presented petitions, praying for the abolition of Slavery in the Colonies, from the Protestant Dissenters of Blackburn, and of Stroud, from the inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of Frome Selwood, and from the Graduates and Under-graduates of the University of Oxford. It was almost needless for him to say, that he heartily concurred in the prayer of those petitions; and it was gratifying to perceive that the learned and the unlearned united in calling for the speedy abolition of slavery in the West Indies. He regretted that domestic circumstances had prevented him from attending in his place on the evening that the learned member for Knaresborough had called the attention of the House to this subject. The matter had at length come to this, that either the House and the country must take up the question, or they must renounce it altogether; for it was idle to expect that the colonial assemblies would do anything upon the subject. Seven years ago they had been called upon, by Resolutions of that House, to do several things for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves, and since that time they had literally done nothing to that end. He recollected that Mr. Canning, on moving his resolutions at that time as an amendment on his (Mr. F. Buxton's) motion, told the House, that the first step towards the improvement of the negroes was, the abolition altogether of the practice of flogging females. That was the first step which Parliament recommended to the colonial assemblies to take; and had it yet been taken? No such thing? There was not even a man in the Colonial Assembly in Jamaica that had the courage to propose it; but a division took place in that assembly upon the question, whether females should be continued to be flogged, decently or indecently, and it was carried, by almost a majority of two to one, that they should still be flogged indecently. It was also admitted by Mr. Canning on that occasion, that greater facilities should be afforded to the negroes for religious instruction and improvement. Now within the last two hours he (Mr. Buxton) had a statement of a fact communicated to him, which showed the attention which was paid to the religious improvement of the slaves in the West Indies. A negro, who had been guilty of no other crime but that of attending out of the house of his master at prayer, was convicted of that crime, sentenced to be flogged, and was afterwards worked in chains for the offence. It was plain, therefore, that nothing could be done, unless this country took up the question; and now the time had arrived for the electors throughout the kingdom to take it up. If the electors throughout the kingdom thought that slavery was a good thing, that the flogging of naked females should not be prevented, that religious pastors should be confined in gaol for no other offence but that of preaching the Gospel, and that it was right to sentence a negro to punishment, for the crime of attending prayers out of his master's house,—if the electors throughout the kingdom thought all those things right and proper, then let them vote for those who would support such a system; but if they did not think so, then they would send Representatives to that House, pledged to do their utmost, both by their voices and their votes, to put an end to such an abominable system.

said, it would hardly be fair to let the observations of the hon. Member pass without remark. The hon. Member had called on the people to take this subject into their own hands, and not to return Gentlemen connected with the West-India interest. He (Sir A. Grant) was connected with that interest, and he could assure the House, that the hon. Member was not more anxious than himself to see this question properly settled, and that there were no practical means of settling it, in which, as a West-India proprietor, he would not heartily join. But he must complain of the hon. Member for adverting, in the unfair manner used by him, and by others who advocated the same opinions, to those who were connected with the West-India interest, whenever this painful subject was either directly or indirectly brought under the notice of the House. The hon. Member had (he would not say intentionally) misrepresented what had taken place in that House seven years since. He (Sir A. Grant) had a lively recollection of it, and he hoped the House would allow him to remind it of, as he was sure the country would bear in mind, what was done then. The hon. Member at that time came forward with a sweeping notice, which, previous to its agitation in that House, gave rise to great discussion among those whose interests were concerned. On that occasion, the late Mr. Canning, after lamenting the state of slavery which, up to that time, had been in existence, put it as a question to the West-India proprietors, how far they could go, with safety to themselves, on the great question of the amelioration of the condition of the slaves? There were certain gentlemen connected with the West-India interest, who took that question into consideration, and who said it was impossible for them to go to the length of the Resolutions which were prepared by the hon. Member; but they stated that they were ready to go the length of the Resolutions which Mr. Canning was prepared to propose, and which, when proposed, were unanimously adopted by the House, in opposition to the Resolutions of the hon. Member. He called on the House and the country to recollect what these Resolutions were. They did not do what the hon. Member seemed to suppose—they did not pledge the House to any direct measure on the subject of emancipation, but they were framed in these terms:—"That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for ameliorating the condition of the slave-population in his Majesty's colonies. That through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave-population, such as may prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his Majesty's subjects. That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose, at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property." He was taken quite unprepared on this subject; but he believed this to be the effect of those resolutions. The last too, was a most important condition, which the hon. Member carefully avoided even adverting to, and which was equally lost sight of by others who supported his view of the question. He would beg leave to repeat that condition, and to call the attention of the House to the fact, that it had been passed by the unanimous vote of that House. That condition was, that the improvement of the slaves was only to be promoted as it was compatible with the safety of the colonists, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property. That was the unanimous resolution adopted by the House against those proposed by the hon. Member, in which no such point was contained; and when the hon. Member called on the House to recollect what took place seven years since, he (Sir A. Grant) called on it not to forget that most important part of the proceedings.

