objected to the Bill, upon the ground, that the present was the first time that the legislature had interfered for the purpose of justifying officers in detaining ships belonging to the Subjects of a foreign state. He conceived such an enactment to be at the least superfluous, as the authority for the object specified emanated from the prerogative of the Crown, and the act of the Crown was the act of the nation. Parliament could not therefore be called upon to legalize the act of detaining the subject of any foreign power, and in the case under consideration, the subjects of Portugal were considered by the act of their own government. But the enactment was not only superfluous in consequence of the undoubted prerogative of the Crown; it had also a tendency to establish a dangerous precedent. The Crown of Spain had accepted a stipulated sum from this country, for abandoning, after a certain specified time, the traffic in slaves. In consequence of that agreement between the two Crowns, the subjects of Spain were precluded from prosecuting their claims in the courts of this country. Whatever individual hardship there might be in this proceeding, its legality had never been doubted and no enactment had ever been thought necessary to legalize it on the part of the legislature. The case of an embargo presented a complete analogy. Should Portuguese ships be brought into this country by virtue of an embargo laid on by the executive government, and should the transaction afterwards terminate amicably, would any enactment be necessary for the justification of the officers who had detained the ships in consequence of the embargo? The proceeding was perfectly legal, in consequence of the right of making peace and war being vested in the Crown, and an embargo was an act of hostility. That case bore a complete analogy to the present, and it would be idle to interfere with the constitutional law of the country. As the enactment was both superfluous in itself, and might lead as a precedent to dangerous consequences, he should move that it be expunged. He also saw with regret an article in the treaty for the appointment of commissary judges and commissioners of arbitration, for the adjustment of disputed claims. By the law of nations, the practice had been, that all disputed captures should be adjusted by the tribunals of the country of the captors, and not the country of the captured; and the House most be aware, that otherwise justice could not be impartially administered. That had been the decided opinion of the most eminent lawyers of this country, in answer to the Prussian memorial on this Subject in the year 1753. But by the enactment of the present bill, with respect to the commissioners of arbitration, a ground would be laid for neutral nations to renew the claim of having contested rights tried by the tribunals of the country from whose subjects the property had been captured. He felt it right to call the attention of the House to these points. Though the principle had been departed from in the case of Spain, he had hoped that Portugal would have had faith enough in the justice of Great Britain to have abided by the decision of her ordinary tribunals of international law.

trusted he should be able to show that the hon. and learned gentleman had not taken a correct view of the subject. The principles that had been laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman did not apply to the present convention, nor was the question a question of war, as the case had been erroneously argued. The convention between this country and Portugal was not to be looked upon as proceeding from the sole prerogative of the Crown. It was of the nature of a special regulation, and left the law of nations exactly as it stood before. The convention had reference to the particular case of the detention of ships having slaves on board, and made no alteration in the law of nations. Whether the convention was good or bad, wise or unwise, it stood upon its own footing; it did not proceed from the prerogative of the Crown, and the right of making war and peace, and consequently could not derive its justification from that prerogative. The second objection of the hon. and learned gentleman had been to the nature of the tribunal for deciding the disputed claims that it was not a tribunal of the country of the captors, but one of a mixed nature. It was undoubtedly true, that this country would not Suffer a foreign tribunal to determine disputed claims during a period of war but the case was widely different respecting an amicable convention. As foreign states would not in time of peace submit to the tribunals of this, to them a foreign country, the only, expedient had been to create a mixed tribunal and no option was left but to adopt this expedient, or to abandon the cognisance of the different cases that might arise to foreign tribunals. The convention had not proceeded from the prerogative of the Crown, as connected with a state of war or peace. The safe course was to frame a bill with such enactments as would cover all legal proceedings, by which an avenue would not be shut against foreign powers that complained of injustice. By the appointment of a mixed tribunal, a final decision of the cause would be gained, which would not be the case should it be sent to the ordinary tribunals. The case was one of special policy, and a general enactment was necessary to cover all the questions that might arise. If the amendment was moved, he should give it his negative.

stated, that without the enactment in the bill, an action of trespass might be brought against a British officer detaining a Portuguese ship, as had happened in the case of an Amecan vessel detained for a supposed breach of the Navigation act. In the case of prizes alone could the prerogative of the Crown avail the captor, as with prizes the courts of law had nothing to do. It seemed in every view of it necessary that the enactment should be made. It related to a different question from that of prize. Courts of prize were established by nations for adjudication in times of war. We should certainly not choose that a Portuguese tribunal should judge of matters respecting our vessels taken by them. A mixed jurisdiction had therefore appeared the most satisfactory and proper.

adverted to what had passed at the congress at Vienna, and wished to know what steps had been taken to induce Portugal to abandon the Slave trade altogether. All the other powers had agreed to the abolition, and Spain had fixed it for 1820. Portugal was the only government that continued this trade. He was aware that the Portuguese slave traffic might be considered of a mitigated character, as it passed between their own ports. He allowed that the two treaties with Spain and Portugal must be as regarded very beneficial to the cause of abolition, and might produce incalculable benefits. The abolition of the trade north of the line, too, was very important. He thought, however, it was rather too much for Portugal now to patronise this trade, when all other states had given it up; particularly when the king of Portugal owed his crown in Europe to the exertions and bravery of ourselves and our allies. He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of any foreign monarch or state, but he must advert to this solitary exception of Portugal, even after she had renounced the trade by her professions. A degree of disgrace must fall on that state if she persisted in differing from the other powers. It had been provided at Vienna, that the allied powers should concert measures, to put an end to this traffic, and if Portugal persisted in it, it was fit this stipulation should be carried into effect. He wished to add, that Portugal had not the slightest claim to pecuniary compensation.

