Sitting of 11 June 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, an Account of all Sums received by the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, of the Thames River Pilots, in the year 1851, under the 4th George 4th, cap. 125, sec. 4, with the Names of the Licensed Pilots.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, an Account of the Public Income and Expenditure, during the years 1850, 1851, and 1832.
Petitions presented. By Mr. INGHAM, from South Shields, in favour of the Sea Apprenticeship Settlement Bill—By Mr. W. DUNCOMBE, from Malton, for the Repeal of the Duty on Malt, and against the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. PEASE, from several Places, against the General Register Bill.—By Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY, from Persons selling Spirits, Beer, &c., in Ireland, in favour of the Spirits, Wine, and Beer (Ireland Bill; from Horfield,

555
for Amending the Sale of Beer Act; and from the Prisoners for Debt in Gloucester County Gaol for an Inquiry into the State of that Prison.—By Mr. R. POTTER, from Manchester, against the Rating of Tenements Bill; and against the Highways Bill.

CHARGE AGAINST SIR THOMAS TROUBRIDGE.
Sir James Grahamrose to address the House.
Mr. Cobbettobjected to the hon. Member speaking on the adjourned debate.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he thought it was incumbent on him to state to the House, before it came to any decision on the subject, that he was in possession of certain facts, from an official source, which would entirely set aside the allegations of those who had signed the petition brought into the House by the hon. member for Oldham, upon the faith of whose assertions that hon Member had principally rested his case against the gallant accused.
Mr. Cobbett: The hon. Member had certainly seconded the adjournment of the debate, but he thought that he should first wait to see if any other hon. Member intended to speak on the question.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Oldham was not a very old Member, and therefore not very conversant with the practice of that House. If the hon. Member who wished to address the House, did so with the intention of communicating to the House information derived from official documents which would controvert any previous statement made to the House, that hon. Gentleman had an undoubted right to make such a statement before the House could be called upon to decide the question before it.
Sir James Grahamwas only desirous to make a statement of facts with which he had become acquainted in his official capacity, and he hoped before the House came to a decision he might be permitted to make them. The hon. member for Oldham had rested the charge of felony against the hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Troubridge) upon the testimony of two individuals of the names of Captain Owen and Mr. Edwards. It was rather remarkable that he had information of a singular kind relating to the characters of each of those persons from the Admiralty, which he thought it his duty to state to the House. The first name amongst those who had signed the petition was that of Captain Owen; and in laying before the House a statement of that officer's conduct and professional life he begged the House to bear in mind that he drew all his facts from official documents, at the
556
present moment preserved as records in the Admiralty. On investigating them he found that Captain Owen received his promotion in 1794 his certificate then stating him to be twenty-two years of age. In 1822, the Admiralty issued circulars requiring every officer to send in a return of the age he was at that time. He found on looking at Captain Owen's return that he stated himself to be forty-seven years and six months; now this would make him to have received his promotion at the age of nineteen and a half, in place of twenty-two years of age, as his certificate stated, so that one or both of the statements must be incorrect. He further found, that in 1795, while acting as Lieutenant with Captain Stanhope, he brought that officer before a Court-Martial upon a variety of charges, the principal of which was for fraudulent conduct in the management of the slops and unofficer like conduct. The Court were of opinion, upon consideration of all the charges, that they were frivolous, malicious, and perfectly unsupported, and tended much to subvert the discipline of the navy. Captain Stanhope, therefore, was most honourably acquitted. Captain Owen was afterwards, at the instance of Captain Elphinstone, brought before a Court-martial for behaving to Captain Stanhope in a most insulting manner, as well as to him (Captain Elphinstone); for sleeping on his watch; and for behaving riotously and in a most unofficer-like manner. The Court found him guilty of the first and last charges, and partly guilty of the others. Captain Owen was sentenced to be dismissed from the service. Upon an investigation of the manner in which he had been restored he found that great irregularity had taken place. The law as it then stood was, that no officer who had been dismissed from the service could be restored without an Order from the King in Council. Now he found that this regulation had not been complied with, the order for his restoration being signed by a single Lord of the Admiralty. He might be allowed to ask whether he had much right to complain of any irregularity." Another person who had signed the petition was a Mr. Edward Edwards. Now he found, on looking over the official documents, that he was a Midshipman in 1814, and on the 5th of January was tried before a Court-martial for behaving in an insulting manner to his Captain, and for riotous conduct. He was found guilty, and sentenced to be dismissed, and rendered for ever incapable of promotion in his Majesty's service.
Sir Edward Codringtonwould support the Motion for the rejection of the petition, conceiving the service to be rather injured than benefited by the conduct of the petitioners. Had there been twice the number of such officers in the list as the one now complained of, it would have been a great advantage to the country. He gave his testimony with great pleasure to the benefit the country had derived by the infraction of the Order in Council of 1806. He admired the address of the right hon. Baronet, and expressed his warm concurrence in that part of it which stated what was due to the son of such an officer as the late Sir Thomas Troubridge, feeling assured that if ever a reward was due to the posterity of any man, it was due to his. The present Sir Thomas Troubridge had been under his command, and he could say with great pleasure that in point of able and honourable conduct no man was his superior. But when the House considered who the persons were that endeavoured to throw dirt on the characters of these honourable Persons, it could come to but one conclusion. The gallant Admiral also defended the conduct of Captain Dacre and Sir James Yeo, and said, that even the Americans would do justice to the bravery of those officers. All officers were liable to accident, and to this the capture of Captain Dacre's vessel must be attributed. His mizen mast having been shot away, his ship was placed in such a position as to be exposed to the raking fire of the enemy, and this occasioned his defeat. The regulation was, no doubt, made to prevent early promotions, but periods had frequently occurred where there was a great dearth of officers, and then it was policy to break through them. He recollected an instance when the dearth of officers was so great that a purser had been called upon to keep watch, and was sent to cutout vessels. The country did not forget the services such men had rendered to them nor did they regret their promotion. He repeated the admiration he felt at the conduct of such officers as Sir Thomas Troubridge, and many others, who had been promoted over the heads of others. The service had no cause to regret the irregularity, nor could any officer feel the least jealousy on the subject when he contemplated the good that had resulted to his country from such a course. Under the regulations of the navy, no person could be a Lieutenant under the age of twenty, having first served six years as a Midshipman, which at sea was no trifling servitude;
558
and when the House considered, that he must then serve two years before he could be a Commander, und another year before he could be posted, which would make him twenty-three years of age, he did not think they would come to a conclusion that the individual could be very inexperienced. He had no doubt, however, that if a war broke out, they would be compelled to get rid of the regulations altogether if they went on to dismiss officers as they had been doing for some time past.
Captain Yorkesupported the Motion for the rejection of the petition on two grounds; the technical allegations of the petition were undoubtedly true, and the petition was respectfully worded; but at the end of it a gallant officer, and a Member of that House, was charged virtually with felony, although there was nothing in the body of the petition to support such a charge; secondly, the grievance complained of in the petition had been long ago remedied, and therefore there was nothing in the petition to grant. He thought the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett) if he had refrained from bringing forward such sweeping charges would have shown better taste than he had ever yet shown in that House. The charges he had made against Captain Dacre were most unfounded, as every person at all acquainted with that gallant officer was aware.
Sir Hussey Viviansaid, that, as a member of the service, he felt called upon to say a few words. He felt sorry to see a petition like the present brought under the notice of the House by an hon. Member who set himself up as a pattern of every thing that was pure and correct. He would undertake to say, that no Gentleman besides the hon. Member, out of the 658 Gentlemen sitting in that House, would have any other opinion with respect to this petition, than that it should be kicked out of the House. It was a most gross libel not only on the living but the dead. The hon. Member had said yesterday that the defeats during the American war had been the result of improper management. He had had the curiosity of looking into the works of that hon. Member, and by those he found that the hon. Member had but lately imbibed those sentiments. In 1814 the hon. Member attributed those defeats to the superiority of the American seamen. The petition should be rejected as frivolous and vexatious.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that, after the severe shots which had been fired against him, he

559
felt called upon not only to say something in his own defence, but of that also of the petition. Nobody denied the existence of these malpractices—nobody denied the technical correctness of the statements of the petition; indeed, the right hon. Baronet had admitted it, and had brought forward instances of the promotion of naval officers to prove that it was a general practice—showing promotions in violation of the law to be quite common ["No, no"] Well, then, it was a neglect of duty on the part of the Lords of the Admiralty, and that was set up as a defence of the course pursued towards the gallant Member against whom the petition had been presented. Why, if the present Lord Chancellor were charged with bribery—a thing, that in his opinion, was not at all likely to take place—would he be allowed to say, in extenuation of that offence, that such a line of conduct had been practised by the great and learned philosopher Lord Bacon? Such a defence at the present day would be ridiculed and laughed at. When he presented the petition yesterday, he had stated that he would not take upon himself to vouch for the accuracy of all its statements but that the believed them to be true. He did not moan to say it was proper on the part of any petitioner to apply such harsh terms, but when an hon. Member had such a petition put into his hands, what was he to do with it—must he either refuse to present it, or be answerable for every word it contained." Since Parliament had met the House had been told by a member of the Petition Committee, that a petitioner had no right to leave his petition to the House, and no right to have it printed. If, in addition to this, no petition was to be presented containing any words which the Member who presented it would not be answerable for, there would soon be an end to the presentation of petitions altogether. The Orders in Council had all been flagrantly violated by the practice to which the present petitioners referred. It had been said by the hon. Baronet opposite, that there was a scarcity of Lieutenants and officers at that period, but he (Mr. Cobbett) would refer to the papers then laid before the House to see in what that scarcity consisted. A Return was made in 1825 which purported to be a Return of the Midshipmen and Mates (the persons out of whom Lieutenants were made) who had passed their examinations, and had not been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in each year from 1804 to that time.
560
This return, then, of course, went back to 1806, the period at which the hon. Baronet, the member for Sandwich, was made a Lieutenant. What had the country then to pay? Why, it had to pay for 2,608 lieutenants, 1,488 of whom only were in service, leaving, therefore, 1,120 more than the service required, but which the country, notwithstanding, had to pay for. It was imperative to take this return to be true, because it came out of the Admiralty—the hon. Baronet's own office. The hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Troubridge) was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant—no doubt on account of the scarcity of Lieutenants—at a time when many midshipmen and mates who had served their time, and passed their examinations, were left without promotion. He would now like to put a question to the hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Cobbett) gave a list of names to the hon. Baronet, and asked him if he would have any objection to have those names printed and laid on the table of the House, among which were the names of the Lords of the Admiralty. The hon. Baronet replied, that at that time the frauds were notorious; and as those things were not practised now, it would be for him (Mr. C.) to consider whether it would be fit that he should now move for that which would show up those officers in the way that such a proceeding would do? He (Mr. Cobbett) had considered this, and had determined merely to present this petition, and there let it rest, but he could not do so now. The hon. Baronet added, that at that time there was a man at Somerset House whose business it was to forge, to fabricate, and—[Sir James Graham: Not to forge; I did not say forge.] It might be that the word "forge" had not been used, but certainly to make up and to fabricate certificates, for the purpose of getting naval officers and men promoted, &c. But did the hon. Baronet not know that that very man had been tried for that conduct, had been found guilty, put into the pillory, whipped and punished severely for it? Had not also every pensioner who had got into Greenwich Hospital through his instrumentality been turned out of that hospital? Did he not know, also, that every man who had received a pension through his means had had that pension withdrawn? But could the hon. Member say, that a single officer (and many there had been) who had been promoted through that man's interference.

