presented a petition from the planters, merchants, annuitants and others, interested in the British West-India colonies, against the bill now pending before parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. On the question being put, that the petition do lie on the table till the second reading of the said bill, and that the petitioners be then heard by themselves or counsel,

gave it as his opinion, that there could be no necessity for any particular investigation into the merits of the question, as it had been long a subject of discussion before that house, and as all had already been heard that could possibly be adduced by the different parties interested in this question. The opponents of the measure had been fully heard on a former occasion, when it formed the subject of particular inquiry in the year 1793. Nothing new, he thought, could be advanced, and it would be therefore unnecessary to lose the time of the house.

contended, that it would be extremely ungenerous to refuse a hearing to those who had no representatives in this house. The country, in the prosperity of which they were so much interested, was not represented in parliament. To deny them, therefore, the privilege of petitioning, or what was nearly the same, not to listen to their petitions, would be extremely hard indeed, particularly as he was convinced that not a single word that had been said by that hon. gent. on this subject the other day, was founded on fact.

did not think it by any means a good reason for waving the consideration of this petition, that the subject had been formerly under discussion. This discussion alluded to had taken place some years ago, and the circumstances of the petitioners, as well as of the general subject itself, might now be considerably changed. The present state of the colonies required that the proprietors of estates should have every possible opportunity of delivering their objections to the bill. He would move for counsel being heard on the petition.

argued, that no member of that house was more inclined than he was to respect the right of petitioning, but thought the house would do much better not to decide at present whether any petition should be heard by counsel, but to wait for some time till the subject should come under farther consideration.

thought the hon. gent. with whom the objection originated, did not wish that they should refuse to hear counsel on the subject, but only that further consideration was necessary. He thought besides, according to parliamentary usage, that notice should have been previously given.

said, that it was the usual practice of the house to make an order in all cases for the parties to be heard by themselves or counsel, on the second reading of a bill. This operated as a notice, and if any member had an objection to make to it, he had an opportunity of doing so on the order of the day being read.

said, that under the explanation given by the Speaker, he acquiesced for the order being made at present, but conceived that every member was at liberty to oppose the hearing of counsel on the order of the day being read.—It was then ordered that the petitioners be heard by themselves or counsel on the second reading of the bill.

said, the hon. gent. (Mr. Wilberforce) need not suppose the foregoing was the only opposition to the bill; there was another petition from the merchants of Liverpool against it, which was expected to arrive by this morning's post, but which did not.

brought up a petition from Edmund Pusey Lyon, colonial agent for the island of Jamaica, against the bill for the abolition of the slave trade, praying to be heard by themselves or counsel against the same. Ordered to lie on the table till the second reading, and then the petitioners to be heard by themselves or counsel against the bill.

stated, that he did not wish to prevent parties from being heard, but he could not help thinking the mode of disposing of these petitions premature, as the second reading of the bill was fixed for to-morrow, and gentlemen who might be appointed as counsel could not, in all probability, be prepared.

rose to renew the notice which he had formerly withdrawn respecting our East-India settlements. When he had withdrawn this notice, it had been in the expectation of seeing an able and efficient administration speedily formed. But when he looked to the present ministry, and saw that more than the one half of them were the very same men whom the other had vilified and despised as incapable of the duties imposed on them, he could not help thinking, that his intended motion was not less necessary than formerly.

here informed the noble lord, that it was not in order to accompany a notice with any arguments in support of the motion intended. All that remained, therefore, for the noble lord, was to fix any day that might be best suited for his purpose.

was of opinion, that the noble lord was perfectly in order, seeing that he had not brought forward any argument whatever for the measure he proposed. He thought this day se'nnight, which had been mentioned by the noble lord, would be a very inconvenient day; a bill was now pending before the house, that in all probability would occupy its attention during most of next week.

then agreed to fix his motion for Friday se'nnight.

