presented a Petition from the Provost, Burgesses, &c. of Dumbarton, complaining of the manner of naming Committees on Private Bills, and of the nomination of the Committee on the Clyde Navigation Bill in particular. The petitioners stated, that committees on private bills were almost invariably composed of Members interested in carrying the bill or opposing it, and consequently, prejudicial to a fair and just conclusion on its merits or demerits, and praying that the House would be pleased to make such alterations in the Standing Orders respecting committees, as would be necessary to ensure that the committees might be formed of such Members as were least interested on the subject coming before them, in order that they might form their judgment from the evidence alone, and not from private or interested motives. The hon. Member considered that this was a subject deserving the attention of the House, for it was well known that one or two members of a committee on private bills, who had motives for so doing, could influence the remaining members in coming to whatever conclusion they thought fit or required. He did not see why the prac- tice adopted in appointing Election Committees should not be extended to those on private bills. The election by ballot would remove all objection, and prevent those abuses which now existed, and which were so prejudicial to private property. He also would wish to see the same strictness observed in compelling the attendance of Members of committees as in election questions, for it was well known, from the absence of Members, that the whole business was done by one or two, and the remainder were called upon to report on evidence they never heard. Out of the 658 Members composing that House, he calculated that there were not more than from 180 to 200 Members who discharged the business of committees. He would recommend, therefore, a plan of dividing the whole number of Members into lists of nine or eleven, and that the Clerk of the House should select, indiscriminately from the whole, a list to form a committee on any private bill, and that they should be bound to attend. This mode would leave the appointment on particular bills entirely to chance, and prevent the suspicion of any improper influence having been employed, or that any prejudice would operate either for or against any measure.

agreed in opinion with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that where the private property of individuals was interested, it was necessary that the committee should be constituted of disinterested Members, and free from prejudice on the subject of consideration. He, however, did not agree to the plan of the hon. Member in the appointment of any tribunal by mere chance. In Election Committees challenges were allowed, so that interested Members were excluded. Without this precaution, by the adoption of the plan proposed, it might so happen that seven or eight Members out of the nine to form the committee might be interested. The subject was one deserving the future consideration of the House.

considered, that much inconvenience arose from the influence used by Members in private committees.

condemned the influence exercised by Government, as regarded the appointment of committees on public as well as on private bills. No sooner was a committee to be appointed on any particular subject which Ministers wished to carry, than a number of official persons were sent down to form it, and exercise their influence in carrying every thing their own way. An instance recently occurred in the committee on the Windsor Castle Improvements. He was one of that committee, and he did not consider himself bound by the report. It was true, that he was in the small minority of two, but still, had he been in town when the report was presented, he should have protested against it. The committee was arranged just as Government chose.

denied that any such influence was exercised, or that the majority of the committee was composed of official persons. It was too common a practice to impute sinister motives to those who differed in opinion on particular questions. He considered, with reference to the present mode of appointing committees, that although influence might exist in some instances, yet in general, justice was ultimately done. However, as inconvenience did arise, he considered it to be a fit subject for consideration. He did not approve of the plan of compelling the attendance of Members on private committees: it would cause delay, if it were at all practicable.

hoped, that in the ensuing Session the subject would be taken into full consideration. The country was far from satisfied with the manner in which business was transacted in committees. The evil, although not so great as formerly, from the dread of the Committee of Appeals, was still one which was susceptible of great improvement.

said, that as Chairman of the Windsor Castle Committee he wished to observe, that the overwhelming power of official persons had not much influence over the decision to which that committee had come; for on looking to the names, it would be seen, that the committee included a great majority totally uninfluenced by ministerial power. The hon. Gentleman then read the names, amongst which were those of Mr. Baring, Lord Morpeth, Lord John Russell, and others. When the Report came to be discussed next Session, he thought the House would agree in the independent character he then gave to the committee.

The Petition to be printed.

