Sitting of 4 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, an Account of the Number of Persons Employed in the Port of London in the year 1832, with the Amount of their Salaries, Pay, and Allowances, and stating the Reductions made since 1819: also the Gross Revenue collected in the said Port in 1819 and 1832, and the Rate per Cent at which it was collected.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEECH, from Farnham, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.

CASE OF Mr. BEAMISH.
Sir Thomas Freemantlepresented a Petition from Mr. Beamish, who had been recently superannuated from the Navy Pay-office. The question arising upon this petition was not only interesting to this individual, but to the public at large, on account of the manner in which the superannuated pension list was filled up. The petition stated that he had been in his office for a period of twenty-seven years; he was appointed in the year 1805 to the situation of a clerk in the Navy Pay-office. During the last ten years of his service he had been at Plymouth, where he was at the head of the third class of clerks. At the time he entered into the public service there was an Order in Council, by which, after a service of a certain number of years, he would be entitled to a salary of 500 l. He had, in consequence of that expectation, married, and he had brought up a family of nine children. He found, however, that the promotion he had expected had never taken place, and, indeed, notwithstanding the rule of seniority, others had been promoted over his head. In the course of the last year, a list was sent down by the Lords of the Admiralty, and without any incapacity on his part he was superannuated. He complained of the compulsory superannuation, as he was both able and willing to perform all the duties of his office, and being so, he objected to thus being made a pensioner on the public. The petitioner had presented a memorial to the right hon. Gentleman, the Treasurer of the Navy, praying for restitution to his office, or that

373
the grounds of his superannuation might be stated—he had, in like manner, addressed other quarters, but failing in his objects, he had at last been compelled to appeal to that House to take his case into their consideration. This was the statement in the petition which he (Sir Thomas Freemantle) had undertaken to present, not with any view to cast a censure on the Government, but from a wish to assist the petitioner, if his case should allow of the interference of the House. He must say, that he should wish to know the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended the dismissal of this petitioner from active employment, and he expressed this wish without the slightest desire to interfere with the rights of the Crown in dismissing any of its public servants. The petitioner now received a pension. In his opinion there ought to be no pension granted but on the abolition of an office, or on account of the incapacity of an individual from length of service to continue in the discharge of his duties. None ought to be granted in the case of removal for misbehaviour. The petitioner did not come under any one of these heads. How then stood the question with regard to the public economy? The salary of the petitioner before his removal was 367 l. a-year. The individual who had replaced him, then, possessed a salary of 140 l. a-year, making a total of 507 l. The petitioner now received a pension of 226 l. a-year, the present possessor of his office a salary of 300 l. a-year, and a junior clerk a salary of 90 l. a-year, making together a sum of 616 l. a-year, leaving a balance of 109 l. against the country in consequence of the change. He was indebted to the clearness of the documents connected with the offices under the control of the Admiralty for his ability to make this statement; and if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of that department was now present, he should have his (Sir Thomas Freemantle's) best thanks for the perspicuity of these official papers. The clerks in the Navy Pay-office had in number amounted to seventy-seven last year. From that number twenty-five were to be deducted as transferred to the Admiralty, which left fifty-two for the duties of the Navy-Pay-office. The number in the present year appeared to be only forty-six, but six of the senior clerks were put upon the superannuation list, and six of the junior class were promoted
374
in their stead, so that there might be said to be twelve non-efficients added to the number, making the whole number fifty-eight, instead of fifty-two. The difference, therefore, especially remembering that there were six new appointments to fill up the vacancies occasioned by promotion of the six inferior clerks, was decidedly against the public. In the 7th page of the Estimate the expense of the last year was stated at 21,200 l., from which, if the salary of the twenty-five clerks transferred to the Admiralty were deducted, the amount would remain 16,080 l. In the Estimates of the present year, the expense of the present year was stated at 13,810 l., but to this was to be added a charge for the non-effectives of 1,829 l., and for the six newly-appointed clerks of 1,830 l., making altogether an annual expenditure of 17,469 l., a sum exceeding the expense of last year. These were the observations he had been led to make from the perusal of this petition. If the explanation offered by the right hon. Gentleman should be satisfactory, there would be an end to the matter; if not, the House would, no doubt, allow him to take the course which he might under the circumstances think fit.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncould but praise the temperate tone and manner in which the hon. Baronet had brought forward this question; but complained of his having introduced the subject of the Navy Estimates, on which, of course, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) was not prepared without notice to give any answer. He should confine himself in his remarks to the case of Mr. Beamish. It was not the least painful part of the task of a public man, to have to reconcile the conflicting duty of obedience to the public call for retrenchment, with that of a perfect attention to the feelings and comforts of individuals. It was perfectly true, that by the Order in Council of 1822, the petitioner had been deprived of his promotion; but that was a public Order, from which he was only a sufferer in common with others. The petitioner asserted, that on public grounds of economy, and on those of possessing capacity, zeal, and ability, to labour, he ought to have been continued in office, and ought to have been promoted. The House should see how that question stood. The Treasurer of the Navy was a person to whom large sums of money were intrusted

