to frequent discussion, between poor persons enlisted and those who were in the habit of kidnapping men, and afterwards ill-treating instead of paying them. What was most strange, however, was, that all this should happen at Spithead, and that no one of his Majesty's Ministers should know a word about the matter? The only way in which he could account for it was this, that the officers of his Majesty's array and navy did not choose to stigmatise transactions which they might suppose agreeable to his Majesty's Government. They knew, that when in November and December 1831, armed vessels proceeding to Portugal had been arrested by the officers of the Customs, an order had been sent by his Majesty's Government to let them go. It was very natural, therefore, that those who desired to remain on good terms with his Majesty's Government, would not report or busy themselves about interrupting an expedition which they must believe it was the wish of his Majesty's Government should proceed. On that ground it was, that he accounted for the fact, that his Majesty's Government had received no information on the subject. But this was not all; a very considerable body of men, including Poles and Frenchmen, were lately assembled at Falmouth, commanded by French officers, and intended to invade Portugal. In his opinion, however, it would have done much more honour to his Majesty's Government, if they desired that Portugal should be invaded by foreign troops, had they come down to Parliament and stated openly that such was their wish and intention. That would have been a manly course of proceeding. But the course which they had adopted was a course unknown to the law and practice of nations. He begged to make a few further observations on the evils which might result from all this. He would suppose for a moment, that by dint of foreign assistance the government of Portugal should

249
be changed. He would then ask, whether their Lordships thought it would be right or proper that such a superiority should be acquired of military adventurers assembled by means such as those had been?—whether they thought it would be right or proper that such persons should be allowed to go and establish what Government they pleased in Portugal, or in any other country towards which we professed neutrality? In his opinion, that was not a proceeding which ought to be supported, or which could at all redound to our national honour. If this system should succeed in, establishing another government in Portugal, what must be the results? A civil war in Portugal would be the smallest evil. For he defied any one who knew the state of the Peninsula to avoid entertaining the most decided opinion, that a civil war in Portugal must be followed by a civil war in Spain. Setting aside the breach of our written engagement with Spain, which country would be justified in relying on our not allowing the invasion of Portugal, if by our conduct we produced civil war in Portugal, that civil war would most assuredly extend itself into Spain. The interest of the country and the honour of his Majesty's name could not be safe under such circumstances. His Majesty had, from the Throne in that House, declared that he would observe neutrality; his Majesty's Ministers had declared, that neutrality was the policy of the country. If all this were so, in the name of God, let his Majesty recall every one of his subjects who had engaged on either side of the contest. Then, indeed, would neutrality be established, and then, indeed, would that good feeling be secured between the countries which it was so desirable to maintain. He would conclude by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, to entreat him, that he would be graciously pleased to give such directions as were necessary to enforce the observance by his subjects of his Majesty's declared neutrality in the contest now going on in Portugal."
Earl Greyobserved, that in the commencement of the noble Duke's speech he had made some statements on which there could be no difference of opinion. The noble Duke had begun by declaring that, important as were the interests of agriculture, of commerce, and of manufactures, our foreign relations were also highly im-
250
portant; and that he thought sufficient attention had not been paid to them by the public. In that sentiment, he entirely agreed; and he entirely agreed in the opinion with which the noble Duke had followed up his declaration, by dwelling on the importance of Portugal to the interests of this country. The noble Duke could not be more anxious than he was for the well-being of Portugal, and for the maintenance of our connexion with that country. The question was—whether his Majesty's Government had acted with a due consideration of those circumstances; and before he sat down, he trusted, that he should be able to satisfy their Lordships that there was no ground for the noble Duke's Motion; a Motion which the noble Duke himself admitted was one of censure, and intended to fix on the present Administration the stigma of having violated their public duty. The noble Duke asserted, that his Majesty's Government was bound both by the general law of nations and by the particular circumstances of the case in question, to prevent those occurrences which the noble Duke characterised as violations of neutrality. These were serious charges; and if they could be supported by reasoning and fact, their Lordships would do well to pronounce judgment against his Majesty's Ministers. But when they cast a retrospective glance on the events referred to, he thought they would come to a different result. In the first place, he begged to call their Lordships' attention to the situation of the present Administration with respect to Portugal, when they came into office. At that time there existed in Portugal, as the noble Duke had stated, a king, de facto. Their Lordships would allow him to recall to their minds (not for the purpose of renewing past controversies, but to clear the ground for the decision of the present question) the manner in which that sovereign became possessed de facto of the Crown. Don Miguel went to Portugal under the protection of the British flag; bound by a solemn engagement to the emperor of Austria, to the King of England, and to his own family and honour, to defend the constitution, and to administer the Government of Portugal as regent, on behalf of the infant Queen. On this engagement, Don Miguel went to Portugal; having sworn the most solemn oaths to adhere to it. England had acknowledged Donna Maria as the legitimate sovereign

251
of that country, and we had conveyed Don Miguel to Portugal, to secure the interest of this young queen. It was well known how the engagements into which Don Miguel had entered had been violated. It was well known, that he had been enabled to violate it only by the presence and protection of a British army. But for that it would have been impracticable for him to usurp the regal authority. Was the Government of this country, or was Europe at large, slow in pronouncing an opinion on the act? In the first place, the British Minister—so flagrant did the case appear—stopped the payments of the loan to Don Miguel, which had been made in this country. The Government of this country concurred with other governments in withdrawing their Ambassadors from Lisbon; the strongest mark of disapprobation, short of a declaration of war, which could be inflicted; and they put an end to all diplomatic relations with the government of Portugal. In this state our relations with Portugal existed at the time of the accession of the present Administration to office. The diplomatic relations with Portugal had not been renewed. It was true, that something like an approximation to that renewal had been made; but it had been accompanied on our part by a declaration, that the previous step (he would not call it a condition) should be taken by Don Miguel's Government, of ceasing to persecute all the faithful subjects of her majesty the queen of Portugal. Shortly afterwards measures were taken by Don Pedro to enforce the right of his daughter, and it could not be denied, that he, the natural protector and guardian of his daughter, was bound to enforce her rights. Their Lordships would perceive his reasons for entering into these statements. On the one side, they had a de facto king, as Don Miguel was called; on the other, a sovereign who had been acknowledged by England, and by the other nations of Europe. On the one hand, they had an unnatural usurper; on the other, a queen whom we were bound by treaty to support, at least against foreign aggression. He (Earl Grey) would now ask their Lordships (and really he ought to apologize for thus detaining them, for he felt that he should have had much greater difficulty in making out his case if he had acted on the opposite principle), he would now ask whether Government could be called upon
252
from any consideration arising out of the obligations imposed upon it by treaties—out of any obligation arising from International Law—or out of any obligations arising from the duty which one country owed to another—whether Government ought, from feelings of honour and duty, to have felt itself, called upon from any such considerations, to take part directly against a sovereign, whose rights we had acknowledged, to the advantage of a usurper whom we had denounced? That, in his opinion, was the real state of the question. [At this time the Dukes of Wellington and Cumberland appeared to be in conversation, which interrupted the noble Earl.] He had not interrupted the noble Duke, when the noble Duke was addressing their Lordships, and he thought he ought not to be thus disturbed. He wished to ask, he repeated, whether this country could be considered bound by any of those considerations which he had just mentioned, to interfere directly against the queen of Portugal. The noble Earl, he believed, thought we ought to have interfered to prevent the first expedition from Terceira, on the principle that we were bound to protect Portugal, but he asked how that case, being an expedition to restore the rights of her we acknowledged to be lawful queen, could possibly be assimilated to those, in which this country was bound by treaty to take part in behalf of Portugal, and in which it had actually so taken part, but only for the purpose of repelling foreign invasion? Those cases in which Portugal had successfully claimed the execution of the treaties which had so long subsisted between her and this country were of a very different nanature from that to which the noble Duke had alluded. The noble Duke had next referred to a subject to which he had certainly not anticipated that any allusion would have been made: as the noble Duke's notice gave no intimation of it, and he was not, therefore, so well prepared with the necessary documents as he should have been if any such intimation had been given. The noble Duke had asserted that this country was bound by treaty to assist Portugal in repelling the attack of France upon that country two years ago, and the noble Duke charged the Government with a violation of the public faith in neglecting to do so. He would show the House that there was no foundation at all for such an assertion. If there had been any

253
foundation for it—if the conduct of Government in this respect involved a breach of the public faith, why had not the noble Duke taken some previous opportunity of impugning that conduct? It was now two years since the French expedition in question had taken place; and if he had thought it a matter of so much importance, it was very extraordinary that he should not have brought forward the subject at an earlier period. Certainly we were bound by treaty to resist the invasion of Portugal by France; but the circumstances under which the last French expedition to the Tagus was sent, placed that on very different grounds from those former attacks which we had considered it our duty to resist. We were bound by treaty to resist any unjust invasion of the territories of the Crown of Portugal, but certainly not to espouse any quarrels which Portugal might enter into, without considering, on our own parts, whether our Ally was in the right or not. To say the contrary, would certainly be making a bold assertion. The noble Duke was surely not prepared to maintain that we were bound to resist every species of attack which might be made on Portugal, to compel her to do justice when she had committed a wrong? Was it possible that any country should contract such an obligation? Had any country the power of contracting such an obligation? Gould it be supposed, for a moment, that we were bound to resist an attack which was caused by violations of the rights of any particular country by our Ally, or which arose from something wholly unjustifiable on the part of Portugal? Would the noble Duke argue thus, or if he did, would the House agree that, without any consideration of the justice of the case, we were bound to assist Portugal against the attack of a power which only took up arms to obtain satisfaction for injuries, or the acknowledgment of her rights? This expedition complained of consisted only of a few ships which entered the Tagus, to claim what France had a right to demand. He therefore viewed the subject in quite a different light from that in which it had struck the noble Duke. The noble Duke said, the French were quite wrong as to Bonhomme, and though he could not refer to documents for the reason which he had before stated, he confessed that all his impressions were, that France was right, and had a clear case in its favour. Com-
254
plaints were made of the aggressions of Portugal, and for which reparation had never been made. The French government had continued making application upon the subject, but without effect. This country had enforced redress by the same means employed by France; and it was impossible, with any fairness, to say that France had not a right to have recourse to expedients similar to those we employed ourselves. But the real question now was, whether, in the case of Don Pedro's expedition, this country had pursued a system of strict neutrality? He thought that, on some late occasion, the noble Earl (Aberdeen) had stated, that we were in military possession of Portugal, because his Majesty's Government had found it necessary in consequence of repeated complaints on the part of British merchants at Lisbon, that a considerable force should be kept in the Tagus for their protection. He would now proceed to detail our transactions in that country. In consequence of repeated applications from the British merchants, resident in Lisbon, of the representations respecting the insecurity of their property and the danger to which they might be exposed, if there were not a sufficient British force in the Tagus to protect them, Admiral Parker was sent to the Tagus, and remained there until the expedition was known to be advancing for the invasion of Portugal. An application was then made, desiring that the ships that had been sent into the Tagus, and which had remained there with no other view but to protect the British merchants resident in Lisbon, might be withdrawn, that request was immediately complied with. The men of war took their station outside the roadstead, and only one vessel (and that not armed) was left, for the purpose of keeping up a communication between the fleet and the British Consul at Lisbon. He would next allude to the mission of Lord William Russell, who was sent to Portugal to watch the proceedings, and particularly to watch over the observance of neutrality by other Powers. The spirit by which the Government had been actuated was one, he contended, of perfect fairness and neutrality. The noble Earl proceeded to read a variety of documents, consisting of communications between different officers and the members of the Government, in confirmation of these assertions. The first communication

