communicated a Message from his royal highness the Prince Regent, informing the House that he had appointed Thursday, the 7th of July, for a Public Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for the restoration of peace to this country and to Europe; that it was his Royal Highness's intention to go to church on that day in the cathederal church of St. Paul's; and that he had made arrangements for providing the necessary accommodation for the members of that House. His lordship then moved an Address to his Royal Highness, thanking him for his gracious communication, to be presented by such members of the House as were of his Majesty's privy council; and also that a committee should be appointed to consider of the manner in which the House should proceed on the day in question.—Agreed to.

presented a Petition from a poor woman named Booth, the widow of a man who had died in the King's-bench prison. Of the truth of the averments in this Petition he had no personal knowledge, but he thought it was one which stated a case of great hardship. The Petition stated, that the husband of the petitioner had been arrested while in a state of extreme ill health, for debt, and conveyed in a cart to a lock up-house, and from thence to the King's-bench prison, on reaching which, he was placed on a bench, where he remained until the humanity of some of the prisoners conveyed him to a bed, in which, after a short time, he died. The coroner's jury, who sat on the body of the deceased, returned a verdict, "that he had died of a natural death, but that his death had been considerably accelerated by his imprisonment, and the treat- ment to which he had been exposed." The Petition concluded by praying, that some alteration might be made in that inhuman law, which sanctioned arrest by Mesne Process.

The Petition having been read, was ordered to be laid on the table. A Petition was likewise presented from a prisoner in the Fleet prison, named William Wright, complaining of the hardships to which he was exposed, and also praying an alteration in the law respecting arrests by Mesne Process. Mr. Peter Moore presented two petitions from prisoners in the King's-bench prison, to the like effect.

presented a Bill "to provide for the better Execution of the Laws in Ireland by appointing superintending magistrates and additional constables in counties, in certain cases." On the question being put for its being read a first time,

rose and said—I hope, Sir, I may be allowed to trespass on the attention of the House, when I feel myself called on to correct a statement of the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, which coming from such an authority, would, if allowed to pass uncontradicted, impress the public with an idea that the county of Wexford was in such a state of disturbance, as to render the new Bill about to be enacted, necesssary. I do not, Sir, object to the Bill—on the contrary, I highly approve of it—and only lament the circumstances, in other counties, which render such an interference on the part of government necessary. But, Sir, I beg leave to state, in the most unequivocal terms, the tranquillity of the county I have the honour to represent (the county of Wexford.) There is no part of the empire where the laws are more implicitly obeyed—and for the accuracy of this statement, I will refer to the resolutions of the spring grand jury, of which I was foreman—I will appeal to the recorded charge of the judge to that jury—I appeal to the calendar of the county—and, finally, to the right hon. gentleman himself, whether there is any part of Ireland more notorious for the peace and industry of its inhabitants, where the police is internally better regulated, or where there is less obstruction to the acts either of government or individuals.

felt it his duty to add his testimony to that of his worthy colleague, as to the peace and tranquillity of the county of Wexford: as a convincing proof of the truth of which statement it was only necessary to observe, that, for the last eleven years, there had been but one execution in that county for murder, and that was in the case of a sweep from Lancashire, who had been found guilty of suffocating one of his boys in a chimney, by burning wet straw under him. With these facts before his eyes, he could not but condemn, in the most unequivocal manner, the assertion which had been made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel), on a former night, as to the riotous disposition of this part of Ireland. He was willing to admit that some acts of violence had been committed, but these, he begged most distinctly to state, had not arisen from political or seditious motives. One instance had occurred within his own knowledge, which certainly bore the complexion of outrage, and which deserved reprobation, although he did not think its existence gave sufficient cause for a general and indiscriminate attack upon the whole county. He alluded to the death of a man who had seduced a young woman, and who on being called on by her friends to make reparation by marriage, and having refused, was shot. That the county of Wexford, however, was more prone to criminality than the counties of England or Wales, he positively denied, and he believed he might, with great truth, add, that many offences committed in this country, were wholly unknown in Ireland, and more particularly in that part which he had the honour to represent.

thought it necessary, lest it might be supposed from the imposing attitude which the hon. baronet had taken, that there was something like reason in the opposition which he seemed inclined to give to the Bill which had just been introduced, to make a few observations. He begged leave to refer back to the explanation which he had given on a former night to the remarks which the hon. baronet then made, and to which he had hoped he had given a full and satisfactory answer. On that occasion, he had disclaimed most fully any intention of imputing to the county of Wexford, in particular, a disposition to riot or disorder, or charging the magistrates of that county with a dereliction of duty. All he had said, and all he meant still to say, was, that at a meeting of the magistrates of the county of Wexford, on the 21st of March, resolutions had been come to, in which certain outrages, committed a short time previously in Rathduff and Knockmore, were lamented, and a determination taken to use every effort for the preservation of the peace of the county. The outrages alluded to, were detailed in a report which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The right hon. gentleman then read the report to which he alluded, and which stated, that some persons, as yet unknown, had gone to the house of a man named Donoughue, at about three o'clock in the morning; and, rapping at his door, demanded admittance for a poor creature whom they stated to be very unwell, and who it was desired might be permitted to lie down. Donoughue, not choosing to be troubled with such a guest, at such an hour, refused to open his door; upon which these persons entreated that he would give them a lighted coal, for the purpose of lighting a pipe. Donoughue then got up, and, on opening the door, he was shot through the heart! This atrocious and treacherous proceeding it was which had been properly characterised by thirteen of the magistrates of the county in which it had occurred, as outrageous; and to this occurrence it was he referred, when he ventured to state, on a former night, that the county of Wexford was not in that peaceful and undisturbed state which had been pictured in such flattering terms by the hon. baronet.

in explanation, said, he had a protest in his pocket, signed by some of the most respectable inhabitants of the county of Wexford, against the resolutions alluded to by the hon. gentleman.

begged to know, by how many this protest had been signed?

answered, by five of the most respectable inhabitants of the county, some of whom were worth ten, others six, and others three thousand a year.

The Bill was then read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday.

seeing an hon. gentleman in his place, who had put a question to him on a former night, respecting the punishment inflicted on one of the Warwickshire militia, wished to ask him whether the name of the man to whom he alluded was not Greensfield?

said, that upon looking over the paper from whence he had derived his information, he had not been able to ascertain the name of the man.

would perhaps be able to recall the case to his memory by another question, Did the hon. gentleman derive his information upon the subject from a Sunday newspaper?

answered in the affirmative.

then said, that since the hon. gentleman had called the attention of the House to this subject, he had taken every pains to enquire into the facts of the case to which allusion had been made. He had enquired at the office of the commander in chief, at the adjutant. general's office, and at the office of the secretary of state for the home department, imagining that some memorial might have been presented from the individual himself, complaining of the harshness with which he had been treated. He could find, however, no trace, from whence to obtain information. In consequence of this failure, he wrote to the colonel of the Warwickshire militia; but before he received an answer, he discovered a letter in a Sunday newspaper, signed "An Englishman," from which, he at once concluded, as had been now confirmed, the hon. member had obtained his knowledge upon the subject. The statement in this paper was, that one of the privates in the Warwickshire militia had been so severely punished, that he had died under the torture to which he was exposed, and to which he was sentenced for a comparatively trivial offence. The moment he saw this account, he was satisfied that it could not be true; for, from his own knowledge of the military regulations necessarily adopted where such punishments were inflicted, he knew that no such occurrence could by possibility have taken place. The anonymous writer, however, went on to state that he was attracted by a crowd of women and children, lamenting in woeful terms some event which had happened. He enquired the cause of their grief, and they stated that a man had just been flogged to death. This statement, said the "Englishman," was confirmed by a non-commissioned officer, to whom he afterwards addressed himself upon the subject—and who stated, that the individual had been flogged until he had fallen, and that he had left him lifeless on the ground. Upon asking the offence for which this severity had been exercised, he ascertained that the man had been regimental servant to the surgeon, and had stopped out longer than his master had conceived proper. Such was the account given in the Sunday paper to which he alluded. The exact state of the case, as he (Mr. Sutton) had since ascertained, however, was this:—It was true, that the man was regimental servant to the surgeon, and it was also true, that he had incurred the displeasure of his master, for stopping out longer than was proper; but it had been forgotten to be stated, that upon his master remonstrating with him on his misconduct, he was not only insolent, but carried that insolence to the utmost length; and had, in fact, done every thing but knocked his master down. Upon this, a complaint was made to the lieutenant colonel, who directed that the offender should be brought to a court-martial, which was accordingly done, and he was sentenced to receive 300 lashes, and of these only 100 was inflicted, the man having then dropped. It turned out, however, that the reason of his dropping was not the severity of the punishment, but the fact of his having stuffed his clothes so far into his mouth, under an idea, by that means, of being better able to bear the pain, that he was almost suffocated. When the clothes were withdrawn, he immediately got up and walked to the hospital, where he had remained, subject only to such inconvenience as might he expected to arise from the lashes he had received. This proceeding had been regularly reported to the general of the district, who gave it his full approbation in all its parts; and the more so, as the same man had previously been represented as having acted in a mutinous manner, but had been forgiven, in consequence of the near approach of that period, at which the regiment would be disbanded. Having given this explanation, which he trusted had proved satisfactory to the House, he begged to observe, that no man was more anxious than himself to give every information connected with those military matters which came under his cognizance. He could not but lament, therefore, that the hon. gentleman, before he brought this matter before the House and, the public, had not first asked him the question in private, and thereby avoided hanging up the name of the lieutenant-colonel of the Warwickshire militia, for some days, as a man who had sanctioned a degree of cruelty, which, under any circumstances, would have been indefensible. He could not conclude without bearing his testimony to the general merits, active services, and exemplary discipline of the Warwickshire militia, which had frequently been held up both in this country and in Ireland, where it had been two years, as an example well worthy the attention of other parts of his Majesty's forces.