could not avoid taking, notice of what had fallen from the hon. Member. The hon. Member charged him with forgetting the Resolution of the House, and seemed himself to forget one of the Resolutions they agreed to, which was in substance, that "Such measures should be adopted as should ensure to the negro the same participation in civil rights and privileges as were enjoyed by other subjects of this country." That showed that the House went further than the hon. Member imagined, and looked forward to the final emancipation of those unhappy persons. The hon. Member was wrong in accusing him of forgetting compensation, for one of his resolutions alluded to that subject; and he hardly ever addressed the House on this matter without stating, that though the planters had no claims as against the negro, they had as against this country; and that, in restoring the rights of the negro, care should be taken not to throw too much of the burthen on only one of the guilty parties.

spoke the opinion of the whole West-India interest, when he said that they adopted the words used in an Address to his late Majesty, namely, that "If private property was wanted for public purposes, let the public acquire it, and deal with it as they liked." If that on which the planters' existence depended—on which they relied for maintaining their sphere in society—was required for public improvement, in the name of God let the property be acquired by the public. For himself, he should be contented with a small portion of that which he had been brought up to think he was entitled to. He should be glad that his hands should be washed of it, since he and other proprietors were thus to be attacked.

The Petitions were laid on the Table.

, in presenting a petition from Dr. Thomas Edwards upon the same subject, strongly deprecated giving any compensation to the slave proprietors; it was similar, in his opinion, to rewarding robbers and receivers of stolen goods. Slavery had not been recognised, as stated by an hon. Member (Mr. H. Twiss) on a previous occasion, by any legislative Act of the Government of this country, nor could it be tolerated, under any circumstances, that man should be the property of man.

On the Motion that the Petition lie on the Table,

considered, as the property was bad in itself, the owners of it were not deserving of any compensation for its loss. He recollected that the Liverpool traders in slaves, when the law properly did away with that infamous traffic, called for a compensation for their losses in trade. Yet the Legislature had since pronounced that trade of robbery and murder piracy. In calling it piracy, he thought the crime was dignified by its title, for it was nothing less than murder, and that of the most horrible description. He thought the planters had a claim on the labour of their slaves, but that was all.

repeated what he had stated on a former evening, that though slavery was not created by any express statute or enactment, yet that it had been repeatedly recognized, both by Acts of the British Parliament, and of the Colonial Assemblies, which left it impossible to doubt that slavery was recognized by the law of the land; and he further repeated, that it had been frequently recognized as lawful by the highest tribunals in the country.

Cave moved that the petition be printed.

objected to the Motion. The House ought not to encourage printing the petitions of individuals.

opposed the printing of the petition, on the ground that it contained the private sentiments of an individual, which had already been before the public on several occasions.

opposed the petition being printed, and bore testimony to improvement, proceeding rapidly at the present time, in the condition of the slave-population. He could speak more particularly of Grenada, from his close connection with that colony. He wished to know why the colonies should not be represented as well as any other part of the community?

did not approve of the attack which had been made upon petition- ing. He thought that the most constitutional manner in which opinions could be enforced was, by bringing them before Parliament.

said, that what he had stated was, that he did not think it expedient to encourage the presentation of individual petitions, merely delivering the opinions of individuals on matters of public moment.

Motion withdrawn.

, in presenting a similar Petition from the Independents of Salem Chapel, Leeds, expressed his regret that the question of slavery, instead of being the last, had not been the first object of the attention of the Legislature.

called the attention of Government to the subject of establishments for the prevention of the slave-trade. His attention had been drawn to the matter from having been a member of the committee. He was convinced that the present system was no check to the slave-trade; on the contrary, that it tended greatly to aggravate all the horrors of the traffic. Without attaining its object, it was the means of destroying numbers of our fellow subjects. He hoped the time had come when France would see the necessity of wiping away that stain on her national character which was caused by her connivance at the slave-trade, and which all the trophies of Algiers could never obliterate. It would be a satisfaction to receive an assurance from his Majesty's Government that the whole system of the slave-strade would engage its attention.

said, that the measures now pursued on the coast of Africa were founded on treaties entered into from motives of humanity. It might be necessary that they should be re-considered; but hon. Gentlemen must feel, that to depart at once from a Treaty solemnly entered into could not be done, and therefore it ought not to be expected that any pledge should be given by Government upon the subject.

Petition was laid on the Table.

rose to move that the amendments made by the Lords, in the Forgery Laws Amendment Bill, should be taken into consideration by the House, for the purpose of acceding to them. In making that motion it would not be necessary for him to enter into any lengthened discussion. The House were aware that the amendments of the Lords placed the Bill in a shape adverse to the opinions expressed by the majority of the House. Still, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he trusted that the Members would not feel a difficulty in acceding to those amendments. They would not, by acceding to them, at all affect or compromise their own opinions. The effect of rejecting the amendments would be, to leave the law in a state of greater severity than it would be in by the House acceding to the amendments. As, therefore, by rejecting the amendments, the House would make the law of greater severity, he thought the House would not in the slightest degree relinquish its own opinion by not adopting that course. He need not say, that the amendments were in accordance with his own views. He trusted that the House would accede to them without delay. On a former evening he had most readily yielded to the wish of an hon. and learned Gentleman, that the further consideration should be postponed for a day or two. The effect of such postponement had been, that as the Bill now stood, it would come into operation to-morrow, July twenty-first. Under these circumstances, it was of great importance that the Bill should pass, if it was to become a law, at as early a period as possible.