561
fabricated certificates and workings, had been broken or reduced to the rank he had held before? Not one; and this was what animated him (Mr. C.) on the present occasion. It was the difference of conduct that was shown to men to that which was shown to officers. Many a man and many a woman had been punished severely for forging certificates even of their births; the men to whom he had alluded had been punished in the way he had stated, but the officers who had risen by these malpractices had been suffered to benefit by them, and thereby rendering justice a mockery. The motion for rejecting the petition, was not founded upon the assumption that the allegations it contained were false; and it would be, therefore, like flinging it back in the faces of the people. If the House laid it down as a law that hon. Members should be held responsible for the contents of every petition that was presented, it would go eventually to the exclusion of the privilege of petitioning altogether.
Mr. Harveydid not sec the same objections to the presentation of such a petition as had been made, because it not unfrequently happened that individuals suffered under a secret and undefined imputation of much greater amount than they could possibly endure, by the bringing forward of a charge in such a way as not to give full opportunity to have it rebutted. Looking at the circumstances in this point of view, he could not but congratulate the hon. and gallant Officer on the opportunity which had been afforded to him to negative the charges which had been brought against him. Had he (Mr. Harvey) been asked out of that House if he knew a gallant Officer, who was a Member of the House, and (the gallant Officer having been mentioned by name) that he was charged with having committed a forgery, he could not have avoided feeling a prejudice against the gallant Officer, which such a discussion as the present could not fail to have removed. But he thought it harsh and most unjust that any sentiment should be entertained towards the hon. Member who had presented the petition, after the discussion was concluded, other than that which was entertained towards the hon. and gallant Officer. And it should be borne in mind, that such Members of that House who were supposed, like the hon. member for Oldham, to represent particularly, but not exclusively, those classes whose employment was of a subordinate description—
562
that such hon. Members should have some allowances made to them for being called upon to present petitions from such parties. The discussion would also have the effect of showing that, although such practices as those alluded to had formerly existed to a considerable extent, yet that the Admiralty was found to have discountenanced the practice for many years, and that it was now discontinued. Whilst he differed from the opinion that no attention should be paid to the statements of those whose characters did not stand clear of taint, he could not subscribe to the doctrine, that the evidence of any man should be received without some degree of suspicion, who had himself been guilty of that which he charged against another, and yet came forward as a specimen of individual purity in his own character. And, without mixing up the hon. and gallant Member in the assumption, which he (Mr. Harvey) intended to be only general in its application, if it happened that any individual had, at an early period of his lifetime, committed himself in such a manner as had been described, he thought it was too much to say, that no reference should be made to the subsequent conduct of that individual, to his feats of bravery, and noble bearing against the enemies of his country, and especially when that individual had received the highest honour that could be attained, by being returned the Representative of a free Constituency.
Captain Elliottwas sorry to trouble the House at that late hour, but he had a duty to perform, both on his own account and on that of his brother officers. He would at once state, that the plan complained of was at the time a necessary one, for there were no other means of obtaining a proper supply of officers. He had looked a little into the subject since it had been brought before the House, and he found that in the six years previous to 1800 there had been 900 appointments to the rank of Lieutenant; and he further found that so great was the drain upon that rank, that at the end of six years it had only added 200 to the number of such officers; he further found, that during the first four of those six years, 900 had been appointed, out of which there were only nine names connected with the Aristocracy. So much for the statements of the hon. member for Oldham, that the system was for the exclusive benefit of the higher classes. So very great was the

563
dearth of officers, that in many instances Commanders were obliged to take common seamen from before the mast. In a ship in which he was serving, five seamen were promoted to the rank of officers, only one of whom did well; the rest behaved so badly that the Captain frequently said, "Give me boys, rather than drive me to the necessity of taking men from before the mast, however well behaved in that situation. He would defy the hon. member for Oldham, or any other Member, to produce one single instance of a ship being lost, or any other casually that had happened in consequence of the officer in command not being eligible on account of age; therefore that hon. Member ought not, either in justice or candour, to make use of such unfounded statements. As for the cruel and uncalled for, as well as untrue statement, in reference to his gallant friend Captain Dacre, he would only say, that he had served six years as Post-captain before he had the misfortune to be captured by the Americans. In 1806 the new regulations were promulgated, and they were most strictly carried into effect, as was proved by the results. The gallant Officer read from the regulations a clause, which stated that if any officer was promoted by a false certificate, he should, whatever rank he might have attained to, instantly on its being found out, be dismissed, and rendered incapable of ever again serving his Majesty. Therefore he considered that it was unfair in the hon. Member to take cases that occurred before these regulations came into effect. He had no hesitation in stating, that he was one of those who had been promoted in such a manner, and he was not ashamed to own it, as he was aware that by no other plan was it possible to recruit the service, except by taking common seamen. As a Member of that House, and as an officer, he complained of the conduct of the hon. member for Oldham. He was justified in calling these statements most unjust and foul charges. That was not the first time the hon. Member had indulged in such a course.—[Mr. Cobbett: Name!].—When the civil retirements were before the House, the hon. Member stated that an officer of high rank in one of the dock-yards was displaced in the vigour of life, in order to make way for the brother of a Cabinet Minister. Of course the House naturally concluded that the case was a recent one, and he and some other hon. Members called out for the name. Then, what was the surprise of the House, when they
564
found that the hon. Member had to go back twenty-seven years for his instance, which was, that Sir Charles Saxton had been dis placed to make way for the late Sir George Grey! Now, the facts of that case were these:—Sir George Grey, the brother of a Cabinet Minister now, was appointed to the situation in May, 1804, and Sir Charles Saxton applied to the Admiralty, in July, 1806, to be superannuated, on account of incompetency, age, and infirmities—having served his Majesty sixty-one years, and being at the time seventy-six years of age. This was the man who, according to the candid statements of the hon. Member, was in the full vigour of life. He trusted, that when the hon. Member arrived at that age, he would live longer to enjoy his vigour than did that hon. Baronet, for he died of old age in less than twelve months after. The successor to Sir Charles Saxton was a gentleman who possessed no family influence and no interest, excepting that to which, by his merits as an officer, he was entitled—he meant Captain Lobb. The hon. member for Oldham must have gone greatly out of his way for an instance, in order to throw a slur on the characters of two gallant officers, and make an attack on a nobleman now at the head of the Government, who, it was very well known, was far above his censure. He hoped the House would endeavour to put a stop to such a practice, for it was making the freedom of debate a means of calumniating individuals.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that the hon. member for Oldham appeared to think that any petition which was respectfully worded ought to be laid on the Table of the House. He, however, contended, that although the language might be respectful to the House, an hon. Member should use his discretion in not giving his sanction to any unfounded charge against an individual, Here the hon. Member had come forward and made a charge, if not of felony, at least of fraud, against an hon. and gallant Officer, although he admitted that he knew nothing of the facts of the case. The hon. Member had asked what would become of the right of petition, if the present petition were rejected? The right of petition certainly had not been much interfered with this Session at least, for more petitions had been presented this Session than during any previous one. Nearly 10,000 had been presented, and as for their quality, at no former period had greater licence been allowed. The House had, however, exercised a sound discretion in deputing to a Committee the examination

565
of those petitions, so that nothing should be published that contained matter offensive to any party. As to the attack on Captain Dacre, he would just remind the House of the condition to which that gallant Officer's vessel was reduced. In a few hours after she surrendered, there was four feet water in her hold; she was not surrendered, therefore, till she was in a most crippled condition. He would ask, after this, whether Captain Dacre could be accused of having sacrificed his ship? He should support the proposition to reject the Petition.
Colonel Evanssuggested to the hon. member for Oldham to withdraw the Petition. The right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had unnecessarily evinced a degree of soreness at the attack on an officer in the service, for he (Colonel Evans) thought that, so far from an officer's reputation being injured by such a discussion, it would be benefited. That was his opinion, as a general principle. As to the hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Thomas Troubridge), he admired his conduct, having had the honour of serving with him during the war. And he also thought that gallant Officer entitled to some regard from the great merits of his father. The cause, however, of his addressing the House was, in consequence of having been requested by some of his constituents to do so. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the promotion of boys in the navy; he did not mean to complain of that; but he could assure him that in the army, promotions highly culpable had taken place. He did not make this observation with regard to himself, but as it related to brother officers, who had had young men placed over them after most arduous duty on their part.
Mr. Roebuckdid not wish to enter into the question of the character of naval officers, but he must say, that he thought the conduct of the hon. member for Oldham, in presenting the petition, was quite correct. He denied the responsibility of hon. Members for the statements in the petitions they presented. He trusted the House would pause before it rejected the petition.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that the hon. member for Bath, after he had been a little longer a Member of that House, would find that hon. Members were answerable for the statements in the petitions which they presented, more especially when they cast such calumnies as the present did upon the character of individuals. He admitted, that the representatives of the people were, in duty, bound to present the petitions of the
566
people to that House, but they were also bound to take care that no petition, were the means of conveying abroad calumny and slander. For the present petition such were the calumnies and slanders that it contained, that be should have no hesitation in throwing it upon the floor, and trampling upon it. With respect to the present petition, and with respect to the statement in a little work, called the "Ten Cardinal Virtues," he would recommend the hon. Member to exercise a little more public consistency, and pay a little more attention to such subjects, before he brought charges against men in that House, who stood far above him in all the relations as well as the distinctions of life.
Mr. Ruthvenwas as much indisposed as any man to receive petitions that could not be duly presented to the House, and he objected to the reception of the present petition, because it contained unbecoming language toward the gallant Officer opposite. He did not believe the statements made in the petition.
Admiral Flemingsaid, with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Oldham, of the number of Lieutenants out of employment, when his hon. friend (Sir Thomas Troubridge) was appointed a Lieutenant, that his hon. friend was then on the East-India station it was during the war; and he could assure the House, that he had often even in the time of peace, on the east and western coast, been in great want of officers.
Petition rejected.