255
which he read was dated 9th September, 1831. It was directed to Admiral Parker and stated that his first object of the British naval officers was to protect the British merchants and their property, and to abstain from all interference with political matters. He was directed not to afford protection to such merchants as interfered with the internal affairs of the country. The next communication dated the 21st May, 1832, upon the application for the withdrawal of the British ships from the Tagus—a letter which the noble Earl read—was sent, was also addressed to Admiral Parker. It stated, that it was his Majesty's command that the requisition of the Portuguese Government should be immediately complied with—that Admiral Parker should leave the Tagus with his ships, and should transmit his orders to the commanding officer in the Douro, to withdraw his ships also from that river. On the arrival of Don Pedro, the strictest neutrality was directed to be maintained; they were to abstain from rendering assistance to either party, and to pursue the same line of conduct lo both sides. On the 1st of June, 1832, Admiral Parker was instructed, that, under all the circumstances, he was to maintain a perfect neutrality, and carefully to avoid any cause of complaint. On the 19th of June, Mr. Barrow wrote to Admiral Parker, that as the expedition of Don Pedro was expected lo make its appearance, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty cautioned the British Admiral not to enter into any communion with the expeditionary force, which might cherish any hope of assistance from the British naval force off the rock of Lisbon, but to observe the strictest neutrality between both parties. Again, on the 11th of July, a similar communication had been made, particularly cautioning Admiral Parker to give no advice to Admiral Sartorius, lest even communication with him might be misconstrued. He had alluded to those communications in order to show what had been the spirit which had predominated in all the communications of the British Government on the subject of the late events in Portugal, and that the strictest neutrality had been enjoined by the Government as far as the British force was concerned. He need not state that those instructions which were given to Admiral Parker were acted upon with all that discretion, with all that independence, with all that firmness, which
256
had uniformly characterised the conduct of that gallant officer during the whole course of his professional career. As further proof that these instructions had been acted upon, he would state, that on the arrival of the fleet attached to the expedition of the Tagus, Admiral Parker had written to one of the Secretaries of the Admiralty, to inform him that Admiral Sartorius had arrived in the Tagus, and having taken up a position which placed the British ships in the line of the fire of a Portugese battery directed against the expeditionary fleet, he. Admiral Parker had received a requisition to move out of the line of fire; upon which he proceeded to a station about three miles distant, which he had since continued to occupy, keeping his ships under sail. An English steam-vessel had been sent by Admiral Sartorius with some intimations relative to the blockade. Admiral Parker immediately objected to the British flag being hoisted on any vessel which had any connexion with either of the belligerents. The complaint was immediately attended to. One of the expeditionary vessels approached so near the flag-ship of Admiral Parker, with letters explanatory of the affair of the English steamer, that the Portuguese batteries having directed their fire against the former vessel, one of the shot struck the British ship, and was immediately apologised for by the commander of the fort from which it had been discharged. The noble Earl next read a short communication, directed to Admiral Parker, stating that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty approved of his proceedings with regard to the fleet under the command of Admiral Sartorius. After this a circumstance occurred, which led to the re-entry of his Majesty's ships into the harbour of the Tagus. This circumstance was nothing else than the murder of one of the servants of Lord William Russell, in a way which did not permit it to be supposed that it was in consequence of any mere ebullition of popular feeling, since it was perpetrated by a person actually serving under the orders of the Government of the country, and since no public proceeding had been taken to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and to bring the offender to justice. Upon the repeated representations of the British merchants resident at Lisbon, it was thought necessary that our fleet should reenter that port, but it went with the same

257
orders to observe the strictest neutrality, and it was conducted always with the same strict obedience to the letter of his instructions on the part of Admiral Parker. There were many other circumstances, both with respect to the ships in the Douro, and with respect to those in the Tagus, which would go to confirm what he had stated as to the anxiety of the British Government and its officers to adhere strictly to such a line of conduct as should be perfectly fair and equal to both parties. He trusted, under all these circumstances, that their Lordships would see, that in the employment of the naval force in the Tagus there was no reason to suppose Government to have been inattentive to its duty in the observance of a strict neutrality, or that the officers whose duty it was to carry the orders of Government into effect, had been wanting in the discretion and firmness required for the due execution of these orders. Though he had thought it necessary to bring the subject thus in detail before their Lordships, he did not mean to shrink from the responsibility which he knew he incurred as a Minister of the Crown, if it were shown that he had acted in any respect inconsistently with what was due to the honour of the country. He knew, although he had had the unanimous support of his colleagues, that he stood responsible for his measures to their Lordships, to the Parliament, and to the country. He did not mean to shrink from any part of the responsibility which devolved upon him; but he trusted that their Lordships would at least give him a fair hearing, and that they would come to such a conclusion as the honour and the interest of the country demanded. Notwithstanding all the facts he had stated, it was argued that there had been force employed from this country in favour of Don Pedro. The Government, it was said, had permitted things to be done which were not consistent with the neutrality which they professed. That neutrality could not be considered a real neutrality, when it was well known that one of the Belligerents was supplied, or permitted to be supplied, from this country with ships, with provisions, with stores, with ammunition, with arms, nay, with men, from this country. Let their Lordships examine a little how far this charge could be supported either on the general principles of public law, or on the facts of the case. With respect to the general princi-
258
ples of law, he apprehended that merchants in a neutral country were perfectly at liberty to furnish to any belligerent power, ships, provisions, stores, ammunition, or arms, without any breach of the neutral character of the country. This principle, he believed to be incontrovertible and indisputable. To answer this argument, the noble Duke had quoted the authority of Lord Stowell. Now, the noble Duke did not defer with more respect to the opinion of that noble and learned Lord than he did. No person more admired his talents or respected his integrity. He did not think that a better Judge ever sat in the Court of Admiralty than Lord Stowell; but before he would agree to the application of his opinion, in the way that the noble Duke sought to apply it, he should like to know on what occasion and for what object that opinion was made? Without knowing these points, it was impossible to say how far the opinions of the noble and learned Lord would apply to the present case. The decision was, that it was inconsistent with the law of nations to give succour to one belligerent power against another, and that such succour could not be given without compromising the neutrality of the country. With that opinion, he (Earl Grey), perfectly agreed; but the question here was, whether permitting British merchants to supply both the belligerents with British stores and ammunition compromised the neutrality of this country? He maintained that individuals might be permitted to supply either of the belligerents with any of those articles which constitute the material of war, provided they were permitted equally to supply both belligerents. In the way in which he had now stated this principle, he thought it was incontrovertible, and he did not believe, that Lord Stowell would impugn it. He next came to the question of the supply of men from this country, which might be somewhat more difficult, he admitted. He did not mean to enter into any of the distinctions and hard words of the civilians, with which he professed to be but slightly acquainted, but he would refer to several points in the practices of civilized nations, to show, that the fact of the subjects of one country serving against another did not amount to a violation of the neutrality between the two countries. Did they not know for how many centuries the Swiss Confederacy had existed in the very centre of Europe, and having its neu-

259
trality acknowledged and respected by every power in Europe, yet permitting any state to levy forces in its dominions, and that to such an extent, that it had not unfrequently happened that different bodies of Swiss soldiers had been found fighting on different sides on the same field of battle? It was well known, that in the different wars between France and Germany a great portion of the French armies were Swiss; yet no attempt was ever made on the part of the German States to impugn the neutrality of Switzerland on that account. Even this country had hired the troops of some of the petty German States to fight its battles—as in our contest with our North American Colonies; and it was never argued, that the sovereigns of those states which furnished us with these troops had forfeited their claim to neutrality. In the case of the South American States, before the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed, expeditions had been fitted out, under British officers, against the Spanish power in that part of the world; but Spain never thought of considering that fact as amounting to a breach of the neutrality of our position with respect to the contest between her and her colonies. Did their Lordships not know, that a similar course had been pursued with regard to Greece? They knew, that there was a strong national feeling in that cause—a feeling which was natural to every member of the civilized world, and from which he believed that hardly anybody was exempt? Aid was given to the struggling Greeks, without that circumstance being ever considered an infraction of our neutality. The mere circumstance of permitting individuals thus to interfere in the affairs of foreign countries on their own risk, could not, he again contended, be considered an act of hostility to the other party, provided the same advantages were left open to that other party. He would not repeat here the distinction which had been taken some time ago between a war of one foreign power against another, and a war arising in the interior of a state among its own subjects. He would rest the point simply upon the fact, that Don Miguel had it in his power to obtain supplies from this country just as easily as Don Pedro. There was not, in point of fact, in his army a single musket which was not of British manufacture. The mortar, or piece of ordnance, which, he understood, had recently proved the source of the greatest annoyance to
260
the garrison of Oporto, had been sent at no very distant period from this country. British stores and ammunition had been sent from British ports, in vessels chartered by British merchants, for the army of Don Miguel, no less than for that of Don Pedro. Supplies of men, perhaps, there had not been; for the cause was so revolting to every British heart, that he did not believe it would be possible to find a single man to carry a musket in his cause; but he had had the assistance of a British officer, with respect to whom complaints might with equal propriety have been made by the party of Don Pedro. The officer in question, had not only been active on the side of Don Miguel by his counsel, but had even used language with a view to prevent Don Pedro from securing the services of that officer's countrymen, which he could not but characterise as highly improper. The next point to which the noble Duke had adverted was the Foreign Enlistment Act, by which he maintained, that the Government, having the power conferred upon them of preventing British subjects from serving in the armies of foreign princes, had also, by the same Act, the duty imposed upon them of keeping the subjects of these realms from entering into foreign service. Now, the history of this Act was shortly this: It was founded on two Acts passed in the reign of George 2nd, and afterwards repealed, because they had been enacted only for a temporary and for a special purpose. They were intended, in fact, to prevent British subjects from entering into the service of the Pretender to serve against the legitimate Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland (he called him the legitimate Sovereign, because no one would deny that the family which now holds the Throne of the United Kingdom holds it by the most legitimate of all rights—the consent of the people). In 1819, the Foreign Enlistment Bill was passed for a similar temporary and particular purpose, namely, to fulfil the terms of the engagements which had been entered into in the Treaties of 1814, to take the most effectual means to prevent any assistance from being afforded to the South American States, either by supplies of ships, stores, or men. The Act was, therefore, made for a particular and not for a general purpose. He, therefore, denied the noble Duke's construction that that bill imposed upon us the duty and