as colonel of the Warwickshire militia, felt it his duty to bear testimony to the exemplary and meritorious conduct of the officer whose humanity had been questioned by the anonymous writer alluded to by the hon. gentleman, and whose calumnies had found place only in the columns of a paper, the editor of which was now in prison for a libel. He could not help remarking, that he thought it unfair, upon such grounds, to bring such a subject before the House of Commons.

was as anxious for the vindication of the character of the lieutenant-colonel alluded to as the noble lord who had just sat down; and with a firm persuasion that his character would he fully exonerated from the charge which had been made against it, he had put the question, of which complaint had been made. It would be recollected, that the imputation had appeared in a public newspaper, and no public vindication had subsequently been published. His question had given an opportunity for such a vindication, and the conduct of the lieutenant-colonel, as it deserved to be, had been placed in an honourable light. It was impossible, however, not to feel anxious upon a subject which was naturally calculated to create feelings of indignation and horror—he meant the infliction of torture by corporeal punishment, of the severity of which, the fact mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, afforded an ample illustration: he alluded to the handkerchief which the unfortunate man, whose case had been stated, had stuffed into his mouth, to prevent his shrieks, and to deaden his pain. Such were the expedients resorted to on such occasions, and he could only lament that their necessity had not ceased to exist!

rose, for the purpose of giving notice, that he should, to-morrow, move a vote of Thanks and Congratulation to field-marshal the duke of Wellington—(Loud cheers)—for the victories which he bad obtained, and on his arrival in this country.—(Hear, hear!) The House might, perhaps, upon this occasion, feel disposed to dispense with the ordinary form of giving notice—(Hear! hear!) if so, he would move the Thanks to the noble duke then.—(Hear, hear.) The sense of the House having been thus decidedly expressed, the noble lord proceeded to address the House. He observed, that in calling their attention to all the glorious and eminent services of the noble duke, whose name had been so warmly cheered, and to the achievements which he had performed, he considered, if he attempted to enter into any minute details, he should only weaken that impression which he was satisfied the services of this great man had made on the minds of every individual throughout the kingdom. In truth, if we looked back to the events which had occurred within the last few years, they bore more the appearance of romance than of any thing which could have arisen from the ordinary transactions of human nature. The exploits of the duke of Wellington had been peculiar to himself, and such as the page of history had never presented. After a long series of eminent and laborious exertions, in which he had originally landed on a foreign shore, in the face of an enemy superior in every respect to himself, he had conducted the war to a glorious result; and they were now to celebrate that event without one single circumstance which threw a shade over the national glory of the country, or over the personal character of the individual who had accomplished it. (Loud cheers.) It was new in the military annals of the world, to find a general whose services had been so multifarious, and whose personal merit had been so great; and who, after conducting a war of extraordinary difficulty to a conclusion, had elicited not alone the gratitude of his own country, but the gratitude and admiration of the whole of Europe. It was not less extraordinary that he should have acquired the confidence of those nations on whose fields he fought, and induced them to select him as the instrument of their salvation, and to signalize him by the highest honours of which their country could boast; and to crown his exploits, that he should at length be received in the capital of that kingdom, against which his efforts had been so actively and victoriously directed, with acclamations of gratitude and applause, not inferior to those grateful acknowledgments to which he was so deservedly entitled from the capital of his own country, for which he had obtained so much. There was certainly only one occasion which was parallel to the present, and that was the case of the duke of Marlborough, and even in drawing comparisons between the services of these great men, it could not be forgotten, that from the nature of the warfare in which the latter was engaged, he was enabled to come home every year, in person to receive the thanks of his country, while, with the duke of Wellington, his services had been incessant; he had had no relaxation, and in winter as well as in summer, his exertions were alike vigorous, persevering, and advantageous. If any thing could be added to enhance the merits of the latter, it was the fact that he had received the thanks of parliament twelve times, whereas the duke of Marlborough had been thus distinguished only six times. The noble lord concluded by moving, "That the Thanks of this House be given to Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, on his return from his command abroad, for his eminent and unremitting service to his Majesty and to the public; and that a committee of this House do wait upon his grace to communicate the same, and to offer to his grace the congratulations of this House on his arrival in this kingdom."

said he had suggested the propriety of a measure like the present on a former evening, and it was with the utmost pleasure that he now rose to second the motion. It was a proud circumstance for this country, that they had an opportunity again, after the lapse of a hundred years, to follow a precedent of so grand a monument of English gratitude. With respect to the parallel between the two great men, the duke of Wellington, like his predecessor, had had the great merit of unremitted success, and the singular merit of obtaining that success at the head of an army composed of different nations, all of whom were animated with the same object, and served with the same harmony. He wished to suggest to the noble lord whether it might not be possible to introduce in the vote of thanks, not only the military achievements, but that these achievements were performed by an army composed of different nations, who were all actuated by the same unanimity. What lord Bolingbroke had eloquently said of the duke of Marlborough, might also be said of the duke of Wellington. There was no battle he fought which he did not gain; no place he besieged, which he did not take; no negociation which he entered into, which he did not conclude.

The motion was agreed to nem. con., and a committee was appointed to attend the duke of Wellington with the said Thanks.

presented a Petition signed by 38,000 inhabitants of London, setting forth,

"That the petitioners have seen, with the deepest regret and disappointment, that in the recent treaty of peace with France no provision has been made for the immediate abolition of the African Slave Trade, a trade avowedly repugnant to every moral and religious principle, but that, on the contrary, the consequence will be its revival on a larger scale and to an indefinite extent; and that it appears to the petitioners, that this revival is attended with circumstances of peculiar aggravation; great and populous colonies, in which, during the last seven years, the importation of Slaves has been stricly prohibited, and has even been made highly penal, having been freely ceded to France, not only without any stipulation for the continuance of that prohibition, but with the declared purpose, on the part of that country, of commencing a new Slave Trade for their supply, and thus a system of robbery and murder, which had for many years been practically extinct, is now to be revived, at the very moment when France has been manifestly and singularly favoured by Divine Providence; and the restoration to that country of the blessings and enjoyments of peace is to be the signal for bringing all the evils and miseries of a continued warfare on the unoffending inhabitants. of the African continent; and that the revival of the French Slave Trade, and the unconditional restoration to France of her African forts and factories, have excited the peculiar regret of the petitioners, by disappointing the hopes they had been led to indulge, of the improvement and civilization of that large district in which those possessions are situated, and in which, the Slave Trade having been nearly suppressed, the consequent introduction of cultivation and a legitimate commerce had begun to make some compensation to Africa for the miseries formerly inflicted; and that it appears to the petitioners that the fair and legitimate commerce with Africa, which, since the abolition of the Slave Trade by Great Britain, had materially increased, and was rapidly enlarging itself to an extent which promised important advantages to both countries, is exposed to immediate injury, and to eventual destruction, by the revival of that inhuman traffic which for so many ages retained that ill-fated coast in a state of barbarism and desolation; and that the petitioners cannot but lament that the recognition in the treaty of the radical injustice of the African Slave Trade should be followed by a provision for its revival; and, though that provision is accompanied by the declaration of an intention to abolish the Trade in Slaves after five years, yet they cannot conceal from themselves that various and extensive interests will be created, which, at the end of the specified term, will present new and alarming obstacles to the fulfilment of the declared intention; and, therefore, deeply impressed with the necessity of immediately adopting such measures in parliament as may be the best calculated to prevent all the before-mentioned evils, as well as the evasion or infraction of the abolition laws of Great Britain, by the clandestine importation of slaves from the French colonies into our own, or by the employment of British capital in this nefarious traffic, the petitioners humbly pray the House to take the premises into their serious consideration, and to adopt such measures thereupon as to the House in its wisdom may seem meet."