KINGSTOWN RAILWAY—APPEAL.
Lord Oxmantown.rose to call the attention of the House to the petition respecting the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Bill, for the purpose of having it referred to a Select Committee up stairs. It was fortunate for him, in bringing forward this subject, to be under no necessity of touching on debateable ground. He was certain, that there were facts admitted on all hands, which would be quite sufficient to induce the House to accede to his Motion for inquiry on this subject. The facts were simply these—In 1831, an act was passed for the construction of a railway between Dublin and Kingstown. That work was now in progress, and 75,000 l. of the public money had been advanced on it. It would be completed whether this motion was agreed to or not; but the simple question was, whether it should be completed under advantageous or very disadvantageous circumstances. The parties

567
had felt it necessary to apply to the House to make changes in the line of railway laid down in 1831, in consequence of the change of circumstances that had taken place; and the question for the consideration of the House was, whether those circumstances would induce it to make any alteration in the Bill. The circumstances to which he referred were, first, that in 1831, two of the principal proprietors of the county through which the railroad was to pass, had resisted it, but since that period, they had changed their minds. In consequence of that, the line of railway, which was circuitous before, would be altered, considerably shortened, and a saving of several thousand pounds effected. The noble Lord concluded, by moving that the petition should be referred to a Select Committee of Appeal.
Mr. O' Connellrose to oppose the Motion. This concern was one of the greatest bubbles ever promulgated even in Ireland, a greater bubble than any of the canals, or even that of the St. Patrick Insurance Company, which had ruined so many people. He said this as Chairman of the committee which had sat upon the Bill. That Committee had reported, that the preamble of the Bill was not proved, although the agent for the Bill had had the audacity to tell the noble Lord that it had been proved. What the noble Lord ought to have done was, to have shown that the preamble had been proved, but he had not, because he could not do so. The Company was formed, in 1830, as a public Company, with the intention of getting the public money; and it was curious, that only eight days after the passing of the act in 1831, they had obtained an order from the Commissioners for 75,000 l. It was notorious, also, that out of forty members of which the Company originally consisted, eight were stockbrokers or notaries public. The surveyor employed on the part of the Bill, was averse to have it known to the Committee what his charges would be. He called this a professional secret. He was not, it appeared, sent over on account of the first bill—he was not imported there until after that; but one of his first charges on this job was 7,800 l. He would say. Heaven help the poor subscribers. The House should remember that it was exceedingly expensive and difficult for individuals to contend against joint-stock companies such as this; and the party who was chiefly interested in opposing this Bill, had been detained in town a long time at a considerable expense.
568
Talk of solicitation, he would say, he had never seen so much solicitation in his life—and it was a most annoying thing for Members to be so much pressed in cases wherein they were acting as jurors. If they were sworn, it would be then penal for them to be so pressed. The petitioners before the Committee had given up, point by point, until they struck at the shortest possible limit, in order that there might be a bill, and that they might have to charge for costs against the Company at large. He complained that the promoters of the Bill had published a garbled statement of the evidence here; they had suppressed four letters which formed part of the correspondence, two of which were of the utmost importance. The members of the Committee knew the situation of the place well, and could not be imposed upon. For himself he would declare, that it was one of the grossest bubbles that had ever been brought into that House. The second declaration of the petitioners was a recital that the money had been subscribed. But there was no particle of evidence in proof of that allegation, and the Committee had determined that the scheme was not likely to be beneficial to the public, nor likely to afford permanent employment on the line of road. Indeed, unless the House felt disposed to promote jobbing schemes in Ireland, he could not see how it could encourage the further progress of this matter, and satisfied with having done his duty, he should now leave the House to deal with it as he thought fit.
Mr. William Roche: The statement of ray hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin (who has just sat down), in reference to the non-production, by the promoters of the Bill, of formal or official proof of the actual payment of the 160,000 l. stated to have been already paid up, in furtherance of the existing railway, is quite correct. It was at my interposition that the promoters of the bill were afforded opportunity by the Committee, of establishing that point, prior to the Committee coming to a decision (which they were just then about to do) whether the preamble of this extension Bill had been sustained or not, in relation to which, such payment would form no immaterial feature. The parties (both promoters and opponents) were accordingly called in, but the promoters were not prepared with such official or legal proof, though I apprehend they offered collateral evidence, the regularity or sufficiency of which being disputed by the other side, precluded the Committee from admitting it. It may, therefore, have been

569
paid in point of fact, although the Committee could not take formal cognizance of it. If I may he permitted to say a few words on the merits of the matter, I should be disposed to observe that the impression, my mind arrived at, through the conflicting evidence and arguments adduced by the promoters and opponents of this Bill was, that, as regards the extension of the railway to the Dalkey Granite mountains, although probably attended with some advantage in facilitating the carriage, and consequently encouraging a demand for that article, yet that such prospective advantage was not likely to be of that magnitude, as to justify the required expense, and the inconvenience of interfering with Dunleary Asylum harbour, over which it was proposed to carry the road, and a considerable portion of which it would cut off from its present purposes; and, moreover, that there already existed a tram-road, from those quarries to Kingstown harbour, which, in consequence of the inclination of the ground, from the mountains to the harbour, answered sufficiently well all the purposes of a more regular railway. As regards, however, the twoother and secondary objects applied for, I entertained a different opinion—I mean, first, that for the shorter, the very short extension of the railway, from its present point of termination to the packet-station at Kingstown harbour—an extension which I conceived, would be equally beneficial to the harbour and to the railroad—an extension not exceeding, I believe, half a mile, and therefore, accomplishable at a small expense. The other point was, the power sought for to authorise an alteration or deviation in the present line of railroad from Dublin to Kingstown, which deviation would, it was represented, save the Company such a sum as 14,000 l., and furthermore, shorten and improve the whole line. These two last points, I was and am disposed to concede, as in my mind advantageous, without any concomitant injury.
Mr. John Talbotthought, that the undertaking would be of the greatest possible benefit. He believed that all the most material parts of the preamble of the Bill had been proved, though he was willing to admit, that it was not clearly proved, that the required portion of the shares had been subscribed for. One of the greatest evils that afflicted Ireland was, the wan, of capital and the consequent employment of labour, and as there had been, in his opinion, a primâ facie case made out in favour of this Bill, he thought it would be
570
unwise to reject it, as it would tend very much to discourage the employment of capital.
Colonel Conollysaid, that notwithstanding his connexion with the noble Lord, the proprietor of Kingstown, he felt no difficulty whatever in expressing an opinion on the subject, inasmuch as he considered the prosecution of the work as calculated to confer benefits on the public, totally extrinsic and independent of those which it might be supposed would accrue to the noble proprietor of the town. It appeared to him, that the mode in which hon. Members had argued the question was not the just and proper one, for a great deal had been said as to the judiciousness of the undertaking. Now, he considered, that the question with which the House had to deal was not whether the persons who engaged in the undertaking in 1831 had acted judiciously or not; but the subject matter for their consideration really was, whether now, when time had overcome many of the difficulties which at first existed—now that Lord Cloncurry and Sir Harcourt Lees had withdrawn their opposition—whether or no the railway was to be constructed, at a saving of 18,000 l., on the best possible site, or be constructed on the worst possible line, at an increased expense. He thought the construction of the railway would facilitate the export of stone, and also tend to lower the price of coal in the Dublin markets. By extending the line to the quarries, as proposed by the second Bill, the traffic of Dublin would be increased, and considerable employment afforded to the poor. The cost of coal would be diminished by the export of the stone—as many of the colliers, that now take in ballast of a different description, which is totally useless, would, if the railway were extended, return to the western coast freighted with granite blocks, for which they would find a ready market. He would not arrogate to himself the right of judging whether or no the first undertaking was deserving of national support; but this he would say, that the second Bill was calculated to make the line better than the former Bill. He thought he should be wrong, feeling as he did, were he not to state—and he trusted he was not incapacitated from expressing that opinion in consequence of being connected by blood with the noble proprietor of the town—he thought, he said, that, entertaining the feelings he did, he should be wrong were he not to state, that, in his opinion, the