stated, that the ambassadors of the five allied powers had signed at Vienna an additional article, having for its object the abolition of the Slave trade, and made a solemn declaration to that purpose. Spain having consented to renounce the Slave-trade within a limited period, a communication to that effect had been made to the king of Portugal about two months ago, by the ministers of the five allied powers, in the hope that the example might be followed on the part of Portugal. But he was unable to state how that communication had been received, no intelligence having yet arrived from Brazil.

submitted to the authority of the attorney-general as to the law respecting vessels seized, but confessed that he was not able, from any thing which had been said, to distinguish the seizure of vessels under this treaty from the case of an embargo.

The Bill was read a third time, and passed.

gave notice of his intention to move on Monday, that the Statement of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, with regard to the poor of that country, should be laid before the House. This document he deemed of a very important character, conveying, as it did, intelligence of the most useful nature; and therefore he wished to have it laid before the House, with a view to assist its judgment upon the interesting question to which he referred. He was sorry that he happened not to be in the House when an hon. and learned gentleman gave notice of his intention to bring forward some propositions upon the subject of the Poor Laws, because he would have taken that occasion to inquire after that, which, as a member of the committee upon the Poor Laws, he was naturally anxious to learn—namely, what were the hon. and learned gentleman's views upon the subject. Those views would, no doubt, have been very useful to that committee, which, he regretted, the hon. and learned gentleman had been unable, from the variety of his avocations, to attend.

concurred with the right hon. gentleman in his view of the value of the document to which he had referred; for none were more qualified to judge of the exigencies of the poor, and of the best mode of providing for the relief of those exigencies, than the members of the general assembly of the church of Scotland, in which country, although there were no Poor Laws, the poor were not unprovided for. With regard to his own views upon the subject of the Poor Laws, it was his intention to have submitted those views to the House within the present session, in the shape of Resolutions, which should fully explain his opinion; but he was prevented from so doing, by the variety of his avocations, and especially by the pressure of his engagement upon the subject of charitable institutions; for this pressure was of an extraordinary character indeed, as independently of the mass of documentary evidence communicated to the committee, it was occupied three or four hours each day in the examination of parole evidence. To this it was material to attend, as it was justly felt desirable that a report from that committee before the termination of the session should be made; his time was therefore filled up, as he had to draw up the report upon a subject, to which the country anxiously looked. For this reason, among others, he had been obliged to decline the proposition of any resolutions upon the subject of the Poor Laws. He was, indeed, unwilling to bring forward those resolutions until he could accompany the proposition of its principles with the statement of his details; for there were many who might be scared by the former, unless they had an opportunity of considering the latter. Therefore he declined to submit his plan to the House until it was accompanied by a complete explanation. This explanation he had not yet had time to digest, in consequence, particularly of his employment in the committee upon the subject of charitable institutions. It might be asked, why should the committee upon this subject continue to sit, after it was determined in the bill which had passed the House, to appoint a commission of inquiry by the government? He would immediately abandon the committee, if he could look with any confidence to the commission; but he must say that he could not be satisfied with the prospect of such a commission after what had recently transpired. When he heard of objections elsewhere, to the purpose of this inquiry proceeding, he would not say from any fellow feeling with the abuses which it was intended to correct, or from any personal interest in those abuses, but from grounds which had been unaccountably conjured up with a view to palliate resistance, he could not look to the proposed commission with any very sanguine cal- culation. He had heard of a learned person stating elsewhere, that however well inclined to the proposition of this inquiry originally, he was adverse to the bill to which that inquiry referred, because, truly, that bill had been lately very much altered. But what would the House think of this statement when informed that all the alterations which had taken place were suggested by that learned person himself [Hear, hear!]; that indeed every one of those alterations was written by that learned person, and consented to with a view to do that which was almost impossible, namely, to settle his doubts [Hear, hear! and a laugh.] That such was the fact he was able to show from the manuscript of the person alluded to; which manuscript was in his possession. The main objection to the proposed inquiry was, forsooth, that it might go too far. What! go too far in exposing and correcting abuses! But if the bill should be returned to the House with those clauses which it had rejected by decisive majorities, he trusted its spirit and principle would repel the mockery. The House was indeed called upon to do so from a respect to the opinion of the country, as well as from a solicitude for the object, and a regard to the character of its own consistency; but, upon the grounds he had stated, he felt the propriety of urging the committee to continue its investigations. The result of those investigations would, he had no doubt, serve to secure the attainment of the object in view, in spite of timid, panic struck alarmists—in spite of sceptical, speculative legislators—in spite of quibbling, subtle lawyers—in spite of those whom he was unwilling to name [Hear, hear!]. The committee upon this subject would, he trusted, prosecute its in quiries, and avail itself of its privileges and power to collect the fullest information with a view to attain the object in view. The spontaneous communications to that committee manifested the interest universally felt in that object. All parts and parties, all sects and classes of the people, evinced their desire to promote the purposes of the committee; and whatever might be the power which resisted, or the artifice which thwarted that purpose, he had no doubt that the sense of the country would serve to insure its success. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with giving notice of a motion for Tuesday, upon the subject to which his observations referred.