in presenting a Report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the state of Contagious Fever in the Metropolis, said, he wished to call the attention of the House to this important subject. It appeared, that during last year, the cases of fever had increased to nearly seven times their former number. There was only one establishment in the metropolis for the reception of fever patients solely. It was instituted in 1802, and from very small beginnings, had grown to be a considerable establishment. It was however by no means equal to the wants of the metropolis. The House would learn with some surprise, that it was the practice in all the hospitals of the metropolis to mix contagious fever patients with ordinary fever patients. The consequence was, that fever was generated in the hospitals, and that persons affected with ordinary fevers frequently caught these contagious fevers. It appeared, that in these hospitals, not only had the contagion been caught by patients, but that nurses, attendants, students, and even physicians had also caught it. The species of medical police, as it was called, applicable to fever hospitals, was very different from that of ordinary hospitals. It was a melancholy truth, that the hospitals in the metropolis were by no means equal to the wants of the population. There was not an hospital in the metropolis which did not every week turn from its doors a great many applicants. It appeared, that at some of the principal hospitals, four cases out of five were weekly refuse. By increasing the means of the fever hospital, not only would persons who could not now obtain admission into any hospital, be received, but a material relief would be experienced by other hospitals which were ill adapted for cases of contagion. The committee thought fit to recommend to government, the grant of a small sum of money to extend the accommodations of the fever hospital. Government had thought fit to give 1,000l. towards this object. Its expenses had risen last year from 500l. to 1,700l.; and the number of patients from between 70 and 8O to 700 and upwards. The committee recommended that government should grant an additional sum of 2,000l., making in all 3,000l. This would increase the accommodation from sixty-nine to one hundred beds, which from calculation appeared to them sufficient to answer the wants of the metropolis. In recommending this grant, the committee were fully aware, that it was in general better to leave the relief of distress to private charity; but, in a case like the present, where a disease originating in the dwellings of the poor spread rapidly, and affected all classes of society, it became necessary to lose no time in arresting the progress of contagion. He should at present merely move that the Report be printed. Ordered.

, in moving the third reading of this Bill, said, he wished to mention a circumstance which he had not stated in the former discussion. The bill itself only went to inquiry and report: but, unquestionably, it was his intention, after the inquiry had been gone into, to ground farther legislative proceedings on it; and it was not in his plan to wait till the whole inquiry was gone into. As soon as one report was received, which must be in six months by the act, if he should not enter on any general measure respecting the planting of schools or otherwise, he should at any rate, ground on the first report such measures as might be necessary in aid of the law. It would be a very feeble remedy for so great an evil to send all these abuses to a court of equity.—The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.

moved the order of the day for bringing Thomas Ferguson to the bar of the House, in order to his being discharged. He observed at the same time that had it been consistent with the practice of the House, he should also have moved that Ferguson be reprimanded. But as it was understood to be the rule and practice of the House, that the party offending should be reprimanded from the chair, he should simply move, that T. Ferguson be brought to the bar of the House in order to his being discharged.

Thomas Ferguson was accordingly brought to the bar, where he received a Reprimand from Mr. Speaker, and was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The Reprimand was as follows:

"Thomas Ferguson; This House having received the report from the committee of privileges, respecting a letter written by you to a voter of the county of Lanark, to influence his vote in the election of a member to serve in parliament, did resolve, that in writing and sending such letter you were guilty of a corrupt attempt to subvert the freedom and independence of election, and a high breach of the privileges of this House; and for that offence you were committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate. Your petition has since been received; and in consideration of your full and entire acknowledgment of your offence, and of the contrition you have expressed for it, and trusting that what you have already suffered will operate both as a warning to yourself and an example to others; this House is disposed to extend to you its lenity as far as is consistent with its justice; and now to relieve you from farther imprisonment: I am to acquaint you, you are discharged, upon payment of your fees."

Ordered, nem. con., That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker in reprimanding Thomas Ferguson, be entered on the Journals of this House.