This Petition, together with twenty four on the same subject from various parts of the country, were ordered to lie on the table.

rose. He said, that in none of the many occasions during the period of twenty-six years, in which he had made different motions on the subject of the Slave Trade, had he ever experienced the sensations he felt that night. After having succeeded in witnessing the success of the cause which he had so long advocated, and seeing, as he thought, the character of the Slave Trade fixed for ever, by law, as a crime after the commission of which no man thirst again shew his face, any more than for any other great offence, he was now again compelled to witness the sanction of this nation given to this odious traffic in the late treaty with France, and to contemplate the probability of its renewal, with all its attendant horrors. Unhappily, at the moment, when receiving the greatest blessings which could fall to a nation from on high, the French nation had refused to join in the abolition of the Slave Trade, and we had given up their colonies to them without securing that object. It was not for the purpose of calling for any expression of the sense of the House on the treaty that he now rose; they had not heard what the advocates of that measure had to say for it; they had not the papers before them by which it might be explained. All that they knew was this, that long ago the House saw reason to move an address, imploring his Majesty to use his endeavours with foreign powers, to induce them to join in the abolition of the Slave Trade. To this Address an answer was returned, that such endeavours would be used; but now it would seem that they had been used unsuccessfully. In speaking of the negotiation, he wished to confine the effect of his observations to the clause affecting the cause of which he had been so long the unworthy advocate. He wished to strengthen the hands of his Majesty's ministers, and to shew them that the feeling throughout the country was the same now that it had long been with respect to the abolition of the African Slave Trade. The more this country had an opportunity of showing what its feelings were, the more it would appear that there was but one universal sentiment throughout the country on the subject. At the present moment, after the conclusion of so long a war, and when we first began to witness peace, when the intoxication of our joy was the greater by our having among us our great-allies whose conduct in so eminent a manner contributed to the happy termination of hostilities; at a period like this, when we could not be supposed to have so much time and disposition to attend to the sufferings of others, so far as his observations had extended, there prevailed but one feeling of regret and disappointment throughout the country, and a wish that, if it was still practicable at the approaching congress, an effort might be made to save it from the disgrace of this sad article. Whatever was consistent with the sum and substance of the treaty might be yet obtained. As there was a considerable portion of Africa where the exertions of this country had been successful to a considerable degree, and where a legitimate commerce had been introduced sacred from any of the miseries of the Slave Trade, he thought that a compact might be made by no means inconsistent with the article of the treaty, exempting all that part of Africa which was not suffer- ing at present any of the calamities alluded to, from being again plunged into them by the renewal of the trade.

Another part of the motion he intended to submit to the House was, to request his royal highness the Prince Regent in any other treaty to he concluded between this country and other states, or in any other cession of colonies, to secure the abolition of the Slave Trade, at least by the sanction of an article in the treaty that it should not be carried on by the power to whom the cession is made. It was with pleasure that he had to communicate to the House that he understood Holland had agreed to an immediate and unconditional abolition of the Slave Trade. With regard to Sweden, the conduct of that power was not now of such importance as it would have been had it retained the great island of Guadaloupe; but Sweden had still some small possessions in the West Indies, and the accession of every power to the abolition was an object not to be neglected. Denmark had already abolished the trade: but that which before rested on her own declarations was now secured to us by a solemn treaty.

When he had just before said, that it was with a heavy heart and a feeling of, the deepest concern that he rose for the fulfilment of his duty on this occasion, it was chiefly because, before he knew that he only had to establish the facts and lay down the principles applicable to this Trade, and that when he had done so he would obtain his final object; but now he could not but with pain reflect, that he was opposed not by any arguments or facts arising out of the Trade itself, but by a circumstance arising out of the nature of our constitution: for when a definitive treaty of peace was once sanctioned, there was no course left for the country but acquiescence. He could not, therefore, but regret, that we had not on this occasion had an opportunity, as we had had at former periods, of first considering the articles in a preliminary treaty, reserving the details for consideration and arrangement afterwards. He regretted that the House had not had an opportunity of forming their judgment in the first instance on the preliminary articles; because, had such been the case, he should have felt it to be his duty, and the country from one end to the other would have joined with him, to interfere that this article might not receive the sanction of government, and to say that no sacrifice would be refused which could purchase our freedom from this disgrace, and that there was no price which we would not have been willing to pay. Had this country had an opportunity of expressing their feelings, no effort which the government could possibly make would have been found too great if it freed us from this stain. But we had now the article irrevocably before us; and all that we could now do was to try to get the article altered in the approaching congress. The wretchedness and misery which were proved to belong to this Trade were now universally allowed. It was truly said by a right hon. friend of his, now no more, that the Slave Trade was the greatest practical evil which ever existed; but the amount of the evil could not be estimated by the number of individuals carried into perpetual bondage, to the hundred thousand persons and upwards carried into a slavery for them and their posterity for ever; the greatest evil was the way in which these individuals were obtained, diffused misery throughout the great continent from which they were taken, and which was thus kept in a state of irreclaimable barbarism and devastation.

He expressed his regret that information upon this subject had not been more generally diffused through France, which would doubtless have excited a feeling among her inhabitants that would have made the government of that country ashamed of insisting upon the insertion of the objectionable article. The great evil originated with ourselves, and was to be attributed to the delays which intervened between the period when the question was first introduced into parliament and the final accomplishment of the abolition. The real causes for this dilatoriness France had never contemplated: in justice to ourselves it must be allowed, that the situation of Great Britain at that time, and of France now, were very different; we had an extensive marine, flourishing manufactures, involving a capital of many millions, and a vast commerce, the amount of the exports and imports of which was nine or ten millions. It was at that time urged, that all these sources of wealth would be greatly injured, but the result had satisfied the bitterest enemies of abolition, and it was now confessed that our interests had been promoted by that measure. Of this experience, purchased at our own risk, France might have learnt that to her, with no capital em- barked in the trade or depending upon it, it would have produced no detriment, but acting upon a different principle it was greatly to be feared, that when she should have involved herself in this traffic, and embarked great sums, and mighty interests, at the end of five years she would be able to use the plea of necessity, of which at present she could not avail herself. Colonies of great value and magnitude were now restored to her unconditionally: St. Domingo would in itself be an immense vortex of human calamity; the cultivation of that island might be carried to any extent, and on a moderate calculation it might be estimated, that for that island only, during the five years stipulated, the happiness and the lives of 500,000 human beings would be sacrificed. This statement made the blood run cold, but it by no means was equal to the extent of the evil; it might be computed that in the whole, no fewer than between two and three millions of our fellow creatures would be torn from their homes, and annihilated for the supply of the colonies just ceded to France, and the evils that Africa would suffer, could not be remedied by the exertions of benevolence during the space of two or three centuries. Was this a prospect that could be beheld without horror?

