presented a Petition from an individual named Henry Dundas Perrott, formerly a Lieutenant in the Navy. The petitioner complained of having been struck off the list of Lieutenant of the Navy. The circumstances were these:—In March, 1812, Lieutenant Perrott was convicted at the Assises at Maidstone, of a misdemeanor in obtaining 20l., for having given protection to one Bullen, a master mariner. He was convicted, as he affirmed, in consequence of not being permitted to take a copy of the indictment, so that he could not be prepared with witnesses to rebut the charge. After some months' imprisonment, the party on whose evidence the conviction was obtained, died, and consequently a bill of indictment could not be preferred against him, and on Lieutenant Perrott's applying to the Court of King's Bench, the Judges reversed the sentence and judgment which had been given against him. Upon the strength of that judgment the petitioner applied to the Admiralty to be restored to the Navy, but was told that the reversal of the sentence having proceeded upon technical grounds, his restoration could not take place. In July, 1825, he procured a restoration of a pension of 2s. 6d. a-day, which he would have been entitled to under the regulations of the service, had he been only a Midshipman. Affidavits were in existence, swearing that other persons, now dead, were guilty of the forgery attributed to the petitioner. He trusted that the House would consider he had made out a sufficient case for its consideration.

thought the case of the petitioner one of signal hardship, and could not help stating his firm belief to be, that the petitioner was the victim of personal malice on the part of some of the late members of the Board of Admiralty or their subalterns.

supported the prayer of the petition. If the House looked at the number of pensions that were given for doing nothing, they would consider it a great disgrace to take from this poor man his paltry pittance.

was sorry the case had been brought before the House, inasmuch as it would render it imperative upon him to make statements that would not be very pleasant to the feelings of some parties. Up to 1812, he admitted, the petitioner had conducted himself in the most becom- ing manner, and had done a great many gallant actions, but in that year he had been tried at the Maidstone Assises, for obtaining money under false pretences from the wife of a sea-faring man named Bullin, he having represented to her that he was able, through the instrumentality of some relations at the Admiralty, to protect her husband from impressment. He was convicted of this, but some objection being taken to the indictment, that point was reserved for the consideration of the twelve Judges, who decided against the validity of the indictment, and the prisoner obtained a reversal of his sentence of two years' imprisonment. In consequence of his conduct, his name had been removed from the Navy List. In 1823, the petitioner presented a petition to the Admiralty Board to be restored, which was referred to Counsel, who advised the Board not to accede to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner now stated that he had fresh grounds; but he (Sir James Graham), after having given the subject his best consideration, felt compelled to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been guilty of the charge imputed to him; and he, therefore, could not, consistently with his duty to the public, advise the House to accede to the prayer of the petition.

wished to have the Order in Council, which was to be made the model of legislation in several colonies, laid upon the Table. It was most important this should be done for the purpose of enabling the House to form some idea of the new system of society which it was proposed to establish in the West Indies. He professed himself unable to understand the system of apprenticeship. It would appear to be a state partly of slavery and partly of freedom; he wished, if possible, to ascertain the proportions. He also urged as another reason for the necessity of producing this order that the provisions of the new Bill were more oppressive upon the negroes than the old Orders in Council. The Bill permitted them to labour ten hours a-day, while the old Orders in Council restricted the time to nine hours a-day, and provided, moreover, that the slaves should have forty days holydays. Thus, by the new measure, the slaves lost one hour per day, and forty days per annum freedom.

stated, that it was impossible for him to produce an Order in Council, the draft of which could not be yet drawn, inasmuch as the order must necessarily be founded on the Bill, the provisions of which were not yet determined. The Bill was not intended to supersede the existing Orders in Council: it was only intended to provide a maximum beyond which, in dealing with the labour of the slaves, the Colonial Legislatures could not go. It would not interfere with the further arrangements with respect to the government of slaves in those colonies in which they were established. As to the hon. Gentleman's observations with respect to apprenticeship, he had only to remark that apprenticeship, in any state or any part of the world, must necessarily be a state partly of freedom and partly of slavery.

still hoped, that his right hon. friend would be induced to accede to the request of the hon. Gentleman. The great anxiety of those who, like himself, believed the system of apprenticeship to be impossible, was to know by what means his right hon. friend proposed to carry that system into effect.