said, it would be in the recollection of many members, that some time since the first law officer of the Crown for Scotland, had stated in this House, that certain acts of parliament in Scotland had gone into desuetude; that the supreme court of law in Scotland had the power of pronouncing what acts of the legislature were, and what were not in force; and that it was so well known that such a power was exercised by the lords of session, that no man from that part of the country could be ignorant of it. Now, as it was important that the people of Scotland, as well as the people of other parts of the empire, should know by what laws they were bound, and for that purpose that they should look to the Statute-book, and not to the proceedings of courts of judicature, it was important to know what laws were, and what were not, in desuetude. This was important, not merely to the people of Scotland, but also to the people of the other parts of the empire who might have connexions with them. One ground that was stated for a law's not being acted on was so extraordinary, that it could not fail to astonish the House: a law was considered as in desuetude, and no longer binding, when for a long time it had not been acted on; so that in proportion as a statute had been operative in the prevention of crime, in that proportion was it to be considered a nullity. It was stated farther, that in some particular instances, some parts of an act were in desuetude while other parts were in force. Whatever opinion might be entertained of the absurdity of some of the Scotch statutes, it belonged to the legislature, and to the legislature alone, to repeal the law; and if a court of law thought fit to erect themselves into a legislature, it was full time to warn them that they had exceeded their duty. He concluded with moving, "That the Lords of Session, the Judges of the court of Justiciary, and Barons of the Exchequer of Scotland, be directed to cause to be made out and presented to the House of Commons, within six weeks after the commencement of the ensuing Session of Parliament, a Statement of such parts of the Statute Law of Scotland, or of the United Kingdom, as the courts of justice of Scotland have declared or considered to be in desuetude, and no longer binding on the people of that part of the United Kingdom; together with a statement of the authorities on which they have grounded such decisions."

admitted, that it must appear strange to the ears of Englishmen, that in any part of these kingdoms there should exist a doubt as to the effect and operation of the existing statutes of the realm. That part of the statutes of Scotland were in desuetude could not be denied, although it had already appeared, that the assumption that they were in de- suetude had proceeded upon the authority of the opinions and decisions of the judges and first legal characters of that part of the empire. He certainly thought there was sufficient ground for the introduction of a bill to remedy the evil, without calling for the statement moved for by the right hon. baronet. At any rate, the words "or consider," should be left out of the motion.

said it was a most important question, whether courts should continue a practice by which they could silently subvert the laws of parliament, and that the judges should consider whether laws were or were not in desuetude, and no longer binding. This matter was fit for parliamentary consideration. As to bringing in a bill upon it, he must say, he thought it essential to have, first, the necessary returns, in order to know what laws had, and what had not, been considered as having fallen into desuetude. With that knowledge, the House would be competent to found some proceeding. It was quite a parliamentary usage to inquire of the judges for information which they were the best enabled to afford. As to the words "or considered," he thought they should remain in the motion, as meaning that the judges were called upon to consider and state what laws they had declared in desuetude, and the principles on which they so held them. It appeared right, for the sake both of the judges and of the House, that the principles of the regulations of the courts should be stated.

thought that the motion would throw a great deal of trouble upon the court of session. Part of the information required was desirable, but it might be obtained in a less objectionable way.

said, it was worthy of the serious consideration of parliament, how far a court of justice should be suffered to set aside the written law by its mere arbitrary authority. It seemed extraordinary that judges should decide, as cases happened to arise, whether acts of parliament were in force or were not. In a late case, the burgesses of Aberdeen clearly showed that they had a right, by acts of parliament, to elect their magistrates. But the counsel on the other side argued, and the judges were of opinion, that long-continued usage had thrown those acts into desuetude. It was usage versus an act of parliament, and usage carried the day. At the same time, it would not be right to pass an act to de- clare all acts not repealed to be still in force; for decisions founded on the desuetude of several acts would, in that case, be unsettled. But inquiry was necessary, and some suitable remedy was much called for. In England, the old law of appeal of murder had lately occupied much of the public attention. The judges had declared, that the trial by battle was the law of the land. There was no one who heard him who did not regret that this was the law; but no one would therefore say, that the judges had the power of annulling the law. The great city of Aberdeen had been disfranchised, and Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, was likely to be disfranchised, and to be without representatives in parliament, owing to the desuetude of acts of parliament, and the doctrine that long-continued abuses constituted a right.

said, that one part of the motion was unnecessary, and that the return to the other was impossible. The judges were called on to say, what laws had been decided to be in desuetude. To this a cumbrous return must be made, which would be altogether unnecessary, as the facts could be ascertained by any other persons. But they were also directed to say what laws they would consider to be in desuetude. Now this it was impossible for the judges to anticipate, without the hearing of counsel and evidence. He should therefore object to the motion, as a declaratory law might be brought in.

said, that the doctrine of desuetude was established by all the writers on the law of Scotland, as well as by the decisions of the courts. This, however, inferred no legislative authority in the court of session. It was indeed extremely inconsistent with the English administration of justice, and with the vigilance that was now exercised over courts of law. But it was borrowed from the law of Rome, when Rome was in the highest splendor of its liberty. It was a principle in the Roman law, that all laws derived their authority from the people; the popular consent was either tacit or expressed: as tacit consent constituted law, so tacit consent was held to abrogate law. It was, however, a state of the law deserving attention. Some legislative measure should be applied to this subject in the present day, when so much attention was bestowed upon the administration of law, and the state of courts of justice. The motion of his right hon. friend, whose able and unwearied attention to matters of this kind did himself so much honour, and his country so much service, went only to obtain the state of the fact, in order to lay a proper foundation for their future deliberations. The expression in the motion, "or consider," he objected to, and recommended to be left out. The only other objection that could be started was, that the motion would give much trouble to the learned judges; but this was not to be put in competition with the public service.

