said, that when he reflected upon the number of unfortunate beings whose restoration to freedom, and the opportunity of procuring subsistence for themselves and their families, depended on the fate of the bill he had the honour of bringing forward, he could not doubt of the assent of the house, and the approbation of every liberal man, particularly when it was understood, as it must appear from the bill itself, that nothing was farther from the intention of the framers of this measure, than to throw any difficulties in the way of the creditor's recovery of his demand, where such demand was recoverable, or to give even the least protection to the fraudulent debtor. The object of the bill was to release only those who were suffering from misfortune, and who were the victims of casualties not to be foreseen or guarded against. To those alone was it his wish to extend the consideration of the bill, and many such did he happen to know, who must have inevitably perished in prison, from want of common food, were they not kept alive by occasional contribution. The hon. gent. after some forcible remarks upon the impolicy and severity of the law with respect to the imprisonment of debtors, proceeded to describe the motives which had generally heretofore induced the relaxation, of that law, and contended that those motives were never in any instance so strong as on the present occasion. This, he conceived must appear to every man's mind, when the peculiar state of the country was considered, and when the fact was known that there are in the different prisons a considerable number of naval and military officers, several of whom have fought and bled in the cause of their country, and are now ready again to come forward to risk their lives in its defence. The hon. member concluded with moving the second reading of the insolvent debtors' bill.

said, he now felt himself as happy in rising to second the motion for the second reading, as he had done in moving that the bill might be extended to England as well as Ireland.

warmly supported the motion, conceiving that there never was a moment which so powerfully called as the present for a measure of this nature. In favour of the debtors confined in the Marshalsea of the city of Dublin, the hon. gent. stated, that previous to the insurrection in July last, a proposal was made to them of their release, provided they would join the rebels; but this they declined, preferring rather to remain in prison and preserve their loyalty. This he considered sufficient, if any thing additional were necessary, to interest the house in favour of this bill.

professed himself an enemy to the principle of insolvent bills, but still, from the reasons stated, he would not oppose the second reading of the bill before the house. He hoped, however, that in the committee special care would be taken to introduce such clauses as would serve to prevent the fraudulent debtor from availing himself of its provisions; and also that no injustice should be done to any fair creditors, particularly the landlords, with respect to their tenants, as the former were not considered of the ordinary class of creditors.

repeated, that his only wish upon the subject was to give liberty to the unfortunate but fair honest debtor.—The motion was agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be committed on Thursday se'nnight.

rose, and argued upon the justice of granting an indemnity to any persons who might suffer any loss by the operation of this bill, and of the propriety of engrafting a clause upon the bill itself to provide to this effect. Understanding, however, that such clause could not be introduced but by the vote of a previous committee, by whom an instruction must be directed to the committee on the bill he should move that the latter should be given for the former—After some conversasion between the Speaker, Mr. Manning, Mr. Francis, and Mr. Wilberforce, it appeared that the object of the required compensation might be proposed after a previous committee, &c, in the report of the bill, or by way of rider in a future stage.