, in presenting petitions praying for the total abolition of Slavery, from the inhabitants of Brighthelmston, from the general Baptists of Castle Donington, and from the Protestant Dissenters of Buntingford, begged leave to trespass for a few moments on the attention of the House. After the late debate on this subject, which had so much disappointed the expectations of the country, he should be very brief in his observations. It appeared to him that this subject had been hitherto treated upon an erroneous principle. If it could be shown that the slaves were the property by law of the West-Indian proprietors; then he for one should think it right, not to trouble the House or the West-Indian proprietors further upon the subject. But he felt so confident that no such law existed, that he was ready at once to place the decision of this question upon that point alone. The House was supposed to sit there for the protection of the constitutional rights and liberties of the subject, and was therefore bound to see that natural-born British subjects should not continue to be deprived of those rights to which they were legally entitled. So long as the friends of the unfortunate negroes continued needlessly to admit that they were the mere legal chattels of their masters, it did not require much sagacity to perceive that such measures as compulsory manumission could not be brought into operation, and that the West-Indian proprietors would be justified in resisting all such measures, in the eyes of those who regard the negroes as their private property. The division that took place on Tuesday night might shew the friends of the negroes, that their only hope of success consisted in their taking their stand upon the only tenable ground, namely, that the pretended property of the slave owner in the slave was one which had no legal foundation whatever. For the purpose of carrying into effect compulsory manumission, and other measures for the relief of the slaves, it was absolutely necessary that this prevailing notion should be scouted as a mere delusion. Hitherto the House had regarded the negroes, not as British subjects, but as private beasts of burthen, the property of the planters, to which they had a legal right. It was necessary that that error should be put down; it was necessary for the friends of the negroes at once to adopt the principle, that the negroes were not the mere chattels of the West-Indian proprietors, but British subjects, entitled equally with them to the rights of British subjects. It was in spite of the constitutional law that the West-Indian proprietors asserted a right to a vested property in their slaves. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be glad if it could be proved that such was the case, and if it could be shown that this pretended right of property in the slaves had no legal foundation. Indeed, if any such law existed, the Ministers would betray their duty to the Crown and to the people, if they did not at once bring in a bill to repeal it. He defied the lawyers of that House to point out any legal provision which sanctioned slavery, and gave to the slave-owners a legal right of property in the slaves. It appeared to him that the Anti-Slavery Society ought to rest their case on that point. They were not further advanced in their labours now, in 1830, than they were in 1823, when resolutions were brought forward on this subject by Mr. Canning, with the acquiescence of the West-Indian proprietors themselves, and which were evidently calculated and intended to defeat the motion of the hon. member for Weymouth. A very unequal consideration had been given to the interests, as they were called, of the different parties; and the claims of the West-Indian proprietors, destitute as they were of all legal foundation, had received more attention, and been more carefully cherished and protected, than those of the slaves. By keeping up the delusion that the slaves were legal property, the slave-owners accomplished the great object which they had in view. They created delay, and ensured their possession of the slaves for an indefinite period. They knew very well that but little was to be feared from holiday speeches. It appeared to him necessary to draw the public mind at once to the real question at issue; namely, whether the negroes were not British subjects, and whether they could be compelled to be the slaves of other British subjects? How could it be expected that the slave-owner would do anything towards cultivating the mind of the unhappy beings, whose brutalization was necessary for the support of his tyranny. He said thus much, because it must afford some consolation to the anti-slavery party out of doors to know, that this horrible system must fall to the ground, whenever it was made the object of direct attack, and when the anti-slavery party should desist from carrying on a petty war of out-posts; not that he had any objection to such statements as that made the other night by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough; being indeed of opinion, that such instances of cruelty as he related, were usefully exposed in such publications as the Anti-Slavery Reporter. But these occasional atrocities were mere aggravations of the crime, and ought not to make us lose sight of the main question—the utter illegality of slavery itself, and that it existed merely by connivance. Slavery was as little supported, by the law, as by the principles of Christianity and the spirit of the Constitution. At all public meetings, therefore, and in all places where these great constitutional questions might be brought forward, care ought to be taken to press upon the Legislature this particular point. The great and fundamental truth at issue was no less than, whether the law of the land acknowledged or not, that man could be the property of man. He held in his hand a declaration, which would serve to convince the House of the great progress which the cause of humanity was making throughout the country. It was from Bristol, a place hitherto considered as the strong-hold of the slave-owners, and was signed by many influential inhabitants, connected by the ties of blood and of friendship with many slave-owners, and yet they had manfully come forward and made this declaration:—"We, the undersigned, are firmly convinced, that freedom is the birthright of every human being; and that every person owning allegiance to the Crown of this empire is justly entitled, as the condition of such allegiance, to the full enjoyment of the civil rights and immunities of a free-born British subject. We consider no man to be a fit Representative of Britons, who does not entertain these opinions as sacred and inviolable articles of his political belief. And we hereby pledge our word and promise, to each other and to the world, that in the ensuing general election we will give our respective votes to no candidate for a seat in Parliament, who will not publicly and solemnly engage to promote the practical application of these principles, whenever British Colonial Slavery shall be brought under the consideration of the House of Commons." After the consummation of the great civil victory, if he might so call it, of last year, he had hoped that the great man who ac- complished it, would have added one more wreath to the laurels he earned, by the settlement of this kindred question: but he had become convinced, particularly by the division of the other night, on the motion of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, that no hopes of the kind could be justly rested on the present Administration. Having mentioned that hon. and learned Member, he would venture to congratulate the country upon possessing a man so well able to stand in the breach, and fight the good fight for such a cause. When he saw, however, such a resolution as that the learned Member moved, who, in moving it, declared his fear that he was not going far enough or fast enough with the people out of doors; when he saw such a resolution opposed by Ministers, what hope could Parliament or the country place in them. He trusted, therefore, that the friends of the cause would persevere in promulgating the doctrine, that if the British Legislature refused to interfere, the consequences that might ensue would rest upon the heads of those who provoked them. If the House refused to interfere, the slaves, he thought, would be justified, before God and man, in taking by any means that which they were entitled to—of taking by force that which force and not right had dispossessed them of. He could not conclude the few observations he had thought it proper to offer to the House, in presenting these petitions, better than by saying, in the memorable words of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough in 1823, "Difficulties there may be, as there are in every case, but are they insurmountable? I think not; and that no one will be stopped by them who does not wish to be impeded."