375
and who was responsible for the disposal of them by those under his directions. The petitioner had never come under his (Mr. P. Thomson's) observation, as he belonged to the department at Plymouth, so that he could have had no personal feeling in his removal, which was to be justified upon economical as well as upon general grounds. The actual saving by retrenchment in the department to which Mr. Beamish belonged, had amounted to 404 l., and his retirement was the only one made in which it had been necessary to use compulsion. There were five clerks at Plymouth, which cost 1,940 l. Subsequently to the change, and without super annuations, the expense was reduced to 1,386 l: to this sum were, however, to be added the superannuations, so that, the saving was not quite so great as it appeared by those figures. He was sorry to be obliged to state anything against the petitioner, but from the records in his office, and his own knowledge, he could say that Mr. Beamish, for personal reasons, could not have been retained with justice to the public service. He did not mean to impeach the petitioner's integrity—that was quite unimpeachable, but the minutes of the office showed that he had an infirmity of temper, accompanied by bodily infirmity also, which rendered him incapable of properly fulfilling his duties. Some of the allegations of the petition were so utterly void of foundation, that he could not help thinking that they were made in total ignorance of the fact. The individual complained of as having been appointed a clerk at 90 l. a-year after the dismissal of Mr. Beamish, had already served for two years as an extra clerk, and was in every way unobjectionable; that appointment also had nothing to do with the dismissal of Mr. Beamish. On the ground of economy, therefore, as well as in consideration of the public service, he should have been guilty had he not proceeded as he had done in the case of the petitioner.
Colonel Daviesfully acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any personal motive, in the dismissal of Mr. Beamish, but thought it a case of considerable hardship. He had been requested to support the petition, but did not see in what way a remedy could be applied.
Sir George Greybore testimony to the excellent private character of Mr. Beamish, who was one of his constituents. For a
376
great many years, he had discharged the duties of his situation, with satisfaction to the head of the department, and with advantage to the public.
Sir Edward Knatchbullthought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able to state some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, as a reason for his dismissal, after a service of twenty-seven years.
Mr. Humewas ready to support the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Freemantle) in a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the case, if he would bring the question forward in that shape. It was quite clear, that whenever the head of a department wished to remove one of the subordinates, nothing was more easy than to find a reason for it. In his (Mr. Hume's) judgment, no man could justly say that Mr. Beamish was unfit for the discharge of his duties, or for any new ones of the same kind which might be imposed upon him, and which he was ready to undertake, without the appointment of any new clerk, at 90 l. a-year. As it was, he was dismissed at once; and, after long service, deprived of every chance of promotion. The case was well worthy of further investigation.
Sir Thomas Freemantlebelieved that that right hon. Gentleman had been imposed upon, and did not well know what he was about when he dismissed the petitioner, whose case was one, not merely of severity, but in his view, of positive injustice. At the same time he imputed no blame to the right hon. Gentleman, beyond allowing himself to be ruled too much by the representations of others. He would contend, in spite of the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the case was one of great hardship, and it would be with him matter of very serious consideration whether or not he should submit to the House ulterior measures on the subject.
The Petition was laid upon the Table.