It had not been his intention to express any opinion upon the conduct of the negociators of this treaty, but in vindication of his own principles, he felt it necessary to say, that no considerations, however weighty, could have induced him to give up any settlements to the enemy that were to be cultivated in a way so abhorrent to humanity. Yet at the same time it was but giving due credit to government to say, that on all occasions, when this subject had been discussed, they had warmly condemned the traffic, or when any assistance was required to execute the law, they had been most willing to afford it. He could not avoid apprehending that this topic was not introduced at so early a period, as its importance merited; it ought to have been made a question of earliest deliberation, when the first mention was made of the conquests we were to cede to France; we ought to have said plainly, that we were willing to make these great sacrifices gratuitously, only qualified by one condition, that the Slave Trade should be abolished. At that time, however, the matter was unfortunately never contemplated, and the utmost, he feared, we could hope under the present circumstances was, that at the end of five years, France would join with the other powers of Europe in the general condemnation of this Trade. But England ought even now to lift up her voice, if possible, to persuade France to resign the contract, and to procure the assistance of foreign nations, in endeavouring to produce this resignation. France ought to be told, and to be shewn, that her own interest required that the Trade should be abandoned, that even the stability of the union at present existing, might be affected by her compliance or refusal. If she could not be prevailed upon to consent to immediate abolition, or to shorten the period at the end of which she would abolish it, she might surely be induced to prevent the miseries formerly existing, from being introduced with double horror into those parts of Africa, where some of the arts and comforts of civilization had been introduced, and legitimate commerce had been established. It would, indeed, be a most melancholy reflection to those who have been benevolently engaged in producing happiness, the result of knowledge, and in giving the natives a taste for domestic comfort and tranquillity, to find that they had not been usefully engaged, but miserably misapplying their time in aggravating the calamities the unhappy natives would endure when the Trade was revived, and internal commotion and bloodshed again visited them.

At the time the treaty arrived in London, the grief with which he read the article in question, was greatly augmented by the receipt of a letter from Sierra Leone, announcing the fact, under any other circumstances most gratifying, that the last slave factory, about 100 miles in the interior, had been abolished. This was the completion of an important undertaking, by which a district of about 8 or 900 miles of coast had been freed from the depredations of human hunters.

All these efforts were now defeated, and misery would be reinstated on her throne, surrounded by all her ministering calamities. Now the natives would experience the horrible reverse—fathers would he torn from their wives and families, and the dear domestic ties, which civilization had woven, would be broken and destroyed.

One great object of the Address he should propose, would be to secure the enjoyment of the promised benefit at the expiration of the term limited by France. He was not one of those who thought the recognition of the injustice of the traffic by France a matter of slight importance; but it would be well to procure from her, or to induce her to take from herself, securities against human weakness, to guard her against being seduced into a continuance of the Trade. He wished it to be made a public law of Europe, to which all the powers should give their sanction, and obedience to which all would guarantee, that at the end of five years no traffic in human beings should be allowed. Originally, he had in the Address prayed that an offence against this general law should be declared piracy, but he had altered it, when he reflected that Great Britain was for five years conniving at a crime which deserved so vile a name. In the mean time, until the five years were elapsed, his best hopes, (though they were neither comfortable nor sanguine) rested upon the diffusion, especially in France, of the knowledge we had acquired. All the other powers of Europe were favourable to abolition, and they would, he hoped, join in endeavouring to accomplish a purpose so meritorious. The grief he felt at this article was the more poignant, when he recurred to the period at which it was introduced: at that time all Europe, with one voice, was returning thanks to God for its deliverance from slavery: France had just risen from the weight of an iron despotism, and yet, with the concurrence of this country, her first act was to direct this tide of misery to a quarter of the globe where it would introduce calamities, compared with which the horrors of European wars were but as the tranquil blessings of continual peace: it was a trade which poisoned all the charities of private life, which, even in the midst of our own hostilities, were respected; a glorious example of which was displayed by the hero whose praise this night the House had celebrated, who had united the courage of a soldier to the benevolence of a Christian.

He admitted that the case was not now so desperate as if we had determined ourselves to renew the Trade. God forbid it should ever come to that! But the offence could not be considered as light, when we gave to France the colonies we had conquered, that she might people them with the wretched exiles from Africa. As a matter of policy, some individuals, connected with the West India trade, might think that they should he seriously injured by the monopoly that France would acquire. They had consented formerly, for the general benefit, to submit their opinions and to abolish the Slave Trade but they did it under an implied contract that supposed benefits, of which they were deprived, should not be enjoyed by others. The grand object in view was to mitigate evils that could not, in all probability, now be prevented; but he was not without a faint hope that France, when she found that it was her interest, would consent to an immediate abolition. If not, the period during which the Trade was allowed, might be shortened, or at least France might be induced to join a compact, that would be acceded to by the rest of Europe, to declare it a high crime to be engaged in this traffic: the voice of humanity, justice, and religion called for such a determination. When the heads of all those now living were laid low, and the facts that now excited such powerful feelings, were related by the pen of the cold, impartial historian; when it was seen that an opportunity like the present had been lost, that the first act of the restored king of France was the restoration of a trade in slavery and blood, what would be the estimate formed of the exertions this country had employed, or of the effect they had produced upon a nation under such weighty obligations? Surely, no very high opinion could be indulged either of British influence or of French gratitude. Mr. Wilberforce could not avoid indulging a hope, that those principles of justice and humanity which actuated all the rest of Europe, would have some influence upon France, and that she would see the policy of adhering to those principles which bound the civilised world in one harmonious compact, and which were the main support and security of independent states. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving.

"That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, representing to his Royal Highness, That, while we learn with great satisfaction the successful exertions of his Royal Highness in obtaining the consent of the government of Sweden, and still more that of Holland, to an immediate and unqualified abolition of the Slave Trade, we are bound in duty to express the deep regret of this House, that the late unanimous Address of this House, praying his Royal Highness to interpose his good offices to obtain a convention of the powers of Europe for the immediate and universal abolition of the African Slave Trade, to which Address his Royal Highness was pleased to return so gracious an answer, has failed to produce those consequences which this House and the country had most anxiously and with confidence anticipated:

"That the objects to the attainment of which that Address was directed, do, in the opinion of this House, so deeply affect the best interests of Europe, and the happiness and civilization of Africa, as to render it our imperious duty again to press them on the attention of his Royal Highness:

"That although the government of France, whether from the effect of partial and colonial interests, or from not being sufficiently aware of the enormities attendant on the Slave Trade, have not agreed to a stipulation for the immediate abolition of it, yet that the consent of that government to abolish the Trade in five years, and to unite its efforts with those of his Britannic Majesty, at the approaching Congress, to induce all the powers of Christendom to decree its abolition, so that it shall cease universally at that time, together with the disposition the French government is supposed to have manifested, to subject their own Slave Trade to some restrictions during the intervening period; above all, that government's distinct and unequivocal recognition of the radical injustice of the traffic in Slaves, induce the House to entertain a confident hope, that farther stipulations, with a view to the abolition or limitation of the Slave Trade, may be obtained at the approaching Congress:

"That, independent of the unspeakable evils to Africa which must arise from the permission of this nefarious traffic on the most extended scale for a further term of five years, and of the increased inducements for carrying it on which will then exist, it is obvious that new and formidable obstacles to the execution of our own laws against the Slave Trade must be created, that occasions of differences with those powers will be multiplied, that the evils and miseries produced in Africa, from the multitudes of human beings obtained by fraud or by violence being forcibly dragged into perpetual slavery in a foreign land, must be most lamentable and extensive; but they will be particularly afflicting in those parts with which his Majesty's dominions have of late had the greatest intercouse, because the restoration of the French settlements and their dependencies, with the right of an unre- strained Slave Trade, must subject those populous and extensive districts where, by the laudable exertions of Great Britain, peaceful industry and social happiness have been in some measure produced, to a renewal of the miseries inseparable from this odious traffic: the colony of Sierra Leone, also, whence European knowledge, the blessings of order, and the arts of peace, have begun to diffuse themselves through the neighbouring country, will be deprived of its beneficial influence, and even be exposed to imminent danger of ruin.

"That, with a direct view to the considerations and points above-stated, this House humbly, but most earnestly, implores his Royal Highness to endeavour to obtain, if possible, from the government of France some diminution of the term permitted to the Slave Trade, but, in any case, its restriction at least within certain limits, and its total exclusion from the parts of Africa where the exertions of Great Britain have already succeeded in suppressing the trade, that the inhabitants of those regions may be left in the enjoyment of that exemption from its ravages, which they have so recently and so happily obtained.

"That this House feels most deeply anxious that no exertion should be omitted in the approaching Congress, to procure a final and universal extinction of the Slave Trade, because it conceives that no opportunity can ever again be expected to occur so favourable, for effacing from the character of Europe its most opprobrious stain, or for delivering the unoffending, but much injured, inhabitants of Africa from the heaviest of all possible calamities, from intestine war, excited too often by the basest avarice, and the fiercest passions raging without intermission, and productive only of unmixed evil, and of invincible and interminable barbarism, and from practices which, having been exposed to the public eye, have induced the legislature to class Slave Traders among the vilest of criminals.