571
extension of the work would be useful to the city of Dublin—would render the harbour of Kingstown of the utmost importance—and furnish employment to a large portion of the starving population of Ireland.
Mr. W. Wynnsaid, that the House was not now called upon to decide upon the merits of the proposed measure. The only question for the House to decide upon was, whether or not the Committee who had sat upon the Bill had done its duty. If there was any allegation that it had failed in that respect, or had refused to hear important evidence, there might be ground for appointing a Committee of Appeal but if the Committee had discharged its duty fairly and honestly (and he did not know of any allegation to the contrary), the House should be satisfied with its decision.
Mr. Shamfelt himself placed under rather peculiar circumstances with regard to the question. He was a member of the Committee, but was not able to bestow upon its duties as much attention as he desired. He was bound, however, to admit, that from such consideration as he had it in his power to give the subject, he was inclined to support the Bill, and had he been present at the vote which was now appealed from, he should have been in the minority. But he considered it a very different question whether or not the House would reverse the decision deliberately come to by the Committee—the intention of the House in passing the Resolution under which the appeal was made being clearly not to correct any error in judgment of a Committee sitting on a private Bill, but to control any impropriety in their conduct; and on principle he was always strongly opposed to withdrawing from the ordinary tribunal the decision of a case within its competency. Though his Judgment differed from that of the majority, he did not on that account feel justified in drawing their judgment into question. Nor was he prepared to give a vote condemnatory of and necessarily casting a censure upon, their proceedings. He was sorry so much feeling had been mixed with the case. The petition brought a charge of canvassing against the opponents of the Bill. Now he must say, that if solicitations to attend the Committee be properly termed canvassing, he found such made stronger on the part of the promoters of the Bill than on the other; but so far as regarded soliciting Members to give their
572
time and attention to any particular business, he could not consider that as improper. On the contrary he thought it the duty of the agents and others concerned on both sides; and certainly no person on either side presumed to canvass him in respect of his vote, nor he supposed any other Member, to vote or act in any other way than according to the best of their judgments upon the merits of the case as they might appear in evidence. Papers had been circulated, stating that accusations had been made against the promoters of the Bill, of which accusations he had never heard until he read the papers purporting to be a refutation of them. Another observation upon the case was, that the House would be going a great way in concluding the question in favour of the Bill, were they now to vote for an Appeal Committee, whereas on the other hand by refusing the appeal in any degree, they would prevent the promoters of the Bill from again bringing it forward at the commencement of the next Session. For the reasons he had stated, though he had been and was inclined to support the Bill, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote against granting an appeal.
Mr. Christopher Fitzsimonsaid, he had paid great attention to the whole evidence, and it was, his conscientious belief, that this work, if completed, would not be productive of public benefit. If any person could be benefited by it more than another, it was himself, because it would shorten the road from his property to the city of Dublin full seven miles.
Mr. Halcombesaid, that the petition stated, that evidence had been given by which the preamble of the Bill was fully proved, but that nevertheless the Committee decided, that it was not proved. The petition referred the House to the evidence, and maintained that the House was unable to come to a sound decision on the subject until the evidence taken before the Committee should be laid on the table.
Lord Oxmantown, in reply, observed that the petition stated, that certain members of the Committee had determined to throw out the Bill at all hazards ["Name"] He referred hon. Members to the petition for information on the subject. With respect to the charge brought against him by the hon. member for Dublin of not having attended the Committee regularly, he saw that the discussion was assuming so much of a party question, that he thought it useless to attend. The hon. and learned

573
Member said, that no affidavit was produced, showing that the money had been regularly paid up. He (Lord Oxmantown) held the affidavit in his hand, and it had been in the possession of the Committee's clerk. After the observations of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, who stated, that the only question for the House to decide was, whether the Committee had done its duty to the best of its ability; he should not go into the merits of the case, if the Speaker informed the House that the right hon. Gentleman's opinion was well founded; and not being prepared to impugn the conduct of the Committee, he should ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
The Speakerwas sure that the noble Lord did not mean that he (the Speaker) should give an opinion on the merits of the question before the House, but merely that he should endeavour, as far as his judgment went, to put the House in possession of his opinion of the origin and intention of this plan of referring the Petition to the Committee of Appeals. He took it for granted that it never was intended that this should be a new mode of trying the merits of any question: the only meaning could have been to give redress to persons complaining of irregularities before private Committees, by which the interests of the petitioners might be prejudiced. If the complaint were that the private Committee had come to a wrong decision, not owing to an erroneous judgment, but by misconduct—for instance, by the exclusion of material evidence, and that by such exclusion of evidence they had come to a premature decision on the case—the decision of the House, in referring the petition to the Committee of Appeals, would then be, not on the merits of the question, but on the conduct of the private Committee. That he took to be the question before the House. The merits of the case were out of the question; and it was not intended, by the vote of the House, to decide upon those merits, except in so far as they were in-involved in the culpability of the Committee.
Motion withdrawn.

MINISTERIAL, PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
On the Motion of Mr. Secretary Stanley, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Resolutions for Abolishing Slavery.
The Committee proceeded with the further consideration of the 4th Resolution—"That, towards the compensation
574
of the West-Indian proprietors, his Majesty be enabled to grant a sum not exceeding 20,000,000 l., to be appropriated as Parliament may hereafter think fit.
Mr. Robinsonbegged to congratulate the House, in the first instance, in having carried the principle, that slavery should be abolished in our colonies. He was confident that the effect of its abolition there would be remotely, if not very soon, the abolition of slavery also in the United States, and in other places where it at present existed. With regard to the question of compensation, which was the only one they had now to consider, he would say, certainly, that, taking into account the sacrifice which would be made by the West-India body, something would be undoubtedly due to them from the people of this country. He was glad that his Majesty's Ministers had adopted the plan of probationary instead of immediate emancipation. If the people of England were sincerely and zealously anxious for the accomplishment of the great object of the abolition of slavery, they should cheerfully pay that amount of compensation which was justly due for the sacrifice thereby occasioned to the properties and fortunes of individuals. Though, there might be no objection to the principle of compensation, there might be a great objection to the mode in which it was proposed that the money should be raised. He, for one would never object to bear his fair proportion, as an individual, of this burthen; but he feared that when the enthusiasm of the people of England on this sub ect subsided they would entertain different feelings, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be obliged to levy 800,000 l., or 1,000,000 l. per annum in the shape of additional taxes for the purpose of carrying this measure into effect As yet they had not had time to have the opinion of the people expressed with regard to the amount of compensation proposed. For his own art, he must protest against this revenue being raised by a tax upon consumable commodities. He did not see why this money should be raised by an additional duty on sugar, an article of such general use that it had almost become necessary of life. The result would be, that the burthen would principally fall upon the productive and industrious classes in this country, who were already suffering under over-taxation, and who were ill able to bear it. He trusted that the mode of raising this money, which would not be

575
decided by this resolution, would be hereafter, in the progress of the measure, more fairly adjusted. He gave has Majesty's Ministers sincere credit for having carried this measure so far towards its completion, and he hoped that no difficulties would be thrown in the way of its ultimate success.
Lord Althorpdid not rise to speak to the question generally on this occasion, but he was anxious to take the first opportunity to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Worcester. The hon. Member was right in saying that they were not now called upon to decide in what way this sum was to be raised—that was to be decided hereafter. If, however, the House should decide that a grant should be made they would be bound in some way or other to make that grant good. The hon. Member said, that generally the opinion of the people of England had not been expressed on this particular part of the question. Now, that opinion had been strongly expressed in the numerous petitions which had been presented to the House, in which the people stated their readiness to grant any sum of money which might be necessary to carry such a measure into effect. He felt confident that the people of this country, seeing the sacrifice which would be occasioned by carrying of this measure, would not object to the granting such an amount of compensation as that which was now proposed. It should be always recollected by the House that this money would be granted, and only would be paid, when this measure was actually carried into effect. They did not propose to grant this money to the West-Indian body, and then to leave it to the West-Indian Legislatures to carry the provisions of this measure into effect; the money was not only to be granted on the condition that the measure would be carried into effect, but it was not to be paid until after that condition had been fulfilled. He should not enter further into the general question at present, as, no doubt, he would be frequently called upon to address the Committee upon it during the course of the debate, but he had thought it necessary at once to apply himself, as he had done, to the observations of the hon. member for Worcester.
Mr. Charles Buller,though as desirous as any man for universal liberty, could not but consider that this was a question intimately interesting to the people, and it was the duty of every honest representative
576
to take care that not one farthing of additional burthen should be laid upon them—oppressed, heavily oppressed, as the people were already. It was most incumbent upon every honest representative to act strictly up to this principle now, when so little thought for the people seemed to be evinced by certain parties in the House. Indeed, he was perfectly astounded at the manner in which compensation was treated by both sides of the House. On the one side there was a readiness to confiscate the property of the planters on the other a disposition to squander the public money without a parallel. He also condemned the carelessness of the Government in the details of the pecuniary part of the plan. First the Colonial Secretary proposed a loan, then a gift. Then he named fifteen millions, and altered it to twenty. As to the colonists, indeed, he did not see why they might not ask twenty millions as wet as fifteen, or a hundred millions as twenty, for, from every appearance, they would find no difficulty in having their demands complied with by his Majesty's reformed and most economical Ministers: indeed, so liberal seemed the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the people's money, that he dared to say, the colonists would not have long to wait for their money, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has only to double the House and Window-duty and the Malt-tax, and they would be paid, principal and interest, in less than three years. He meant no offence to his Majesty's Government; but he could not help expressing his conscientious feeling that they were showing themselves to be the most dear friends of the colonists, subservient to all their wishes; so much so, that the present plan of Ministers was almost precisely that proposed by the colonists; indeed he should not be at all surprised, before the House rose to hear the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies get up and suggest the expediency of making the twenty millions fifty. He had been considerably surprised by the arguments of more than one Member on either side of the question, but, above all, he had been astounded at a speech made by the hon. member for Middlesex the other night—it was a most unhappy thing for the flock to be thus deserted by the shepherd's dog—he meant no offence by the expression. All he meant to convey was his sorrow, that a man "who had so long, like the hon. Member he mentioned, been the guardian of the people, should desert them on such an occasion as this. He