had hoped, that his noble friend knew enough of the difficulty of drawing up Orders in Council, to prevent him from thinking that such order could be drawn up before the provisions of the Bill, upon which it must be necessarily founded, were determined upon. He declared that no Order in Council was intended to be sent forth as a model of legislation for all the colonies.

said, that as the Bill was founded upon Resolutions which had received the approbation of both Houses of Parliament, he did not feel it necessary for him to trouble the House with any observations upon it, but should simply move that the Slavery Abolition Bill be now read a second time.

said, that he was not prepared to oppose the second reading. But he felt it necessary to repeat the objections which he had already stated against certain parts of it. The system of apprenticeships was incomprehensible, and he did not understand how, if compulsion were abandoned, recourse could be had to any other system than that of wages. He should oppose the system of apprenticeships, and also the proposition of giving money to the planters, until it should be seen that slavery was really extinguished; because the money might be paid, and the Colonial Legislatures might never consent to make the laws necessary for carrying the object into effect. The planters would resort to the old system of compulsion, and there would be as much whipping as ever if the work was to be done. If that old system were resorted to, he was convinced that convulsion and insurrection would ensue in the colonies. He had had communications from various quarters in the West India Islands, which assured him that the negroes were in that state that they were determined to have wages for their work. If they were not paid insurrection would be the consequence, and that would be the termination of British authority in those islands. As there was an understanding that the principles of the Bill should not be discussed at this stage, he should content himself with giving notice that it was his intention to move two instructions to the Committee—the first, to limit apprenticeships to the shortest period which could be sufficient for introducing the necessary regulations; and the other that no money should be paid to the planters until slavery should have been extinguished.

objected to granting twenty millions without having adequate grounds upon which to form an estimate of the proper amount of remuneration. He was anxious to know what were the intentions of his Majesty's Government with respect to continuing the monopoly of sugar to the West-India Islands, or throwing the trade open. He distrusted the produce of free labour, and feared that the amount would be so much reduced as to raise the price of the article in this country as high again as it was at present. If the price of sugar were to rise 20s. the cwt., this would impose a tax of 4,000,000l. a-year on the consumer in this country, in addition to 1,000,000l. a-year, the interest of the 20,000,000l. proposed to be given as compensation.

begged to say a few words upon a subject in which he was personally interested. He observed his name amongst those of other hon. Members of that House, as having attended at a meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society, on Saturday, at which it appeared a Resolution was passed, of which he as a Member of that House could not approve. He certainly had been present at that Meeting, but had left before that Resolution was proposed. If he had been present when it was put, he should certainly have opposed it, as he considered it an unconstitutional one, and such as no Member of that House would be justified in adopting. The Resolution to which he alluded was to the effect, that delegates should be summoned from all parts of Great Britain and Ireland, to watch the conduct of the Representatives of the people, on this question. He should be ashamed to show himself again in that House, if he could have suffered such a Resolution to pass without, protesting against it, and he wished to take this opportunity to guard himself against the imputation of having sanctioned it.

said, that he had also been present during the earlier part of the meeting alluded to, and could assure his hon. friend and the House, that it was not the intention of those who generally take the lead in matters of this nature, that such a resolution should be adopted. He should certainly have felt great difficulty in acceding to such a proposition. The resolution was carried in his absence, but undoubtedly the meeting had a right to express its desire, that those Gentlemen who had been deputed from very respectable bodies in various cities and towns, at a period of great excitement, should attend, if such was their opinion. It was not his intention to enter into the discussion of the question before the House, as there seemed to be a determination that the second reading of the Bill should pass without a very narrow examination of the principle which was founded upon the Resolutions approved of by the House. He should, however, at the proper time move an instruction to the Committee, that all persons who had been slaves in the West-India islands, and who had once landed in Great Britain or Ireland, should if they returned to the West-Indies, be ipso facto free. He hoped and trusted the House would agree to this proposition, when it saw the iniquities which were the consequence of the present system. It sometimes happened that slaves came to this country and contracted marriage here, and left free children here; but if they returned to the West-Indies to see their aged parents, they were replaced in slavery, and condemned to pine in wretchedness. He should also move another instruction that no part of the 20,000,000l. should be given to any slave-owner in the colony of the Mauritius, unless he made out a good title by proving the legal importation of the slave. He was justified in making this proposition, because the Secretary for the Colonies had admitted that 25,000 felonies had been committed in this way since 1810. He agreed entirely with the hon. member for Weymouth in reprobating the system of apprenticeships, and should use his utmost endeavour, to eradicate it from the Bill. He should consent to a restriction for a short period, until wages should have time to find their level. He had also another objection to the measure. He could never intrust the. Colonial Legislatures to legislate upon the freedom of the slave.