"That, to produce a universal condemnation of this murderous system, displayed as its horrors now are to the view of mankind, it appears to be only necessary to appeal to those feelings which must exist in every mind capable of reflection, and not steeled against the claims of humanity and justice: that as this system insults and outrages those sacred and fundamental principles which are common to every sect and denomination of Christians, it cannot be doubted that every Christian state is required to take part in its condemnation; those who have participated in its guilt being bound to abandon and to reprobate it; while none who enjoy the privilege of innocence are thereby either deprived of the right, or exempted from the obligation, of joining in the sentence.

"That this House, therefore, again expressing its profound regret that more has not been accomplished in this great work, and convinced that, by the endeavours of his Royal Highness, exerted with renewed energy, much may still be effected in the appointed Congress, humbly, but most urgently, entreats his Royal Highness, that the most strenuous exertions be there made, on the part of this country, to obtain, as far as may be possible, the objects which have been specified, and that all proper means may be used for urging on the assembled powers the duty, the expediency, and the lasting glory of promulgating to all the world, as the judgement of the states of Europe, a general and solemn engagement, under the most binding and effectual sanctions, that this traffic, the foul and formidable enemy of the happiness and civilization of Africa, will at a definite and fixed period, certainly not more distant than five years, be abolished utterly and for ever."

said, he concurred cordially and warmly in all the sentiments expressed by his hon. friend, with respect to the Slave Trade itself, and the propriety of such an Address as that now proposed. He had no hesitation in saying, that he regretted as deeply as any man could, that the views of France required such an arrangement as that which had been made: he should, however, have been better pleased, if this discussion had been reserved, until the time for taking the Treaty into consideration; and then, he trusted, he should have been able to shew that the government had performed its duty, even to the interests of this question. The hon. gentleman thought the discussion upon the subject would have been more profitable, if preliminaries had been first agreed upon, and then submitted to the House for consideration. The preliminaries, however, though they only went into all the great and leading interests of the parties, were as binding as the Definitive Treaty—so that, in either case, the House would be bound in the same way. The question now was, whether, as the Treaty stood, any advantage had been gained? The only thing which the Address of that House to his Royal Highness required, was, that he would exert his influence for the abolition of the Trade but surely it did not mean to impose upon government the accomplishment of what did not depend upon them. Nothing done on the part of France, either on former occasions or on the present, could lead this country to suppose that she would comply with the wishes of our government in this respect, or that we should make the abolition of the Slave Trade a sine qua non in the negociation for a peace. What be was about to say upon the subject now did not come from hint as an individual. If France could not be persuaded to act in the manner desired, she could not be compelled to it, nor was it to be expected that she should be taught morality at the point of the bayonet. For the conduct pursued towards her in the late Treaty upon this subject, there were precedents to be found in former governments. In the negociations carried on in the time of Mr. Fox, who from his zealous support of the measure, might be supposed inclined, if any was to make it a sine qua non of negociation, he shewed a disposition at first to require, that if France received back her colonial possessions, the Slave Trade should not be carried on by her. The answer of M. Talleyrand, so early as the 9th of July, was, that the emperor would discuss that subject when the more important points were settled. On the 24th of July following, the communication made to Mr. Fox, by general Clarke, was, that the emperor would consider the subject of the abolition when the Treaty was signed. Notwithstanding such communications, the negociation went on. This did not shew any want of zeal in the cause on the part of Mr. Fox, and as little was it made a subject of reproach to him. In the Treaty with the Court of the Brazils, made by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning), below him, it was only stipulated that the abolition should be prospective, and as little was that made a subject of reproach, even by the hon. mover of the present Address himself. This which was a mere question of morality, was never made the criterion whether they should or should not keep up the relations Of amity with foreign powers. The government, as in the present instance, might have endeavoured to influence foreign powers for the removal of this traffic, but they never had shewed a disposition to make it a cause of war.

He was glad to perceive that his hon. friend was not disposed to undervalue the stipulation in favour of the cause. If the government of France had been told that her colonies would not be returned but on the condition of not carrying on this Trade, he was certain she would not have accepted them. This was the spirit in which that great nation determined to act, and this was the language held out by her to Mr. Fox. His hon. friend had no reason to indulge in that gloomy state of mind, particularly as the principle was adopted by the French government. It was not, he contended, consistent with the progress of the human mind to adopt valuable truths at once. It took a considerable length of time before the abolition of the Trade was adopted, even in this country of liberality; and other countries could not be blamed for not adopting it immediately, particularly when it was proposed to them in the shape of a dictum. However high the hon. gentleman's mind might be upon the subject, and however disposed he and the nation might be to make sacrifices for it, he could assure him that such was not the impression in France, and that even among the better classes of people there, the government here did not get full credit for their motives of acting on this question. The motives were not there thought to arise from benevolence, but from a wish to impose fetters on French colonies, and injure their commerce; and if it was made a question of power, he was convinced that interest would be supposed to have a share in it. If this country retained the colonies, unless upon the condition of abolition, it would be said we retained them for commercial views, and that it was only a pretence for keeping up the war, aid retaining possession of those settlements. Would it have been right, by insisting upon the abolition as a sine qua non, to dissolve a union which had saved the world? He had no hesitation in saying that they gained what they did upon the subject by not mixing it with the question of colonial cession. If the correspondence with the different powers, relative to this part of the Treaty, were produced, he had no doubt but it would prove that the government had performed their duty; but at present he should feel it his duty to resist the correspondence. What had been done was undervalued; what remained undone was rated too highly. Sweden had shewed every disposition to concur in the abolition, and so did Denmark.

His lordship then proceeded to observe, that, in the present state of things, France was, perhaps, that very country, in which his hon. friend would be least justified in expecting a sudden change of system, with reference to the Slave Trade; for it was most notorious, that the dreadful tyranny by which France had been so long oppressed, and which was now happily terminated, had precluded the people from that knowledge and information, with reference to political events, which existed in almost every other state. In the internal parts of France the inhabitants were absolutely ignorant that the Slave Trade was abolished in the British colonies. There was no part of Europe, he believed, in which such profound ignorance prevailed as in France. His hon. friend seemed to regret that the colonies had been restored without a specific stipulation for the abandonment of this Trade. Now he (lord Castlereagh) knew the impossibility of procuring any such stipulation. He was told by the French ministers them selves, that, if they took back the colonies, without the right being allowed to carry on the trade in slaves, the feeling of the French people would be, that peace had been made for the purpose of having their colonies restored, but that they had recovered them in a way extremely disgraceful to the nation. He conceived that they were not now placed in a situation to do more good on the subject, than if a formal stipulation, of the nature alluded to by his hon. friend, had been entered into. He was convinced, that the Trade would ultimately be abandoned by France; and if it were at all carried on, it would be on the principle, that, after a certain period, it would be abolished. Surely, his hon. friend would permit him to suggest, that if a stipulation to put an end to the Trade, at the expiration of five years, were not available, as little available would be a contract to abolish it immediately!

He could assure the House, that every endeavour was made, as long as a prospect of success remained, to have this traffic destroyed. When it was found that could not be completely effected, an effort was made to restrict its existence to three, instead of five years; when that failed, it was attempted to procure a stipulation to prevent the Trade being introduced on that part of the African continent to which his hon. friend had alluded. But this could not be effected. What, then, was done? The present Article was agreed to—the French ministers declaring, that, teeing masters of the question themselves, the French government would, as a voluntary act of their own, put down the Trade at the end of five years—and were determined to assist Great Britain in procuring the principle to be recognised as the general law of Europe. They did, however, stand on this principle, which could not he mistaken, that they would he masters of the question themselves—at liberty to act on the decision of their own judgment—and determined not to obey the dictation of ally other power. It was on this general ground of reasoning, that the French ministers shewed the strongest objection against any proposition which would seem to deprive them of a perfect jurisdiction over the question—such a deprivation, they conceived, would lower them in the estimation of the people, and weaken their hands on other points, of very great importance. But, when they made this declaration, they gave him (lord Castlereagh) official assurance, that they were ready to adopt the principle of abolition as soon as possible. He was ready to admit, that Guadaloupe and Martinique being permitted to be points of depot, did, to a certain degree, increase the probability of an illicit trade being carried on from those islands with our colonies. But if France had even consented to abolish the Trade, the number or depots which would have otherwise existed, was sufficiently numerous for the illegal introduction of slaves into the islands belonging to Great Britain. From the Havannah and Porto Rico, the possessions of Spain, slaves might very easily find their way into our colonies.