hoped, that the hon. Gentleman would retract his expression, that if the House did not take some steps for the abolition of slavery, it would be justifiable on the part of the slaves to do that by force which, in his opinion, ought to be done by fair means. The effect of such a declaration might be, to throw all properties and all interests into a deep aud most inextricable confusion. He trusted no effect would be produced by the hon. Gentleman's speech. He had made use of expressions which sound policy could not justify.

thought, that it would have been better, had the expressions which had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Leicester, been spared. At the same time he must add, that it would have been still better, if the hon. and learned member for Wootton Bassett had left them unnoticed after they had been used. He concurred, however, with his hon. friend near him in thinking, that slavery had never been established by law in the British dominions; and with a view of proving that point, he read to the House several extracts from Bryan Edwards's History of the West Indies. For his own part, he thought that the House was bound to interfere, and put an end to the present system, if for no other reason, at least for this,—that if they left the West-India proprietors entirely to their own counsels, they would soon see them plunged in inevitable and irretrievable ruin.

was unwilling to prolong the present discussion, which appeared to him to have been brought forward rather unnecessarily, considering the ample justice which had been done to it upon a former evening. He knew, however, that this was a subject on which it was difficult for any Gentleman, after he had once begun to speak, to check his feelings, and to confine his language within the limits which he originally intended. It was indeed difficult to speak of slavery in an assembly of free men, without giving way to that enthusiastic warmth of denunciation which was naturally excited by a contemplation of its horrors. He admitted that slavery must have its origin, in the first instance, in injustice and inhumanity; but he contended that we could not, in the present circumstances of the West Indies, go back to inquire how slavery had first been established among them. We found such a state existing there at present, supported by the laws of the different islands, and recognized by our own laws. His opinion was, that we ought to ameliorate the system, with a view of getting rid of it altogether; but the interests of humanity required that we should proceed to that great object with caution, not only in the steps which we took, but also in the language which we used. No expression directed against slavery could be too strong, if it did not go beyond the walls of Parliament; but every body knew that their expressions went much further, and that when intelligence of them reached the colonies, they were liable to be misinterpreted by designing individuals. He could not but regret that the hon. member for Leicester had used the expressions which had called forth the animadversions of his hon. friend behind him. He did not think that it would have been right to allow them to pass unnoticed at present, inasmuch as it would have led other Members to venture upon expressions still more outrageous, under the impression that the direct avowal of their detestation of slavery would be the best mode in the world of recommending themselves to the notice of their constituents.