thought that some remedy was immediately called for, if the law was, as it had been said to be, a trap, and not a guide for the people. If the judges could not tell what laws were in desuetude, till counsel were heard as to each, particular law, how could the people know what the law of the land was? It was from want of attention to the progress of society, that laws came to be in such a situation. Some of the laws were, at the same time, most abominably tyrannical. Lord Thurlow had decided, in the case of the church livings in Scotland, that long usage, which implied the consent of the people, had set aside the statute law. He congratulated the people of Scotland on the inquiry now originated. He hoped it would lead to the appointment of a commission, and that the result would be an act of parliament, taking away from the court of session the power of declaring any act in desuetude.

approved of the motion. He thought it quite as much a matter of course that the House should, in some way or other, inquire into the laws of Scotland which had fallen into desuetude, as into the expired and expiring laws of this country.

said, there were many ways open of obtaining this information. It could be had either by a committee of the House, or by a commission appointed by the Crown. The worst possible way was, to call on the judges, and require from them opinions in their chamber, which they afterwards, on hearing counsel and witnesses, might depart from in their judicial capacity. The proceeding, either by a committee or commission, would certainly be inoperative at this late period of the session: he thought, therefore, that the subject ought to be postponed.

said, that to that part of the motion which required an account of the laws which had been decided to have fallen into desuetude, there could be no such objection as that stated by the noble lord. It was a mere question of fact. The rest of the motion he agreed should be omitted.

said, that the judges of the court of session were too much occupied in the performance of their judicial functions, to prepare such a return as that which was required by the motion. The noble lord concluded with moving the previous question.

observed, that whether a committee or a commission were appointed, still the information required could only be had from the judges; and, therefore, it was better to apply for that information to the judges at once, than to seek for it through a circuitous route.

said, that as the judges of England were frequently applied to for legal information to guide the judgment of parliament, he could not conceive the ground upon which a similar application to the judges of Scotland should be deemed so very troublesome. He should decline to press the House to a division, in the hope that as its attention had been drawn to a practice which no one attempted to defend, ministers would themselves bring forward some remedy for such an evil.

said, that he was not in possession of the information necessary to form any opinion as to the merits of the ease; and, therefore, he could not pledge himself or his majesty's ministers to take any proceeding upon the subject.

said, that if nothing were proposed in this case, by his majesty's ministers, at an early period of the next session, he should himself feel it his duty to submit to the House a distinct motion upon the subject.

The previous question was then carried.