He hoped that gentlemen would not encourage a disposition to under-rate every thing that had been done, and to magnify the importance of that which could not be effected. He thought the influence and example of France were invaluable, as they operated with respect to this question. France was not the only power whose colonial importance made the Slave Trade a question of interest. Spain and Portugal were also connected with it; and he thought his hon. friend was wrong in dashing from his lip the cup of enjoyment, by indulging the supposition, that if a final regulation had been made with France to abandon the traffic, it must necessarily have been abolished. Even if such a regulation had been agreed to, great and substantial difficulties would still have remained. Russia, Prussia, and Austria, were ready to assist in effecting this most desirable object, and he believed France was most sincere in her wish to abolish the Trade. Much surely had been gained; and it was a great matter, when gentlemen recollected, that the negociation ended in mutual respect and confidence, instead of terminating in anger and dissatisfaction. Now, if France had taken back her colonies on a principle which she felt dishonourable to her character as a nation, it must have led to eternal disputes; and his hon. friend must be perfectly acquainted with the advantage to be derived from entering into explanations with a friendly rather than an adverse power. Instead of shutting their eves to the difficulties which opposed themselves to the abolition of this system, they ought boldly to examine them; and he felt that he should be deceiving the House, if, he said, that they were to expect to find either in Spain or in Portugal the existence of that feeling op the subject of the Slave Trade, which he stated France to possess. With respect to the two former powers, their colonial interests were so deeply concerned in the Trade, that the mother country was not fairly able to master the question. This arose from the extent of foreign possessions, and from the long continuance of the system. If, therefore, the question were settled with regard to France, the great difficulties would remain with respect to the courts of Spain and Portugal. Now, though he did not despair of succeeding even with them—yet surely it would not be asserted that the difficulties which they had to overcome were trifling. If the Treaty with France had been as perfect as his hon. friend could have wished, with respect to the Slave Trade, still, even in that state of things, much would have been left to do, with reference to the powers which he had mentioned.

From all these considerations, his lordship hoped the House would be disposed to believe that his Majesty's government would not lay themselves open to a reproach from parliament, for having neglected to procure the full recognition of a principle, which would be so highly gratifying to the country. They had done all they possibly could on the subject, and if he had thought that he could have pushed the principle farther than he had done, with success, in the then state of the public mind in France, he certainly would have used his utmost exertions for that purpose. But, as he felt that it would tend to dissolve that confederacy, to which Europe owed its liberties, if they stuck out for that which others powers would not support this country in accomplishing, he was satisfied that they had acted most discretely in the cause which they were appointed to manage, by proceeding as they had done—they had procured a declaration from France that she would, at the expiration of five years, put an end to this Trade—and, he believed, the interests of humanity could not be placed in better hands than those of the monarch of that country, whose benevolent mind would take every possible opportunity to forward the cause for the success of which his hon. friend felt such a laudabable anxiety.

On the grounds he had already stated, he had no hesitation in agreeing to the Address. He conceived that it would assist the cause of abolition, by shewing to the world the continued determination of the government and parliament of this country never to abandon a measure to which they were solemnly pledged, and which they would support by every means, consistent with the peace and good order of the world. He trusted the House would give his Majesty's government credit for the exertions they had made, and which they intended to make. Anxious as they were for the adoption of the principle contended for by his hon. friend, they did not think it right to force it upon other nations, at the expence of their honour, and of the tranquillity of the world. Morals were never well taught by the sword; their dissemination might sometimes be made a pretext for ambition, but the real object could not be long concealed; and it was to the light of experience, to the promulgation of wisdom, and not to the exercise of violence, or the influence of war, that they could look with any prospect of success, for the abolition of the Slave Trade.

said, that he could not admit the proposition which the noble lord seemed anxious to press upon the attention of the House, that the abolition of the Slave Trade would involve a question of war or peace with France; and as to the allusions of the noble lord to the conduct of Mr. Fox with respect to the Slave Trade, he thought it would be rather difficult to shew that Mr. Fox could assume the tone and language towards France, which the present administration was entitled to use, because at the time Mr. Fox treated with the French government, England herself had not abolished the Slave Trade. It would have been singular, indeed, if we had demanded of another nation to abolish that traffic, while we continued it ourselves. He understood from the noble lord, that Russia, Austria and Prussia were not disposed to continue the war with a view to promote the abolition of the Slave Trade, although anxious for the attainment of that measure, and it was observed by the noble lord, that we had not the power of interposing, with effect, to influence the decision of the French government upon this subject. But what was the situation of France, at the period of the noble lord's negociation with the French government? Its capital was in the possession of the allied army, and the French force was dispersed. Was the noble lord, then, entitled to assume, that the important object, to which the Address referred, was unattainable under such circumstances without persevering in the war, especially if the French government were, as the noble lord stated, friendly to the abolition? Surely, if in such a situation it was found impossible to obtain the acquiescence of France in the abolition of the Slave Trade, the difficulties which the noble lord alluded to, with respect to the disposition of Spain and Portugal upon this subject, must be absolutely insuperable, and the more so in consequence of the example afforded by the Article under consideration. What, then, was the prospect which the friends of humanity had to contemplate? The French government was, as the noble lord stated, sincerely disposed towards the abolition of this odious traffic; and as a proof of its sincerity, the noble lord dwelt upon its agreement to put an end to it in five years. But what assurance had the House that France would abolish the Trade within that period? If the French nation were so unwilling, as the noble lord stated, to give up the Slave Trade at present, how could the House calculate that that nation would be ready to abandon it, after it had embarked its capital and derived a profit from the pursuit of it? But what evils must result from the prosecution of such an undertaking! It must produce incalculable ravages in Africa, a great part of the population of which must be swept away, to gratify a base thirst of gain. In his judgment, the Article under consideration might be said to tend rather to the establishment than to the abolition of the Slave Trade. But the noble lord had said, that no other terms could be obtained from the French government. For this, however, the House had no other evidence than the assertion of the noble lord who had conducted the negociation; and although he was as willing as any man to treat the word of the noble lord with all due deference, he could not think assertion conclusive in this instance; for that assertion might rest solely upon his own inference, a judgment which might be completely erroneous. For himself he had no hesitation in declaring, that he felt it impossible to believe, that with all the French colonies in our possession, and under all the circumstances he had already stated, the French government would not have assented to the abolition of the Slave Trade, if language sufficiently firm had been held to it upon that subject. The noble lord had said, that the French people were not truly apprised that the Slave Trade had yet been abolished in this country. But was it possible that the French merchants, that any parties interested, could be ignorant of the important circumstance? If so, was the removal of that ignorance likely to be accompanied by a removal of the disposition of the French merchants to prosecute this detestable traffic? As to the noble lord's assertion respecting the disposition of the Swedish government to abolish the Slave Trade, he could not consider the surrender of Guadaloupe as any very strong symptom of the sincerity of such a disposition; and this remark applied to the party who proposed, as well as to the party who acceded to the surrender. Recurring to the noble lords's question, whether we should go to war to enforce the abolition of the Slave Trade by France, he begged to observe, that the case was very different whether we should commence war for such an object, from that of insisting at the termination of a war, that a nation, circumstanced as France was, should agree to it; and he would ask, whether the noble lord could really think that, at the end of five years, it would be less difficult to procure the acquiescence of France in the abolition of the Slave Trade than it was at present, or than it was at the negociation of the Treaty under discussion? He would also ask whether, if France should refuse to acquiesce at the end of five years, it was intended to go to war in order to enforce her observance of the Treaty, and if so, whether war was then likely to be so effective or less inconvenient than the prosecution of the war for such an important object, under existing or recent circumstances? But while he put this question, he would protest against the supposition that our government was reduced to the necessity of conceding to the will of the French government, or prosecuting the war, for his conclusion was quite the reverse. He firmly believed we might have retained the colonies, and he was convinced that ministers ought to have insisted upon their retention, rather than have surrendered them upon such terms as made this country a party in the guilt of continuing the Slave Trade. What mischiefs were likely to result from this continuance, he thought it impossible to contemplate without horror. From our own experience, from the evidence laid before parliament respecting this abominable Trade, there was, indeed, but too much reason to apprehend that its continuance for five years by France would serve to inflict wounds upon Africa, from which that unhappy country could not recover for 200 years. It had been stated that, from the nature of our constitution, parliament could not refuse its assent to any definitive treaty. On this he would agree as a general, but by no means as an universal proposition. For who could contract that this nation should stand pledged to the perpetration of crime—that it should engage to participate for five years in doing that which was wicked, and contrary to all the fundamental principles of morality? With respect to the Address, although he thought it could produce very little, if any advantage, yet fully believing it the fruit of good intention, it should have his concurrence.

