took the opportunity, upon the presentation of some Petitions against negro slavery, of giving a positive contradiction to some of the statements made by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, in the course of his speech to the House last night. That right hon. Gentleman had stated, that the recommendations of Government had been totally disregarded by the slave-owners in the West Indies, and the colonial legislatures, and applied the observation more particularly to the island of Jamaica. This statement was incorrect, for the legislature there had passed an Act in the year 1832, whereby the evidence of the slave was not only admitted against his master, but also against the overseer. Another of the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman was, that the evidence of the slave could only be received clogged with the recommendation of his master. But this allegation had reference to one part of the colonies only, the island of Antigua. It was also most erroneously stated that a slave could receive thirty-nine lashes for only looking his master in the face.

rose to order. That was not the proper period to answer a debate which took place on a former occasion.

was of opinion, that the hon. Baronet was not strictly out of order. It was for him to consider how far the course he was pursuing promoted the convenience of the House.

was merely anxious to negative allegations which had been brought against a most respectable body of men by the Secretary and Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and which ought not to be suffered to go forth to the public without a contradiction on the earliest opportunity. The right hon. Secretary was misinformed with regard to the corporal punishment of the negroes. He knew many instances in which a much heavier punishment than the infliction of thirty-nine stripes had been visited upon those who had inflicted a very small corporal punishment upon an offending slave. Instances had occurred in the colonies of 100l. having been handed over to the overseer for the manumission of a slave who had been ill-treated. If these facts had not been brought forward at the present moment, it would operate very much to the injury of justice. Justice he wished to be done to all parties, and surely justice was due to those individuals whose property must greatly suffer by the ministerial propositions.

was not prepared to answer the observations of the hon. Baronet, but he was well satisfied that his right hon. friend would have no difficulty on the subject; if he were present. The allegation made by his right hon. friend with respect to the power of a master to inflict thirty-nine stripes on his slave, was, in fact, the statement of a West-India proprietor.

said, that the knowledge of which he was possessed on the subject came from the evidence laid before both Houses of Parliament. The question in dispute seemed to be whether a West-Indian slave master could inflict thirty-nine lashes on a negro for a certain offence, and the evidence of a West-India proprietor, and of other men, stated clearly that he could. An overseer could not only administer thirty-nine lashes for looking him in the face, he could do so without assigning any reason. That he could inflict corporal punishment either with or without assigning any reason had been proved upon authority which did not admit of a doubt. The fact was so revolting to every feeling of humanity, that the House would not be imbued with a particle of sympathy if a law were not immediately passed to render it impossible for one human being to strike another with impunity.

was enabled to corroborate the assertions of the hon. Baronet by his own personal observation. The statements of the right hon. Secretary, he did not hesitate to say, were greatly exaggerated. The allegations were made upon evidence which the right hon. Gentleman believed to be true, but that evidence was of a most exaggerated description. He thought an ex parte statement, armed with the powerful eloquence of the right hon. Secretary, and the feeling that existed out of doors at the present moment on the subject of slavery, without any expression of the sentiments of the House upon the subject, ought not to be permitted to reach the public ear without the earliest contradiction.

said, that this meeting, for the purpose of presenting the petitions of the people, was worth nothing if a responsible Minister was not present to hear the complaints of the country. He very much regretted the absence of every Minister on the present occasion. It was disgraceful to any Ministry that the petitions should thus, day after day, be ludicrously consigned to the bag. He very much approved of conversational debates of this description. It gave every individual an opportunity of expressing an opinion, and asking any question he might think necessary, and which he must be prevented from doing on the occasion of a set debate, when the whole time was consumed by a few prepared speeches each three or four hours' long. The question he was anxious to put to the Government was, whether the scheme of emancipation was to go hand-in-hand with compensation; or whether emancipation was to be carried without compensation? And if it was not, he wished to know from what quarter compensation was to come? He understood from the speech of a noble Lord, who had filled the office of Under-Secretary, until within a very short period, that he had spent two years in maturing a plan for the emancipation of the slaves, which differed in many important particulars from the scheme produced by the right hon. Secretary in a very short space of time; and he wished to know why the plans of that noble Lord were not submitted to the House as well as the Resolutions of the right hon. Secretary?' Conversations of this description tended to elucidate facts much better than luminous and elaborate speeches, and he, therefore, regretted that no Minister was present to answer the inquiries of hon. Members; it was certainly a part of the original agreement between Ministers and the House.