spoke against the principle of the bill, and asserted that if we should surrender this valuable branch of trade it would be immediately taken up by other nations. In proof of this, he mentioned the known disposition of the Americans to rival us in this traffic, and also the negotiation which was understood to have lately taken place between General Dessalines and the agent for Jamaica, in which the former is stated to have offered to sell slaves to our colonies. With respect to the charge of injustice upon the African merchants, he contended that no such charge could apply, for they only bought those slaves whom the African states thought proper to dispose of. Those slaves were guilty, not of what the hon. mover of the bill called "foolish witchcraft," but of administering slow poison; and with subjects guilty of any such capital offence, the state had a right to do what if pleased. The African states were as competent to transport such offenders, as we were those whom we sent to America or Botany Bay, and of those transported to the former he was well founded in saying, that many were sold by the captains to slavery for 7 and 14 years. This he stated merely to shew that the right of the African princes was recognized by the practice of our own country. After condemning the practice of kidnapping upon the African coast, which the hon. mover had stated to exist, the hon. gent. Proceeded to quote some passages from the travels of Mungo Parke, in which that author mentions that the state of the slaves in Africa is truly deplorable, and that, therefore, taking them away, particularly to the English colonies, was a relief to them. He also added, that slavery was not established in Africa by the persons who dealt in the slave trade, but had prevailed there for ages, and slaves being brought to the coast for sale from above 1300 miles in the interior. From those considerations the hon. gent. would feel no kind of uneasiness to purchase a slave, to give him a participation of his estate, and to allow him not only subsistence but something to spare. That slaves could save from their earnings, was notorious; one of his slaves, who had been twenty years in his service, had lately given him £200 for his freedom, which money was a part of his savings. The hon. gent. took notice of the observations that were made upon the capital employed in this branch of trade. An hon. gent. had, indeed, said that he was sorry to see so much capital employed. Here was the subject of regret; but it was not unnatural that men who repined at our wealth and consequence, who disliked the system of our govt., should hate that capital which was the source and support of our rank in the world, and furnished a great means of our security. But some gentlemen had expressed a wish that this capital should be engaged in promoting the cultivation of our common lands. What! to transfer capital from the cultivation of land in our colonies, which is capable of such valuable produce, to improve the commons in this country, which, after the utmost expense, can scarcely be made worth 5 shillings an acre. Those who were most violent in their outcries against the slave trade were the haters of the West India colonies. They hated them because they were the means of bringing such a mass of opulence into the mother country. They hated that opulence, because it tended to promote the dignity of the monarchy, and to uphold the constitution, the strength, and the glory of the country. The riches we derived from these invaluable possessions, assisted us in spreading the navy of England triumphant over the main, and, therefore, it excited the envy of the ill affected. The hon. gent. recapitulated his arguments, and expressed his conviction that many wise and worthy men were upon this subject speaking and acting from an erroneous conception.

replied to the arguments of the last speaker, and maintained that although the inclination of Mungo Parke's object, in the book alluded to, was adverse to the abolition of the slave trade, yet that author had made a statement which pleaded strongly in favour of the measure, for in a particular passage he mentions that nothing could be more abhorrent to the feelings of the poor innocent, and civilized inhabitants of the interior of Africa, than to be torn from their home and families to be sent to a foreign country. The principle laid down by the hon. gent., that a state had a right to do as it pleased with felons, he strongly resisted, as that would go to recognize the right of this or any govt. to introduce the system of torture, or racking on the wheel. The statement of the hon. gent., with regard to the sum advanced by his slave to purchase his freedom, furnished a strong argument against the assertion, that the slaves were contented. Indeed, it was impossible that they should, and nothing could be more absurd and unjust than to make the communication of happiness to those poor men a pretence for forcing them from their native home. To the generosity of his countrymen he particularly appealed for support upon this question; as they loved liberty themselves, he trusted, they would never give their consent to have other men enslaved.

read the decree of the French govt. after the peace of Amiens, re-enacting all the laws respecting the slave trade. As to the statement that we had nine-tenths of the slave trade, he believed it; but he would not agree that, if we abolished the trade, so much of it would be so done away, particularly when he reflected upon the readiness of the Americans, the French, and the Spaniards to engage in a traffic that was so productive, and which none of those powers shewed the least disposition to abandon.