observed, that the motion he was about to make was, he understood, to be opposed, but on what grounds he was at a loss to conceive, and he certainly should be surprised if any good grounds for opposition were shown. The motion he was about to make was for the appointment of a select committee on the papers relative to the Treatment of Slaves in the Island of Nevis, which, he conceived, could not be refused, when certain facts calling for such a measure were laid before the House. It had been allowed that the laws by which slaves were to be governed ought to be just and humane; but to what end was it that those laws were just and humane, if they were allowed to remain without any attempt being made to carry them into execution? In the observations which he intended to make, he should confine himself to what passed in the Island of Nevis; and he should observe, that in the circumstances which he should mention, he did not mean to animadvert with severity on the persons he should name. There was no state of slavery in which cruelty did not exist; his object, therefore, was, not so much to condemn the conduct of shose persons, as to remedy the evil which by such conduct was proved to exist. When any injustice was known between a master and a slave, it was the duty of the legislature, to extend to the latter that protection, which, of himself, he was unable to obtain, or even to seek. He had before stated several circumstances which took place in Nevis, and which called for legislative interference; and, amongst others, he had mentioned the conduct of a Mr. Huggins, who had been left manager of a Mr. Cottle's estate in that island. It appeared, that two young men, slaves, had purchased each a pair of stockings from another slave who had stolen them. It did not appear, however, that the purchasers had any knowledge of the property being stolen. For this crime, nevertheless, they were to be punished, it being argued, that the man who sold the stockings, being a bad character, the parties ought to have known him. They were accordingly sentenced to 100 lashes each, though the law limits the number to 39. Mr. Huggins was present at the infliction of this punishment, as were also two female slaves, one the sister, the other a near relative of one of the culprits. These poor women on witnessing the punishment of their friends shed tears, and for this heinous crime Mr. Huggins, thinking it fit that they also should be flogged, ordered them to receive one 25 and the other 20 lashes, which were inflicted with a carter's whip. For this offence Mr. Huggins was indicted, he was tried before a petty jury, and though the facts were clearly proved, and though no defence had been made, save an allegation of riot, which was also disproved by evidence, it was a singular fact that Mr. Huggins was acquitted. On this subject there had been papers transmitted to the secretary of state from the counsel for the Crown on the trial, the attorney general of Nevis. There had also been accounts transmitted from the legislative council, in which accounts there was some difference: in the latter there was given the speech for the prisoner, while that made on the part of the Crown was omitted. It was stated by the legislative assembly, that though" the defendant did not call evidence on his trial, yet he might have done so if it had been thought necessary; and all this was done to justify the conduct of Mr. Huggins. He did not care about Mr. Huggins. Mr. Huggins might probably deserve the confidence placed in him by Mr. Cottle, his employer; he looked only to the facts stated before the jury on the trial, and not to any statements made subsequently to that trial. It had been urged, that the poor creatures flogged could not have been much injured, as they had been seen at work shortly after. But let the House look to what appeared on the trial; where it was proved, that those poor slaves, female slaves too, were at their work, it was true, but in a lame and crippled state, and that, after the infliction of the punishment upon them, they were seen in a wounded and bleeding state. There were also other papers sent to this country relative to this transaction. In these papers it appeared rather extraordinary, that the speech of Mr. Huggins at the legislative assembly in his own defence, and also a resolution of the assembly that Huggins's defence should be entered on their journals. But in order to form an idea of the accounts given by the legislative assembly, it would be necessary to inform the House how this assembly was constituted, or at least who the parties were by whom these accounts had been sent. It appeared that one of the parties was no other than the identical Mr. Huggins who had been tried. Another was the brother, a second the son, and a third the father of this same Mr. Huggins. Another gentleman who formed one of the legislative assembly was the retained counsel of Mr. Huggins. The account sent by the agent of the island did not state a word as to who the parties were who composed the assembly. He should not trouble the House much farther on the present subject, but he could not help observing, that he never witnessed greater partiality than that shown by this assembly; they were not content with sending their own account, but they also sent a letter of the governor of the island, who did not confine himself to the support of Mr. Huggins's character for humanity, and his convivial qualities at his table, where he understood Mr. Huggins was a frequent guest, but the governor also said, that he was perfectly satisfied with the verdict. The assembly also gave in their account to the secretary of state the speech of the defendant's counsel, and he wished the House to observe what the points were which the assembly selected for the consideration of the secretary of state. In the speech of counsel it was stated, "That there never was a country where the interference between master and slave was likely to produce more alarming effects than in that, and it was to be regretted that such questions should be agitated, unless where it was found to be absolutely necessary." It had been proved that Huggins had been advised, nay, requested not to punish these poor women, who had, in fact, only shed tears when they saw their relatives innocently punished. It had been proved that Huggins had punished them, and notwithstanding this he had been acquitted. The question then arose, whether the jury were justified in giving such a verdict, where not even a shadow of defence had been made? What must be the state of the population of those islands if they were to be whipped at pleasure for giving way to the feelings of nature at the distresses of their friends? It was not, he should repeat, for the sake of Huggins that he made the motion; but for the purpose of pointing out the evil, and of obtaining a remedy for it. He should, however, observe, that Huggins had before been accused and tried for cruelty, and had been acquitted; and this, he conceived, was a circumstance worthy of remark. Under all these circumstances, he was at a loss to account for any opposition to his motion, unless the gentlemen on the other side were deceived in the information on which they relied. It appeared from the whole of the transaction as if the governor and council of the island had sacrificed themselves in order to protect Huggins; and he should ask, if it was not even on their account necessary that some investigation should take place? He did not mean to state, that the punishment to which he alluded was, at all extraordinary; but, whether it was or was not, still if it was unmerited, it called for redress, and, in order to afford such redress, inquiry was necessary. The circumstances of the punishment, too, were worthy of notice. Poor unprotected female slaves were to be whipped with the greatest severity—and for what? for nothing more than their being possessed of those feelings of humanity, tenderness, and compassion, which were an ornament to the highest class of their sex in any country—feelings which did honour to society. It seemed also as if Mr. Huggins intended to practise a refinement on cruelty, by blending a sort of indifferent politeness with his severity. When he had punished the young men, and was about to punish the female slaves, who shed tears at the sight of such severity, he (Huggins), turning to one of his attendants, said, "now bring out the ladies;" and while they were extended on the ground, and receiving their punishment, he was heard frequently to say to them, "now cry," as if taunting them with the possession of the feelings of humanity. He should not go into the subject any farther, but should move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration certain Papers laid before this House on the 30th day of April last, relating to the Treatment of Slaves in the Island of Nevis; and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