FOREIGN POLICY.
Lord Ebrington: Seeing my noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his place, I wish to put a question to him relative to an occurrence in another place. The question which I desire to put is this:—Does there exist on the part of his Majesty's Government any intention to alter the course of policy to be pursued with respect to the relations subsisting between this country and Portugal? I am aware that a Motion

377
upon this subject will regularly be brought under the consideration of the House by an hon. and gallant Officer on the other side, by means of a Motion, of which he gave notice yesterday; but I, nevertheless, think it essential that the House should be put in possession of the intentions of his Majesty's Government, and should receive from my noble friend an assurance on the subject. I am anxious to receive from my noble friend an assurance that no steps elsewhere taken will have the effect of influencing the policy of Ministers, until this House has had an opportunity of declaring its opinion upon a question regarding which it is as well entitled to express an opinion as the other branch of the Legislature. I repeat, that this House has as good a right as the other House of Parliament to express an opinion upon the foreign policy of this country; and I have every reason to believe, that when that opinion comes to be expressed, it will be found diametrically opposite to that of which we have heard in another quarter; and that not only does a majority of this House think so, but likewise a vast majority of the people who sent us here as Representatives. I consider it, therefore, essential that we should receive from my noble friend an assurance that there will be no change in our policy until this House has had an opportunity of declaring its sentiments. Not only does a difference exist between this House and another body on the question of foreign policy, but I am persuaded also, that differences exist upon several other questions of great magnitude and importance, involving the highest interests of the country; and that on this as well as on other questions, I entertain no doubt that we are sustained by a vast majority of the people of England.
Viscount Palmerston: During the period that we have had the honour to advise the Crown, we have with respect to Portugal, as with respect to all other matters of foreign and domestic policy, pursued that course which we thought most conducive to the interests of the country, and the dignity and honour of the Crown; and so long as we have the honour of performing the task of advising the Crown, we will not depart or swerve in the slightest degree from those principles which have hitherto governed our conduct.

CHINA TRADE.
Sir George Stauntonsaid, in bringing forward a question of
378
this nature, he laboured under the disadvantage of his Resolutions having been so long before Parliament, without his having had an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which they rested. He considered, however, that he was doing far better by bringing them forward at the present time, whilst the question was as yet sub judice between the East-Indian Directors and the Government, than if he brought them forward when the Government plan was finally arranged. The importance of the subject was evident by the fact that the private trade to China was fast increasing. There were now residing at Canton 142 British residents, and the private trade amounted to 25,000,000 dollars in the year, while that of the company was only 12,000,000 dollars. Last year there were thirty-seven vessels lying at one time at Linton, a small island on the coast, engaged in carrying on unmolested a contraband trade. That was a state of things not contemplated in 1813, and showed, that it was no longer a question whether the company should continue to have the monopoly of the trade. He felt satisfied, therefore, that a revision of our commercial arrangements with that country ought to take place. It could not be expected, that these conflicting parties would long live in harmony, nor could it be expected that either of them should be able to inspire the local authorities in China with respect, unless some higher power—some public representative were sent there to control both parties.—The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from several documents, and to comment upon them in support of this view; when, on the motion of Mr. Sheriff Humphery, the House was counted, and forty Members not being present, the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Dramatic Authors; Soap Duties.
Petitions presented. By Lord DUNDAS, from Heekmondwicke, against the Corn Laws; from Lotthouse, for Relief to the Dissenters in respect to Marriages, Registration, and Church Rates.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the University of Glasgow, for a Repeal of the Apothecaries Act.—By Earl GREY, from Glasgow, in favour of the Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill; from three Places, for an Extension of the Civil Rights of the Jews.—By the Lord CHANCELLOR, Earls GREY and ROSEBERY, and Lord SUFFLELD, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By Earl GREY, from a Methodist Congregation of South Shields, for the Abolition of Slavery upon just and equitable terms only.

COLONIAL SLAVERY.
Lord St. Vincentrose to present to their Lordships a petition of merchants, traders, planters, and others, relative to the West-India colonies, and expressing their disapprobation of the measures proposed in another place for the extinction of slavery. The