agreed to the motion, and expressed himself much dissatisfied with the stipulation to which this country had been made a party.

looked upon the Treaty as intended to continue, and not to abolish, the Trade; for it was entered into with a nation, that, for many years, was deprived of its colonies, and therefore, could have no capital embarked in the traffic. If France was unwilling to give up the Trade at the present moment, how would she feel five years hence, when her commerce was renovated and her mercantile greatness restored? It was an extraordinary way, he thought, to destroy this nefarious Trade, by telling France to engage in it for five years—a period, in which he had no doubt, whole ages of crime would be compressed. He hoped, at all events, that at the expiration of the five years, an end would be put to this abominable system, and that France would not be allowed to have more than her "pound of flesh."

said, he would rather give the Article back to France,, and let no stipulation be entered into on the subject, than make this country, as she had been made, a party to this execrable traffic. The contract, he contended, was not legitimate: it was not a case where a possession was to be ceded, or where a pecuniary grant was to he made; it was an article entered into, to authorise the commission of a crime. It had often been denominated a crime in that House, and it might have occurred to those who put their hands to the Treaty, that they were binding the sovereign and the country to the commission of a gross injustice. This stipulation rendered crimes more immediate and more extensive; because, but for this Article, it was highly probable that the Trade would have remained dormant for some time; but it acted as a proclamation to all whom it might concern, that now was their time, or never. After a variety of strong and pertinent observations, on the barbarity of the trade in human blood, the hon. gentleman summed up his objections to the stipulation, under three heads: 1st, Because it made this country a partaker in crime: 2dly, Because it rendered the Slave Trade immediate, which it would not otherwise have been: and, 3dly, Because it would make those engaged in it infinitely more active, than, under other circumstances, they would have found necessary, and afforded a strong probability that the Trade would never be abolished. He then moved, as an Amendment to that part of the original motion in which the Prince Regent is humbly implored to obtain from the government of France, "some diminution" of the term for which she is allowed to exercise this traffic, "That an immediate renunciation of the Slave Trade may be effected, in return for any cession, consistent with the honour of this country, which may be agreed on by his Majesty's government, with, the concurrence of his Majesty's allies; and if such renunciation be found unattainable, that efforts might be made to obtain every possible diminution of the term specified in the Treaty."

rose, and spoke nearly as follows:—

; I should he sorry, Sir, to protract a debate which so many gentlemen seem desirous to close; but I hope that the House will excuse my unwillingness to give a silent vote on a subject in which I have felt a deep and uninterrupted interest, since the time when the writings of Mr. Granville Sharp and Mr. Clarkson drew general attention to it down to the present moment. Whoever, Sir, has attended to the history of the abolition of the British Slave Trade, must have had this reflection forced upon him: that, notwithstanding the unexampled industry used to communicate information on the subject among all ranks and descriptions of people; notwithstanding the eloquent and unanswerable arguments by which the necessity of the measure was enforced in both Houses of Parliament; not with standing the numerous petitions heaped, year after year, on your table, and the almost unanimous expression of the public abhorrence of that traffic; the British Slave Trade could not be abolished till an administration, acting from the pure and honest motives which they professed, brought all their official influence to bear on the question, and did that great act of justice and humanity which no preceding administration had the virtue to accomplish. No man, Sir, could reason more justly, or declaim more eloquently, on the enormities of the African Slave Trade than Mr. Pitt; but having adopted the principle that it was necessary on this subject, by a sort of metaphysical abstraction, to separate the influence of the minister from that of the man, the influence of his government was never applied to it; and the traffic was not abolished. I have heard it asserted, that public opinion alone put an end to the Trade. No man, Sir, exults more than myself at the recollection of the spontaneous, and nearly unanimous, detestation of the Trade, which was expressed by all ranks of our countrymen; but I cannot forget that the public voice had been raised even more loudly against it before the administration of Mr. Fox, than during its brief existence; and to such a degree do I think the gratitude of the friends of justice and humanity due to that short lived, and much misrepresented administration, that I do in my conscience believe, but for them, the British Slave Trade would at this moment have been continued to the disgrace of the country, to the outrage of public feeling, and in violation of every principle of policy, justice, and humanity.

I cannot help, Sir, remarking a coincidence, or at least an extraordinary approximation to a coincidence between the conduct of the governments preceding that of Mr. Fox in relation to the British Slave Trade, and the conduct of the noble lord and his colleagues, in relation to the Slave Trade with the French colonies.

The British public are not less, perhaps even they are more, anxious at present to prevent the renewal of the traffic in Slaves with those colonies, than they were to put an end to it in our own islands: but ministers, professing the same feelings, have not employed all the influence of the British government to do that which they had the means of doing, which the public bad a right to expect from them, and which they were bound in duty and honour to do. No combination of circumstances could have been more favourable for accomplishing the object to which the attention of the government had been called by the unanimous addresses of the two Houses of Parliament. We had long been in possession of the French colonies, where the Slave Trade had ceased for some years.—We were also in possession of settlements on the coast of Africa, which had formerly been rendered subservient to the French Slave Trade. Why were we not, before engaging- to restore these colonies; and settlements, to require that the French government should not renew that infamous traffic?

The noble lord, it seems, wanted a precedent to guide him. Why did not he take the precedent set by his own government in the treaty with Sweden, and which he has this night told us has been followed in the treaty with Holland? But he preferred, it seems, copying the precedent of Mr. Fox, who did not, he says, insist, as an indispensible condition in his negociation with France, that the Slave Trade should be abolished in whatever colonies we might cede to that government. The noble lord did not, however, advert to the fact, stated by my right hon. friend, (Mr. Ponsonby) that the British Slave Trade was not at that time abolished, and that the relative circumstances of the two countries were so different then from what they are now, that Mr. Fox could not reasonably have proposed to Buonaparté those terms which we have at this moment a right to require from the French government. Besides, how do we know that the negociation was advanced to that stage at which the question of the Slave Trade could have been introduced with propriety?

In the circumstances of the noble lord, what had he to fear from requiring of the French government, that the Slave Trade should not he renewed with the islands to be restored? Was he afraid they would not receive the islands on that condition? Why, then, should we not have retained them for the advantage of our own empire, shewing, as we should have done, the sincerity of our professions, by enforcing on our own subjects the condition which we had required from France?

But the noble lord asks, "Would you have risked a continuance of the war for that object?" I will answer his question by another question—Would the recently formed (for we can hardly call it the established) government of France have risked its own existence on the question, whether it should have the privilege of renewing all the iniquity of the Slave Trade for five years? Must it not have been obvious to that government, that its only chance of securing to itself the affections of its subjects, was to pursue a course directly opposite to that which had led to the destruction of the preceding government? that it was indispensible to its existence to put an end to the system of conscription, and to restore peace and repose to that distracted empire? Besides, Sir, what class of its subjects could have any interest in the renewal of the Slave Trade? Would the marshals of France or the military in general, or would the peasantry feel any interest in the question? The only persons who could by any possibility suppose themselves concerned in it, were a few of the reduced commercial class; that class which had been injured, insulted, and outraged by Buonaparté. Was it necessary to conciliate this class for the French government to offer them a trade in human blood, at the very time when a peace, long, and in vain wished for, was opening to them channels of commerce, in which industry and enterprise might secure to themselves a reward with innocence and peace?

But, supposing the French government had been infatuated enough to enter into a war for so disgraceful an object—Where were they to look fur allies in such a cause the three great powers of Europe, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, having, as the noble lord has told us, declared unequivocally their abhorrence of the African Slave Trade? How were they to have assailed us, their armies disheartened, and in captivity, and devoted, as they have proved themselves to be, to the preceding government? Must not another revolution have been the infallible consequence of a war in which no national enthusiasm could have been excited, no military ardour kindled, and of which the detail would have been as tiresome and disgusting to the native impetuosity of the French, as its principle would have been abhorrent to every man who had any sense of justice or humanity?