261
obligation of prohibiting the levying of troops for Donna Maria. He had yet to learn, that we were bound by any consideration to enforce any of our municipal laws, other than our own sense of what was due to our own honour and interest. The bill of 1819, he repeated, was framed for a specific, and not for a general, purpose. [Here Lord Holland whispered to the noble Earl.] His noble friend had just reminded him of a fact which put this interpretation of the Bill beyond the reach of controversy. His noble friend opposed, and actually entered a protest on their journals, to the effect that though the bill was avowedly brought forward to meet a particular contingency, yet it might be appealed to by foreign powers in a manner prejudicial to British interests. "No," said the noble and learned Earl, who then sat on the woolsack, "that is impossible; no foreign power can make so flagrant a mistake as to suppose that the measure admits of general application." It was impossible, then, to put any such construction upon the internal legislature of any country, although, in the particular case for which the law had then been made, namely, that of the South American States—there might have been a positive engagement, which rendered both the law itself and its enforcement equally necessary. The next point of the noble Duke's speech to which he had to allude was the transaction respecting the vessels of Don Pedro, which had been seized by the Custom-house officers, but on the information of the Portuguese consul (M. Sampayo), had afterwards been given up, as it was said, on the interference of Government. Now, how did the case stand? In the first place, after the seizure, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had received a letter from the Commissioners of Customs, desiring to know how they were to act? He would ask the noble Duke whether he meant to say, that it was the duty of Government to decide immediately that the vessels were properly seized? It was a question of law, whether, under the provisions of the Act, these vessels were legally seized; and he did not see how it could be argued that the Government did not act properly by referring the question to the law officers of the Crown. The vessels were released on the opinion of the law officers. According to the construction put upon the Act, by the law officers, the vessels could not
262
be legally detained by the Custom House officers on the mere application of an agent, whether authorised or not, of any foreign state. In this transaction, therefore, so far from acting in a way which could be construed into an infringement of the neutrality of the country, they had showed an earnest desire to see the law duly enforced, and had only agreed to the release of the vessels after the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been given to that effect. So much for the effect of the noble Duke's statement, that the case of these vessels exhibited an instance of gratuitous interference on behalf of Don Pedro. He was afraid he was tiring their Lordships by insisting so long upon a case which appeared to him so clear. He must, however, observe, that in order to enable the King's Advocate to come to a correct and satisfactory conclusion upon the question, there had been laid before him the complete correspondence and affidavits. His opinion was taken on the facts stated by the Portuguese consul himself; and his opinion was required—not merely whether the case came within the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Bill—but whether, also, it came within the provisions of any other law? He would ask their Lordships whether, in the upright and anxious execution of his duty, it was possible for him to do anything more than to lay before the King's Advocate—not, as had been insinuated, a partial or a garbled statement—but the fullest and most authentic particulars, and ask him for such an opinion? He was sure he might appeal to the justice of their Lordships to exonerate him from any charge of wilful or improper negligence. The noble Earl quoted at some length the opinions of the King's Advocate. He stated, that the information contained in the letters of M. Sampayo was much too loose and indefinite to justify the adoption of any measures against either persons or shipping; that if he could bring further and more satisfactory proof, then his proper course was, to apply to the officers of the Customs, who were empowered by a section in the Ad to seize any vessels which should be employed for the purpose stated by him; but that the present was not a case for his Majesty's Government to interfere, for the Statute pointed out the way in which it ought to be done. After the vessels had been seized by the officers of the

263
Customs, reference was made to the Attorney and Solicitor General, who declared (and the noble Earl quoted their opinions) that, whatever reasons there might be for suspecting a body of men were fitting out in London for the service of Don Pedro, there was not sufficient evidence to afford just grounds for proceeding against them under the provisions of the Act. A further application was subsequently made, and the opinions of the legal advisers of the Crown were again taken, more particularly in reference to the obligations of existing treaties; to which they replied, that whatever might be the obligations of existing treaties for the defence of the throne of Portugal from attacks, these obligations would not apply to a case of civil war, nor to the case of a disputed claim to the Crown of Portugal. He quoted this opinion in opposition to that unfair and untenable construction which the noble Duke appeared to have placed on these treaties, that they bound us to resist every attack on the kingdom of Portugal, whoever might be its Governor—whether the quarrel in which it was engaged were just or unjust—whether the succession were admitted or disputed. This was the claim made by the noble Duke; and he put in answer to this claim, the declaration made by the King's Advocate, that when the right of the party making this claim was not acknowledged by this country, the appeal made by him could not be maintained. This, he thought, would be sufficient to satisfy their Lordships that his Majesty's Government had neither interfered improperly on behalf of one party, nor improperly refused to interfere on behalf of another. He was somewhat surprised, indeed, that the noble Duke should bring forward this charge, since, if he remembered rightly, a case had occurred during the noble Duke's administration of affairs, in which the noble Duke himself had found the difficulty of enforcing-the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Bill. Representations were made by the Ambassador of Spain then, he believed, M. Zea Bermudez, that a certain ship called the Mary, was fitting out in this country, and persons were engaged here to go out in that vessel for the purpose of making a descent on Spain, and creating a civil war. The ship was detained, and many proceedings took place; but at last it was found necessary to release the ship, and
264
all that was done was, to detain certain arms which were on board; and in regard to the shipping of which, the Custom-house regulations had not been complied with. Returning to M. Sampayo, that gentleman afterwards requested his Majesty's Government to declare their disapprobation of English subjects giving any assistance in the shape of men, provisions, stores, &c., and that the officers at all the ports should be directed to prevent all supplies of this kind from proceeding to Portugal. This application also was referred to the King's Advocate, who gave it as his opinion, that although as a general rule no neutral State could interfere with belligerent powers, yet that rule was never considered as applicable to the prevention of the trade of the subject with either of the belligerent nations; that it was no subject of complaint against a neutral government that its subjects supplied either of the contending parties with those articles which were deemed contraband in war, or that they let their vessels be employed as transports, or for the conveyance of stores, but that the law of nations had provided a remedy for this without bringing the belligerent and neutral powers into contact, by giving to the belligerent the right of blockade and search, and of confiscating any property and vessels engaged in such contraband commerce; that it remained, therefore, with the belligerent to intercept them on their passage, and all that was required of the neutral Government was, that it should not interfere for the protection of its subjects against the penalties which the belligerent Government might think proper to impose. The noble Duke, too, spoke of this as if all the assistance given by British subjects was given to one side in preference to the other. Now the fact was, that the advantages resulting from this assistance were enjoyed by both parties. There was not the slightest doubt that this was the case. Fortified, therefore, as he was, with the consciousness of having acted with the most upright intentions, and fortified as he was, in every stage of the proceeding, with the best legal advice that could be obtained—and that, too, from a quarter certainly not disposed improperly to favour the present Administration—fortified, as he would say, by the opinions of a gentleman so distinguished for his knowledge of the law of nations as the eminent individual

265
who held the office of Advocate-General, he submitted to their Lordships, that the noble Duke had failed in making out his case. He submitted, that the charge brought against him by the noble Duke, of infringing the neutrality of this country had failed. Probably had the alleged breach of neutrality been a breach more congenial to the views of the noble Duke—had the Government interfered in favour of Don Miguel—probably their Lordships would never have heard any such complaint. He certainly took a very different view of the state of affairs in Portugal to that taken by the noble Duke. Under all the circumstances, he had considered it his duty to himself and others, not to interfere in the struggle now going on in Portugal, though he certainly thought that he should have been justified in so doing, had he considered it expedient. With regard to the present expedition under the command of a very distinguished officer, he must say the noble Duke appeared to be much better informed upon the subject than he was as to the nature and extent of the force, and where it was to proceed. He had certainly heard from public rumour of the intended expedition. The noble Duke might be correct; but he certainly did not know, till he was informed by the noble Duke that night, of the particulars which he stated. He had heard nothing of the assemblage of those vessels, or of the amount of their force, their munition or troops; of all these he was in perfect ignorance till he was informed of them by the noble Duke. All that he knew was by public rumour, that such an expedition had sailed from Falmouth, The noble Duke had hinted, that it was far from improbable, that the officers on the spot had refrained from giving information to the Government which they believed would prove disagreeable. It certainly was any thing but a compliment to the officers of the array or navy, who, he believed, were men far too honourable to refrain from giving that information to Government which it was their duty to send, from any such unworthy motives. But it appeared at least, that the persons so supposed by the noble Duke to withhold information from the Government lest it should be displeasing to them, seemed at least very desirous to obtain favour by communicating it to another quarter, where they knew it would prove agreeable. The noble Duke had
266
complained, that Captain Napier had not been yet dismissed, though he gave the Government credit for dismissing Captain Sartorius. But the noble Duke had not taken into consideration that Captain Napier could not be dismissed till the complaint came before the Admiralty in a specific shape. The last act of Captain Napier, of which he had any formal knowledge was, an application made by him to the Admiralty on the 19th of May, requesting to know whether an out-pension which he received from Greenwich Hospital, in consequence of some severe wounds which he had received, would be continued to him, notwithstanding his engaging in active service? The reply made by the Admiralty was, that the pension would not be stopped on the assurance that he was to be engaged only in the active service of his Majesty. With regard to the other officer, Captain Sartorius, he was not dismissed until he had actually been known to tread the quarterdeck of one of Don Pedro's vessels, as a Commander in his service. Now, if it appeared that Captain Napier had gone out to command an expedition on behalf of a Foreign Power, without permission from his Majesty, he had, by so doing, infringed the Orders in Council, and had been guilty of disobedience and breach of discipline, and would be dismissed from his Majesty's service. When the case came before the Admiralty in an authentic manner, he had no doubt they would perform their duty in a manner consistent with the interests of the service. Until the case was so brought before them, the recommendation of the noble Duke, was premature. He did not know, that anything more was necessary from him in answer to what had fallen from the noble Duke, in order to refute the charge, for charge it was—or to prevent the censure, for censure it was, and as censure it was intended by the noble Duke. He trusted that he had sufficiently defended himself, and shown that the Government had done nothing inconsistent with its own character, or the obligations and honour of the country. He had preserved a strict neutrality, without partiality. The noble Duke had adverted to Spain; and, in the first place, he stated there was no doubt that we had broken our engagements with Spain. Now he really thought, it would more have become the high station which the noble Duke held in this country, if