considered that the principle of apprenticeships and that of compensation were settled by the Resolutions, and the House ought not to revoke its decision.

considered the system of apprenticeships a valuable one, with adequate wages; but he did not approve of the provisions of the Bill in that respect.

said, it had been expressly declared upon the discussion of the Resolutions, that the House was only pledged to the principle of a preparatory state between slavery and freedom, and not to the precise system contained in the Bill, and still less to the time for which it was to last. He agreed with the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets, that the confidence which his right hon. friend, the Colonial Secretary now placed in the Colonial Legislatures was quite contrary to the sentiments he had avowed when first submitting this scheme to the House. Considering the words which his right hon. friend had quoted from Mr. Canning, he could not trust the masters of slaves to legislate for them. He had requested his right hon. friend to submit the draft of the Order in Council, by which he proposed to carry his plan into effect; but his right hon. friend excused himself upon the ground of the difficulty of framing Orders in Council for such purposes. If his right hon. friend could not show how his principle was to be carried into effect, he was sure that would convince the House that the principle was wrong. Agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, he must at the same time enter his decided protest against sacrificing the welfare of the slave to the pecuniary interests of the master. If the Bill went through the Committee in its present state, it would be impossible for him, on the third reading, to do otherwise than give it his opposition.

contended, that the House was pledged by their Resolution to the principle of the Bill; and he strongly protested against their being called upon to retrace their steps. If that were attempted, it would have been infinitely better for all parties, had the measure never been broached at all.

denied that he was pledged by the Resolutions. Surely those who voted for the grant of 20,000,000l. could not be considered as bound to vote for the Bill, let it assume what shape it might. He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have been induced greatly to shorten the terms of the apprenticeships.

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had formally communicated the Resolutions of the House to the Governors of the Colonies, and to the Colonial Legislatures? Much depended upon that. To have passed Resolutions in a Committee, by no means precluded a subsequent discussion of those Resolutions. But there were Resolutions involving a bargain, such as a loan, &c. the adoption of which by a Committee rendered a subsequent discussion of the question a matter of considerable difficulty. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Resolutions had been formally sent out to the Governors of the Colonies, and to the Colonial Assemblies, with an invitation to the latter to act on them as the Resolutions of Parliament; and the answer to that question would very much influence him as to the question of honour in the future discussion of the subject.

stated, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that as the Colonial Assemblies did not meet until November, there was at present no opportunity of laying the Resolutions before them; but he had thought it right formally to communicate them to the Governors of the Colonies, with instructions to submit them to the Legislatures, at the earliest possible period. It had been notified, also, not only that the Resolutions had passed both Houses of Parliament, but that the House of Commons was employed in considering the details of a Bill, the object of which was to carry those Resolutions into effect.

proceeded. He collected from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Resolutions were not absolutely binding on Parliament, as no correspondent measure had hitherto been formally required from the Colonial Legislatures. If, on the contrary, those Legislatures had been convened, and the Resolutions had been formally communicated to them, that circumstance ought, in his mind, to have had considerable weight with the House. On the whole, he was certainly disposed to vote against a Bill which did not seem to give satisfaction to any of the parties interested in it. Not being satisfactory, he really could not consent to so enormous a sacrifice of public money as the Bill involved. If the Bill should go into a Committee, and he were able to attend that Committee, he would state the particular objections which he entertained to the provision by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was empowered to raise the 20,000,000l. at any time he pleased; as such a step was calculated to bring down the credit of the country, in a manner unheard of, unnecessary, and most destructive.