felt that, in the present state of the House, and at this period of the Session, it would be useless to offer any opposition to the Motion. At the same time he thought that the House was entitled to complain of the course adopted by the other House of Parliament. He could not suppose that it had been the intention to delay sending down the amendments till a time when most of the Members of the House had left Town; but he must say, that the course adopted with respect to the Bill had been most extraordinary. The Bill was sent to the other House on the 9th June. It went through its regular stages by the 1st July; but was not returned to this House till the 13th July. Why this delay should have taken place, in returning the Bill to the House, he could not imagine. He supposed the House must submit to the amendments of the Peers; but he trusted that this subject would not be allowed to sleep; that the opinion of the House of Commons supported by the people at large, would be ultimately triumphant.

rose to express the regret which he felt, in common with other Members, that these amendments should have been made by their Lordships. He would rather have the Bill rejected than passed in its present shape; for if it were passed now, the question would come before Parliament in another Session under great disadvantages. He should have given great weight to the opinions of the three noble and learned personages who had supported those amendments in the other House of Parliament, had he not seen opposed to their opinions a weight of petitions which completely over-balanced them. He really hoped that some hon. Member would propose to reject the Bill altogether.

was disposed to reject the Bill altogether, rather than pass it with these amendments. If they adopted the Bill as it had been amended by the Lords, it would be a virtual relinquishment of the opinion already expressed by that House; whilst by rejecting it, they would thereby force the subject upon the consideration of the next Parliament, at the earliest practicable period after it assembled. He scarcely thought that any Secretary of State would, in the interim, venture to recommend the infliction of capital punishment for forgery, after the opinion which had been so decidedly expressed against it by a large majority of that House; and an early revision of the law, as it could not be carried into effect, would therefore become indispensable. On these grounds he should oppose the Lords' amendments.

thought, that as the Bill, even as it now stood, secured some advantages, it ought not to be rejected, merely because it did not secure all the advantages which those who sought for the mitigation of the penal code had in view.

felt, that it might be most desirable to reject the Bill altogether; but as such rejection would only create delay, and as the behaviour of the Home Secretary had been distinguished by great frankness and candour, he could not agree to a proposition for rejecting it. There was one amendment which he should wish to add to those made by the Lords,—and that was, that the duration of this Bill should be limited to one year. That would compel the Government to introduce another Bill to the House next Session, more consonant to the humane views so generally adopted by their constituency throughout the whole country.

The Amendments were then ordered to be taken into consideration. On the question, that they be now read a first time,

took the opportunity of saying, that he supported the view of this subject which had been taken by the hon. member for Weymouth.

censured the Ministry for the conduct which they had pursued regarding this Bill. It was said at the outset, that this Bill was not to be considered as a party question; and yet he knew that-Treasury notes had been issued to obtain the votes of the supporters of Government in its favour. Notwithstanding the influence thus exerted by Government to carry its own Bill through the House, a majority of independent Members appeared in favour of abolishing the punishment of death in cases of forgery. After such a declaration of public opinion, he thought that the Government ought not to have allowed the Bill to be altered back to its former shape in the House of Lords. He trusted that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth would obtain the support of the House.

attributed the apparent delay in sending the Bill back from the Lords, to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. W. Wynn) had adverted, to the unfortunate demise of his late Majesty. The Bill, in its present shape, was decidedly an improvement on the old law, not only because it simplified and consolidated it, but also because it repealed the penalty of death in all cases of forgery upon the Stamp-office. He trusted, that the House would not concur in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth. If the duration of the Bill were limited, as he advised, in what a situation would it place those who were intrusted with the duty of superintending the due administration of the law? To that amendment he should offer his decided opposition. As to the observation, that no Secretary of State would ever be found to advise the infliction of capital punishment in those cases of forgery in which the House had declared that the punishment of death ought to be abolished, he had only to remark, that he (Sir R. Peel) would always give the Crown such advice, with regard to the execution of the law of the land, as he thought the interests of justice required, without reference to what might, or might not be the opinion of the majority of the House of Commons respecting it.

, reinforced the observations of his right hon. friend, the member for Montgomeryshire, and protested against the conduct which the Peers had pursued with respect to these amendments.

thought, that the Bill as it now stood was a mitigation of the existing law, although it was not exactly that degree of mitigation which the circumstances of the case required. Besides, he was of opinion, that passing the Bill this Session, would not prejudice the great question in the next Session.

Mr. John Stewart moved, that the Amendments be read this day fortnight.

The House divided: For Mr. Stewart's Amendment, Ayes 10; Noes 74—Majority 64.

On the question, that this House do agree to the first Amendment,

The House again divided: Ayes 67; Noes 28—Majority 39.—The Amendments of the Lords were Agreed to.