267
he had evinced something more of hesitation on a question which involved, not only the character of his Majesty's Government, but the character of the country itself. In opposition to this charge, he stated most distinctly, that this country had broken no engagement with Spain. He would not retort by saying in what manner Spain had acted; but he did maintain, that he had done all that was necessary to support the honour and integrity of his Majesty's Government. He asserted positively, that this country had given Spain no cause of complaint. He had pursued the line dictated by policy, justice, and duty; and he trusted it would never be said, that during the time he held the high situation which his Majesty had confided to him, that he or any of his colleagues had repaid that confidence by reflecting a stain upon the honour of the country. The noble Duke had said, that the present policy of this country would lead to a civil war in Spain; but which, he asked, was more likely to lead to a civil war in that country, the establishment of Don Miguel or of Donna Maria on the throne of Portugal? He contended that there was more danger of that kind to be anticipated from the success of Don Miguel than from that of Donna Maria. Was not the noble Duke aware that in Spain also there was an appearance of a disputed succession on the death of the present king? Did he not know, that Don Carlos had formally protested his determination to claim the succession in opposition to the king's infant daughter, and that a very large and influential party in Spain favoured his designs. For that, at least, the noble Duke could not say, that the policy of this country was responsible. The noble Duke had said, that if the cause of Donna Maria should be finally successful, it would owe its triumph to foreign troops and mercenaries. This was impossible; for unless Donna Maria were supported by a large majority of the Portuguese people, it was utterly impossible that foreign mercenaries should succeed in placing or in maintaining her on the Throne of Portugal. There had been great exaggeration on this subject. He did not believe the whole of the foreign troops in Don Pedro's service exceeded three thousand, which could not be a third part of those now employed in defence of Oporto; and the noble Duke must know, that the most important points
268
of defence were confided by Don Pedro to native troops. He trusted that he had fully satisfied the House, that the noble Duke had not made out a case for casting blame on his Majesty's Ministers, and he therefore called on their Lordships to give a decided negative to the noble Duke's Motion.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, their Lordships had just heard the answer of the noble Earl to the charges which his noble friend had brought against his Majesty's Ministers for having systematically violated treaties and the laws of neutrality; and also for a manifest violation of the laws of nations and of the established laws of this country. Those charges had been brought forward clearly and distinctly, and were founded upon facts which were notorious and irrefragable. So clearly had the case been made out, that he felt called upon to apologize to their Lordships for recurring to propositions the truth of which had been fully established; but, having had occasion frequently to bring the state of Portugal under the notice of their Lordships, he might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few remarks upon a subject which involved so much of British interests. Before he proceeded further, he wished to correct a misapprehension into which the noble Earl had fallen with regard to one point in the noble Duke's speech. His noble friend never attempted to maintain, that this country was bound on all occasions, whether just or unjust, to interfere on behalf of Portugal; but this country was bound by solemn treaties to mediate on behalf of Portugal with any enemy she might have to contend with. This mediation, England was bound to afford whenever the country was called upon by Portugal; and yet what had his Majesty's Ministers done last year to fulfil the obligations of these treaties, when a French fleet had entered the Tagus for the purpose of enforcing certain demands upon Portugal? His Majesty's Government were frequently applied to, and their mediation with the French Government sought for in vain. Notwithstanding the repeated applications made by the Portuguese Government, and made too under the obligations of the Treaty of 1661, and subsequent treaties, there was no answer returned by his Majesty's Ministers until the French fleet had actually left the Tagus; and this neglect was on the part of the Government

269
of this country, which was bound in the words of the Treaty to protect the interests of Portugal by sea and by land, just as we would protect our own interests. It should also be remembered that Portugal did not refuse to give redress to France, but she proposed to go into a settlement of the claim; and yet it was under these circumstances his Majesty's Ministers refused to accede to the just and reasonable request of the Portuguese Government. So much for that part of the subject. Their Lordships would probably recollect that so long ago as December, 1831, when a reinforcement for Donna Maria had sailed from this country, he took the liberty of asking in that House whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to dispense with the Foreign Enlistment Bill, and was answered by the noble Earl, who said, that he felt it his duty, without reference to the policy of that Act, to enforce its provisions fairly whilst it remained in the Statute Book, and he (the Earl of Aberdeen), having received that assurance, fully relied upon seeing the Act put fairly and impartially into execution.
Earl Greywas understood, in explanation, to deny that he had ever pledged himself to enforce the provisions of the Enlistment Bill, particularly in respect to Portugal, or that he had taken upon himself the responsibility of putting it into operation. What he said was, that as long as it remained on the Statute-book it ought to be obeyed by all his Majesty's subjects.
The Earl of Aberdeenhad a perfect recollection of the words used by the noble Earl, which he took down at the time, and from these expressions he actually inferred that the duty of enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Bill would be undertaken by his Majesty's Ministers. However that was, he now knew that that duty had not been performed. That Act was violated every day, as appeared by statements from all parts of the country. The noble Earl, he believed, had odd notions with regard to newspapers, and he (the Earl of Aberbeen) was quite aware that their statements could not be received as official or authentic; but the noble Earl would probably wish to have it inferred that statements appearing in newspapers were from that circumstance necessarily untrue. This was not the case; and when he found circumstantial details given daily of hostile
270
armaments fitted out in several of the ports of England he could not avoid saying, that he believed those statements unless they were formally contradicted. He, however, would refer to the latest intelligence which he had seen of the last expedition which went to the assistance of Don Pedro. Last week only in a letter, dated the 28th of May, from Falmouth, this information was communicated to the public:—'This afternoon the reinforcements for the constitutional cause in Portugal left this port to join the forces in Oporto. The Birmingham steamer sailed with 350 English troops, under the command of Colonel Dodgin; the Britannia steamer, with 256 volunteers, comprising Poles, Germans and French, under the command of General Moura and the Polish Colonel Suer; and the City of Water-ford steamer, with 200 seamen for the fleet. The personages accompanying this additional force are the Marquess Palmella who proceeds again to Oporto, to enter upon the functions of office; Captain Napier, C. B. for the purpose of succeeding Admiral Sartorius in the command of the squadron, and J. Y. Mendizabel, Esq. one of the agents of Don Pedro. The presence of the troops in our town has occasioned an unusual degree of bustle, their appearance was generally good, and in point of discipline, they appeared to understand the requisites of a soldier by strictly observing it. The vessels are well stocked with stores and provisions—in fact with all the essentials of an entire expedition rather than a reinforcement. To supply the future wants of the army, there are a number of vessels about to leave Cork with pro-visions, so as to prevent their entire dependence on success or speculators. A considerable quantity of gold has been shipped on board these steamers, which is to be solely applicable to the objects of the expedition; therefore it may be expected that shortly some very decisive and efficient blow will be struck'. As the noble Earl was so unacquainted with these matters, he would give him some more information. He would inform the noble Earl of the force which had left this country during the last three months to join Don Pedro. The noble Earl read something like the following list:—On the last day of February the Lord of the Isles steamer sailed from Falmouth for Oporto, with 350 English; on March 2nd,

271
the Britannia steamer sailed from Deal with 300 English to the same destination; on March 13th, the St. George left Gravesend with 400 Frenchmen and other foreigners, who had been brought to this country from Boulogne in the Wellington steamer, and were re-shipped at Gravesend; on March 22nd, the Mercury left Gravesend with 500 English; on May 4th, the Lord Cochrane sailed from Deal with 520 French; on May 4th also, the William the Fourth steamer sailed from Rochfort with 600 French; on May 25th, the Britannia sailed from Falmouth with 270 foreigners collected from all nations. Then there was the Birmingham steamer which took oat 350 men, and the City of Waterford, to which he had already referred, with 200 English. Other vessels had left the smaller ports of France with 500 men more. There were two battalions now ready to sail from France, which would make the whole expedition of Captain Napier amount to 1,000 men. On the whole there had left the ports of England and France during the last three months no less than 1,750 English, and at least 3,000 foreigners, to join Don Pedro. He included in that statement the last expedition which had sailed under Captain Napier. These things could not be secret. If they were, was the conduct of the Marquess Palmella a secret? Were his interviews at the Foreign Office unknown to the noble Earl? Was Captain Napier's sailing in conjunction with the Marquess a secret? He understood that no secret whatever was made of the expedition—that it was talked of with as much openness and publicity as if it had been an expedition fitted out by our own Government. But there was another case more striking still, it was an ingenious contrivance for adding to the forces of Don Pedro, an account of which he found in The Globe of May 14th. It was this:—'Saturday, and several days last week, detachments of recruits have been sent by the agents of Don Pedro to Gravesend to embark on board of the Lord of the Isles steamer, lying there, bound for Oporto. The men, as soon as received on board, are provided with clothing and accoutrements. A number of men from St. Margaret's and St. Martin's parishes have volunteered to enter the service. The agents of Don Pedro have engaged a brig, lying about fifteen miles below Gravesend, to receive troops; and this
272
vessel, as well as the Lord of the Isles, is expected to leave the river for Oporto the latter end of the week'. He should like to know if the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in whose department this was, knew anything of this paragraph in the newspaper; had it the least foundation? He had inquired into it, and found certainly that it was at least partly true. It appeared, also, that there was a number of able-bodied paupers from the parishes of St. Margaret and St. Martin who were accompanied on board Don Pedro's vessels by the parish officers, who gave them 10 s. a piece to get rid of them. There was no affectation even of secrecy here. The noble Lord might refuse to enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act against those persons, but he would ask whether it was right that the parish officers should become crimps to Don Pedro. It was carrying the matter a little too far to make them levy troops for his service. No person could doubt that the Government must have known of this. It had been brought under its notice by the Spanish Ambassador, who had remonstrated against it, but his remonstrance was not attended to. Was this neutrality? The conduct of Ministers was most unfair towards Spain. That country had suffered great injustice, for she had abandoned the right of interference with Portugal in consequence of the solemn pledge given by this Government that it would observe a strict neutrality. Would any man attempt to say, that these expeditions were tolerated, and yet that this country had preserved her neutrality? It was impossible, as was said, that our Constitution should not provide means to prevent such outrages as these. If it did not, it would be a curse to ourselves, and the rest of mankind. If the Jews and jobbers of London could carry on war against a foreign nation—if they could levy troops and send them abroad unchecked to commit robbery and murder—if it were said, that the Constitution of the country did not allow the Government to prevent that, either that Constitution was a curse, or the assertion was a libel on it, for it would make us unable to keep up any peaceable relations with civilized states. But the assertion was not true. That was neither law nor common sense. He believed he should not be contradicted when he stated, that the treaties entered into by this country formed part of the law of the land; and he had the opinion of Lord

273
Stowell for asserting that it was a violation] of treaties and of the laws of nations for a neutral power to allow men and arms to be shipped in her ports for the purpose of aiding either of the belligerents,
Earl Greyinquired, if the noble Earl quoted a judgment of Lord Stowell's, or merely referred to a speech delivered in that House, which could not have been reported by the noble and learned Lord himself. The Duke said, that the opinion of Lord Stowell which was quoted, had been delivered in that House, and was not a judgment.
The Earl of Aberdeen: Would the noble Earl say, then, that Sir William Scott would give a different opinion in Parliament from that which he would deliver from the Bench? The noble Earl had already eulogised Sir William Scott, not only on account of his talents, but on account of his great and unsullied integrity. To him it was quite immaterial where Lord Stowell had delivered his opinion. That opinion would have the same weight with him whether delivered on the bench or in Parliament. By him, and he was sure by their Lordships, such an opinion would be held in the same high estimation whether delivered in one place or the other. In coming down to the House he was not prepared to hear, that such expeditions as he had referred to could be tolerated without a violation of the laws of nations, or that the Government were not bound in duty to prevent them. He would go further and say, that it was not only the duty of Government to prevent them, but it was the duty of the Government, on this occasion, to give the Spanish government a proof of their sincerity by issuing a Proclamation recalling from Oporto all the British subjects in the service of Don Pedro. This course would have satisfied the Spanish government even though it were ineffectual, but he did not believe it would be ineffectual. But the noble Earl would not issue such a Proclamation, because his wishes were all in favour of interference. His Majesty's Ministers ought to have pursued the course towards Portugal which had been observed towards Turkey at the time of the war in Greece. The Government of that day had done its duty, and published a Proclamation recalling all its subjects from Greece as well as from Turkey. The noble Earl said, such a Proclamation would be of no use because the people were warmly attached to the cause
274
of Don Pedro, but whether a Proclamation were to operate or not, it ought, he contended, to have been issued. It was due to Spain, and if issued would remove all suspicion of insincerity on the part of this Cabinet. The noble Earl had referred to the instructions which had been sent to the British Admiral commanding at Lisbon, in order to show the desire of the Government to preserve neutrality. He did not deny the authenticity of the instructions, nor did he doubt the honour or impartiality of Admiral Parker. He also admitted that upon the receipt of these instructions the British squadron left the Tagus according to the wish of the Portuguese government; but the squadron soon afterwards returned, and was now in military possession of the port of Lisbon. The pretext for that was the murder of the servant of Lord William Russell; but he was not a British subject, and was not exclusively the servant of that noble Lord. The man was a Spaniard, and was a porter at the house where Lord William Russell lodged. If anybody had a right to complain, it was the king of Spain (for the man was his subject) and not the Government of England, That, however, was made the pretext for our fleet resuming military possession of the port of Lisbon. The British forces had no right to be there. He could understand what the sending of an armament meant, if the safety of British subjects was in danger, but he certainly could not admit, that sending out a squadron to intimidate a struggling government was either a just or a warrantable interference, when no injury whatever could be apprehended to the subjects of this realm. In his opinion it would have been much wiser and better policy if, instead of sending a fleet to Portugal, line-of-battle ships had been stationed in the Levant or the Mediterranean to protect our interests in the East. Not a single ship of war belonging to this country was to be found in those seas; and, instead of attending to our own interests, the affairs of the East were left to be settled by the French and Russians. This was not as it should be, nor was it maintaining the honour and character of the English nation as they ought to have been upheld by the Government. But I the policy adopted with regard to Portugal was most improper, to say the least of it; and had not our Consul at Lisbon, though invested with no diplomatic character, and possessing no peculiar privileges, but sub-