577
certainly had been petrified to hear the same hon. Member talk of twenty millions as a mere trifle, which the people would grant without the least difficulty—who had so often stickled for the saving of twenty pounds to the people. He (Mr. C. Buller) did not for a moment deny but that we were bound to make up to the West-India proprietors the full amount of beneficial right which we take from them by the measure; and however objectionable the property in slaves might be, abstractedly considered, yet as it was a property established by the laws of this country, we were bound to respect it. He approved of gradual emancipation, but partial compensation only ought to accompany gradual emancipation. Now he objected to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, because it gave full compensation, while the emancipation was only to be gradual. He thought that a less sum than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman might satisfy the planters. The hon. Member entered into a variety of details as to the value of slaves in the new and old colonies, to show that the compensation proposed was too much. If the planters were to give up their whole property, which was not proposed, the sum for compensation might be reasonable. The right hon. Secretary, in fact, was going to give the planters four times as much as their advocate, the hon. member for Kidderminster, was willing to accept, and had made, as the Representative of the public, a very bad bargain. He must also object to the mode in which that compensation was to be levied, by a tax on sugar, which he considered likely to prevent the beneficial effects of emancipation, and completely to destroy the cultivation of sugar. He should wish to propose, as an Amendment to the plan of the right hon. Secretary, that a more simple and pure adoption should take place of the Spanish system, and that the slaves should work out their own freedom, and pay for it by instalments. He knew, indeed, that his plan would not meet the views of the hon. member for Weymouth; but it had so many advantages that he could not avoid calling the attention of the House to it. If that plan were followed, according to his calculations, the planters would be fully compensated by four or five millions instead of fifteen. The hon. Member entered into a variety of calculations, to show that this would be the result; and that by it the whole of the saves might be emancipated in six years. If that were the case, if it were both more
578
economical and quicker in its operations, he thought a measure which would give the speediest relief to the slave, without doing any injustice to the master, ought to be adopted. It might, undoubtedly, be objected to this, as to every plan of gradual emancipation, that it was to a certain extent a continuation of slavery—but that objection applied to every species of gradual amelioration. Unless a Government were reformed by a bloody revolution, the improvement must be gradual, and every gradual improvement, whether in government or slavery, necessarily implied a retention for a time of many abuses. If he; spoke warmly, it was only out of respect for economy—an observance of which he considered essential; and economy was a virtue in which he thought the Ministers were deficient. He congratulated the House, that at length the fiat had gone forth for the Abolition of Slavery; that it was to proceed from that House, and that it was immediately to be begun. He did not contemplate the probable results with the same eyes as other hon. Members. He did not believe, that it was possible to make the black and white population harmonize together; and he looked forward, without apprehension, to the establishment in the West Indies of a dozen St. Domingos. The negroes would not work so much—they might not work for a master; but he believed that they would be well fed and happy. Whatever might be the results to the Islands—whatever might be the results to our commerce and shipping—it was the duty of the Legislature to effect emancipation, though it was equally its duty to accomplish that with the greatest advantage possible, both to England and the colonies—both to the planters and the slaves.
Mr. Prymeagreed in the principles of the right hon. Secretary's plan, but not in all the details, and he regretted that those details had been so much entered into, because that was calculated to promote delay. He considered that the right hon. Secretary's rate of compensation was too high. He had entered into a considerable number of calculations, and he believed that seventeen instead of twenty millions would be a full compensation to the planters, at the greatest value of their property. The planters were at present in great distress; but he was convinced a great part of that distress was caused by their own fault It was proved before the Committee which sat in 1807, that from

579
1795 to that time, the planters had gone on increasing the cultivation of sugar to a great extent, and had produced more than the demand would take off. He had examined with great care the tables of the imports and exports of the colonies for periods of five years; and he could say, that from the year 1761 down to 1807, there had been a gradual increase in the importation of negroes, with the single exception of the four years of the American War. The result of that was, that there was a continual over-importation of slaves till the slave trade was extinguished. To that he attributed part of the distress of the planters. With respect to the question of property in slaves, which had been mooted, he denied, that any laws or proclamations warranted the assertion made by the planter, that this country has recognised the present right of property in the slaves. He had examined the Acts and Proclamations referred to by the planters in support of their views, and he was bound to say, that they did not bear out that assertion. He admitted, that the laws had recognised the property of the planters in the slaves they had imported, but those laws never recognised any such property in the offspring of those slaves. There was a clause in the Registry Act which had been relied on by the planters as recognising even the right of property in the offspring. That clause said, that the offspring should have the benefits of registration as well as the parents. It was intended, therefore, to secure benefits to the children—not slavery. It was to guard against the clandestine importation of slaves, and to give the offspring of slaves the same right to this protection as their parents—it was not recognizing in the planters a right of property in that offspring. Where, he should like to know, was the money to be paid to the West-India planters to come from? Was it to come from the pockets of the people of England? Why, the people were on every hand calling out for relief from their present burthens—from the House and Window Duties—from the Malt-tax—in short, the cry throughout the country was for remission of existing taxes, and not for new impositions. The proposed increase of the duty on sugar was very impolitic, and would tend to limit its consumption. It was a point with him to make himself acquainted, as minutely as possible, with the state of all classes of society; and he knew, that there was an increasing desire amongst the labouring
580
classes, to consume more sugar than they did—a desire which was only limited by the present high duties, and which would be effectually extinguished by the imposition of any additional tax. He hoped, therefore, the subject of compensation might be arranged without payment of so large a sum; and, at least, without increasing the present rates of duty on sugar.
Major Beauclerkdid not intend to trouble the House at any length. He regretted that he felt himself bound to vote against the proposition before the Committee, for he could not help giving the greatest possible credit to his Majesty's Ministers for the manly manner in which they had brought forward and grappled with the difficulties of this very difficult question. He could not, however, support a grant of 20,000,000 l., under existing circumstances. Not that he objected to the principle of compensation to the planters, but because they had not at present any means of ascertaining what sum would be a fair compensation for their loss. If the right hon. Gentleman were to come down, at the expiration of a year, or further definite time, after the plan had been commenced, and show the House what was the actual yearly loss sustained by the planters upon the cultivation of their estates, then he would not object to give them such an amount as would prove a fair compensation, even though that amount were to exceed 20,000,000 l. He could not also but object to the 12 years apprenticeship. It appeared to him to be open to great abuse, and he much feared that when this Bill was wafted across the Atlantic, and the enforcement of its regulations intrusted to the Houses of Assembly, apprenticeship would prove but another name for slavery, and that the Magistrates would be to the full as severe as the planters had hitherto proved. There were two means of making the negro work, either by wages or the lash; and if they took away the latter, they would not make him work without giving him the former. He had no doubt of the right hon. Secretary's conscientious belief in the practicability of the plan—but he could not consent to vote away twenty millions of the public money, unless Upon more detailed statements, and more distinct proof than they could at present obtain. If such were obtained he would not hesitate, for it was due to the planters, and to the honour of that House, to give the West-India proprietors fair compensation.
Viscount Sandonobserved, that he would not trespass upon the attention of the Committee for any great length of time. Many objections had been urged by hon. Gentlemen to others equally as honourable who were of opinion that the West-India planters had not a property in the slaves. Now, if they had not, whence came the first motion of compensation for the losses of the planters by the fact of the emancipation of the slaves? In his opinion, however, under the present circumstances, the more prudent course for all the parties interested to pursue, would be that of conciliation; for in any other case, neither could tell the consequences which might very speedily ensue. Surrounded as this great question was with difficulties, it must be evident to every one, that the Legislature was bound to proceed in the most cautious manner. A false step now committed could not be easily remedied, even at no very distant day. Many apprehensions were to be overcome in the case of the negro, as well as in that of the planter, and it was only to a gradual transition in the condition of either that the objects of both could be really and fairly accomplished. Suppose the compensation required for the planter was to be stated merely at seventeen millions and a-half, why, he would ask, would not the payment of that sum be considered as an extremely profitable bargain, if it could be made the means of securing an accommodation between the parties." Suppose a little increase would more easily secure it, ought much difficulty to prevail respecting it?" He would not object to the measure of compensation proposed to be given to the planters, provided it could be made apparent that such a sum as 20,000,000 l. would be sufficient to screen West-India property from loss. He did not believe it would, and he, therefore, considered that both in justice and common honesty, they ought to receive 25,000,000 l. for a less sum, he was convinced, would not save them harmless. The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Pryme) had calculated the loss at 17,500,000 l.; but he (Lord Sandon) should be able to show, that it could not be covered by any less sum than 25,000,000 l. The gross amount of West-India produce annually exported, was about 10,000,000 l., and that consumed in the colonies about 2,400,000 l. As they proposed to diminish a fourth of the labour, they would diminish the produce by one-fourth and thus in exports about 2,500,000 l. would be taken away from the West-India
582
proprietors. And what did they propose to give them in exchange? Twenty millions, which at 5l. Per cent. would produce only 1,000,000 l. Per annum; or, in another point of view, it might be considered that they were giving them only eight years' purchase. It was unjust, he contended, to inflict any such injury upon West-India property; but he sincerely regretted that the loan of 10,000,000 l., which the colonies had asked as a boon, had not been granted to them, as the effect of such a concession would have been, to conciliate the West-India proprietors, and obtain their co-operation in carrying this great experiment into proper effect. If the Government really wished for the assistance of that body (and without it their plan would be worth nothing), they should implore Parliament not to deal hardly with the planters.
Mr. Jerviswas perfectly ready to give to the West-India proprietors such just and fair compensation as they were really entitled to; but he would give them no more. He, however, could not understand how it was, that they laid claim to compensation as a matter of right, or that the Government were to give such a sum of the public money for the purchase of conciliation, at a period when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) absolutely refused to remit to the people of England any portion of the heavy taxation under which they suffered. If the people had been aware that slave emancipation was to be obtained at an expense like this to their own country, they most assuredly would have paused before they crowded the Table of that House with petitions on the subject. When they did know the means by which it was to be accomplished, he was satisfied in his own mind that many of them, if the opportunity were afforded to them, would revoke the appeals which they had made. But, after the Resolution they had passed, the House might be considered pledged to the abolition of slavery; and the only question that remained to be determined, was, what amount of compensation were the planters entitled to receive. They had not been fully informed upon this part of the case, nor had it been stated how, or by what means, such a sum as that proposed to be given was to be raised. But it should not be forgotten, that compensation was to be made, and a large sum raised at a time when the noble Lord refused to take off the Malt-duty, or the House and Window-tax, without a substitute like the Property