observed, that his opposition to the motion rested solely on the general principle of its being inexpedient for the House to interfere upon ex parte evidence, with the judicial proceedings of a competent tribunal. He could not allow any weight to documents received after a trial, at which every witness had been subject to cross-examination. It was on this ground that he had signified his intention of resisting the motion, and not with the view of defending the character of Mr. Huggins. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, had put the question on somewhat a different footing by his statement that documents of a garbled nature had been produced from the office of the secretary of state, and that the blame must attach either to that office, or the agent for the island. In this view he had no objection to the inquiry by a committee; for the office of the secretary of state had as much right to complain as the House, if imperfect and mutilated accounts had been transmitted. At the same time it was right to State, that certain parts of the papers or- dered had not been communicated, and that the passages thus omitted contained animadversions on the characters of individuals, bearing no reference to the facts of the inquiry. It would have been a breach of duty, and of that confidence with which representations were made to government, if attacks on the characters of different persons had been thus published to the world. He would now repeat, that he had no objection to the motion provided the investigations of the committee were properly limited.

implored the hon. gentleman to reconsider the subject before he resolved to maintain the doctrine, that that House had no authority to revise the administration of the laws in the West Indies. It was one of the guardian privileges of the House, as he understood its privileges and functions, to exercise the power, when it should appear necessary, of canvassing the proceedings of every court of justice, even those in which the judges of the land presided—

denied that he had advanced any such doctrine as that now ascribed to him. In all cases he fully admitted the authority of the House to inquire into any matters, although judicially determined. He had confined himself entirely to the argument of the inexpediency of the House re-trying, on imperfect evidence, what had been disposed of by a competent tribunal.

resumed his observations. He said, that he meant to State distinctly in his place, that justice was not equally administered in the West Indies. The unfortunate slaves, it must be remembered, had no representatives in that House; a circumstance that should induce it to take a more lively concern in their welfare. When he heard of the purity of West Indian justice, it brought to his recollection the descriptions he had formerly heard of the delights of the passage from Africa to the West Indies; descriptions which would have induced those who put any faith in their correctness to regard it as a kind of Elysium, although it had been subsequently proved to be a concentration of misery, such as never was before crowded into an equal space. He had never seen a set of papers relating to any trial that seemed to him to call for more serious investigation. Many things were stated totally undeserving of belief. Was it not too much to represent, that a lady had sold Mr. Huggins an estate for 3,500l. less than she might have obtained From another purchaser, because the transfer was gratifying to the slaves? He really thought the lady might have discovered in the West Indies, if not in the island of Nevis, some means not involving so great a sacrifice on her part of giving satisfaction to her slaves, without consigning them to the care of Mr. Huggins. When it was said that some passages in these documents were suppressed, in consequence of their relation to personal character, he must say that many were preserved that contained reflections, not only on the late Mr. Tobin, but on the African Institution.