I hope, Sir, that I shall not be suspected of an inclination to speak with disrespect of the noble lord of whose conduct on two very important occasions I have highly approved. (I allude, Sir, to the question relating to the Irish Catholics, and to the spirit of moderation which he spewed upon the extraordinary successes of the allies.) But I must beg the noble lord's permission to express a doubt whether a declared and active opponent of the abolition of the Slave Trade, down to the very period of its enactment, could be an adequate representation of the deep interest felt by parliament and the country on that great question. Whatever may have been the cause, the opportunity of preventing the renewal of that infamous traffic has been lost, and I have little hope of its recurrence. But the noble lord says, it is all to end in five years—In five years, Sir! but in those five years what ages of misery anti desolation will be crowded! Can the House forget to what an extent the British Slave Trade was increased in the interval which passed between the first declaration of the public feeling against it and its entire abolition? And will not all the iniquities and horrors of the French Slave Trade rage with tenfold fury during the next five years? The heart sickens at the thought of destroying, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) said some nights ago, at one fell sweep," all the effect of those benevolent schemes, so gratifying to humanity, which have been employed to substitute in Africa mutual confidence and the arts of civilization, and peaceful industry for the mutual suspicion, and perfidy, the dread, and slaughter, and ravage of the Slave Trade. Even our exultation at the great events which have restored peace to Europe, and for which we have this night heard that the Prince Regent has ordered a day of national thanksgiving; even an exultation at these glorious events (for which every religious heart has offered its humble tribute of gratitude and praise), is exchanged for regret and shame, when we reflect that the peace of Europe is to be the signal of war and havoc in Africa!

But the evil is to end in five years! This, Sir, is the usual way in which vice tries to flatter and deceive itself, and to stifle the upbraidings of conscience. Another throw, and the gamester will quit his play—but he persists to his ruin,—another winter, and the house-breaker and highwayman will abstain from acts of violence, and discontinue their nightly depredations—but they go on in their guilty career till they meet with the condign punishment which they have merited—and will the course of the French government be different? I am unwilling, Sir, to speak otherwise than with respect of a government with which we are at peace, but it would be treachery to use reserve on a subject like this. I would ask, Sir, will that government which has not learned in adversity to reflect on, and compassionate human misery, be taught better sentiments among the splendours, and dissipation of a court? And will a residence its the metropolis of France communicate to them those principles and feelings which one would have thought it almost impossible for them to have failed catching from the British public, while they were receiving, as exiles among us, a generous protection?

But will not the next five years produce many arguments for continuing the Slave Trade in addition to those which now urge the French government to renew it? Establishments, employing large capitals, will be created, which will be destroyed, or rendered useless by its abolition. A class of French subjects will then have acquired a deep interest in it, who will urge their claims on the government for its continuance. If we insist then in the annihilation of the Trade, will not a war betweeen the two countries be not merely the probable, but the almost certain consequence? And shall we be enabled to do that by a war, which I contend we might easily have done without one? Even if a war should transfer to us all the colonies and settlements which we have ceded, we cannot suppose that they would again remain long enough in our possession to admit of our extinguishing the Slave Trade in them for the same number of years, and establishing the same means for the progressive improvement of the people of Africa.

No man, Sir, can be sanguine enough to hope for the recurrence of such an opportunity of putting an end to this enormous evil as that which we have neglected to profit by. If any thing, Sir, could increase one's disgust with his Article of the Treaty, it would be the hypocritical cant which is introduced into it—[Here Mr. Philips read the Article.]—1 would just remark, in passing, that it is expressed in terms which exclude front observation the important fact, that the African Slave Trade to the French colonies does not at present exist, and that, unless it be renewed by the French government, its abolition cannot, strictly speaking, come under the cognizance of the approaching Congress. But let us just consider what the French government undertakes in this Article. The government of France characterizing the Trade as repugnant to the principles of natural justice, and to the sentiments of the enlightened age in which we live, coolly, and deliberately determines to incur the guilt of renewing it, and at the same time announces the inconsistent and contradictory determination, not only to repent of that unrepented crime which it is going to commit, not only to reform itself, but to use its efforts to reform all its associates in iniquity. Do the annals of diplomacy present an instance of an attempt so gross, so palpable to impose on human simplicity and credulity? And was it not essential to the success of such an attempt that there should be as great an aptitude to be deceived on the one side, as there was an inclination to deceive on the other? The plain and obvious interpretation of the whole is, the French government sought for a licence to kidnap, enslave, and murder in Africa for five years without molestation. That licence we have given them, and by so doing, we have involved ourselves as accessaries and accomplices in the guilt. After acceding to this Treaty, with what consistency can we urge upon other governments the abolition of the Slave Trade, even upon those over whom our influence on such a subject ought otherwise to have been paramount, and supreme as it is to us that they owe their existence. The more, Sir, I reflect on the principle, and all the relations, and consequences of this Article of the Treaty, the more does my mind revolt from it. I cannot better characterize it than in the language of our great dramatic poet:—It is a treaty

"—Cancelling your fame;

"Razing the characters of your renown;

"Undoing all as all had never been."

The mischief, Sir, I fear, is done, and I must own that I do not know where to look for a remedy: but it is certainly our duty to use all the means left for averting so enormous an evil; and as the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Barham) gives some additional chance of effecting our object, I shall vote for it in preference to the original motion.

thought, that while gentlemen were so full of humanity for the Africans, as to prefer continuing the war to signing such an article, they ought to have some compassion upon Europe, which had lost so many thousands during the war, He was astonished to hear from the other side of the House, that because four large armies were in France, we had a right to dictate to that nation, when he recollected for how many years they had maintained the doctrine that we had no right to interfere with the domestic concerns of that country. He gave his assent to the motion.

thought the last speaker mistook the true point of humanity in the present instance. It was not necessary to desolate Africa, in order to restore peace to Europe. But as we had the colonies in our possession, and as we had put the inhabitants in a certain situation, he conceived we had an undoubted right, either to keep them ourselves, or if we gave them up, to insist on the inhabitants retaining all the advantages we had put them in possession of. If we demanded nothing for ourselves, we had a right to demand every thing for justice. The hon. member then observed, that the mildness with which this question was often treated arose, in a great measure, from the fallacy which lurked under the word "trade:" it was no more a trade than robbery or murder was a trade.

referred to the French colony of Cayenne, as the one to which there would be the greatest traffic in slaves, under the new stipulation. They were easily transported there from the neighbouring coast; and in 1804, ten thousand had been carried over in twelve months. From the particular nature of the country, which was liable to inundation, and the employment of the slaves, who were forced to stand up to their middle in the mud and water, only males were imported, and consequently the breed could not be kept up, without constant supplies from the African coast.

in an animated speech, lamented the rapid steps with which we had descended from the resolution of the House on the 2nd of May, in their Address to the Prince Regent to the motion of his hon. friend this day, and from that motion to the speech of the noble lord. If six weeks ago it could have been known that such an article would have been inserted in the Treaty then pending, he was sure it would have been prevented by an unamous address from that House against so inhuman a concession. If the noble lord, having the colonies in his possession, could effect no more for this great object at Paris, what could he expect to do now at Vienna, after having thrown the game out of his hands? If the noble lord complained of the ignorance in which the French people were kept on the subject under Buonaparté, did he expect greater facilities of information to be afforded by the present government, who had embarked in the Trade, and who had refused permission to publish the resolutions of the 2nd of May in the French newspapers? Did this look like a disposition to diffuse light and knowledge on the subject? He ridiculed the idea of lord Castlereagh, that the refusal to concede this Article would have dissolved the union of the continental powers; as if Russia, Austria, and Prussia would go to war with us to enfore the renewal of a Trade, for the abolition of which we had the assurances of the noble lord himself that they were sincerely anxious. His organs of understanding must be differently constituted from those of another noble lord (Lascelles) who had compared our refusal to give up the islands which we had conquered, except on certain conditions, to an interference in the internal policy of France. He alluded to the conclusion of the speech of Mr. Marryatt, which, he said, reminded him of the speeches he had formerly heard in defence of the Slave Trade, and also of a proposal he had lately heard with horror, of our renewing the Trade in order to carry it on with more humanity than our neighbours. With respect to the appeal which had been made to the example of Mr. Fox in 1806, Mr. Fox was not armed with the power which the noble lord had to enforce his demands, and he was well convinced that Mr. Fox would have sooner parted with his right hand, than have signed such an article as that contained in the present treaty. Mr. Whitbread said, he did not expect much from the terms or the tone of the motion of his hon. friend, but he hoped the noble lord would do every thing at present in his power to redeem the character of the country which had been thus forfeited.

After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, and the motion for the Address was agreed to nem. con.