rose, in consequence of a notice formerly given, relative to a motion respecting the conduct of the Lord Advocate of Scotland to a Mr. Morrison, a native of that country. He had given some days previous notice of that motion, in order to give the Lord Advocate an opportunity of appearing personally in his place, to answer the charge, or of giving instructions to some of his friends. It would certainly be far more gratifying to him, who felt it his duty to make such a charge, as well as to the house, that he should have appeared, in order to offer what excuse he might think fit, or to make some apology for his conduct; but he knew that the Lord Advocate had heard of the notice which he had given, and that he had time either to have appeared in person, or to give instructions to his friends. He considered himself, therefore, quite as much at liberty to express his abhorrence of such conduct, if founded in fact, and to be as free in his remarks, as if the learned lord had himself been present. The learned lord, from his official situation, had a very great power in Scotland, and this power he had exercised violently, not to say tyrannically. He had, in the instance which he was about to mention, totally outstepped the bounds of law, and acted in a manner equally unprecedented and illegal. The power of the Lord Advocate in Scotland was somewhat analogous to that of the Attorney General in England. Now it was certain that they could not act glaringly contrary to their duty, without being responsible for such conduct to the laws of their country; yet many things might be done by people possessed of an authority so great, upon which this responsibility could not always attach. In such a case, it was the duty of parliament to take care that the public authority was not abused; and to petition his Majesty to remove those persons who acted in their public capacity in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the British constitution, and with the rightful freedom of the subject. Now he would assume that the Lord Advocate of Scotland had no right whatever to calumniate and fulminate an excommunication against any person; and, far less, to order that person to be arrested; but if he could prove that the Lord Advocate had grossly calumniated this Mr. Morrison, and not only grossly calumniated him, but followed up that calumny by an excommunication, and followed up that excommunication by an order of arrest; and not only this, but had taken upon himself to injure his properly, and to dispose of it in certain circumstances as he pleased—if he provide all this, then he was justified in maintaining that such a person was utterly unworthy of the situation of public trust which he held. There was something delicate in the times in which this was done. The defence of the country depended, in a great measure, on the volunteers; but if this was the force on which the country was to depend, ought it not to be voluntary? Now, in the progress of the measure through parliament, many different opinions had been given on different parts of it, and on none more than upon the question, whether any alteration ought to take place in the contracts between masters and servants? The bill was sent to the Lords, and by them the clauses in question were thrown out, and to their amendment this house had subsequently agreed. Now, what was all this but a confession, on the part of the legislature, after mature consideration, that the contracts between masters and servants ought to remain unaltered. He agreed that this was very wisely done, for the best friend to the volunteer system would be under the necessity of confessing, that the inconvenience resulting from the confusion occasioned by the disorders committed by servants, and their insolence to their masters, would be very severely felt: for it was very evident, that when servants were permitted to enter as volunteers, in spite of their masters' orders, they would make use of this liberty as a pretence for neglecting the property of their masters altogether, and ruin their business by their idleness, and excuse themselves by saying, that they were engaged at their volunteer exercises.—The transaction which he was about to submit to the house at present, was as follows: a person of the name of Morrison, a farmer he believed, in Bamffshire, had a servant who went into a volunteer corps contrary to his orders, on which account he discharged him. In this he certainly had done nothing contrary to law. The servant applied to the Lord Advocate by memorial, to learn what course he ought to pursue, or whether he could recover any compensation from his master. The memorial stated, that the servant had engaged with the master, and, without asking his consent, regularly attended the drills of a volunteer corps after his work was over. On a certain day he had abandoned his work, and had gone with the volunteers when they were inspected by the Marquis of Huntley. For this his master had discharged him, although he offered to make compensation for the time in which he had been absent. Now here he would beg leave to make one or two observations. The servant confessed that he had always attended drill without asking the permission of his master; but that, on the 31st of Oct. 1803, he had been absent during the whole of the day, and had neglected his work, and therefore it was reasonable to suppose that Mr. Morrison had no objection to his servant going to drill after his work, though he was unwilling, and perhaps unable, to afford that he should be absent whole days, and therefore discharged him. William Garrow, the servant, concluded his memorial by putting the question, whether he had any resource at law, or any ground of action against, or any claim for wages against his master, subsequent to the time at which he was discharged. Now, if the whole had been confined to the legal opinion given by the Lord Advocate, he had employed the most unjustifiable terms; for his answer to the memorial commenced with the words, "however unprincipled and oppressive the conduct of Mr. Morrison may have been." Now was not this a most unjustifiable attack upon the character of Mr. Morrison, when it was considered that the Lord Advocate had only heard one party? but the answer went on to say "that his lordship was afraid that there was no claim legally for wages, except up to the day on which the servant had been discharged." So then, by the Lord Advocate's own account of the matter, this man, whose conduct was declared "unprincipled" and "oppressive," had done nothing contrary to law.—If there had been nothing but this very opinion itself, there would have been sufficient grounds for the house to interfere in the affair. But the matter did not rest here. The Lord Advocate soon after wrote a letter to the sheriff deputy of Bamffshire, stating the circumstances of the case, as he heard them from the servant. Here he stated, that there were unfortunately no provisions in the volunteer laws against a case like the present, that is, in other words, that Mr. Morrison had done nothing contrary to law. Well, and what in this case did this Lord Advocate do, after the confession that nothing illegal was done? Why, he gravely said, "that the conduct of Morrison was most atrocious." He took upon him to say this without ever having examined the other side of the question, and without having adverted to the circumstance that the servant might have been flagrant in his neglect of duty, might have left his house open, his locks unbolted, and a variety of things that might ruin his master's property. He considered this as the worst point of the whole; for even if the Lord Advocate had been acting in a manner perfectly legal in other respects, yet he had no right thus to stigmatize and calumniate a British subject, and to punish him worse than he could be punished by any other means; to punish him in a manner which every gent. who heard him would think worse than death by the loss of his reputation and property. It would be better for Mr. Morrison, rather than endure this, that the Lord Advocate were tyrant of Scotland, and possessed of the power to hang him up at once, than to be thus calumniated by him. But his lordship went farther, for he exhorts every person round about to treat him (Morrison) with contempt and scorn, and to hold no dealings with him whatever. Could the house hear such words used to a British subject by a person in such a situation of public trust without the greatest indignation; when that subject had done nothing contrary to the laws of the country, even in the opinion of the Lord Advocate himself? Such conduct he trusted the house would think merited the steps which he would think it his duty to adopt, in case the motion he was about to submit to them at present should meet their approbation. But it was not only in his character that this farmer was to suffer; his property also must be ruined. No people were to hold intercourse with him. Should he carry his corn to market, no one were to buy it; or did he offer to sell his wool, all were to refuse to be purchasers at any price; so that this man was to be entirely ruined; his family starved and thrown, with himself, as outcasts upon the world. But still farther, the letter proceeds to state, that there were strong grounds to suspect that Morrison's conduct had proceeded from disaffection and want of loyalty, and as soon as the first Frenchman landed in the country, Morrison was to be arrested, and he (the Lord Advocate) informed of it. If the letter had concluded with this, one would be apt, continued Mr. Whitbread, to ascribe the arrest and imprisonment to a good motive; for Mr. Morrison's life was really threatened by this outrageous conduct. While Mr. Morrison was thus represented to men of liberal education, the mob might look upon him as a proscribed man, or an outlaw, and think they had the Lord Advocate's authority for doing so. The might, therefore, not only pillage his property, but even attempt his life; and one would, perhaps, be apt to imagine, if his lordship had concluded his letter by ordering him to be put in gaol, he reasoned with himself in this manner, "Why, this man's life must be in danger from my excommunication, and therefore to keep him from the fury of the people, I shall imprison him." But when the house heard what followed, they would not be much disposed to give his lordship credit for such good motives. But how had the Lord Advocate power to order this man to be arrested? If he had, it was proper that an act should, without delay, be passed, in order to correct a fault which was utterly inconsistent with the principles of the British Constitution; but he had heard the opinions of Scotch lawyers upon the subject, and he knew that the Lord Advocate had no such power. Well then, suppose an attempt had been made to arrest Mr. Morrison: suppose that Mr. Morrison had thought proper to resist that arrest, and in so doing had killed a man; could he be tried and found guilty of murder, for so doing? Certainly not. Observe, then, to what dreadful consequences this strange, unprecedented, and monstrous act of authority might have led. But still farther, the letter went on to say, that the Lord Advocate "would do all in his power to prevent Morrison from receiving any compensation, in case his property was pillaged by the enemy, or taken by the King's troops! A monstrous conclusion to a monstrous business! If Mr. Morrison was a man of feeling, he must say to himself and to his friends, that he had rather the Lord Advocate had been a tyrant with power to hang him immediately, than thus to hold him up to the world as an object of public resentment and detestation; as a man with whom no person should have any dealings or communication, by which his family, as well as himself, were liable to be entirely ruined for ever. Besides, supposing the French had landed, such a proscription was likely to affect his life, as every one must know how ready a mob was to seize on such doctrines as lawful signals to plunder and pillage the object against whom they were directed. These were the bitter sentences passed by the Lord Advocate against Morrison, and they had already operated so far as to make a considerable impression on a person of liberal education in the same country, who had expressed himself with great warmth against Morrison. Mr. Forbes, the sheriff substitute, had fortunately advised the sheriff's clerk to send a copy of the letter to Morrison, and to put the original on record, which gave the means to the house to come at it. Another circumstance, which clearly shewed the injustice of this transaction in deeper colours, was a letter written by the sheriff's clerk, Mr. Patrick Rose, to Mr. Morrison, in which he advised him to buy off the man "by making him as handsome an allowance as possible, as the best means of mitigating the severity of the Lord Advocate." Mr. Whitbread contended, that the Lord Advocate had no authority, even by the law of Scotland, to act in the unprecedented manner he had done, and that such a violation of the rights of the subject ought to raise the indignation of the house. It might, perhaps, be said that Morrison may have his action against the Lord Advocate; but it must be very evident, that though the Lord Advocate has not the legal power to do what he has done, he has yet very great power indeed; and small would be the chance of such a man as Farmer Morrison, after all the expenses that must accrue, recovering a fair compensation in damages from a man in the high official situation of the Lord Advocate. But even though he should recover, it became the bounden duty of the house to interpose for the protection of the subject, the honour of the crown, and the strict but impartial administration of public justice. He had proceeded so far on the authority of letters, which he believed to be true and legal; if they were forgeries, he should have to beg pardon of the Lord Advocate for the observations he had made, and of the house, for having taken up so much of its time in vain. He concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the house a copy of so much of the public records of the county of Bamff, as contains a letter signed C. Hope, dated Edinburgh, 30th Dec. 1803, and addressed to George Forbes, Esq. sheriff substitute of Bamffshire, relative to Mr. Morrison; also, a copy of the letter from Mr. Geo. Forbes, the sheriff substitute of the county of Bamff. to Mr. Patrick Rose, the sheriff's clerk, on the same subject;" the question being put,