agreed in a great deal of what had fallen from the hon. member for Essex, as to the unsatisfactory character of the measure. He especially objected to the large compensation. It had been asserted, that the West-India proprietors had been harshly treated. Harshly treated! Instead of a loan of 15,000,000l., to obtain a gift of twenty! It was the people of England who ought to complain of being harshly treated. He denied that the House was bound by the Resolutions. No bargain had been made. He objected strongly to the apprenticeships. They were slavery under another name, and he trusted the clause respecting them would be completely changed in the Committee, and he should vote in every stage against the Bill while it comprehended the compensation to the planters of 20,000,000l.; a sum which would be actually thrown away, as slavery would still continue to exist. If any hon. Member called for a division on this second reading, he should have his support.

said, as there was a general understanding that no discussion should take place on the second reading of the Bill, he would not trouble the House with any reply to the observations which had been made. He might tell the hon. and learned member, however, that the mandate of emancipation had gone forth, the Resolutions of both Houses had been sent out to the West-Indies, and the work of negro emancipation in the colonies was already effected. It only therefore remained for the Houses of Parliament, and those possessing property in those islands, to devise the best means of carrying these Resolutions into effect. He trusted that no personal feeling, or political feeling, would be allowed to stand in the way of so salutary a measure. He had always been of opinion, that the prosperity of Great Britain was bound up with the prosperrity of the colonies, and he thought it was the duty of Parliament and of the people of this country to see that no steps should be taken which would tend to diminish their prosperity. When the time came he should be ready to express his opinion on some of the clauses which had excited some opposition, and in the mean time would call on hon. Members not to show any unnecessary opposition to a Bill which must necessarily pass. With regard to the sum of 20,000,000l. he would only say, that it was proposed rather for the purpose of conciliating the colonists, in order to induce them to act cordially with Government, than as a compensation for the loss that might be sustained.

said, that the position in which the House stood that day, as to the question of slavery, was very different from that in which it stood, when it first entered upon the consideration of it some few days ago. When they then went into Committee to consider the Resolutions of the right hon. Secretary, there had been no pledge respecting the immediate abolition of slavery. The question was then res integra, and it was open for any member to deliver his opinions upon it as he deemed fitting. But in the interim both Houses of Parliament had affirmed those Resolutions, and had declared that measures must be forthwith taken for the entire and immediate abolition of slavery. He thought those Resolutions unwise, and had in consequence tried to modify them. He had proposed to substitute the word "ultimate" for "immediate;" because knowing, as he did, that the Imperial Legislature had power to terminate that state of slavery whenever it thought fit, he still deemed it wise, as the House had resolved to give a certain amount of compensation to the West-India proprietors, to take time to deliberate upon the regulations under which the extinction of slavery was to take place. His opinion, however, had been overruled, and that House, and the House of Lords, had determined to pass immediate measures for the abolition of slavery. It was necessary, therefore, to consider what construction the slaves would put upon those Resolutions. He, who differed from the propriety of these Resolutions, saw the difficulty which they created; and yet he was not prepared to defeat the hopes which had been excited by Parliament. He could not assent to the proposition of the noble Lord (Lord Howick). He thought, that to declare emancipation should be immediate, and that to trust in the present state of the West-Indies, that the inducement of wages would be of itself sufficient to insure from the slave industrious occupation, was an experiment too hazardous to be made. He had stated that opinion on a former occasion to the House, and he had referred to the relaxing nature of the climate, to the facility of raising the necessary articles of life, and to the circumstance that in those tropical regions the chief luxury was repose and the absence of labour, as proofs that the abolition of the present system, under the notion that wages would induce labour, would be a most dangerous experiment. He also thought that the experiment about to be tried was equally hazardous. He could not believe, that the power of the Magistrate would be sufficient to enforce the performance of labour. He was afraid that there was some hazard lest the punishment inflicted by the Magistrate, if it were sufficient to insure labour, would be much severer than that which was inflicted even by the most arbitrary and despotic masters. He thought it possible that, by adopting the principle of the Spanish law—namely, by holding out to the slave as a stimulus to labour, the prospect of emancipating himself gradually by the produce of it, and by having that produce, when it reached a certain amount, aided by a grant out of the public Treasury, they might promote a measure which would be most for the advantage of the, mother country, of the colonies, of the slaves in those colonies, and also of those millions of slaves now in bondage in other colonies over which we had no control. He had thought that, if we had laid down the principle of aiding the slaves by a grant a long way short of 20,000,000l. to purchase their freedom by their own labour, it would have been more for the interest of the slave than the Resolutions were, which they were now pursuing. If this experiment were not successful, we should injure instead of benefiting the slaves. The Resolutions, however, having been carried, he felt it to be his duty to insure, as far as he could, the success of them; and if the House were determined to emancipate the slave, there would never be a heavier imputation upon its good faith than by determining, after making the determination to emancipate the slave known to him, to get rid of the pecuniary compensation to the master. He felt confident that the first Resolution was entire and immediate emancipation, or, in other words, the depriving the planters of a certain portion of their property; and should the House turn round upon them with a view to defeating their claim to compensation, it might, indeed, be empowered to do so, but we should incur an imputation upon our good faith, such as had never been previously equalled. Parliament was, in his opinion, bound to make the planters full compensation; but even that compensation would not render the experiment less hazardous. He thought that it was impossible, with the law of apprenticeship as it then stood, the magistrate residing at a distance from the place where the offence was committed could enforce the performance of labour; and what was to be done in that case was a question, on which he entertained an opinion so strong that he would not at that moment venture to express it.