583
tax, the country being as averse from one us from the other. At first, the right hon. Secretary, no doubt after full deliberation and inquiry, thought a loan of 15,000,000 l. would have been enough to work out slavery; but what was now his proposition? Why, that they should grant 20,000,000 l., not, it should be homo in mind, as a loan, but as a gift, for this same purpose. He, however, supposed the object of the right hon. Secretary to be merely to ascertain the feeling of the House; but as well might the Government lavish millions of the public money in conciliating hon. Members on that side of the House towards their measures, as purchase the co-operation of the West India proprietors. If they were to give 5,000,000 l. away for such a purpose, he repeated they might just as well go back to the old rotten-borough system. This plan had been described by the right hon. Secretary as a great experiment, but he (Mr. Jervis) wished to know, if they would be acting wisely in giving the public money away before the experiment had been tried. Such a course seemed to him, he must confess, very like legislating in the dark. The noble Lord (Lord Sandon) had said, that the colonies would sustain a loss of 1,500,000 l. But how stood the fact? Why, that although there might be a loss of 1,500,000 l. for twelve years, the West India proprietors would obtain in perpetuity 1,000,000 l. annually; so that, instead of being losers, they would be immense gainers by the bargain. The right hon. Secretary, and others, also contended, that the abolition of slavery would be an advantage to the planters; that free labour was cheaper than slave labour; and therefore they were now called upon to pay the planter for conferring a benefit on him. Although, as he had said before, he was desirous that all just and proper compensation should be given to the planters, he must object to the public money being disposed of, without inquiry as to the amount of injury which West-India property was likely to sustain by the measure. That should be made out clearly before they voted one sixpence. It had been said, that the mortgagees of colonial property would be losers; but the evidence which had been taken on that head went to prove, that no injustice whatever would be done to them further than obliging them to receive back their principal, and relinquish a high rate of interest. By the present system it was
584
well known, that by means of agency, brokerage, and other incidents, they got as much as 25 per cent upon their capital. It could not be denied that, for the money which they had advanced, they obtained very large profits. The effect of the Government plan would be to burthen this country with 1,000,000 l. a-year more. But where was the prospect of their being able to raise such a sum? The people of England called out in vain for a reduction of taxes, but the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) told them that he could not take off" a single shilling, without endangering the public credit; and yet, with this fact before them, the right hon. Gentleman proposed adding to the burthens of the country in order to buy the cooperation of the planters. He could not concur in the policy which the right hon. Gentleman had adopted in this particular, and therefore he must vote against his proposition.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that two attacks had been made upon the Government that evening, the latter of which he felt himself called upon to lose no time in noticing. In the early stages of the discussion, one class of reasoners had professed the most extraordinary anxiety to see the termination of slavery, professing at the same time the most violent attachment to liberty in the abstract, but wishing justice to be done to all parties; but he was afraid, that if the slaves had depended on their exertions for their emancipation, they would have experienced but little advantage. It had now met the opposition of a class of persons adopting a similar style of reasoning, though professing to take a different view of the question. These latter individuals had not the least objection to compensation in the abstract, though they were ready enough to find objections to any particular application. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed to belong to this class of reasoners; for, while he professed his willingness to grant compensation in the abstract, he evinced no desire to satisfy those whom it was no less the duty, than the interest of that House, to coneiliate. He did not doubt that compensation in the abstract ought to be given; but, agreeing with those who thought the advantage of the planters would be promoted by free labour, he seemed to imagine that they were the parties by whom it ought to be paid. The calculations into which the hon. Gentleman had entered, were, to him (Mr. Stanley), altogether unintelligible; for he was

585
unable to comprehend how they could at the same time diminish the value and security of West-India property, and confer a benefit on the planter. The hon. Member had said, that the House was about to legislate in the dark, without inquiry. He (Mr. Stanley) did not think, that the speech of the hon. Gentleman would very much enlighten the country upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman had said, that free labour would be cheaper than slave labour, and that the planters ought to make a compensation. That argument had been before stated and refuted. It might be cheaper to hire horses than to keep them but was he to follow the directions of a friend who might say, "Give your own horses to me, that you may use hired horses, and give me a compensation into the bargain, for informing you how you may get your work done cheap." It was said, that by the Resolution which had passed the other night, the termination of slavery was inevitable. He acquiesced in that proposition, and he said boldly to the House: "You have carried the question of slavery, the question for the House and the country to decide is, whether you will carry it consistently with honesty." It had at one time entered into the contemplation of Government to separate the question of slavery from the details, and make two distinct measures; but they were deterred from that course, by the possibility that one measure might pass the House of Commons, and that by some means or other, the other measure might miscarry. They therefore determined, that the same packet which carried out the Resolutions, pledging the House of Commons to the termination of slavery, should also carry out a pledge that the termination of slavery should be accompanied with a due regard to the interests of the proprietors. He should, indeed, feel great remorse, if he could believe that, after consenting to the first Resolution, the House would negative the other Resolutions. It was said, that if the country had known that this large sum of money must be paid, there would not have been so many petitions upon the subject. It was incorrect, it would be an injustice to the people of England, to say, that the moral and religious feeling which had led them to advocate the abolition of slavery could have been turned aside by any pecuniary considerations; and the question which the Committee had now to resolve was, whether or not they would render the paper on which the Resolutions were
586
written mere waste, or convert it into a real and practical purpose Of those who objected to compensation as a means of conciliating the West-India proprietors, he would ask whether they had never heard of such a thing as purchasing the good will of premises to obtain a particular object." It was his firm opinion that if they could purchase the co-operation of the colonists for 2,000,000 l, 3,000,000 l., or even. 5,000,000 l., in carrying this great measure into effect, the money would be judiciously laid out, for might not their assistance be a great advantage to this country, and at the same time prevent an effusion of blood? They must all be aware that without conciliation the colonies would obstinately resist any' plan the Government might propose for their adoption; but if they were only to take into consideration the value of the slaves to be liberated, they must be convinced that the compensation proposed to be given was not too great. It should be recollected that when he asked for a loan of 15,000,000 l. for the planters he intended that it should be repaid out of the wages of the negro; and that in addition to this the slave would have to pay by instalments the price that might be set upon him by his master. with reference to this country he granted, that nothing more than a loan was at first contemplated; but with regard to the colonies the proposition amounted to an actual grant of 15,000,000 l. There was nothing inconsistent between the first and last propositions which he had made. The hon. Gentleman thought the alteration which he had made in his proposition with respect to compensation was put forward merely to feel the pulse of the House. But was there anything unusual in Government endeavouring to ascertain the feeling of Parliament upon a question so gigantic, so encompassed with difficulties, and with respect to which there were so many conflicting and irreconcilable opinions as this? He was sure that there was not, and he should be borne out by facts when he asserted, that no measure of any importance had ever passed through the Legislature without in its progress concessions being made to parties on the one side and the other, for the purpose of conciliation, as bad been made on the present occasion. The increase of the compensation was no secret to the country, but was openly proposed upon the ground of fairness and justice. Upon further calculations the Government saw, that an additional

587
5,000,000 l. would be more likely to secure to them the object which was so desirable, the co-operation of the proprietors. The hon. member for Cambridge thought the Sum of 20,000,000 l. too large, and made the proper amount according to his own calculations, 17,500,000 l. But the hon. Member forgot that in the plan the planter was deprived of one-fourth the value of his slaves, while he was left with the burthen of supporting the whole. This would appear more clearly in putting the case of four slaves, and supposing that you took one away instead of taking one-fourth of a slave's labour. When they had taken away the labour of one slave, did they leave the master only three to support? No; he had to provide for the whole four. It was, therefore, a fallacy to calculate upon the principle that they were only depriving the master of one-fourth. There was, it was said, a great probability that the apprenticeship would end in less than twelve years, and he believed that there was good ground in many instances for expecting that such would be the result; yet he thought it right to calculate upon the whole period, lest they should be disappointed in those expectations. When the Government were accused of not having made precisely accurate calculations upon the subject, he begged the House to recollect the extreme difference of opinion which prevailed with respect to the value of the slaves; for instance, the hon. member for Liskeard estimated them at only 4,000,000 l., while the first claim made by the West-Indian interest was for no less a sum than 44,000,000 l. He admitted, therefore, that there was a difficulty of ascertaining the actual value of the slave to within 5l. a-head, and if it should turn out that the value was 45 l. instead of 40 l. then, according to the calculation of the hon. member for Cambridge, the amount of compensation would be 20,000,000 l. With all possible desire to be saving of the public money, he must say, that this was not a case in which to indulge parsimonious economy. If a majority should be found to defeat the proposition before the Committee, they would not only commit an act of injustice to the West-India proprietors, but run the risk of defeating the whole plan, and, he believed, that before many years passed over they would learn, by fatal and bloody experience, that they had consulted a false and pitiful economy in reducing the proposed grant.
Mr. Richard Pottersaid, he felt as great
588
a wish as any Gentleman for the abolition of colonial slavery, but he could not consent to purchase it at so high a price as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. At a time when the country was so anxious and pressing for a reduction of taxes, what would be their feelings when they learned that a considerable addition must be made to their burthens, if the plan proposed was adopted; for, in addition to the grant to the planters of the enormous sum of 20,000,000 l., the next Resolution contemplated the establishment of stipendiary Magistrates, and a police force, as well as a system for the moral and religious education of the negroes, when free. These establishments would require a considerable sum, in addition to the interest of the 20,000,000 l., and would entail, he felt convinced, an annual expenditure of considerably more than 1,000,000 l. He was sure this would create great discontent in the country, and ought to be opposed. If the original plan of granting a loan of 15,000,000 l., with proper security could be carried into effect, he would say let the planters have the money; if not, he should prefer the abolition of slavery to be effected by an Act, declaring that the children of the negroes, born after a period to be fixed by Parliament, should be free.
Mr. Clayhad been favourably situated for ascertaining the opinions of a great number of persons on this subject, and he could assert, that the people of this country never contemplated emancipation unaccompanied by compensation to the planters. The West-Indian proprietors had no claim against the negroes, but they had against the mother country. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary as to the necessity of granting emancipation, and also in the opinion that emancipation ought not to take place without compensation. He would go further, and say that compensation ought not to be dealt out with a niggardly hand. On the contrary, he would assert, that the country had no right to indulge in the luxury of doing good at the expense of others. There was one branch of the subject which had not been alluded to, but which was of paramount importance to the people of England. He would grant a liberal compensation to the West-Indian planters, but, in return, he demanded that the colonial trade should be relieved from the shackles which were imposed upon it. The sugar refiners of this country were at present nearly overwhelmed with ruin, from no other cause