rose, and spoke as follows:—Sir, it is not my intention at present to propose any objection to the motion which has been made. I feel, on the contrary, very desirous that the papers called for should be laid on the table. In this stage of the business it would be improper for me to enter at any length into the discussion of this subject, and therefore I shall barely content myself with observing, that the hon. gent. who has brought forward this motion, has, in many instances, attempted to put constructions on the letters which he adverted to which in their obvious sense they will not bear. But to these instances I mean not at present to direct the attention of the house. Let the matter come fairly before the house, and this is a claim which the learned lord has in justice upon the house. Let the matter come before us fairly; let not the minds of the gentlemen of this house be pre-occupied, but let us enter with candour, and without prejudice or passion in this affair, which I acknowledge to be of the highest importance. No one, Sir, can be more ready to acknowledge, that if a private individual suffers oppression from a public man, it is a matter of the highest importance. But we ought to consider the motives by which the learned lord was actuated; and if it appear that the conduct of the noble lord proceeded from the purest zeal operating on a strong and ardent mind acting in critical times; if I say, it should be found that his motives of action proceeded from that ardour of mind which he has always manifested, then this particular case ought not to be too eagerly dwelt upon, nor ought the house to be too ready to condemn him. His conduct has always shewn itself exemplary, and he has proved himself an ornament not only to the public office which he holds, but to his country and to his friends. Such is the character of the learned lord; but on this particular question I mean not to enter, but am rather desirous, for the present, to deprecate discussion, and to avoid debate. I shall therefore only add one circumstance. The hon. gent. has expressed his surprise that the learned lord has not appeared in his place. Sir, no man would more readily meet, face to face, any charge that could be brought against him; but let me in my turn express some surprise that since this business took place, in Oct. last, it has not been brought forward till now. I do not say this with a view to reflect upon the hon. gent.; but it certainly does throw a suspicion upon the party concerned. This, however, was the more unfortunate, as the Lord Advocate was in town lately for some weeks, although he is now confined by his public duty to Edinburgh. The letters I believe, in point of fact, to be genuine; and the learned lord has no intention to deny them. In the one relative to the money transaction, written by Rose, it is scarcely necessary to say that he had no concern, as the hon. gent. has thereof entirely acquitted him, as he certainly ought to be acquitted. All I desire of the house is, that when this business comes again forward, they will come to it with minds free from prejudice, prepared to consider the whole with candour and impartiality.