opposed the principle of the bill; a principle which was grounded upon a proposition similar to that maintained by the national convention of France, when it asserted the universal and immutable rights of man. Unless that proposition, were contended for, and he fancied there were few who would now attempt to plead for it, he concaved that the idea could not be sustained that no men ought to be slaves. With regard, however, to the West India islands, he claimed a toleration for slavery upon the ground of the strong necessity that existed for them to render those islands productive. The slave trade, he felt, ought to be restricted to the old colonies, and not at all to extend to Trinidad; because in the former our merchants had embarked their property before any idea of the abolition of this trade was thrown out, which was not the case with the latter. It was said, that if the trade were abolished the planters would feel it their interest to promote the natural increase of the negroes; but who that was at all acquainted with the conduct of those planters, could entertain a doubt that they had always felt this to be their interest, and that they had endeavoured to forward that object by every means in their power? Nothing could be more mistaken than a contrary opinion; for it was well known that the failure of the negro population, in the way alluded to, was not attributable to excess of labour, to harsh treatment, or any cause which could criminate the planters. The hon. member exhorted the house not to entertain a proposition, the tendency of which was to deprive men of property which they had long since vested in our colonies, by obliging them to give up that property from want of the means of cultivating it. He begged the house to bear in mind, that whatever criminality might attach to the origin of this trade, the present planters had no share in it, and that of course nothing could be more iniquitous than to make their property an expiatory offer for that criminality.—Understanding that some intercourse was at present allowed between the subjects of Dessalines and our islands, he hoped that the regulations, said to be ordered, would be regularly enforced, in order to guard our colonies against the consequences very naturally to be apprehended from the connexion—a connexion which, should this bill pass, would render it impossible to prevent a contraband trade for slaves between St. Domingo and Jamaica, &c. This contraband trade was likely to threaten such effects as no man who recollected the late atrocities in St. Domingo could think of without horror.—The hon. gent. conceived it very difficult to separate the two questions of abolition and emancipation. The one naturally led to the other. They were generally confounded in that house; and it was no wonder, therefore, that the negroes themselves should confound them; that when they found parliament had been of opinion that it was unjust to purchase them, they should question their masters' titles to hold them. To what a train of mischiefs might this lead!—The hon. member, in conclusion, stated, that if the planters had been more liberally dealt by in the course of this business, the benevolent object of the bill might have been attained through judicious regulation; but no attempt had been made by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Pitt) to conciliate the co-operation of that respectable body; on the contrary, while he was endeavouring in that house to promote the abolition of the slave trade, he was raising black regiments in the colonies, a measure which of coarse rendered necessary an additional importation of negroes for the purposes of cultivation. Unless the co-operation of the planters was obtained by the executive govt. to the objects of this measure, he was of opinion it never could be effective.

argued strongly against the bill, as inconsistent with the rights and privileges of the colonial assemblies. He quoted on this point the great authority of Blackstone, in a part of his Commentaries, which explains the nature and extent of the powers which colonial regulations were to possess. He contended also, that before the bill could be entertained, the question of prudence and policy should be impartially and fairly reviewed. A good deal had been adduced in favour of the abolition, from the present situation of the island of St. Domingo, and the dangers which would, necessarily, result from fresh importations of negroes. The colonial legislatures must, however, in his opinion, be the best judges of the consequences of abolition, and they, it was not unknown to the house, had already declared themselves adverse to the measure. In the island of Jamaica in particular, the house had heard from the hon. gent. who was the agent for that island, that the colonial legislature there were decidedly adverse to the measure of abolition, as in their opinion calculated to promote no beneficial consequences; while, on the contrary, it might, in the present situation of the West India islands, be productive of effects highly disastrous and deplorable. It was to be kept in view too, at this moment, that there actually prevailed a difference of a very serious nature betwixt the governor and the house of assembly in Jamaica. So far, indeed, was this carried, that he had reason to believe that the governor could not again meet the assembly without a considerable modification of demands, formerly enforced. He asked, then, whether, after this declaration on the part of the colonies, and with the knowledge that such disagreements as he had allued to, did exist, it would be either wise or prudent to agitate a question which might be pregnant with mischief?