275
ject, like all other ordinary persons to the laws of the country, assumed to himself the use of language that was unknown to and would hardly be tolerated in any British Ambassador at the court of a friendly State? In fact, he had assumed the language of a Roman Proconsul rather than that of a servant of the English Government. But did his Majesty's Ministers suppose, that this indefinite state of things could much longer continue? So far from finding fault with the recognition of Don Miguel, a noble Lord in another place, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, when a protocol on the subject was under discussion in 1830 declared that his recognition had been too long delayed. The circumstances then and now were, however, different; but it was possible that the same result might have been arrived at sooner. At the period to which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) alluded, there was a difficulty in the way of renewing the relations between the two countries. The cause of the delay he had already explained, and he had now merely to add, that it arose out of the dependence that was placed upon a declaration made by the Brazilian government, that it wished to bring about a satisfactory adjustment of the existing disputes by conciliatory means. It was only when the government was convinced of the duplicity, of the bad faith, of the falsehood, of the Brazilian government in its negotiations on this subject, that the Government could think of avoiding delay. Till that conviction was obtained, they could not recognise Don Miguel. The instant it was found that no dependence was to be placed upon the Brazilian government, his Majesty's Ministers felt convinced, that they could not in justice and in honour allow matters to remain in the situation in which they then were. But now it was understood, that the present government of Portugal was to be driven from Lisbon, and that a new government was to be established there. If he were rightly informed, it was intended to establish a regency on behalf of Queen Donna Maria, with the Marquess of Palmella and a council at its head; and if this was the fact, all he could say was, that such a project clearly evinced an entire ignorance of the state of parties and of public feeling in Portugal. It was idle to suppose, that such an alliance could ever exist; and if the piratical war flow carrying on from Oporto were to be
276
successful, it was clear that power would be transferred into the hands of a set of men who had always been the bitterest enemies of this country. They were the same persons who had directed the Revolution, and who had evinced such hostility and insolence as to lead Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning to decline holding any communication with them. Nothing was more hopeless, than that such a government, if established in Portugal, should be favourable to the interests of this country; and the only effect it could have, would be to increase the influence of France at the expense of England. As a Portuguese question, the contest would long since have been settled; if not interfered with by others, Don Pedro would have had no chance of success. Don Miguel, as king of Portugal, had no more to fear from domestic hostility than any sovereign of Europe. There had not been an individual of any consequence throughout the kingdom who had joined Don Pedro since he took possession of Oporto. There had not been any disturbance, nor any symptom of dissatisfaction throughout Portugal to show that the government of Don Miguel was not liked. It was indisputably proved, that nine-tenths of the people of Portugal were favourable to Don Miguel. He repeated, therefore, that Don Pedro had no hold of Portugal, and that his cause was only supported by the foreigners, whose services were purchased by gold. There could be no doubt of what the combined arms of England and France could accomplish; but that those men, those patriots, as they were called, could be considered as forming a party in Portugal, he most positively denied. The fact was not so; they constituted no party in that country, and he would defy any man to maintain the proposition. But they were to look at the effects of this contest, not as it regarded Portugal alone, but as it might affect the Continent of Europe generally. The policy of this country ought to have been to unite this kingdom and that of Portugal in the closest bonds of friendship, and that was the object for which the glorious achievements of his noble friend had been accomplished; but had this policy been pursued? The valour of his noble friend had obtained that incalculable advantage, he abolition of the family compact in Spain; but had not the French government lately, in despite or in ignorance of

277
the treaty of 1814, made demands on Spain founded upon the assumed existence of the family compact, which furnished a tolerably accurate specimen of what might be expected from our new ally? But was this the way to treat the Spanish government, or was it commonly politic to inspire that country with distrust, apprehension, and dread, at a period most favourable to the establishment of advantageous relations with Great Britain? It had not only ever been the policy to cultivate the friendly relations with Spain; but he would venture to say, that the period to which these proceedings referred, was an opportunity for establishing the most favourable relations with that country that had ever presented itself to the British Government. Notwithstanding every disposition shown by the enlightened ministry at the head of the Spanish government of late years, and which manifested that there was nothing that was not incompatible with the dignity of that country which might not have been obtained by the English nation, all hopes for such a happy result were now destroyed, and that, too, by a policy in support of a conflict which, even if successful, would prove most hostile to this nation. He would not enter into the case of Holland—it was enough to know that this country, by her policy with reference to that nation, had alienated the affections of the illustrious family presiding over her destinies, and had made the British name a subject of loathing and execration; and he thought that perseverance in the same line would produce a similar effect as regarded Portugal. It was impossible for any man to view the present situation of the relations between this country and Portugal and Holland without feelings of sympathy, and he could not help figuring to himself what must be the feelings of his noble friend near him (the Duke of Wellington), when his noble friend now regarded the condition of those two countries, which he had so long and so anxiously endeavoured to protect from foreign interference, and in which endeavour he was so preeminently successful. It was true, that the great achievements of his noble friend would ever remain, and secure to him the permanent gratitude of his country, and the admiration of Europe, and of all mankind; and he could not suppose, that his Majesty's Government could be actuated in their policy by any such abominable
278
feelings as to endeavour to tarnish the glories of his noble friend, or to desecrate the soil upon which those glories had been achieved. If, however, his Majesty's Government had really such an object in view, they could not have adopted a better course to ensure such a result. Whatever the result night be, his noble friend had now endeavoured to protect those nations from the revolutionary feelings supported and encouraged by the Government of this country.
The Marquess of Lansdownhad but a few words to offer upon the grounds upon which the Government had proceeded in this transaction; but he must, in the first place, observe, that the noble Lord (the Earl of Roden) who had first addressed their Lordships this evening, previous to entering upon the present debate, could not have been admitted into the secret of the intentions of those noble Lords with whom he acted in concert, when he addressed a speech to their Lordships for the purpose of showing how little reliance was to be placed on the statements contained in newspapers, when, on the same evening, a proposition was about to be brought forward by the noble Duke opposite affecting the conduct and character of the administration, founded upon no other authority than newspaper reports. The noble Duke had adopted those reports, for though he talked of papers, he had moved for none, nor had he referred to any official document which would have enabled their Lordships and himself to judge whether the allegations contained in the diurnal reports were justified or not. On such authority the conduct of an hon. officer was assailed, and relying on the solitary dictum of a noble Lord (Lord Stowell), as given, not from the decree of that noble Lend delivered from the seat of justice, but from an unauthenticated newspaper report of a speech delivered in the other House of Parliament. On that authority it was sought to pass a vote of censure upon the present Government. He (Lord Lansdown) had no hesitation whatever in saying, that in every step his Majesty's Government had taken with regard to Portugal they had scrupulously followed the principles of the law of nations, and had in no way interfered in the contest going on in that country that was not conformable to national law and in strict accordance with their duty as Ministers of the Crown. He would not im-

279
pute to the noble Earl opposite (Lord Aberdeen) anything like favouritism; but if he were to do so, he would say, that the noble Earl had manifested a strong inclination to favour the cause of Don Miguel. Whatever might be his own wish relative to the fate of the conflict, he should neither contend for nor desire anything that was undue or likely to disparage the principles of even-handed justice between the belligerent parties. Beyond justice and what the law of nations required, he would ask for nothing; but he must at the same time be allowed to remark, that, looking at the conduct of Don Miguel not only towards this country but his own subjects, he must say, that he had no right to expect from the English Government anything more than a literal performance of any obligation that might exist between them. But what was the gravamen of the noble Duke's accusation? Was not his speech a sort of omnium gatherum of all that had happened during the last two years? His principal charge against the Government was, that a British officer, Captain Napier, had sailed for Portugal at the head of an expedition connected in some way or other with this country. He repeated, that it had been alleged, that this expectation was in some way or other connected with England and France. It had been said, that Admiral Sartorius had been dismissed for similar conduct; and it was asked by the noble Duke, why Captain Napier's name was not also struck from out of the books of the Admiralty? But surely the noble Duke ought to have known, that the dismissal of Admiral Sartorius did not take place until it was known he was engaged in foreign service. No intelligence had as yet been received at the Admiralty, that Captain Napier was so employed, and would it not, therefore, be gross injustice on the part of the Government if they were to dismiss him without having proper grounds for doing so? It had been said, that the Government had interfered improperly in the contest, but all that had been done was, to allow to Don Pedro advantages of which Don Miguel might also have availed himself, namely, to procure in this country such means and assistance as were desirable for him in carrying on the conflict. Both the belligerent parties might have participated in this permission if they had thought fit; and he would defy the noble Lords opposite to point out a single in-
280
stance in which Don Miguel was deprived of any advantage that was obtained by his opponents. From the statement of the noble Earl opposite it would appear that not only were his Majesty's Government accused of having favoured the cause of Donna Maria, but the overseers of St. Margaret's were likewise implicated in the same conspiracy. If, however, the parish officers of that or any other parish had violated the Foreign Enlistment Act, they were liable to be punished; and would it not have been more consistent to bring them to justice for their offence, if indeed they had committed any, than to have brought forward a motion of this description for censuring the Government by wholesale. The noble Earl had shown a great disposition to view bygone topics. He had alluded to the sailing of the French fleet for Lisbon to enforce reparation for admitted injuries, and talked of mediation; but could the noble Earl really be serious in supposing that the French Government ought to have acceded to mediation, if even it had been attempted? The application for mediation was not, however, made for a week after the French squadron had reached the Tagus; but under such circumstances what advice could one honest Government give to another? What advice could one honest man give to another but that which had been given, namely, that if a party inflicted a gratuitous injury he was bound by every principle of justice to repair it? The invasion of the French on that occasion was limited to the particular object of enforcing reparation for injuries done to French subjects; and would it not be not only absurd but unjust to say, that, because there existed between this country and Portugal certain treaties, therefore England was bound to defend Portugal from the consequences of outrages committed against other countries, or that the injured nation should not have a right to vindicate and protect its own honour and the interests of its subjects? The noble Earl had taken a peep into futurity with respect to Portugal, but he believed the Government which he had formed had no other existence but that which the noble Earl's own apprehensions had created. This regency of his, which was to produce such calamitous effects not only in Portugal and Spain, but throughout the whole world, might answer the views of noble Lords on the other side of the House, but the mis-