.—With respect, Sir, to the principle of the motion, as bringing a most serious and weighty charge against the Lord Advocate of Scotland, I shall not at present deliver any opinion. I feel the necessity of having a charge of such magnitude fully and fairly discussed; but I protest, that it is my wish and hope that when the day of discussion shall come, the Lord Advocate may be able to make a much better defence for his conduct than has been offered by the right hon. gent. I hope he will be able to make a much better defence than merely to say his conduct proceeded from the exertions of an ardent and zealous mind, acting in critical times contrary to the law, but with good intentions. Gracious God! Is it in this house that we are to hear this doctrine? Is it in this house, in which we have heard so many discussions on the miseries and extravagancies of the French revolution, and all the atrocities that have marked its different stages, that we are now, forsooth, to be told that every thing is to be excused which proceeds from the exertions of "an ardent and zealous mind," acting, in critical times, with good intentions? If this is to be the received doctrine, what crimes, or what atrocities can there be of a public nature which may not stand excused? The right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) has stated, as a presumption in favour of the Lord Advocate, that whereas this transaction occurred several months ago, it had not been complained of till lately: it is well known, however, to any person who has studied the history of oppression and tyranny, that it is one of the principal features of it, that the person oppressed does not dare to complain against his oppressor, and therefore it might appear more surprising to find that a complaint has been made at all, than that it was not made sooner.—As to the letter written by Mr. Rose, that certainly cannot be laid to the charge of the Lord Advocate, nor can it be at all supposed that he knew any thing of its contents, but it was very material in this point of view, to shew the consequences which might naturally be expected to follow. The whole consequences of an act of oppression are not always in the mind or contemplation of the oppressor; but it is not enough for him to say, "I did not mean that that consequence should follow, when I acted oppressively and against the law;" therefore, my hon. friend was, in my opinion, perfectly right in stating this feature of the case, as a consequence which has taken place, and which was likely to take place, from the conduct of the Lord Advocate. What "a zealous and ardent mind" may intend only as an example of terror, may be productive of the greatest practical injuries; and it would be an absurd defence to say that the impropriety of a man's conduct, or the injuries resulting from it, should be disregarded, if only it could be supposed that his intentions were good. Although in a moral point of view, criminality may principally depend on the intentions of the agent, yet, in every society in the world the essence of crimes, as cognizable before human tribunals, depends principally on the injury it does to society. It is to preserve society from the bad consequences which result from the ill-conduct of individuals, that laws are made and tribunals appointed; not so much to judge of men's intentions, which are best known to themselves, but of their actions, which alone are open to the cognizance of the law. I therefore again say, that I sincerely hope the Lord Advocate of Scotland may be able to make a better defence, when his conduct comes to be examined, than merely to say, that he acted from the impulse of an ardent and zealous mind, and that his inclinations were good. I think it needless, at present, to say more upon the subject, as it appears to be allowed, on all hands, that it is one of such magnitude, with respect to the liberty of the subjects of this country, that it must, on a future day, meet with a full and fair discussion.—After a few words of explanation from Mr. Whitbread, the two motions were severally put and agreed to.

moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 35th of his Majesty, for regulating the election of members to serve in parliament, as far as the same relates to freeholds in Ireland, under the yearly value of £20. He stated, that the practice of registering at present was productive of the greatest mischief, and led to undue returns and perjury, and that the number of small freeholders registered last year amounted to £79,000. He then stated the manner in which his bill proposed to remedy that; which was, by requiring the registering to be at least 12 mouths previous to the election, and under the additional forms he then pointed out. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act of the 35th of the King, respecting elections in Ireland.

said, that he perfectly approved of the principle of the bill.

observed, that great inconvenience might possibly result from making any great alteration in the terms of freehold leases in that country. In the north of Ireland, almost every weaver possessed a freehold, and it might, in future, be of the utmost importance to the interests of such a description of freeholders, if any material alteration was made in the nature of their tenure.

described an instance of the present mode of qualification for freeholders which appeared to him to be extremely improper. Twenty or thirty persons were gathered round a table, not one third of whom, in many instances, understand a word of English; an oath was read to them in English; and that in so complicated a form, as that it would require some deliberation, as well as a tolerable knowledge of the structure of the English language, to completely understand it. When that was done, the clerk, knowing that every one of them could not understand the plain English words, "Kiss the book," said to them, "Poag a liour," that is, in English, "Kiss the book." Every man kissed the book accordingly, and by that means was as well qualified as a man of £10,000 a year, and possessing the most enlightened understanding, who might have considered and read over the oath at his leisure.—Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

moved, that the second reading of the woollen clothiers' bill should be fixed for to-morrow.

reminded the hon. member that another question of considerable importance already stood for to-morrow. He therefore suggested that the reading of the bill should be postponed to a future day.—After a few other observations from Mr. Wilberforce, Lord Temple, &c. in which the thinness of the house was urged as a consideration that should induce the house not to make any order on the business, Lord Temple moved, that the house be counted—The house was accordingly counted, and there being only 35 members present, an adjournment immediately took place.