361
noble Lord stated, that as doubts had been expressed with respect to the planters' right of property in negroes, he would shortly state the manner in which that property had been established. The slave trade had existed as long back as the time of Queen Elizabeth, and in the reign of William 3rd an Act was passed to encourage the African trade, which, while it imposed a tax on almost every article of commerce, left the importation of negroes free of duty. In the 13th and 14th of George 3rd, a statute passed, encouraging foreigners, as well as the people of this country, to invest their money in colonial securities: specifying those securities to be "lands and slaves." Mortgages were effected upon the faith of that Act; and Parliament would not be acting justly if, in making arrangements for the liberation of the slaves, they neglected to give a fair consideration to the claims of both the mortgagees and the mortgagers. By the 58th of George 3rd, the manner in which these mortgages should be effected was particularly specified; and in another very important Act, he meant the Act of Registration, the right of property in slaves was expressly acknowledged. But it had been frequently said, in that House, that the West-India proprietors had no abstract right in slaves: now, he was at a loss to conceive what was meant by abstract right when put in opposition to the established law of the land. The Common-law and the Statute-law were the foundation of every description of property; but if they once admitted the doctrine of abstract right, where were they to stop? The whole fabric of society would be split to pieces if the wedge of abstract right were once entered into any part of it. It was not only in the colonies that the existence of slavery had been recognized by Act of Parliament; it existed in Scotland up to 1775, at which period it was abolished, as the preamble of the Act stated, not because of the grievances suffered by the bondsmen, or for the sake of principle, but for the sake of the owners of the mines to which these bondsmen were attached. This was a case of great importance, and he would leave their Lordships to apply it to the subject of colonial slavery. It was of great importance that whatever might be done by the Government with respect to the West Indies should not be considered by any party as an act of spoliation. There ought to be some fair rule by which
362
to estimate the value of the property of those colonies. He was aware that a calculation had been made, but he did not think, that that calculation was satisfactory either to the public or the planters. He admitted that but one opinion existed in the country with respect to the abolition of slavery, and the petitioners stated, that they had no wish to throw unnecessary obstacles in the way of the accomplishment of that object. Upon this point he was bound to do justice to the desires manifested by the colonial authorities, and particularly by the Assembly of Jamaica. They had always expressed a wish for the abolition of slavery, provided only that due attention was paid to their interests. It was of great importance that this country should have the co-operation of the colonial authorities in the arrangement of any plan for the abolition of slavery: for it was very much to be feared that it the British Legislature by a bold stroke dissolved the tie existing between the negroes and the proprietors, the slaves would no longer feel that respect and affection which they on many occasions evinced for their masters. He would propose that Commissioners should be appointed and sent out to the West Indies for the purpose of co-operating with the colonial authorities. By this means information of the greatest value could be collected, and plans suggested for the settlement of all the various and complicated interests involved in this arduous question. The noble Lord (after stating that in the fertile country of the West Indies, one day's work was sufficient to supply the negro with the means of subsistence for a week, and that consequently some greater stimulus than mere necessity was required to induce him to employ his time profitably to the country and his master) concluded by presenting the petition, which was read at length.
The Earl of Riponbegan by expressing his gratification at the manner in which ids noble friend had introduced the petition to their Lordships' notice. His noble friend, like the petitioners, was deeply interested in the result of this question, and he had expressed himself with a moderation, good sense, and good taste, highly creditable to himself. But there had been found persons, equally interested, who had not adopted the same moderate tone. He, therefore, hailed the temper manifested by his noble friend as one of