rose to oppose the motion. As he recollected in the year 1811 to have designated the conduct of Mr. Huggins as outrageous and unprincipled, he conceived that he was free from prejudice in now attempting to vindicate the more recent proceedings under consideration. With regard to the lady whose sale of her estate to Mr. Huggins had been alluded to, it might be understood, without attributing it altogether to humanity, as the contract was for money paid down to the amount of 16,500l. He had nevertheless known cases in which a considerable sacrifice had been made, in order to dispose of the slaves with their own consent. As agent to the islands, he had himself sold estates at a much lower price than might have been obtained, with the view of transferring the slaves to masters of their own choice. In considering the circumstances of the present question, it should be remembered, in the first place, that the prosecution against Mr. Huggins was undertaken at the instance of the resident authorities in the island. The hon. gentleman read a part of the evidence and depositions taken on the trial of Huggins, and contended that there was no proof of excessive severity. He then stated the case and endeavoured to show that the crime for which the slaves in question were punished was of an aggravated nature. A felony and burglary had been committed, and two slaves on the estate of Mr. Cottle, for which Mr. Huggins was agent, had received the stolen goods, consisting of stockings and some other articles, refusing to deliver them up, though offered the sum for which they had been purchased. Such an offence as this in England would subject the parties to transportation, and in the West Indies it rendered them subject to the penalty of a flogging. He had every reason to believe, from the evidence adduced, that the punishment inflicted was not more severe than what was merited. It appeared that the person who used the whip had relaxed in his exertion, and that the punishment was not so severe as it had been represented. Although no evidence existed on the point except a statement of the consequences, that statement was sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the persons punished had not suffered severely. There were several affidavits to prove that they appeared at a masquerade on the Monday evening following; and though that circumstance might be doubted from some contradictions in the evidence, it would appear at any rate that they had been seen at their work on Monday morning. Thus it was evident that the effects of their punishment did not prevent them from engaging in their usual occupations two days afterwards; and the inference was irresistible, that that punishment could not have been cruel or severe. If any farther testimony was required to establish this fact, he might read the depositions of Dr. Archibald Stather, and other persons, who all said that they had seen negroes, for less offences, punished with greater severity. Much had been said of the cruel treatment of the women, who, it had been asserted, were punished solely because they appeared to sympathize with the sufferings of their friends and relatives. This part of the case was even more exaggerated or coloured than the former. It appeared that one of these women was at the dance on Monday night, and at any rate it was proved that they went to their usual work on the Monday morning. Not only was the severity of their punishment exaggerated, but its cause was misrepresented. Against the story that they suffered on account of the expression of their sympathetic feelings, he had to state the improbability of the fact. It was stated in evidence, that these women were punished, not for the expression of sympathy with suffering, but for cries, rage, and insubordination, tending to the subversion of authority. Such were the facts of the case, so far as he had been able to collect them from the documents and evidence. If any cruelty had been exercised, he would not be its apologist; but he did not think that any good could be accomplished by the perpetual agitation of questions like the present. He was not one of those who denied the right of the mother coun- try to interfere with the administration of justice in the colonies on all occasions, or to watch with a vigilant eye, so as to prevent or to correct abuses, when the local authorities neglected so to do; but he would always contend for the policy of exercising that interference prudently, imperceptibly, and silently, taking care that no groundless clamour was excited, and no sentiments tending to the subversion of order and subordination countenanced or inculcated. Gentlemen were not aware of the full influence and effects of discussions like the present on the minds of the slave population, whose interests might be guarded, and whose good treatment might be secured by representations, in cases of abuse, to the proper department, which might again influence the governments of the colonies, and thus produce its proper result without noise and without danger. He deprecated, particularly, doctrines that had a tendency to excite insurrection among the slaves, or to convince them that they were treated with cruelty or injustice, by being kept in a state of servitude. The phrases used, that the colour of a man's skin should make no difference in his situation, and the eulogies lavished in some publications on the black emperor of Hayti, tended to inspire them with the idea that they were cruelly treated, in being debarred from an equality with the whites, and had a tendency to excite them to revolt, for the recovery of the rights of which they imagined themselves unjustly deprived. It ought to be recollected, that the dominion of the whites was founded on opinion; and if that opinion was destroyed, the authority of the planters was at an end, the order of West India society would be subverted, and the rights of the masters would be buried along with the comforts, prospects, and anticipated improvements of the slaves. When views of humanity were directed against the rights of the planters, and those planters were accused of being the authors of slavery, it ought to be told that they did not create that servitude which they were charged with the desire to perpetuate, by the members and the publications of the African Institution. The slavery complained of was the work of the British government, and continued under British laws; and if the rights of the colonial proprietors, acquired under such guarantees, were to be interfered with, the parties ought in this case, as in others, to be indemnified. The African Institution had told the world, and told it justly, that if you want to abolish slavery ultimately, you must cut off the supply of slaves. This had been done, and a gradual amelioration of the state and prospects of the slaves might be expected to be the consequence. As improvement advanced, and as the labour of slaves became of more value, from an increased demand for it, their condition would gradually ameliorate. When at last the price given for the labour of slaves would purchase that of free labourers, slavery would abolish itself. Looking to this view of the case, and the prospects thus held out, he could not but deprecate discussions of this kind, which might rather retard than promote the purposes in view, and disturb, by unseasonable interference with the conduct of the planters, the natural course of events. Reverting to the subject before the House, he was surprised to hear from the hon. and learned mover, that there were persons in this country who could give information on the transactions in Nevis. He knew of nobody who could give such information but the counsel for the prosecution, whose accounts, as they appeared in the papers before the House, must be exaggerated, and whose statements, as to the excessive severity perpetrated on the slaves of Mr. Huggins, were contradicted by other testimony. He concluded by saying, that he saw no reason for the inquiry, and should therefore oppose the motion.

was surprised at hearing a sort of defence set up for Mr. Huggins. He did not think the African Institution deserved the reflection which had been thrown on it; and as an individual connected with the West Indies, he was anxious not to be mixed up with the opinions expressed by the last speaker, on the inexpediency of a public inquiry into matters connected with the treatment of slaves in the colonies. He thought the dominion of the whites would be best maintained by kindness to the slaves. A stronger case than that now before the House, had, in his opinion, never been brought forward. He could hardly believe that he had rightly heard the last speaker, when he said the jury appeared to have been justified, under all the circumstances of the case of Mr. Huggins, in finding the verdict they had returned. He felt that an inquiry was properly demanded, and should therefore support the motion.