589
than being compelled to use only sugar which was produced in the British colonies, which being of a higher price than the sugar on the continent, the consequence was, that the continental manufacturers were displacing us in all the markets of Europe. The people of this country were paying not less than 1,500,000 l. a-year in consequence of the monopoly enjoyed by the colonists. The quantity of sugar refined last year, and exported, amounted to 4,50,000 cwt., and unless he was much misinformed, the crop for the present year, as compared with that of last year, was exported to exhibit a deficiency of about that quantity. Now, let the House consider the situation in which not only the sugar refiners but the people of this country were placed under these circumstances. In consequence of the monopoly the sugar refiners would be compelled to come into the market, where there was only a sufficient quantity for home; consumption; and thus the price would be raised to the people of England. He would state a circumstance to illustrate the manner in which the monopoly worked. Last week some porto Rico sugar, which any one acquainted with the subject knew was precisely the same as that called Muscovado sugar, which was used by the refiners, sold in the city for 22 s. per cwt., and at the same time English colonial sugar was selling for not less than 29 s. per cwt. Here was an actual loss of 7s. per cwt. to the English consumer in consequence of the monopoly, which upon 4,50,000 cwt., the quantity refined and exported last year, amounted to a gross annual loss of 1,500,000 l. Relief from this monopoly would be cheaply purchased by granting the West-India proprietors the full amount of the compensation proposed by the right hon. Secretary. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some explanations as to the intentions of Government on this point, for his vote would be biassed by the determination of Ministers, as to continuing or destroying this monopoly.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had last night stated, that no sum should be paid to the planters, until the whole of the proposed regulations were carried into effect. He (Mr. Buxton) presumed that that meant until the apprenticeships had expired. His object was, if possible, to reduce the term of those apprenticeships. There was one point on which they must all agree—namely, that; the sooner the negro mind could be brought; under the action of healthy motives, the
590
better. He was about to propose a mode, in addition to the compensation, which would induce the planters to exert themselves in order to produce that favorable impression on the negro mind. He proposed to move, as an Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, that half the amount of the compensation should not be paid until the period of the apprenticeship of the negroes had expired, and until the negroes were put in full possession of all the rights and privileges enjoyed by all other classes of his Majesty's subjects in the colonies. He cheerfully voted for the compensation to the planters; he knew that it would be greatly to the advantage of the negroes; but he should pay it still more cheerfully if he could accelerate the period when the negroes would be free labourers, and would enjoy free wages. The planter had it greatly in his power to advance or to retard the civilization of the negro. If he confined the negro to day labour, there would be little hope that more advance would take place than had occurred during the last two centuries; but if the planter chose to pursue another course there was no doubt that he might speedily improve the negro mind. Feeling that the Amendment to which he had adverted would act as a powerful stimulus on the planter, he now begged leave to propose it.
Mr. Godsoncongratulated the House upon the prospect of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion of this important question, and was glad to find, that in the end the planters were to be the subjects of a word of kindness from the; hon. member for weymouth. He believed that the term of apprenticeships would be much shorter than that named by the right hon. Secretary; for, as the hon. member for Weymouth and those who acted under him would never cease to agitate the colonies while an apprentice remained, he thought that two or three years would be the longest terra they would have to serve, as their masters would be very glad to be relieved from them. About Christmas twelvemonth, probably, in Jamaica the whole of the apprenticeships would be at an end. The grant now proposed would enable the planter's to effect this, if, as he expected, they should receive the additional assistance of votes of credit; he did not mean to be advanced to the planters, but to be employed upon the necessary internal improvement of the colony. The news of the proposed measures in that colony had already been attended with good effect, in

591
the expectation that the mother country was to act in union with the Legislative Assemblies. In one of the papers last received, the opinion of the colony was thus expressed. On one point we cannot resist the expression of our gratification: Lords Grey and Brougham have admitted our slaves to be property, and are talking of raising a loan of thirty millions sterling, to compensate the owner. This is a great point gained; and although it is evident the British Government can only Day 6s. 8d. in the 1l., we are willing to receive it, and to join cordially in her views, to encourage any regulations for the future benefit of the planter as well as the slaves.' In another paper it was asserted that if injustice was done them, the colonists would remember that an Act of the British Parliament was not law until it had the sanction of the local Legislatures, and that if any attempt were made to force such law upon them they were bound to resist it to the utmost. This showed that, while the planters were willing to be conciliated, yet they were also determined to assert their rights. The elections which had recently taken place proved that, with proper treatment from the Mother Country, such a consummation of this great plan would soon be brought about as all men must wish to see.
Mr. Ewartentirely concurred in the opinions of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets. He was quite willing to grant compensation to the planter, on condition that that measure should be accompanied with a stipulation for the unrestricted liberty of commerce. Every day that we remained at peace, the removal of the West-India monopoly became not only more politic, but more indispensable; for if it were not removed, we should be unable long to compete in the market with foreign nations.
Mr. Rigby Wasonwas not disposed to give the planter a shilling in the form of compensation, until it was proved that a loss had been sustained. He utterly denied the validity of the arguments which had been urged on the subject upon a former night by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman; and he would endeavour to prove to the Committee that those arguments were entirely unfounded. The hon. Member quoted a variety of opinions to show that it had been held that compensation was not to be given to individuals for loss of property occasioned by a measure which was to promote the general
592
good, but the continued noise rendered the hon. Member nearly inaudible. He had a right to be heard; he insisted on attention, and unless he received it, he would move the adjournment of the House. After making several efforts to be heard, which were not very successful, the hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he would, at the proper time, move the following amendment:—

1. That every negro who shall register himself as an apprentice to the estate where he now resides, for the terms hereinafter mentioned, shall be free. If between the ages of seven and twelve, the terra of fourteen years; between twelve and fifteen, ten years; between fifteen and twenty, seven years; between twenty and twenty-five, five years; between twenty-five and upwards, five years, or for life, at option of negro.

2. That, at the expiration of such respective terms, the apprentice shall be at liberty to work wherever he pleases.

3. That his most gracious Majesty may appoint an officer in each of the colonies to act as police Magistrate and protector of apprentices.

4. That such officer shall fix the rate of wages to be paid to the apprentice, either as individuals or in classes, and shall also receive a portion of such wages for the maintenance of aged and infirm negroes.

5. That such officer shall have power to extend the respective terms of apprenticeship upon its being satisfactorily proved that the apprentice has neglected his work.

6. That such officer shall have power to advance to each proprietor, who shall request such advance, a weekly sum for the payment of wages, corresponding to the number of apprentices upon his estate.

7. That all such advances shall constitute the first lien upon the produce of the estate.

8. That the expense of such efficient police establishment as shall be recommended by the local legislature in each island shall be borne as follows; one-half by a tax on property in each island, the remainder out of the produce of sugar-duties paid in this country.

9. That such property-tax shall constitute the second lien upon the produce of the estate.

10. That the expense of a general system of moral and religious education shall be defrayed out of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church Establishment.

Lord Althorpcould easily imagine how those who agreed with the hon. member for Weymouth that the negro should be at once entirely emancipated without any probationary period of preparation, might consistently vote for that hon. Member's Amendment; but for the very same reason he could not see on what ground the advocates

593
—the large majority of that House—of a probationary period could justify his voting for that Amendment. The House had sanctioned the principle of a probationary period, as essential to the welfare of the slave himself before he was placed in a state of freedom.; it was therefore bound to provide that the period of probation be sufficiently prolonged to ensure the requisite fitness. The hon. Member's amendment reduced that period to a minimum; but if it were necessary at all, it should be duly apportioned as a means to the end they all had in view. He agreed with the hon. member (Mr. Clay) for the Tower Hamlets, that it was impossible the present restricted system of sugar refining could be persisted in. He was, indeed, free to admit, that the home consumption of sugar should he ensured to our West-India producer, but was also bound to admit, that the importation of foreign sugar for refining for exportation should not be as restricted as it was at present. It might be asked, why, then, had he not brought forward a measure to remove this impolitic restriction on the refining of foreign sugar? The answer was, that it would be inexpedient, as a question of time, till the West-India question was settled. With respect to the question more particularly before the House, he admitted that the sum proposed for compensation to the West-India proprietors was a large one; but as they were all agreed that some compensation should be afforded, and as it was of the most essential importance to the success of any plan of abolition that the colonial authorities should cordially co-operate in carrying its arrangements into effect, and as Ministers had been assured by the West-India interest, that it would so cordially co-operate if the present amount of compensation were given, and as, on the face of the matter, it was plain that that House, legislating there, could not possibly devise those laws and regulations of detail which would appear to the Colonial Legislature as expedient and necessary—he thought the House and the public would agree with him that they were not purchasing the assistance of the colonial authorities at too high a price. While the probationary period would guard the colonies and the negro himself against the danger, the bloodshed, and strife, consequent upon a sudden change from galling slavery to unrestricted freedom, this compensation would, he repeated, ensure them the cordial co-operation of the Colonial Legislatures; and surely such an end was
594
worth the sacrifice. It would indeed be unfortunate, that they should have proceeded so far in their career, and then stop short on a mere question of amount of compensation—that they should have passed a solemn resolution declaring that slavery should be at an end in the British colonies, and then deprive the Executive of the means of following up that Resolution to a practical conclusion. The amendment of the hon. member for Weymouth would produce this prejudicial effect. He therefore, need not say, that he should consider it as one of the most fatal the House could adopt, confident that the country would ratify the vote of compensation, us it would ensure them the cordial co-operation of the local legislatures to carrying its own beneficent views into actual operation.
Viscount Howick,in supporting the amendment of his hon. friend (Mr. Buxton), did not thereby mean to negative the principle of compensation. Neither did he mean to formally resist its actual amount—though he was satisfied it was much higher than was necessary, or than the West-India interest could have been brought to accede to—because he agreed with his noble friend as to the desirableness of their having the cordial aid of the local legislatures in carrying their views into effect. All that he wanted was, that they should not expend so large a sum of the public money without insuring the public the greatest advantages of the outlay. Now, he conceived the proposition of his hon. friend was well calculated to attain this end, as it went to make the payment of half of the compensation dependent upon the bonâ fide and perfect co-operation of the colonists with the decisions of that House. He could not admit to his noble friend, that this arrangement would necessarily minimize the period of probation; the planters had too great an interest in the apprenticeship system to shorten it more than Parliament would seem to think expedient. Indeed, the bias of the planter would naturally set so strongly on the other side—the prolonging the probationary period—that he thought it expedient that they should counteract it by the pecuniary motive implied by his hon. friend's Amendment.
Sir Robert Ingliscordially supported the Ministerial proposition, and would most willingly bear his share of the necessary burthen.
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorewould vote for the Motion, on the understanding that