363
the most favourable omens with respect to the ultimate settlement of this difficult question. His noble friend had referred to a series of laws passed by the Legislature of this country, by which the right of property in slaves had been confirmed to those who had the misfortune—for so he (the Earl of Ripon) could not but consider it—of possessing them, and had urged that fact as a reason why the Legislature should not withdraw that species of property from them without giving full compensation. He would not then enter into the abstract question of the right of slavery, but could not help observing, that all the feelings of our nature, and all those principles which must be eternally true, declared, in fact recoiled, against identifying a property in lands or movables with an unrestricted right of possession over the labour, persons, and, if he considered the matter historically, he feared he might add, the lives, of their fellow-creatures. But though the best feelings of their nature were opposed to the recognition of such a species of property, he yet held that as the law of the land had created a right of property in negro slaves—as the State was a party and participator in its existence, it would be most unjust to exempt the State from its share of the consequences. If the Legislatures of former days had, acting as he asserted on most mistaken principles, thought it fitting, with a view to promote the commerce of the country, that all those natural feelings should be overlooked, and that an Act should be passed sanctioning aright of property in slaves, in common justice the State was bound to share in the expense of amending the ill effects of the enactments of its own Legislature. If, therefore, any measure for the abolition of slavery should come before their Lordships, it should be considered in reference to this fact and principle—that a national wrong required a national remedy—that is, that the nation should contribute towards compensating for a wrong inflicted by its own institutions. He had always felt, that though many most grievous and most revolting instances of the abuse of the authority of one man over another might be too easily cited, yet that it would be an act of great injustice to visit upon a community the crimes of a few, or even of more than a few, in getting rid of the parent system of all the evils. What he meant was, that the abuse of the authority
364
was the exception, and not the rule, and that, therefore, as the existence of slavery had a national and legislative sanction, that the Legislature and the nation should share in the burthens to individuals of its abolition; and that the proprietors of slaves, as a body, should not suffer for the bad acts of individuals. If any specific measure for the abolition of slavery should, in the course of the Session, come before him, he should be prepared to show, in detail, that the most careful examination of circumstances had led him to the conclusion, that the time, the period—which no mere human hand could have delayed—was arrived, when Parliament must of necessity deal with the question with a view to its final settlement. Experience had shown, as in other great questions which had in vain been staved off to the last moment, that the question of the total and permanent abolition of negro slavery had been blinked and delayed, till at length it had acquired a force from continued compression, which rendered it impossible longer to be trifled with. He should also be prepared to show, that Ministers had brought forward measures in reference to the condition of the negro population of our West-India colonies, not with a view to promoting the doctrines or opinions of any individual or party, but with a view to the safety of the colonies themselves, and of the interests of the public at large. The time was arrived for legislating in this spirit, and he was sure the House would approach the discussion of a measure purporting to be a final issue of the subject calmly and considerately, and with a determination to do justice to all parties, without injury to the interest of any class in the empire.
Lord Suffield, in presenting a petition for the abolition of slavery from Cork, wished to take the opportunity of saying a few words on what had fallen from the noble Earl. The noble Lord argued, that the British public, who had so long acquiesced in the robbery and murder which had been going on in the colonies, ought to share in the payment of the penalty. Provided that justice were done to the negro, the wrong-doer, and those who acquiesced in the wrong, they might settle the matter of compensation as they pleased. It would be waste of time to prove the existence of the evils which were inseparable from the present system. He denied the existence of a right of property

365
in man; it was contrary to reason, it was contrary to religion, it was contrary to the law of nature. But it was said, that the Acts of Parliament which had been passed upon this subject, proved the right of the owners of the slaves to consider them as their goods and chattels. To him it appeared to be quite the reverse. If the slaves were actually the goods and chattels of the planters, they would not have been so interfered with. The negroes were men—they had souls—they were responsible to their Creator. But how could they be responsible if they were not free agents? There was not a slave whose soul was not as dear to the Almighty, as the soul of any of their Lordships. Reverting to Acts of Parliament, he maintained that slavery never could be enacted. An Act depriving an innocent human being of his natural rights, without any equivalent, would be an Act destroying all law, and subverting all the principles of jurisprudence; the first object of which should be the security of the natural rights of human beings. What did Blackstone say in speaking of the absolute rights of human beings? "By the absolute rights of individuals, we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. But the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies; so that to maintain and regulate these is clearly a subsequent consideration."—"The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists perfectly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control,
366
unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free-will. "In many of the remarks which he (Lord Suffield) had heard on this subject, it was evident that the speeches confounded absolute rights with relative rights; the former not being the subject of law, while the latter were." The rights of the people of England, "Blackstone observed," may be reduced to three principal or primary articles—the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right of private property."—"The right of personal security consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation."—"Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law. "He now came to that part of the subject which related to the competence of Parliament to enact the slavery of human beings. On this point, Lord Chief Justice Holt said," the authority of Parliament is derived from the law, and if Parliament exceeds the law, its acts are wrongful and cannot be justified, any more than the acts of private persons." On that principle he denied the right of Parliament to enact slavery or to continue it, and to prove that this inference was not erroneous, he would remind their Lordships of what Blackstone said—"I have formerly observed, that pure and proper slavery does not, nay, cannot, subsist in England; such, I mean whereby an absolute and unlimited power is given to the master over the life and fortune of the slave. And, indeed, it is repugnant to reason and the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist anywhere." It was evident, therefore, that, so far from its being law, the abolition of natural rights would be an act of violence. And yet, in the colonies, acts were constantly tolerated, for the commission of which in this country a man would be hanged. Owners! Who were so much owners of property in the colonies as the negroes? A negro was the owner of himself. Who was most robbed in the colonies? The negro. He was robbed, not only of his body which was his property, but of the energies of his mind. If a