said, that the statements which had gone forth were not in any degree exaggerated. The House and the country had heard repeatedly of worse instances than any which were last night mentioned by the right hon. Secretary, who had, indeed, shown great forbearance in not alluding to individual cases.

presented a Petition from Sligo, complaining of certain abuses which existed in the Corporation.

said, he trusted that he should be excused if he trespassed on the time of the House, while he showed that the petition which complained of the Sligo Corporation contained gross and calumnious falsehoods, as applied to a most estimable person; he meant his very respected friend, Mr. Wynne, who is a proprietor of certain tolls in the town, who is a constant resident in the country, and whose example he heartily wished other proprietors would follow. The petition stated that this respectable gentleman had appropriated a part of the Corporation funds to his own personal use. Now, he would say, that this was an unfounded and gross mis-statement, for the fact was, that the tolls of the town were let to the highest bidder, and were not sufficient to pay the bailiffs and other officers in the conservation of the peace of the town; and his respected friend, as the proprietor of the principal part of the town, had paid 100/. a-year to the provost. It was too bad that these petitions should bring forward charges which were in no way founded in fact; and he would call on the hon. member for the town of Sligo, to state whether he had ever known an instance of any of the Corporation funds having been applied to the personal benefit of his very esteemed friend. The petition mixed up Corporation property with certain tolls, the right to which latter property had been purchased by Mr. Wynne. The Corporation had no more control over the tolls than they had over his (Colonel Perceval's) estate. He would ask why then should these tolls be brought forward as a Corporation abuse? As regarded the non-residence of the burgesses, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that by the Reform Bill freemen of towns are considered as residents, if they reside within seven miles of the place for which they vote. The Corporation consisted of thirteen persons, eleven of whom were, under the Reform Bill, actually residents; and, therefore, it was not fair to say, that the burgesses were nonresident. It was further stated in the petition that the freemen were not elected to office in the mode which they ought to be. By the charter of the town it was provided, that these corporate offices should be elected by the burgesses, and until the charter were superseded, or the law altered; the manner of electing the officers of the Corporation must remain vested in the same parties. The petition alleged, moreover, that many influential persons had applied to be admitted to the freedom of the town, and had been refused the boon by the Corporation. He remembered the case of Mr. Abraham Martin, who applied to the provost and burgesses to be admitted to the freedom of the Corporation, and he knew that they thought proper to refuse him. Mr. Martin then brought the matter before the King's Bench, and the result was, his application was refused on the ground that the Corporation could not be compelled to accede to his demand. He had felt it his duty to trespass on the time of the House by dwelling at some length on the contents of the petition presented by the hon. Member (Mr. Martin), because he felt sure that the House would not refuse a hearing to any Gentleman who stood up in his place, to offer a justification of a highly respectable individual against the most unfounded calumnies.

stated, in reply, that neither himself nor any person who signed the petition, intended to cast a reflection upon the character of Mr. Wynne. But did the hon. Member mean to say, that the borough had not been appropriated to his private purposes?

asked, what private advantages was meant by the hon. Member?

Selling it. In fact, so little did some of the Representatives of that borough know of the place they represented, that one of them represented it in the House as "a little fishing villa in the south of Ireland." The hon. Member was proceeding to put another question to the hon. Member (Colonel Perceval) when

rose to order. Such interrogatories were irregular; they ought at least to be put through the Chair. The petition was referred to the Committee on Corporations.

presented a Petition from the Baron de Bode, praying for an inquiry into his claim on the funds received by the British Government, under the convention, for the paying off British claimants. In support of the petition the hon. Member urged at considerable length the claims of the petitioner, on the ground that he was a British-born subject, and that the only defect of his claim was a mere technical one of non-registration. He moved that it be referred to a Committee to examine and report upon the claims of the petitioner.

opposed the Motion on the ground that the case had been already sufficiently heard and justly decided upon. The hon. and learned Gentleman was proceeding to address some further observations to the House on this subject, when he was interrupted by

who said, that as the question was likely to lead to some debate, he thought it ought to be discussed in a fuller House. He moved that the House be counted.