281
fortune of the matter was, that it was a prophecy without the least foundation in truth. The noble Earl was, however, a bold prophet; but if there was any reliance on his predictions, the French army would now have full possession of Belgium.
The Earl of Aberdeenbegged to say, that he had never entertained any expectation that the French army would have remained in Belgium. On the contrary, he was satisfied that they would not, and had declared as much in his place in that House; so that the noble Marquess was in error.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that such a statement had certainly been made by some noble Lord who usually acted in concert with the noble Earl and other noble Lords sitting on his side of the House. That was now disclaimed, but if his recollection served him correctly, such a prophecy had been made. He could not but express his opinion that the contest between the princes of Portugal was much to be regretted, both with a view to the interests of Portugal, and to the interests of this country. He had also hoped that the state of affairs would have justified this country in recognizing the authority of one party or the other, but the recognition was not to be obtained by undue, unjust, or illegal interference. It was on these grounds that he had hoped that the noble Duke who had brought forward the Motion would have called for specific papers. The noble Duke had not done that, but had come forward with that which amounted to a vote of censure upon his Majesty's Government. It was impossible that the Government could have done otherwise than await the result of the contest (however important that contest might be), and not to interfere between either party, but be prepared to mediate between both. To be able to do so was "a consummation devoutly to be wished;" but he must contend that it would have been unjustifiable in the Government to have deprived Donna Maria of the advantages of her claims to rights admitted by Don Miguel himself. More upon her behalf he did not now ask, and he thought it would be most heartless, unjust, and impolitic in any English Government to stand in the way of them. He must again deny that the Government to which he was attached merited the censure which it had been sought by the noble Duke to pass upon it. Let the
282
noble Duke come forward and call for specific papers to support his charge, and he and his noble friends would be ready to abide by the decision of the House, and the decision of the country.
The Earl of Eldoncontended, that a gross insult had been offered to the Sovereign; and he should have deemed himself guilty of an unpardonable dereliction of duty to his King if he had not come down to that House to protest against the violation of a neutrality which his Majesty had ordered to be observed, and which was contrary to the express law of the land. It was, he asserted, unlawful to allow subjects of this realm to be enlisted here to serve in a foreign army without the express consent of the Crown; and if he had not declared his opinion he should not have discharged the duty which he owed to his Sovereign and his country. The fact that such a proceeding was going forward was known to every man; and it was the bounden duty of the Government as soon as it became cognizant of the matter to have put a stop to it. It was a breach of the Common-law for subjects of his Majesty to enlist in foreign service when the King's Proclamation declared the neutrality of the State, and he would defy any Attorney General or other competent Law Officer to controvert that maxim. But what became of the Common-law if the overseers of St. Margaret's or any other parish were to be allowed, in the teeth of a Royal Proclamation, to send their paupers into the service of a foreign country? The sale of military stores, it was true, was equally in contravention of the Common-law, but it had been thought necessary for the interests of commerce that the parties supplying a belligerent with stores from this neutral country should not be liable to punishment; but whether the policy which sanctioned such a departure from the Common-law was wise or not, he would not then discuss. The simple question they had to decide was, whether Ministers had a right to come down to that House, not to protect the prerogative of the Crown, but to defend the violation of the actual command of the Sovereign. The fact that men were enlisted in this country for foreign service was notorious—was in short, known to every man in the kingdom; and he must say, that it astonished him to find that Ministers were ignorant of that which every one else was acquainted with. He

283
should not have risen but to vindicate the honour and character of his Sovereign, whose commands had been disregarded by those whose duty it was to see them obeyed; and he could not resume his seat without again declaring that the Common-law had been grossly violated.
The Lord Chancellorcould not consent to put the question without requesting their Lordships to allow him to call their attention to a few things which had been suggested to his mind by the eloquent address of his noble and learned friend who had just sat down. First, however, he would refer to the venerable and justly venerated legal authority which had been quoted by the noble Duke and the noble Earl. It seemed that what had at first been supposed to be a judgment of Lord Stowell's from the Bench, was in fact only a speech delivered, or supposed to be delivered by him in Parliament. Now, he was as anxious as any one to express his sense of the great talent, of the profound learning, of the unblemished integrity, as a Judge, of Lord Stowell; but, when he descended from the judgment-seat into the arena of political discussion, he would say of Lord Stowell—as he would say of Lord Stowell's nearest relation—that the same weight could not attach to his opinions when delivered in Parliament as when they were delivered from the Bench; and that he could not be so free from the common frailty of men, but that those opinions would derive some colour of bias from his political attachments. But, after all, the question was, whether Lord Stowell had given an opinion materially dissonant from that of his noble friend and himself. He understood that opinion to be, that a neutral state should not afford any succour either to one belligerent or the other. He came to the same conclusion. It was his opinion—it was the opinion of his noble friend. Lord Stowell was speaking of the State, not of the individual. Undoubtedly the State must remain neutral. If it were meant to go further—if it were meant to say, that Lord Stowell asserted it to be a violation of neutrality in a State if any of its individual inhabitants should supply money, arms or ammunition to either of two belligerent powers, then, with the greatest respect for that eminent and venerable person, he begged to make two observations: in the first place, to protect Lord Stowell from the imputation thus attempt-
284
ed to be thrown upon him; and, in the second place, if driven from that position by Lord Stowell's nearest relation, he would take leave to say, that the doctrine alleged was not the doctrine of the law of nations; and be would appeal, from what Lord Stowell had been represented to say in Parliament, to what Lord Stowell would have said from the Bench, if a case for deliberate judgment had been brought before him. His defence of Lord Stowell was, that he doubted, nay, that he disbelieved the accuracy of the report of Lord Stowell's speech. If driven from that, he would then say, that the doctrine of Lord Stowell was not the doctrine of the law of nations. It was a matter of trite law, that it was no violation of the law of nations for a State to permit, with its eyes open (for he would go as far as that), its subjects to trade with belligerents; to sell them arms, ammunition, and accoutrements of war. Individuals, according to the strictest letter of the law of nations, did not involve the State to which they belonged, if they enlisted force, apart from and unconnected with their government or state, on the one or the other side, in the case of belligerents. His noble friend had referred to Vattel, who was not very clear on some points, and whose reputation was certainly greater than he deserved. But let their Lordships consider the instances to which Vattel resorted. He referred to the Switzers, who were allowed, without any breach of neutrality, to hire out their regiments to other powers engaged in war. Vattel laid that down as perfectly justifiable. Bynkershoeck did not go so far. That great publicist, however, stated, that trading in arms, ammunition, and provisions, was no violation of neutrality, if it were carried on with both the contending parties, and if the scale were held equally between them; and he followed up that declaration by saying, that it was the same with respect to the furnishing of men. The noble and learned Lord here read a passage from the works of Bynkershoeck, in confirmation of his statement. He sincerely believed, that if Lord Stowell could happily be there, he would be the last man to throw any doubt on the doctrine with respect to the law of nations, which he (the Lord Chancellor) had maintained, during the American war the country had employed German troops (he was sorry to say), not only against the liberties of the Americans, but against

285
their French allies, and that circumstance was never considered by the French as a breach of neutrality on the part of the prince of Hesse Darmstadt, or any other of the German states. Whether on the part of Don Miguel, the usurper, as he had been termed by the noble Duke himself, or on the part of her majesty Donna Maria, the queen of Portugal and Algarve—a noble Lord seemed to doubt the accuracy of that title, but he (the Lord Chancellor) held in his hand a letter, signed "George R.," addressed to "My dear cousin and sister, her majesty Donna Maria, queen of Portugal and Algarve"—a letter, than which one more fitting, more courteous, or more honourable, either to the writer or to the adviser of it, never existed. Whether, therefore, he repeated, on the part of Don Miguel, who had been called a usurper, or on the part of her majesty Donna Maria, queen of Portugal and Algarve, if his Majesty's Government had interfered, though only with a corporal's guard, or a cock-boat, such interference would undoubtedly have been a violation of neutrality; but his Majesty's Government had cautiously, scrupulously, and perseveringly, abstained from any such interference. If Don Miguel had shown himself utterly devoid of the nature of man, still that should not have induced any statesman to act on a different or partial principle. Some censure had been attempted to be thrown out upon his Majesty's Government; they had been twitted with the imputation of being-disposed to suit their conduct to the taste of the day, of being never disposed to act except with a view of courting popularity. Now what was the fact? That they had held on steadily and pertinaciously, and without the deviation of a hair from the course of non-interference; although they knew that hardly a single individual out of Lisbon, out of Don Miguel's camp, but would have rejoiced with a boundless joy had they adopted a different resolution. He begged pardon—he ought to have added—out of that House; for it was but too evident that there were in that House individuals who were far from agreeing with the strong and irrepressible opinions of the country at large. As a further illustration of the difference to which he had already alluded, in the conduct of the same persons acting in a political and in a judicial character, he would refer to the proposition submitted to their
286
Lordships by the noble Duke. If it were imputed to their Lordships, sitting in their judicial capacity, that they were influenced in their decision by any consideration but that connected with the strictest integrity, they would visit the newspaper or any other luckless quarter from which such an imputation might proceed, with the greatest indignation. Yet now the noble Duke called upon them to pass a vote of censure on his Majesty's Government, without grounds, without evidence; an act, which in their judicial capacity they would consider it a libel to suppose it possible they could commit. A noble Earl had said we ought to have mediated between the parties. He had seen enough of mediation to reject it, except in some pressing case, knowing its tendency to put an end to neutrality. The noble Earl (The Earl of Aberdeen) blamed the Government for not having issued a proclamation, commanding his Majesty's subjects not to join Don Pedro. Now, all past experience had satisfied him, that proclamations of that description were seldom or never effectual, and that they only brought disrepute on the Government which put them forward. If it was intended really to make such proclamations effective, they must be followed up by the prosecution and punishment of those who acted in contravention of the proclamation. Now, though the noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had great experience, when a Crown lawyer, in public prosecutions—some of which were successful, and some otherwise—even with the aid of that noble and learned Earl's experience, he (the Lord Chancellor) defied the noble Earl (Aberdeen) to frame an indictment with reasonable chance of success against a person who had declined abandoning the standard of Don Pedro after the proclamation was issued. No Government which had any desire to maintain respect, could have resorted to such a prosecution. The noble Earl also said, that the Spanish government had a right to complain of the Government of England, for not having taken certain steps to prevent deviations from neutrality on the part of the subjects of this country, because we had called upon Spain, by virtue of a treaty into which she had entered with us, to abstain from any interference in the quarrel herself. Therefore, said the noble Earl, Spain had a right to call upon us to do likewise, and to complain of us for having done other-