367
negro ran away for a couple of days to see his wife and children, on his return he was severely punished. He should like to see how an indictment for such an offence would be framed in this country. The criminal must be described as "an evil-disposed person, who did take, steal, and carry a way, himself, against the peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, his Crown, and dignity." Their Lordships might suppose that punishments for such acts never could occur in the colonies. His answer was, that it had occurred. Mr. Jeremie, who was now in an official employment in the Mauritius, stated that in 1815, a negro boy having run away to see his mother, the boy, when caught, was adjudged to be hanged for endeavouring to rob his master, and the mother was condemned, for receiving and cherishing him, to witness the punishment, and then to suffer unlimited imprisonment. It might be thought curious, that he should bring forward only one instance of this kind; but he was anxious to do away even, the possibility of such an instance ever occurring. The question was, were slaves goods? At any rate, they were stolen goods. He had been asked the other night by a noble Lord, who stole the horse? His answer was, that it did not signify; for, the real question was, whether the horse had been stolen or not. At the same time he perfectly concurred with the noble Lord, that those who had acquiesced in and countenanced the wrong, should partake of the penalty. With that question, however, he did not meddle. He advocated the right of the slave to be free. He did not desire then to enter into any other part of the case. Abundant opportunities would occur, if the Bill should ever reach their Lordships, of discussing the provisions of it. What he had been then using his best endeavours to show was—which ought, however, to be sufficiently notorious—that there could be no such thing as one man having a property in another. It had been argued, on the other side, that because they found a man a slave, and because he had been a slave many years, that, therefore, they were entitled to keep him in slavery. If any one of their Lordships were unjustly confined in a mad-house, it might as justly be argued that because he was found there, and because he had been there for some time, that therefore he was a lunatic. Such an argument hardly deserved an
368
answer. He repeated, that all men were born with certain natural rights; those rights might afterwards be modified for the general good; but no Legislature had a right to impose slavery on human beings. Guilty persons might be sentenced to slavery; but that was the exception, not the rule. No single individual, if innocent, could be justly made a slave of; and therefore no collection of individuals. He looked upon a negro in slavery as a plundered man, plundered of his most valuable possession, and entitled to restitution. As to the mode of restitution, and as to the way in which the burthen of restitution was to be shared, let that, as he had already observed, be settled between the doers of the wrong and those by whom the wrong had been countenanced.
The Duke of Wellington, in presenting a petition from the planters, merchants, mortgagees, and others, interested in the preservation of the British West-India colonies, said this petition was signed by 1,960 persons who contained among them some of the first bankers in the city of London. The object which they had in view in bringing the petition before their Lordships, was to draw their attention not only to the loss which they were about to sustain as individuals, but to the loss which would be sustained by the "great commerce" of the country in general. What he meant to say, was not to induce their Lordships not to pass the measure which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, but rather to induce them to proceed slowly, to proceed with deliberation, and above all, to proceed in concert with the Colonial Legislatures, in whatever measures might be adopted for the abolition of slavery. The petitioners stated the amount of the loss which they themselves would sustain by the proposed measure as well as that which would be sustained by the public (by the public he meant the public treasury), by the effects of it on the "great commerce" of the country. He considered that the colonies were worth to the country not less than 12,000,000 l. per annum, of which the public received in taxes not less than 5,000,000 l.; the proprietors had little more than 2,000,000 l. The remaining 5,000,000 l. were distributed between the manufacturers and shipping interest of the country. There were 240,000 tons of British shipping employed in this trade alone. Under such circumstances it was the duty of their Lordships,