, set out with stating, that for 16 years he had attended with the utmost care to all the proceedings on the abolition of the slave trade, though he had never openly delivered his opinions publicly on the subject. He rose for the purpose of expressing his approbation of the principle and object of the bill. On every general principle of humanity he had always been of opinion, that the slave trade was one which ought not to receive the smallest countenance from the legislature of an enlightened empire. On this ground he had, whenever he voted on the question, always voted for the abolition. He was always, however, ready to allow that, in giving this vote he laboured under a certain degree of difficulty. He was not indifferent to the loss which those connected with this trade might be exposed to, and this consideration had always left a certain degree of weight on his mind which he did not find it easy to remove. He never pretended to be able to ascertain what was likely to be the probable amount of this loss, because he was not in possession of facts on which to found an opinion. He had, however, removed this difficulty, which on the present occasion did exist; it was, in a considerable degree to be attributed to the conduct of the planters themselves. If inconveniencies resulted from the abolition, they arose, in his opinion, principally from the want of due exertion on the part of the planters, after they must have been sensible, from a variety of warnings, that the abolition of the slave trade must take place at no very remote period. Instead of employing the interval thus afforded them of making proper provision for the event, the certainty of which they had then every reason to anticipate, they, on the contrary, employed every means of evading the proposed resolution of the legislature; they used every effort to delay the abolition by every pretext, however unsatisfactory; and, instead of preparing for the abolition, they only thought of new stratagems to defeat the views of those by whom this great object was patronized. With the conviction that this was the fair impartial statement of the conduct of the planters, he did not think that they had now any strong ground of complaint against the abolition. If they were sufferers by it to a large amount, the fault was to a great degree attributable to themselves. In conclusion, he alluded to the conduct which a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Pitt) had pursued on this question. It might, perhaps, be owing to his want of knowledge of the world, or to a sufficient acquaintance with the mode in which the business of the house was conducted, but it had frequently occurred to him, that if the right hon. gent. had employed the fair, honourable influence of office, the great object which he professed to have had so cordially in view, would long ere this time, have been obtained. He conjured the right hon. gent., now that he had returned to power, to employ all that influence on the present occasion; and, he trusted that, from the spirit which had displayed itself in the house, an end would at length be put to a traffic which had been so long the disgrace of this country and of human nature.

spoke shortly in explanation of the grounds which induced him to support the bill. It seemed now to be pretty generally admitted that the question was one of justice, and in this point of view it could not admit of any length of deliberation; the chief question before the house now was, that it appearing to a great majority of members that the slave trade should be abolished, the next consideration was, in what manner this object could most speedily and most effectually be obtained? In attempting to ascertain this, the proportion of compensation which ought to be afforded to those whose property would be affected by the bill was an important object of consideration. In his own opinion the amount of these compensations would not be at all considerable, but to deny that any compensation was to be given at all, would be notoriously unjust. But one hon. member (Mr. Cocks) appeared to notice slightingly the claims of the planters to compensation, because they had sufficient intimation of the measure of abolition, and had not taken sufficient means to provide against its consequences. This argument would in a variety of cases be found, if reduced to practice, highly oppressive. He might call the attention of the house to the case of a minor having an estate in the West Indies 16 or 17 years ago, the value of which would now be comparatively destroyed by the measure of abolition at present under consideration. Surely this would be a case equally unjust and severe; but if no compensation was to be afforded, numerous cases of equal severity and injustice would take place. He trusted that before the bill passed, these circumstances would be fully attended to.

defended the Chancellor of the Exchequer against any charge of insincerity in his support of the abolition of the slave trade. He had made it his business narrowly to watch the whole of his conduct in this business, and he had never witnessed greater evidence of the cordiality and zeal of any individual in a public cause. Because his colleagues did not support the same side of the question, that was no proof of his want of zeal. The house would recollect that formerly this was more a question of opinion than national policy, and such disagreement was easily accounted for. Now it had assumed an important national interest, and he trusted no time would be lost in carrying through a measure which even now he thought, or was at least afraid, might come too late for the preservation of our West India colonies.