287
wise. England called upon Spain—to do what? Not to prevent her subjects from sending arms or ammunition in the way of traffic to any belligerent parties in Portugal—not to prevent her subjects from individually enlisting in the service of those belligerents—but we called upon her to withhold her assistance and countenance from either party—England called upon her not to march troops, the troops of the State, to the aid of either party. But it did not follow that because we exhorted Spain to act thus, therefore Spain had a right to call upon us to put in force our Foreign Enlistment Act. That Act was passed in consequence of the treaty of 1814 between Spain and this country; and it was elaborately discussed in both Houses of Parliament. He had proposed it in the House of Commons, where it was contended that we owed it to the faith of the treaty to pass such a measure, and upon that ground it was carried. Admitting that Spain, by virtue of the treaty of 1814, had a right to call upon us to make such a law, he contended that she had no right to demand, that we should put it in force in such an instance as that under consideration. No country had a right; such a thing could not exist; to dictate to another country what municipal laws it should make, and in what manner it should enforce them. The Government was also charged with not detaining vessels, the destination of which was known to them by public rumour. It so happened, that the Government had shown no lack of diligence on this point. Government sent information to the Custom-house, and the Custom-house officers, acting on that information, detained certain vessels intended for Don Pedro. The facts, and the grounds of seizure, were laid before, not only the King's Advocate, but also his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor General, and their opinion was, that there was no legal case could be made out as against the owners and freighters of the vessels in question—that no successful prosecution could be carried forward, and that the Customhouse officers were liable to actions for the illegal seizure and detention of the vessels. Such being the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, the Government could hardly have done otherwise than it had done; it could not avoid ordering the liberation of those vessels. No one could say, that they should have kept the opinion
288
of the law officers in their pocket, and allowed the Custom-house Commissioners to have rendered themselves liable to civil actions. The only other specific charge against the Government was founded on the non-dismissal of Captain Napier. He ought perhaps to apologise to their Lordships for touching at all on this topic, as it had been already most fully and satisfactorily answered. He would only just put it to their Lordships, therefore, whether the Government would have been justified in dismissing Captain Napier from the service—upon mere gossip—upon rumours picked up in the corners of the streets—or even upon that which noble Lords at the Opposition side of the House, now appeared to consider as the most valuable record—the highest, best, and most irrefragable of all authorities—a paragraph in a newspaper? The case of Captain, now Admiral Sartorius, had been alluded to; and it was asked why had not Captain Napier been dismissed as well as Admiral Sartorius There was a marked difference, however, in the two cases. There was a correspondence, carried on by Admiral Sartorius, which proved beyond all doubt that he had enlisted in a foreign service; and when the fact was brought home to Captain Napier as it had been to Admiral Sartorius, he the (Lord Chancellor) pledged himself that the Government would act in the same manner in the one instance as in the other, and that Captain Napier's dismissal would follow as a matter of course. It would have been wholly unjustifiable, however, in his Majesty's Government to have dismissed an officer, without any evidence that he had enlisted in a foreign service. When such circumstances as the non-detention of the vessels in the river, and the non-dismissal of Captain Napier, were insisted on in argument, it showed how little substance there was in the charges made against Government, as the two circumstances to which he had just alluded appeared to constitute "the head and front of their offending." One word more on the nature of the address moved by the noble Duke. No one could view that address otherwise than as a vote of censure on his Majesty's Government. If it were adopted with a view of effecting a change in his Majesty's Councils, he admitted that object to be perfectly justifiable. Noble Lords who were prepared to say "content," no doubt felt themselves, actuated by a strong sense

289
of public duty; and nothing could prove more strongly how imperatively they felt themselves actuated by that sense of duty, than the laying hold of this opportunity to effect what was, no doubt, conscientiously considered by many noble Lords a desirable object. It was not in reference to the subject of Portugal, however, he ventured to presume, that many noble Lords would give their votes. They might consider it extremely desirable and beneficial to get rid of a Government which, at this moment, was agitating five or six different questions of great magnitude and importance. Whilst questions relating to the East-India Charter—the Bank Charter—Colonial Slavery—the Commutation of Tithes—Church Reform—Municipal Reform—and all the other Reforms which the Government had pledged themselves to effect—were pending; it might certainly be very important, and no less desirable, in the minds of many noble Lords, to get rid of a Ministry by which such questions were agitated and brought forward. If such a course exposed their Lordships to the imputation of being opposed to all Reform, and to everything like liberal policy, it only showed how strong and imperative must be the sense of duty which impelled them to adopt such a course. Nothing less than the most overwhelming sense of duty, he was convinced, would induce noble Lords, differing upon many subjects, to meet upon one common ground, which afforded them a favourable opportunity of assailing his Majesty's Government. It only remained to be seen whether their Lordships would consent to pass a vote of censure not founded on any facts, and on which they had not before them one tittle of evidence, and had called for none.
Lord Wynfordwas pleased to hear from his noble and learned friend, that Judges might maintain opinions in Parliament which they would not sanction by their authority in Courts. He was glad to hear that; for though he thought he could easily refute the arguments of his noble friend, he knew that it would be extremely difficult for him to overcome the prestige of the high station occupied by his noble and learned friend. The opinion of the Lord Chancellor, delivered, according to his noble friend's expression, in the arena of political debate, was entitled to no more respect than that of any other Peer. That admission might perhaps account
290
for the mistakes that his noble friend had fallen into with respect to the detention of the two ships, and his misconstruction of the Foreign Enlistment Act. His noble friend had warned their Lordships, that this motion of censure was an indirect attempt to remove his Majesty's Ministers from office, and that their Lordships were asked to pronounce judgment without any evidence. The Motion was not one of censure, unless every motion by which it was proposed that this House should state to his Majesty that it did not approve of any particular measure adopted by his Ministers, could be considered as a vote of censure. Such observations had a tendency to prevent free discussion. If they were to be continually repeated, if they were not to express their opinions on every Act of Government, considering only what was for the interest of the country, without regarding the effect on his Majesty's Ministers, it would be better that they should at once close their doors. Attempts were made to prevent noble Lords from deciding impartially on particular questions, by Ministers telling them, that upon the determination of this or that question, however trifling, would depend their continuance in office. He did not wish to remove the Ministers from office, not that he thought the world would stand still if they were to retire; but as to rashly taking a step which was to prevent the renewal of the Bank Charter, ruin the East and West-Indian interests, and prevent the Established Church from being rendered secure from spoliation—without evidence—he asserted that there was evidence which many Statesmen would have thought justified an impeachment; and quite sufficient to determine their Lordships to offer their advice to his Majesty on the measure taken by his Ministers. The facts on which the Motion was founded were known to every man in the kingdom. His noble friend, who said there was no evidence, had not ventured to contradict a single fact which had been stated either by the noble Duke or the noble Baron. There were two questions for their consideration: first, were we bound to observe neutrality? second, had we observed it? The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had admitted that we were bound to observe the strictest neutrality; and only the second question, then remained for discussion. The noble Earl assumed, that the charge against Government was, that their officers had in-

291
terfered between the hostile parties; and he produced a bundle of instructions to our Admirals, to prove that they were directed to prevent the forces under their command from interfering, in any manner, in the quarrel in Portugal; but it had never been hinted that our army or navy bad done anything which amounted to a violation of neutrality. The noble Duke (Wellington) insisted that the Government had permitted individuals to enlist men, and to fit out ships, in this country for the service of Don Pedro, and so openly, and to such an extent, that the Government must have known it; that our municipal laws armed the Government with authority to prevent these things; and that not having enforced the law, it had permitted the neutrality to be broken; and that the permitting acts to be done by British subjects, which amount to a breach of neutrality, rendered the Government responsible to the hostile Slate that was injured by such acts. His noble friend on the Woolsack said, that Government, although acquainted with the acts done by subjects, although it took no means to prevent them, was not according to the law of nations guilty of a breach of neutrality. He had always thought that, according to the practice of civilized nations. Governments were responsible for acts of their subjects, and for wrongs done by them. The law of nations was to be learned from the conduct of States, and from the correspondence of ministers. During the American war, our Minister complained to the Dutch government of its permitting America to be supplied with contraband stores of war—of permitting Dutch subjects to fit out privateers—and of selling a ship to Paul Jones, and suffering that pirate to refit his vessels in the ports of Holland. These things were not done by the Dutch government, but by its subjects; yet we complained that the permitting such acts, was a breach of neutrality; and we assigned it as one of the causes which justified our making war on Holland. But our municipal law would furnish an answer to his learned friend. His noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon), had truly told their Lordships that the enlistment of men for the service of any foreign power engaged in war, was an indictable offence at common law; from the time of James 1st, until the 5th of George 3rd, it was a felony. But why was the enlisting
292
to serve a foreign power engaged in war a misdemeanour at the common law? The reason was given in almost every decided case that was to be found relating to this subject—namely, because such acts were likely to involve this country in war, being breaches of neutrality. Such acts, if known to the Government, and permitted, were breaches of neutrality. The noble Earl had admitted, that the Ministers knew of the fitting out and the stopping of the two ships that were about to sail for Oporto. But, said his learned friend on the Woolsack, it was no breach of neutrality to supply a belligerent State with stores, or with troops, and he quoted Bynkershoeck and Vattel. But admitting, that it was no breach of neutrality to supply stores, he denied that in either of those learned writers there was any authority for supplying men. On the contrary, Vattel, in the very passage to which his learned friend had referred, said, that only particular States could allow men to be sent to a belligerent without violating neutrality. States were not required to sacrifice the interests of their own subjects. If neutrals were prevented from trading with a belligerent State, their commerce would suffer. Some States traffic in men. Great Britain, lowered from the high station to which she was raised by the victories of the noble Duke, was not so degraded as to endure that the Government should permit a few Jews to hire crimps to kidnap its subjects, or parish officers to relieve their parishes from the burthen of maintaining their poor, by sending them to be murdered in a foreign country, and in a cause with which they had no concern. Those who assisted in such practices were accessories to the murder of such of the poor wretches as, having been decoyed by them, night fall in battle, or die of the diseases incident to a campaign. A noble Baron frequently expressed great horror at hearing it stated, that man might have a property in his fellow man. What would that noble Lord say to the wretches who sold their countrymen to be butchered? He never heard of transactions more disgraceful to the British character. If their Lordships permitted these things, let them not cant about the poor negroes; the world would not believe that they felt for those of whom they knew nothing, when they took me pains to prevent the destruction of their fellow subjects and neighbours. The