369
as well as that of the Government, to proceed with caution, and to secure to the public those advantages under the new system which it now enjoyed, and that supremacy in commerce which he hoped no government in England would ever take any step to lose. In all other cases where the emancipation of slaves had been effected, it had been so effected in combination with some amelioration in the state of the country where it took place. In that manner the emancipation of the great body of the slaves in the United States had taken place. They had been emancipated because it was discovered that it was cheaper to employ free labourers. In the present case it was not so. They were now called upon to force upon the colonies a measure of emancipation, and to force it at the expense of the public, and at the expense of all the injury which it was likely to do to the West-India proprietors. It had been found in the United States that the two races of men could not live amicably together. From the first occupation of the West-India colonies down to the present time the question of slavery had always been a question of difficulty and danger. Over and over again it bad been the cause of insurrection. It had caused more difficulties and more evils than any other question whatever. At this moment it was not more certain than it was two centuries ago, that the black man could be brought to labour without that species of compulsion which was practicable only when he was in a state of slavery. It was still quite uncertain whether he could be brought to work for hire, if liberated, which after all, was the real question; and, therefore, it was necessary to be extremely cautious in their proceedings. It was impossible to carry the proposed measure into effect, without the concurrence of the local Legislatures. It was impossible to carry it into effect without incurring considerable expense; and all these circumstances rendered it necessary to proceed slowly, and take time for deliberation. He would earnestly entreat their Lordships never to lose sight of these considerations. There was another view of the question to which he must direct the attention of the House, arising from the state of society which existed in these islands. A large body of the proprietors lived in the West-Indies, in the midst of their slaves. Those persons were looking with the
370
greatest anxiety at all the proceedings of the Legislature on this subject; and he entreated their Lordships to carry those proprietors with them in whatever measure they might deem it advisable to carry, not only for the sake of the parties themselves, but for the sake of humanity; for the sake of those unfortunate persons for whose benefit they were about to legislate. If they should neglect these precautions—if they should leave out of the question the Legislatures of the respective colonies—and the feelings of the proprietors—if they should proceed with too great haste and with too little deliberation, and if they should neglect to provide the requisite compensation for the losses of the proprietors, he dreaded that scenes would occur which he should be sorry to see, similar to those which had taken place in some of the French colonies. He sincerely hoped that such scenes would not happen.
The Lord Chancellorrose to present a variety of petitions to the same effect. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the noble Duke had begged the question again and again. He would give an instance, without any sort of offence to the noble Duke, of the manner in which he had assumed facts. For example, the noble Duke assumed that 12,000,000 l. was the annual value derived from the West-Indies. He did not quarrel with that; it might be right—it might be wrong; but he would take it as the value of produce derived from the West-Indies. The noble Duke took it for granted, that because 5,000,000 l. was paid in duties on West-India produce; that it was paid from the West Indies, and paid by the West-India proprietors. It was however most undeniably so derived; this duty was paid on colonial produce; but the same sum would be paid into the revenue of this country, if the same duty were paid on sugar derived from other countries, but consumed in this country, and paid for by the consumer. It was the consumer who paid the duty. He would not say, that the consumer paid every farthing, because some part of the impost might be paid by the producer; that, however, would depend, in a great measure, upon the rise and fall of the markets; but the great bulk of the tax was paid by the consumer. As he was about to present a variety of petitions to the same effect as that presented by his

371
noble friend opposite, he could not let the opportunity pass of expressing his great satisfaction at the calm and temperate and liberal tone in which the noble Viscount, who had presented the first petition, had performed his duty towards those who had intrusted it to him. He thought, that the advice addressed by the noble Viscount to the Colonial Legislatures was most judicious for him to give, and would be most beneficial to them to adopt; and he also agreed with the noble Duke in thinking, that the more his Majesty's Government could carry the Colonial Legislatures with them in the settlement of the question, the better it would be; but he differed from the noble Duke when he maintained, that until and unless the Colonial Legislatures should act, it was unfit for the Legislature of this country to proceed. Still less could he admit, that it was impossible for the Government of this country to perform its duty as well towards the slave as the free man—as well towards the negro as his master—as well towards the colonies as to the mother country; and to redeem its pledges so often given. If driven by the inefficient or the deficient proceedings of the Colonial Legislatures, he conceived that his Majesty's Government ought themselves to perform that which was the duty of both. He could not help thinking that no course was more likely to lead the Colonial Legislatures to the performance of their duty than the adoption of the sound and temperate advice which he knew they never failed to receive from the West-India proprietors in this country; and nothing was more likely to induce them to listen to that advice than the certainty that the two Houses of Parliament adopted the same views, and were determined to see the question settled upon fair and just grounds, and within a reasonable time. When he said a reasonable time, he meant as speedily as possible. Let their Lordships depend upon it that the sending out those Resolutions, one of which had been happily adopted without a division in the House of Commons last night, would in itself greatly conduce to that most desirable object, a speedy settlement of the question. But as long as the opponents of that settlement fancied that they were protected in that House of Parliament, which notion he trusted their Lordships would speedily prevent them from indulging, the settlement could not be effected
372
in the most satisfactory way—namely, with the concurrence and co-operation of the West-India proprietors themselves. The noble and learned Lord then presented a petition signed by 3,292 females of Bradford, in Yorkshire; and forty-three other petitions, for the abolition of slavery.