opposed the bill, chiefly on the ground of the impracticability of the abolition. A trial had been made for several years to civilize the negroes in the settlement of Sierra Leone, which had totally failed. He was convinced that with experience before their eyes the hon. gent. who proposed the bill, and those who supported him in it, would, if they could bring themselves to reason with impartiality on the subject, see the expediency of giving up the measure. There was one consideration which, at the present moment, ought to press on the consideration of ministers. If the trade was to be abolished, and if new lands in the West-India islands could not be cultivated for the want of negroes, he could not see that there was either any policy or expediency in wasting the troops, or the resources of the country, reconquering islands, the possession of which must be altogether nugatory. The hon. member denied that the abolition of the slave trade could be supported on the ground of humanity, and contended that the treatment of slaves in the West-Indies was not characterized by any instances of cruelty. He affirmed that the feelings of the house had, more than once, been carried away by representations of atrocities, which afterwards turned out to be totally groundless. He referred on this part of the subject to the case of Captain Kimber, who in consequence of a representation by the hon. mover of the bill, was in 1792 tried at the Old Bailey, for the charge of murder committed under the most atrocious circumstances. This person was then acquitted of the charge, it having been discovered that the surgeon of Kimber's ship had been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury. But, though acquitted, this person had been in a great measure ruined by the large expense which the conduct of his trial had imposed on him. Many other cases of a similar nature were on record, and, therefore, he warned the house against being carried away by exaggerated statements, applied for the purpose of interesting their humanity. The hon. member, after a few remarks as to the number of seamen employed in this trade, and the revenue arising from the importation of fresh negroes, called on the house to look at the situation of St. Domingo, and to pause before they abolished a trade in which very considerable interests were involved. He hoped that the hon. mover would at length be induced not to press the ultimate progress of the bill this session.

rose to reply to the principal objections urged against his measure. He denied that any of his statements rested, as had been insinuated, on light grounds, or had been at all produced with a view, of deceiving, the house. He referred to the first statement respecting the case of Captain Kimber, though he could not but express his surprise that this subject had again been introduced to the notice of the house. The case having, however, been alluded to, it was necessary for him to state a few plain observations to the house. The fact was, that he had, on hearing of the particulars of the case, gone with the witnesses before a justice of peace, to have the matter cleared up. The witnesses were examined, and the justice thought that the person accused ought to enter on his trial. When the matter came before the grand jury on oath, they were of a similar opinion, and though this person was afterwards acquitted, he did not at all feel that he himself had any reason to regret the share he had in the business. So much as to the first statement of his which had been alluded to.—The hon. member next proceeded to reinforce all his original arguments in favour of the abolition of the trade. He quoted from Mr. Parke's travels into the interior of Africa, several passages, which fully shew that the arguments of the abolitionists are founded in the justest views of policy, as well as the most enlarged ideas of introducing knowledge, humanity, and religion into that vast continent. The hon. member quoted authors, particularly the French writer, Le Brune, who wrote long before the question of abolition was started, to confirm his positions. He argued at some length on the practicability of keeping up the stock of negroes, independent of importation. He shewed, that for a long series of years, particularly for the last 12, that the proportion of the deaths and births of the negroes was gradually become more favourable, and quoted several authorities, particularly that of a Doctor Anderson, who had the care of 4,000 negroes, to shew that by good management the number of negroes might be kept up in all our islands. In illustration of this idea, he stated that he was enabled, on the authority of Mr. King, the late American minister, one of the most respectable men alive, that in the 10 years, from 1791 to 1801, the American negroes had increased in such a proportion as to hold out a fair prospect of doubling their number in twenty-five years. The negroes, too, rapidly increased in Bencoolen, in St. Helena, in St. Kitt's, and in other settlements. It being ascertained that such a rapid increase was obtained in America, he saw no reason to think why our West-India negroes might not only keep up their numbers, but might positively increase to a great degree. The climate of America was so far from being more favourable, that the dews and exhalations with which it abounded were particularly unfavourable to the health of the negroes, accustomed to a dry and hot climate.—The honourable member, after illustrating this point, laid before the house, on the positive information of the American minister, the very satisfactory prospect of the probable abolition of the slave trade in the United States at no remote period. At present, in all the states, with the exception of South Carolina, the importation of negroes was prohibited; and in 1808, when the powers on this point now vested in the particular states, would cease, there was every reason to believe that Congress would take up the business and abolish the slave trade for ever. The hon. member read a paragraph from the minister's letter precisely to the foregoing effect. He congratulated the house on this prospect, and urged it as an additional argument for taking the lead in the great work of humanity, policy, and justice.