was favourable to the principle of inquiry. It was the duty of the House to know whether the law was duly administered in all, and particularly in the smaller colonies, and if there was any abuse which would not, or could not be corrected, then to point out the remedy which might seem most fitting. He could not for a moment agree in the principle, that the House ought not to interfere; for the colonial legislative powers were only acting under a trust, which might be forfeited by abuse. He concurred in the propriety of bringing every subject connected with our colonies before the House, where the evil, if any was complained of, could not be remedied, by the local governments. He wished to guard the House against any extension of the conclusion which they might draw from one case of abuse to the whole of the colonies. The case which had been mentioned was certainly according to the statement, one of a very flagrant nature; but then it was only one case, and that too in an island, where even a number of such occurrences ought not to draw down any general censure upon the conduct of the West India planters. In the larger islands there was, he was certain, as strong a desire, as well on the part of the governments as on that of individuals, to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, as could be desired by the most sincere friends of abolition in this country; and so far was this carried that he would venture to affirm, that, abstracting the name of slavery, the condition of the slaves in most of the large islands was in general preferable to that of a large portion of the lower classes of the peasantry in this country. With respect to the motion before the House he had no objection to it, and he expressed his thanks to the hon. and learned gentleman for the humane disposition which induced him to bring it forward.

was surprised to hear such an observation, as that the condition of the slaves in some of the islands was superior to that of a large portion of the peasantry of this country. He thought, that no comparison ought to be made between them, and the lowest class of people under even the most despotic government; for though they might be clothed and fed better than some of our peasants, yet it should not be forgotten that they were sent to labour with the whip at their backs. The hon. member then contended, that it was absurd to suppose that any real good would be effected for ameliorating the condition of the slaves, unless such discussions as were then before the House were raised. It was by such discussions that every thing which had hitherto been done had been effected; for until they had been raised and repeated, the House had heard what were since found to be the most crying grievances praised as acts of great lenity and humanity. To any person who had read the evidence on the trial of Huggins, it must be apparent that the grossest acts of cruelty had been committed. It was clearly proved that the two women had been punished for crying at seeing their relatives punished. This he conceived was a piece of cruelty which no circumstance could palliate.

supported the propriety of encouraging discussions of this description. Until public discussions on this subject had taken place, not a single abuse was discovered; but, when investigation was introduced, step by step they proceeded to the abolition of the Slave trade. They were told, by the House of Assembly at Nevis, that they were about to form a code of laws, which would be as beneficial as those of Jamaica—a code that would be satisfactory to all persons, except the African Institution. Now, he had belonged to the African Institution. from the beginning, and he could say, that that Institution did not care about the approbation of the House of Assembly at Nevis. At the same time, he must observe, that, on one occasion, the African Institution had acted improperly. They were deceived; and, through the medium of a most respectable publisher, they had given to the world a statement that was not true. But, what progress had the legislature of Nevis made in the formation of this admirable code? That would easily be seen by a reference to a particular case. About a year and a half ago, a clergyman was called on to marry, by bans, a slave, the property of a Dr. Cassin, in Nevis. The moment the circumstance was discovered, it became the subject of angry discussion in the House of Assembly; the clergyman was desired not to proceed; and, at length, he received a decisive order, commanding him not to perform the marriage ceremony. Here, then, it appeared, that these, legislators thought proper to discourage marriage amongst the slaves, and thereby to favour a system of concubinage. After all they had promised, nothing had been done, nor would any one effectual step be taken unless the House exerted themselves to produce it. With respect to the two boys, it was confounding all distinctions of persons and things to apply the words felony and murder to their offence. These were technical words of the English law, made for men living in civilised society. He hoped when any thing like that which produced this motion was committed in the West India islands, it would undergo the strictest investigation.

said, he did not mean to advocate the case under consideration, but he thought the House should be on its guard against exaggerated statements. He was convinced that the system pursued by the planters towards the slaves was become much milder of late years, and that even if the present case was found to be a case of cruelty, it could only be considered as an exception to the general practice of the islands, and not as a sample by which that practice could be estimated.