595
the two questions, as to the duties on sugar, and the refining of sugar, should be considered open questions.
Colonel Evanssaid, that the country would view the proposition about the 20,000,000 l. with much more satisfaction, if preparatory measures had been adopted in the way of extensive reduction in the national expenditure. Such a sum as 20,000,000 l., under present circumstances, was perfectly preposterous, and he would move an amendment to that effect. [The Chairman informed the hon. and gallant Member, that there was already one amendment before the Committee.] He would postpone it then for the moment, but would, at the proper time, bring it forward for the adoption of the Committee.
Mr. Peasecould not consent to the vote then under the consideration of the Committee, when he remembered the circumstances under which it was proposed, and when, at the same time, he bore in mind, that, of necessity, it could not prove of any essential benefit to the West-India body. In his judgment, the House could not, with any propriety, agree to any plan of compensation until the great measure of abolition was carried into effect. If they thus agreed to compensation in the first instance, all the money would go into the hands of the mortgagees, and those who were the owners of slaves, would derive no advantage from the arrangement.
Mr. Baringrose to address the House which manifested great impatience. He said, that the House was often perfectly patient under the most lengthened arguments on the most trumpery salaries, and therefore he thought it was scarcely becoming in the House to manifest impatience when a sum of 20,000,000 l. was at stake. He could not help complaining that the promoters of the measure had not condescended to inform them in what manner the 20,000,000 l. was to be raised, or how distributed. He acknowledged that he had not heard any part of the previous debate, and therefore he should be glad to hear some explanation of the mode in which the acquirement of that money was to be effected, and when obtained, how it was to be disposed of [A laugh] Hon. Members might laugh, but he would contend that the matter under consideration was very serious. As he understood the arguments of the hon. Members on the other side, they amounted to this, that the planters would derive great eventual advantage from
596
the emancipation of the slaves, and yet they were most anxious, in addition to this benefit, to afford them compensation for some supposed loss. In his apprehension nothing could be more inconsistent with itself than was that argument. The present Resolution imposed upon the House and the country a very weighty obligation; and what he wanted to know was, how that obligation was to be fulfilled? All the public establishments of the country had been pared down to the lowest point—the Executive had reduced the revenue to the lowest possible point, and they had deprived themselves of the power of raising the revenue again, by consenting to the demands for reduction. He must protest against that mode of voting away the public money, and without any information from the Government as to the mode in which it was to be raised or distributed. He would not consent thus to have the money of the people voted away, though such vote might tend to pacify some Gentlemen connected with the West-India body. The right hon. Gentleman might have made his peace with the delegates of the West-India interest, but with that he (Mr. Baring) had nothing to do; he had nothing to do with any one but his constituents.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that he entertained great respect for the hon. member for Essex but he entertained still higher respect for the House, and was anxious to save its time. It had then been sitting from six o'clock till twelve; and, though the hon. member for Essex might have been very agreeably employed—more agree ably than in listening to debates in that House—yet perhaps it would have been more becoming in him to address himself to the matter really under consideration, than to treat it with such indecent levity. The hon. Gentleman had told them, that he wanted to know the arguments by which the promoters of the measure had supported their views: if he did feel such an anxiety upon the subject, he had much better have attended in his place, and have listened to the statements and observations made on that side of the House. He was sure the House would not consent that those arguments should be repeated, even if any one were disposed to indulge the hon. Member with the repetition of them. In the course of to-morrow, the greater part of their constituents would be made aware of all that had taken place that night upon the question before the House; and he really

597
must be allowed to refer the hon. Gentle man to the same channels of information through which the country at large was usually made acquainted with what took place in that House. The hon. member for Essex seemed to apprehend the worst consequences from the proposed measure. He would ask the hon. Member, was he serious in supposing that the granting or the denial of compensation would tend, the one to tranquillize, and the other to disturb and excite the monied, mercantile, and commercial portions of the community? As to the Colonial legislatures, he had only to observe, that no act would be done—no step taken—without giving them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments.
Mr. Briscoe, amidst loud cries of Question," objected to more than fifteen millions being granted, indeed, he thought eight or nine would be sufficient for the purpose. At the same time that he begged it to be understood that he was the advocate of a fair and liberal compensation.
The Committee divided on Mr. Fowell Buxton's Amendment: Ayes 142; Noes 277—Majority 135.
It also divided on Mr. Wason's Amendment: Ayes 21; Noes 383—Majority 362.
It also divided on Col. Evans's Amendment, that the mode of compensation should consist in lowering the duties on West-India produce: Ayes 22; Noes 346—Majority 324.
Mr. Briscoe Mr. Briscoe moved, that the words "Fifteen Millions" be substituted for "Twenty Millions."
The Committee again divided: Ayes 56; Noes 304—Majority 248.
The Committee then divided on the Original Resolution: Ayes 286; Noes 77—Majority 209.
Mr. Secretary Stanleystated, that the packet had been detained that it might carry out to the colonies the decision of Parliament on the propositions of Government, and he therefore felt bound to press the next Resolution:—"That his Majesty be enabled to defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient stipendiary magistracy in the colonies, and in aiding the local legislatures in providing for the religious and moral education of the negro population to be emancipated."
Mr. Baringobjected to any additional expense whatever.
Mr. Buxton, late as it was, must propose the introduction, in the latter part of the Resolution, of the words, "on liberal and comprehensive principles."
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that as it was not the wish of Government that any exclusive system of religious education should be adopted, he had no objection to the introduction of the proposed words.
The Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
Mr. Rigby Wasonproposed the following Resolution:—"That whatever expense may be incurred in carrying into effect the plan proposed by Government, shall be defrayed by a tax on property in this country."
Negatived without a division.
The House resumed. The Resolutions to be reported.

The AYES on Mr. Briscoe's Amendment (The fourth division).

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutt, W.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Baldwin, Dr.

Jervis, J.

Baring, A.

Kennedy, H.

Bellew, R. N.

King, E. B.

Blamire, W.

Lister, E. C.

Bowes, J.

Lloyd, J. H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Marshall, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Martin, J.

Buller, C.

Methuen, P.

Bulwer, H. L.

Parrott, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Pease, J.

Chandos, Viscount

Potter, R.

Chapman, M. L.

Pryme, G.

Collier, J.

Rippon, C.

Curteis, H. B.

Robinson, G. R.

Dick, Q.

Roche, W.

Evans, Colonel

Romilly, J.

Ewart, W.

Ruthven, E. S.

Fryer, R.

Ruthven, E.

Gaskell, D.

Seale, Colonel

Gillon, W. D.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Goring, H. D.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Gully, J.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Handley, Major

Walter, J.

Hardy, J.

PAIRED OFF.

Harland, W. C.

Nagle, Sir R.

Hawes, B.

O'Connell, M.

Hughes, H.

Scholefield, J.

The NOES on the Original Resolution (The last division).

Aglionby, H. A.

Chapman, M. L.

Baldwin, Dr.

Cobbett, W.

Baring, A.

Cornish, J.

Barry, G. S.

Curteis, H. B.

Bayntun, Captain

Dick, Q.

Bellew, R. N.

Don, O'Conor

Blake, M. J.

Evans, Colonel

Boss, Captain

Ewart, W.

Bowes, J.

Faithfull, G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Feilden, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Fitzsimon, C.

Buckingham, J. S.

Fitzsimon, N.

Bulwer, H. L.

Fryer, R.

Bulwer, E. L.

Gaskell, D.

Butler, Colonel

Gillon, W. D.

Chandos, Marquess

Goring, H. D.

599

Guest, J. J.

Philips, M.

Gully, J.

Potter, R.

Hall, B.

Pryme, G.

Hardy, J.

Richards, J.

Harland, W. C.

Rippon, C.

Hawes, B.

Robinson, G. R.

Hughes, H.

Roche, W.

Hutt, W.

Ronayne, D.

Jervis, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Kennedy, J.

Ruthven, E.

King, E. B.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Lister, E. C.

Thicknesse, R.

Lloyd, J. H.

Tooke, W.

Macnamara, W. N.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Marshall, J.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Marsland, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Methuen, P.

Walker, R.

Mills, J.

Walter, J.

O'Brien, C.

Wason, R.

O'Connell, D.

Watkins, J.

O'Connell, M.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Connell, J.

Wigney, I. N.

Parrott, J.

Yelverton, Hon. W.

Pease, J.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of GOSFORD, Lord WYNFORD, and a NOBLE LORD, from several Places,
554
—against the 19th Section of the Local Jurisdiction Bill—By Lord WYNFORD, from Gravesend and Milton, against taking away the East-India Company's Trade.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from Canterbury; and by the Marquess of BUTE, from Ampthill,—hi favour of a Factories Regulation Bill.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from two or three Places, against Slavery.—By Lord PANMURE, from several Places, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Mr. Beamish, for Inquiry into his Case, or for Compensation.

LOCAL JURISDICTIONS.
The Lord Chancellor,in moving the second reading of the Local Jurisdiction Bill, stated, that as he had received a communication through his noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon), whom he did not then see in his place, informing him that it was not the intention of those who look an interest in the question, and who had doubts (he believed they were but doubts) as to the principle of his measure, to offer any opposition to his Motion, on the understanding that it would be competent for them at a future period to slate objections to its principles as well as its details, he would, on the present occasion, abstain from troubling their Lordships with any observation. Following the example, however, of his noble friend, he begged to reserve to himself the right, when the Bill went into Committee, should he deem it expedient, of occupying a portion of their Lordships' attention in pressing upon their consideration the principle of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but simply to reserve for himself, and for his noble and learned friends, the right, when going into Committee, of discussing the principle, on which, he begged to observe, he entertained very strong opinions as well as on the details of the Bill.
The Bill was read a second time.