293
passage which his learned friend quoted from Vattel, only affirmed, that. States which usually let out men for hire in foreign wars, and of whose regular traffic such dealings form a part, were permitted to furnish men to a belligerent, with out violating neutrality. The learned writer added, that States, not accustomed to let out their troops, could not be suffered to supply men to a belligerent. He must also remind his learned friend of two qualifications of this permission to furnish troops to belligerents by mercenary States, added by Vattel. The troops must not be lent for the invasion; of the country of one of the belligerents; secondly, the number must not be so I great, that the mercenaries shall constitute the principal part of the force of the State. The mercenaries sent to Portugal were intended for the invasion of Don Miguel's country; and they constituted the greatest part of the force of Don Pedro, the invader. Long ago would the quarrel between these brothers have been settled, Portugal have been at peace, and our commerce with her restored, had not English and French Jews, for their individual advantage, been permitted to send into Portugal all the vagabonds which the distresses and discontents which, unhappily, had lately prevailed in other parts of Europe as well as in England, had enabled them to collect. More than 3,000 (1,700 of them, being English), were, in three months only, sent from this country. The sending of them whether sent by the Government, or by individuals, the Government taking no pains to prevent them being sent—made England equally principal in the war prevailing in the Peninsula. He next came to the case of the two ships detained in the Thames; the release of which was a direct interference of the Government on behalf of Don Pedro, and a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The release was an admission that the detention was illegal, and the parties who ordered it were liable to an action for such illegal act. The conduct of the Government was therefore more likely to provoke an action against the Custom-House officers than shield them from one. The Government interfered in a case, in which such interference was interdicted by the Foreign Enlistment Act. His learned friend was mistaken in the circumstances of these cases, as well as in his
294
construction of the Foreign Enlistment Act. And the officers of the Customs were right and the Government was wrong. His learned friend said, that the Government called the attention of the Commissioners of the Customs to these cases; but his learned friend would find, that it, was not the English, but the Portuguese Government that called the attention of the Board of Customs to these ships. The agent of Portugal consulted one of the most eminent men at the English Bur, who perused the affidavits, and said they were sufficient to make out a case for the detention of the ships. Much as he respected the King's Advocate, he must say, that he should rely more on the opinion of the learned Counsel consulted by the Portuguese government than on that of the King's Advocate. The King's Advocate was eminently skilled in the civil and ecclesiastical law, and in the law of nations, but these cases were governed by an Act of Parliament, administered by one of the Courts at Westminster, and with which the Courts of Doctors' Commons, in which the King's Advocate practises, had nothing to do. The Government went to the wrong man to get advice. It was impossible that the learned Gentleman who advised the detention could be mistaken, for he said, that the affidavits were sufficient not only for the detention, but for the condemnation of the ships. All that was required to be proved was, that the ships were equipped as ships of war, or for the purpose of carrying troops, and that they were destined for Don Pedro at Oporto, and that Don Pedro was engaged in a war with Don Miguel, the king of Portugal, the king in his opinion de jure as well as de facto. The Commissioners of Customs also were satisfied with the affidavits, and on them detained the ships. The Foreign Enlistment Act directed that the cases of ships detained under it should be submitted to the Court of Exchequer, by which Court such cases were to be finally decided and nothing could be more illegal, or arbitrary, than this interference on the part of Government. They prevented the persons who gave information to the Customs from obtaining the share of the proceeds to which they would have been entitled on these ships being confiscated. Was there any precedent for Government interfering to stop a proceeding in rem and to prevent those who had instituted

295
such a proceeding from obtaining the fruits of it? The power of stopping the course of justice was a branch of that dispensing power which no Minister of the Crown had since the Revolution, dared to exercise. Why was it exercised on this occasion? To serve Don Pedro, and allow his ships to proceed, without interruption to Oporto? That interference amounted to a breach of neutrality on the part of the Government. The law of nations would be absurd, if it made any distinction between the sending of an armed force by a neutral Government to one of two belligerents, and the suspending the law of the neutral state to prevent a force from being detained, which the Government knew would, as soon as it was released, be sent to the assistance of such belligerent. He would only reply to one other point of his noble and learned friend's speech—namely, his allusion to George 4th's letter to Donna Maria. That letter was begun and ended in the usual style of letters from one Sovereign to another. Donna Maria was, at that time, the destined queen of Portugal. It would be happy for the peace of nations if the fortune of Princes were less changeable than they had lately been. Such changes had since occurred in Portugal as, for the present, had destroyed all this Princess's pretensions to the Crown of Portugal; and England, with regard to her and to Portugal, must be governed by these changes. It was but a few years since, that we acknowledged Charles 10th, as King of France, and William of Nassau as king of the whole kingdom of the Netherlands. We had since recognised Louis Philippe as king of the French, and Leopold as king of Belgium, the larger part of the Netherlands. Why? because the former had been acknowledged by the Legislative Chambers of France, and the latter by those of Belgium. Don Miguel had been declared to be the legitimate sovereign of Portugal by the Cortes—the legislative body of that country—and the whole country had submitted to his authority. Were the question to be decided by the Portuguese, he would not have an enemy, within his dominions. The Prince who opposed him was supported principally, by mercenary foreigners—adventurers collected from every country in Europe. Miguel's claim to the throne of Portugal was supported, not only by the constituted authorities of the Portuguese
296
nation, but by the willing submission, to his rule, of the whole nation. If Don Miguel "ere not a king de jure, as well as de facto, there was no king in Europe that was entitled to be considered as a king de jure. If he were a usurper, what, he would ask, was Leopold of Belgium? If Don Miguel were a usurper, what, he would ask, was Louis Philippe? He would not refer to other titles, which it might be treasonable in their Lordships to question, though he might say, that the reigning family in this country held their power through the recognition of Parliament, and Don Miguel held his by the same authority—that of the States of Portugal. He should conclude by giving his support to the Motion of his noble friend.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to make a few observations in reply. The noble Earl had stated, that Don Miguel's usurpation could not have been effected but for the presence of the English troops. Now, the fact was, that the troops were previously withdrawn. They were delayed some time by a right hon. Gentleman, then Ambassador in Lisbon, much to the dissatisfaction of the Government, but the usurpation did not commence till a considerable time after the troops were withdrawn. He considered the course of policy which the noble Earl ought to have adopted was, to discourage the contest of these two princes in Portugal, which could only lead to a contest between extreme opinions throughout the Peninsula; and, certainly, the noble Earl ought not to have suffered the contest to have proceeded to the present extremity. He did not mean to contend, that Don Pedro should have been prevented from invading Portugal in any case, or, if he had done so, by other means than what he called revolutionary means—by armies levied in the streets of London and Paris. If he could have invaded it from Brazil, or from any other country in which he had a footing, or even if he had conducted the invasion by inhabitants of Portugal, then certainly he should not wish for interference. He had complained, further, that when France invaded Portugal with a fleet, whether the demands she put forward were legal or illegal, this country ought, in the first instance, to have endeavoured to prevent a collision. With respect to the opinion of Sir W. Scott, to which he had referred, that was, he maintained, good law. The question of neutrality, he contended, was this, was

297
it right when his Majesty had declared his neutrality that his subjects should nut be enforced to adopt the same by his Majesty's Government? This was declared by the highest authorities to be the common law of the country. Nor was this all, for there was further means of preventing interference provided by the Foreign Enlistment Bill. But how had the Administration enforced this law? Not at all: and not only had they not. enforced that law, but they had taken measures to prevent its being enforced. The Government actually interfered with the Officers of the Customs, and forced them to give up the vessels, which, they, in execution of their duty, had seized. The noble Earl had referred to the case of a ship which was seized during his administration; but there was a great difference between these two cases, for, in that instance, the English Government did all they possibly could do, to satisfy Spain of their perfect neutrality; whilst, in the present instance, the conduct of the Government had a precisely opposite tendency. The noble Earl said, Spain had no right to complain. Now, he must differ from the noble Earl. The neutrality of Spain was exacted by this country upon the condition of our observing neutrality, and the compact had been broken. How stood the fact with regard to the manner in which Spain had fulfilled her engagements? Not one Spanish soldier had passed the frontier to the assistance of Don Miguel, while from this country from ten to twelve thousand men had from first to last been sent to swell the ranks of Don Pedro, and greatly to endanger the tranquillity of Spain herself. He thought it impossible to say, under the circumstances, that Spain had not a just ground of complaint. He considered that he had distinctly proved his case. The noble Earl said, the Motion was equivalent to a vote of censure; he was sorry the noble Earl regarded it in that light. It was no further a censure than this, that it declared the policy which the noble Earl had pursued in regard to Portugal to be wrong in their Lordships' opinion. If he thought the noble Earl had deserved censure, he should have been ready to declare that, and to ask their Lordships to agree with him in a direct manner. If the noble Earl considered his motion as one of censure, he was sorry for it. The whole tenor of his argument and of the proposed Address
298
was most respectful to the noble Earl—there was not an uncivil word in it. He would not have had the slightest hesitation ill moving for a vote of censure, instead of an Address to the Crown, if he had thought the present case one which called for such a course of proceeding.
Earl Greyrose to explain. The noble Duke had again repeated the charge of the Government interference with the Com-missioners of the Customs, to prevent the execution of the law. He had already answered that by reading the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and the Government only interfered for the protection of the Custom House Officers because those law officers declared the seizure to be illegal. The noble Duke wished to disclaim anything like an attempt to impute censure. Why, the whole tone of the argument and of the Address was censure—indeed in the Address the noble Duke had used the very word. All the explanation of the noble Duke had not, in his opinion, changed the character of the Motion. The noble Duke said, it was censure no further than as a declaration that the course of foreign policy pursued by him and his colleagues was injurious to our interests, and degrading to the honour of the country. Surely, after such an explanation, he could only consider the affirmation of the Motion as a censure, and as casting no slight stigma on the present Administration.
Their Lordships divided on the Duke of Wellington's Motion Contents 79; Not Contents 69:—Majority 10.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Norwich (Duke of Gordon)

Cumberland

Gloucester

Beverley

Beaufort

Mansfield

Newcastle

Liverpool

Northumberland

Longford

Wellington

Wicklow

MARQUESSES.

Belmore

Salisbury

Caledon

Bute

Rosslyn

Thomond

Limerick

Exeter

Powis

Cholmondeley

Lonsdale

Ailesbury

Verulam

Camden

Brownlow

EARLS.

Beauchamp

Abingdon

Eldon

Orkney

VISCOUNTS.

Dartmouth

Sidmouth

Delawarr

Gordon, (Aberdeen)

Bathurst

Beresford

299

Willoughby de Broke

Forrester

Colville

Bexley

Hay, (Kinnoul)

Penshurst (Strangford)

Dynevor

Feversham

BARONS.

Lyndhurst

Montague

Melros

Gage

Stuart de Rothsay

Saltersford

Wallace

Calthorpe

Wynford

De Dunstanville

Coventry

Rolle

Northwick

Bayning

BISHOPS.

Carbery

Bath and Wells

Dufferin

Bristol

Redesdale

Gloucester

Ellenborogh

Rochester

Arden

St. David's

Sheffield

Ossory

Manners

Exeter

Meldrum

TEILERS.

Colchester

Lord Kenyon

Clanbrassil, (Roden)

PAIRED OFF.

Ravensworth

Earl Malmsebury

Delamere

Duke of Rutland

List of the NOT CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Stafford

DUKES.

Byron

Sussex

Howland

Somerset

Gower

Richmond

Holland

Cleveland

Sundridge

MARQUESSES.

Foley

Lansdown

Suffield

Northampton

Lyttleton

Westminster

Dundas

Westmeath

Lilford

EARLS.

Dunally

Shrewsbury

Barham

Huntingdon

Clements

Suffolk

Gardner

Thanet

Lynedock

Tankerville

Hill

Hillsborough

Minster

Albemarle

Somerhill (Clanricarde)

Oxford

Cornwallis

Fife

Radnor

Rosebery

Cadogan

Sefton

Chichester

Chaworth (Earl of Meath)

Gosford

Grey

Howden

Morley

Panmure

Amherst

Poltimore

Ripon

Wenlock

Granville

Segrave

VISCOUNTS.

Templemore

St. Vincent

Dinorben

Melbourne

Cloncurry

BARONS.

BISHOP.

Dacre

Chichester

Stourton

TEILERS.

Berners

Lord Auckland

Paget

PAIRED OFF.

Howard of Effingham

Earl Durham

Petre

Earl Carlisle

Dormer