persisted in his former declarations. To say that the slave had not a right to resist the man who oppressed him, was a doctrine too monstrous for any man of common sense to assert. The right of resistance to the oppressor was as clear and indisputable as the right of resistance to the beasts of the field. Protection and allegiance were reciprocal obligations; and if protection was withheld from the slave, it was unjust to expect that he should continue stedfast in allegiance. There were many West-Indian proprietors to whom no man could feel more kindly than he did. He wished to prevent them from carrying matters to that fatal necessity, which would sooner or later arrive, if they did not change their present system. With that view he was anxious to point out to them the danger of their position, in order that they might, if possible, avert it.

, after complimenting Sir G. Murray very highly for the sentiments which he had just avowed upon the subject of slavery, proceeded to say, that the chief reason which had induced him to rise on the present evening was, an allegation which he had seen in a petition, recently presented to the House, from certain slave-owners of Demerara. The allegation, of which he now complained, was, that their slaves were as much their property as their mahogany chairs and tables. This was a doctrine so monstrous, that whenever he saw it in print, or heard it mentioned in conversation, he must rise to enter his protest against it.

Petitions to be printed.

presented a Petition from the Rev. Augustus Lamb, complaining of the decision of the Committee appointed to examine into the merits of the Rye Election, and desiring that a Committee of Appeal might be appointed to retry it.

said, that he would take that opportunity of expressing his hope that there was no truth in the report that his Majesty's Ministers were supplying the parties with money to support this petition.

said, that he could not answer that question. The petition had been put into his hands in the House, and he considered it to be his duty to present it.

said, that he had heard the same report. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not continue silent, but would, for the sake of the Government, give a distinct denial to this charge.

said, that he was not called upon to answer mere insinuations. No one had a right to call upon him in that House to contradict matters of common rumour. If the hon. Member had any charge, connected with this petition, to bring, either against him or his colleagues in office, let him bring it forward in a distinct and open manner, and then, but not till then, would he vouchsafe to answer it.

said, that though the right hon. Gentleman would not vouchsafe him a reply, his virtuous indignation at this rumour was a sufficient denial of its truth. He had made no charge—he had brought no accusation against the right hon. Gentleman. He had merely said, that for the sake of the Government, such a charge, if untrue, should be contradicted.

When the hon. Member brings a distinct charge of bribery and corruption against either myself or any of my colleagues in office, I will give him and the House an answer. At present, however, no charge is made; and why? Because it is convenient to circulate expressions of this kind at present against the Government, and to let them work their way as they can. If the hon. Member has ground for charge, let him bring it forward directly, and I will then treat it as it deserves. If he has nothing but common rumour to go on, I will not say a word; for there would be no end to contradicting the common rumours which circulate against every Ministry.

said, that if there were any ground for a charge of this nature, it would properly be examined on an election petition. That no such examination had taken place, was a proof that the charge was without foundation.

said, that the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the subject, made him believe that there was something more serious in it than he had at first imagined. The right hon. Gentleman had attached an unusual interest to the question by the manner in which he had treated it,

said, it was a matter of indifference to him what the opinion of the hon. Member might be; but if the hon. Member had reason to entertain a strong belief that the conduct of Government had been such as was reported, he would be guily of a dereliction of duty if he did not bring the subject before the House.

said, that no one had charged the Government with having been guilty of bribery and corruption. They might, however, have improperly appropriated the public money to the payment of legal expenses. He was surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman display so much virtuous indignation on the subject.

said, he was not conscious of exhibiting more of virtuous indignation than was necessary. Personal character was dear to him: the hon. member for Montrose might place what value he pleased upon it.

expressed his surprise that any person should believe such absurd reports as had been alluded to. It was reported, that Government had paid the expenses of his election for Dover, but unfortunately, they did not advance a farthing for that object.

Petition laid on the Table.

expressed a hope that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies would, early in the next Session of Parliament, bring forward a measure to effect a settlement of the existing differences in Canada.

said, he was fully aware of the importance of the subject; and he certainly would, early next Session, press forward a measure as much as possible.