rose, not, he said, for the purpose of going at large into a discussion on the principle of the bill, as on that he should reserve himself for the third reading, but to refute some assertions which had fallen in the course of this night's debate from the friends of this bill, and particularly from the hon. member who had introduced it, that were, he would assert, utterly unfounded. That hon. member had said, that the usual allowance to the working slaves in the West-Indies, was from four to seven pints of grain in a week, and that in some of the British islands, not more than one-half the portion was allowed that was given in others; and that not more than half the allowance was given by the planters on their estates to their working negroes, than was usually allowed to those in prisons and hospitals; and that though this allowance was alleged to be given to the negro in proportion to the quantum of land allowed him for cultivation by his own labour, which in a great number of estates was little or none, no man, be said, could make such an assertion, who was not utterly ignorant of the interior management of the West-India islands, It was a gross and unfounded imputation upon his brother colonists, whom he felt it his duty to defend. He was himself proprietor of a considerate estate in the West-India islands; and after he had formerly opposed the bill of the hon. member, he had visited the West-India islands, and made the tour of eight of them, to be convinced from his own observations what was the real fact; and every where he found his attention challenged by the comfortable situation of these negroes, plentifully maintained, whom the honourable member, and his supporters, had represented as in a starving situation. He declared there was not a single instance throughout the whole, where the negro was not allowed a spot of ground for his own cultivation, and so extensive and productive was this spot, in a great many instances, that no allowance was made to the negro at all. For, except merely the sheep and cows fed on the pasture lands, which belonged to the planters, every other article of consumption on the islands was furnished by the negroes to the planters, and paid for by them, such as the hogs, poultry, esculent vegetables, &c. and so prosperous were, the negro plantations and negrotradesmen, in some of the islands, and particularly in Tobago, that he believed there was scarcely one of them at this moment who had not an 100l. sterling at his command. It had been said too, that the planters discouraged breeding amongst their slaves; and with this view the importation of females was greatly inferior to that of males. So far from discouraging breeding, though it was their interest, they could not effect it: for even though the females were considerably fewer than the males, yet of this few, some had four wives, and many of these too Christians; for the whole 1,300 upon his own estate were all Christians; and though very good and devout Christians in all other respects, there was an aristocracy amongst them, the head men of which could have their free wife and their love-wife. It was an easy matter for an English country gent. sitting by his fire side, to amuse himself with declaiming against the imaginary cruelty of the gentlemen of the West-India islands to their slaves, upon false and exaggerated accounts; but the West-India gentleman did not advert to the many seventies and oppressions imposed upon the labouring poor throughout England, by the arbitrary hand of the country justices and the different parish officers, of which so many severe cases came before the Court of King's Bench, on appeals respecting the poor-laws. With respect to the importation of African slaves into the islands, he would be glad to learn how otherwise the gap was to be filled up in the population of the country, which war or the descents of the enemy's privateers so frequently created. He himself had lost a considerable number of valuable negroes by the war; how was he to replace them but by importation? He did not hesitate to assert, that the abolition of the import trade was inseparable from emancipation, that it would change every fee-simple interest in the West-Indies into a mere life-interest; that it would destroy the whole value of estates, and of dowers and provisions for children entailed upon them; and he concluded by saying, he never should vote for it, unless landed proprietors, whose estates were depopulated by war, or other cause, were permitted in such case to send ships to Africa for the purpose of purchasing cultivators; for how was the land to be cultivated without hands?