rose to reply. He could not, he said, concur in the proposition for limiting this inquiry. He had moved for a committee to take into consideration the papers laid upon the table, and he did not know how farther to limit the subject. He begged to be understood as not meaning to throw any censure upon the minister for the colonial department, either on account of the papers which had been granted or those which had been withheld. It was proper certainly to keep back such as could not be produced without public inconvenience. He could not, however, help remarking, that the whole of them, with only one exception, were such as went to justify what took place. They appeared to be selected for the occasion. One hon. gentleman was of opinion that the conduct of the jury was justifiable. The trial, in his opinion, could not but create a strong impression against those who were concerned in it. He would now only notice shortly a few arguments which had been used upon the present occasion. He was surprised to hear the member for Sandwich (Mr. Marryat) say, that the verdict could be defended. Even his own statement was inconsistent with a defence. With respect to the two boys, he (Sir S.) never represented their punishment as one of extreme severity. It was mild, because the person by whom it was inflicted was their own father. In the account of this transaction it was not stated that only 25 lashes were inflicted; it was merely said that 25 lashes had been often known to produce more severe effects. The punishment inflicted was not for stealing a pair of stockings, but for purchasing them knowing that they were stolen. There was, however, no kind of proof that they had known the articles to be stolen: it was merely stated, that the man from whom the purchase had been made was a bad character. With respect to the women 22 lashes were inflicted upon the naked body of one and 20 upon the other, who was in a weak state of health at the time, and had lived in Mr. Cottle's house as a nurse. The hon. gentleman himself (Mr. Marryat) stated the case in a more aggravated way than those who brought it forward as a subject for inquiry, and his argument was, that the jury must have pronounced a verdict of acquittal because the case was utterly incredible. It was proved, however, and the proof remained uncontradicted. In extenuation of the conduct pursued, it was said that when those punishments were inflicted a spirit of insubordination prevailed among the slaves. The proofs went the contrary way. If any insubordination prevailed it must have subsided, for many had been punished. Mr. Huggins, upon the occasion alluded to, called out, not for male slaves who had been guilty of insubordination, but for "the ladies who had cried." The account of the circumstances was truly distressing. It was not stated that they made any uproar or wept loudly. On the contrary, one of them endeavoured to conceal her tears with a handkerchief, and only begged of Mr. Huggins to "forgive Richard." A man named Macdougal, it was said, had made an affidavit in contradiction to the statement of the case which the House had heard. His affidavit was made on the 19th of April. The trial did not take place until the May following, and so false was his account of the transaction that it was not even attempted to call him upon the trial. There was not a single fact before the jury which could justify their verdict. They were now told that this question of registering slaves, and others respecting their treatment in the West Indies, had no other effect than to excite disorder and insubordination among them, and to break the charm which bound the slave to his master. This argument would go to prevent all discussion upon the subject, as well here as in the West India islands. Were they, under such a pre- tence as this, to suffer slaves to undergo every sort of treatment, even the most rigorous, without any attempt to ameliorate their condition, or to inquire into their sufferings? It was the custom to attribute every insurrection among the slaves to those who took an active interest in their condition of late years. The charge was unfounded. Revolts were much more frequent before the abolition than they had been since. This must be evident to every person who read Edwards's History of the West Indies, or Long's History of Jamaica. It was merely a cry set up in those islands by the newspapers, and by persons interested in the continuation of abuse. Revolts and insubordination were now less frequent, and for a very good reason, because the treatment of slaves was much better than in former times.

The motion was then agreed to, and a Select Committee appointed.

, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the Payment of Wages, made a few observations for the purpose of explaining his measure, and the previous steps he had taken. His design was now to unite both the objects of persons interested in this subject, viz. to enable the person receiving wages not in the legal coin of the realm to be a witness before a magistrate for conviction, and to render bank of England notes, and the paper of licensed bankers, legal tenders. It was in fact only a renewal of the bill thrown out in the Lords, for the purpose of introducing an amended measure. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to amend certain acts passed in the 4th year of king Edward the 4th; 1st and 10th years of queen Anne; 1st, 12th, and 13th years of king George the 1st; 13th, 22d, and 29th years of king George the 2nd; and 13th and 57th years of king George the 3rd, prohibiting the payment of the wages of workmen in certain trades, otherwise than in the lawful coin or money of this realm."

suggested that this salutary provision should be extended to more modern trades, not adverted to in the older statutes.

was also desirous that the operation of the bill should be considerably enlarged.

said, that the main object of the bill was, to make the existing acts effectual. He concurred in thinking that it would be desirable to extend the operations of the bill; but considering the late period of the session, it would be better to postpone any extension of the law till it could be more conveniently considered.

Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was accordingly brought in, and read a first and second time.

said, that after the discussion which this measure had undergone, he would not, at that late hour, enter into any argument upon it; but would merely read the clause, which he was desirous the House should adopt, and which would fully explain the object he had in view. The clause was as follows:—"That whereas the powers granted by the said acts were hitherto unknown to the constitution of these kingdoms, and the policy of our ancestors, and it is expedient and necessary that the exercise of those powers should be placed under the control of parliament—be it therefore enacted, that, from and after the passing of this act, a record be kept in the office of the secretary of state for the home department, of the grounds and reasons for every order made for the removal of any alien or aliens, after the passing of the said act—and that a true copy of the said record or records shall, within one month after the meeting of parliament, be laid before each House of parliament, sealed up, for them to report their opinion thereon." He feared that this clause would not be agreed to, after the votes which had already been given in that House; but still he was anxious to bring it under the consideration of Parliament, because a power of so extraordinary a nature as that granted by the act, should, as much as possible, be placed under the control of the legislature.

The clause was then brought up, and negatived without a division.