deprecated the conduct of the opposers of the bill, in disputing it night after night, and taking up the time of the house in repeating arguments that had been an hundred times refuted. From the arguments of Mr. Long, the historian of Jamaica, himself an enemy to the abolition of the trade, and who had wrote upon this subject long before it was agitated in parliament, it was acknowledged that within the islands themselves there was ample means for discontinuing the importation of slaves from Africa. He was heartily sick of the term "humanity," so bandied about by those who talked of the benefits conferred upon the African by taking him from his country, his kindred, and his dearest connexions, to transplant him to a distant island, and a better situation. We had no right to do so against his will, even though it were really to transfer him to a state of liberty, comfort, and happiness. How much more impious and unjust was it then to pretend such a right, for the purpose of dooming him and his posterity to endless slavery. Upon the great and immutable principle of justice then, this bill was not to be shaken, and he trusted the house would no longer sanction the violation of that great precept, "thou shalt not do evil that good may come of it." The evil, in this case, was positive and enormous, the result as to any good utterly uncertain, but possibly even much more mischievous than the evil itself in the first instance.—The hon. gent. then alluded to a paper which he had that day found, containing notes of what had been said on the subject of the slave trade by the late Mr. Burke, taken at the debate in which that gent. took a part; he had expressed, that merchants and planters were equally made sensible of the impropriety of the trade, and he concluded by observing, that the question of the abolition of the slave trade stood on the broad basis of justice, and could not be mistaken in its object—The question being loudly called for, the house divided, when there appeared—for the motion 79, against it 20—Majority 59.

moved to fill up the blank for the commencement of its operation, with the words "first of Jan. 1805," which was agreed to. He also moved an amendment in the words "provided always, that no ship bringing negro slaves from Africa to any part of the British West-India islands, shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, which shall be proved not to have taken her departure from any port in G. Britain or Ireland, before the expiration of fourteen days after the passing of the bill, or from any other port in Europe or Africa, previous to the 1st of August, 1804,"which was agreed to; the chairman left the chair, and the bill was ordered to be reported to-morrow, when counsel are to be heard.

wished the hon. member who introduced the bill would have the goodness to say, whether he would consent to the examination of some further witnesses on the report of the bill.

answered, certainly not; but he would beg leave to refer the noble lord, if he wanted evidence, to the volumes of evidence already before the house on this subject, in the many successive sessions it had been discussed.

was for adducing more evidence, and said, he understood the African merchants had a considerable mass of testimony to bring forward.

, jun. said, the counsel to-morrow would urge their pleadings, and prove their case by such evidence as they thought necessary; and if they should then seem too tedious, or unnecessarily protractive, the house would use its own discretion.

moved, that a committee be appointed to inquire into the most proper mode of making compensation to those persons who should sustain injuries or losses in consequence of the bill for abolishing the slave trade.

said, he should certainly object to the motion in its present form, because it assumed as a principle, in the first instance, that by this act of justice, which the house had thought fit to adopt, loss and injury must necessarily and of course follow to the persons concerned in the West-India trade. The house, however, he trusted, would not be induced to concede to such an admission; and it would be time enough for the wisdom and justice of parliament to devise compensation when any special case of loss or injury sustained, should be fairly and actually made out. He did not mean to argue the point now; but at all events, the motion was informal, and he believed it would not be regular to put a question upon it, as its direct tendency was to improve a public expense upon the country, and it did not come recommended by the crown.

said, that even in the very first instance losses and injuries would be inevitably sustained by persons who had formed contracts and vested capitals in this trade; but it was extremely desirable to know what would be the properest mode of proceeding to claim compensation; whether each individual injured was to make out a special case for parliament, or whether all collectively, for hundreds would be injured, though the general sum of compensation might not be considerable. He wished also to know whether, the house having adopted a bill for the abolition of the slave trade, it was to be understood the crown would not recommend compensation.

said, that whether the crown would or would not recommend compensation, he was not now prepared to say; but the motion for the present was irregular.

corroborated this declaration, and declined putting the question.

rose to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was his intention to take the sense of the house upon the report of the additional force bill, after the committee on Thursday night, or on a subsequent day?

answered, that unless some points should arise in the committee, to protract the discussion to a late hour on Thursday, it was his intention to take the sense of the house on the report that evening, otherwise on Friday, in order to the third reading of the bill on Monday. Adjourned.