said, that in the essence of this Bill a most important principle was involved, which was, whether the Imperial Legislature had a right to take away at one fell swoop, all the Local Legislatures of the Colonies. Not one legal officer of the Crown had ventured to avow that the Imperial Legislature had any such right; and if it were avowed, it was not likely that the Colonial Legislatures would submit to it. This Bill limited the labour of a free man of full age and in full health to ten hours per diem, even though his extra labour were paid for, The 20,000,000l. that was to be given was not, a sufficient compensation to the West-India proprietors for this, especially as it was proposed to distribute it, on the mode of doing which, the planters had formed very different opinions. He was sorry that the discussion on this Bill was not taken now; but as there had been an arrangement to postpone the discussion till the Committee, he would reserve his objections to it till it arrived at that stage. This, however, he would say, that in his opinion it would save much discussion upon several of the clauses in the Committee, to take the discussion of the principle of the Bill now. So little did he think the Bill calculated to carry into effect the object, of any party, that if a motion were made to reject it now, he would certainly support it. One objection to it was, that the Commissioners who had to superintend the distribution of the compensation would not be able to perform their duty in the different colonies in less than ten years. He proposed to get rid of this plan, and to substitute in its stead another, by which 20,000,000l. should be advanced as a gift, and 10,000,000l. as a loan to the colonists, to be divided per capita. This would guarantee the planters from much loss, and would leave the slaves a happy and contented population. The present plan would not produce this effect; it would not effect the object of the anti-slavery societies, and it would place in jeopardy all the property in the West-Indies. He could assure the House that hon. Members would have more to do in the Committee than at this moment they expected.

said, that though he regretted exceedingly to see a Bill of this nature pass through a second reading without a discussion of its principle, he would at least be no assenting party to such a step; and lest his silence should be misconstrued into an acquiescence with the principle, and an objection only to the details, he felt it his duty to protest against the whole principle of the Bill, as at variance with all those interests which it professed to promote. The only grounds on which such a measure could be undertaken, or defended, appeared to him to be these. It must be either, first, to satisfy the claims of abstract, right and justice, without referring to any other consideration; or, secondly, to meet the almost universal wishes of the people of England; or, thirdly, to effect the freedom and improvement of the slave population; or, fourthly, to benefit the West-India proprietors. He could not conceive any other motives than these for making any alteration in the existing state of things. He was prepared then to contend, that it would entirely fail of effecting any one of these objects; and that on these grounds the Bill should be rejected entirely, and a new one, founded on very different principles, be substituted in its stead. First—As to the right and justice of the case:—No one ever pretended to deny that slavery was an oppression and a wrong, unjust in its origin, and cruel in its prolongation. It must be clear, then, that to satisfy the claims of right and justice, the Bill should have declared the entire abolition of slavery, at the earliest practicable moment, with no further delay than might be required for merely organizing a competent magistracy and police. A Bill to prolong slavery for twelve years to come, under the specious title of apprenticeships, where nothing was to be learnt, and no wages to be paid, was a mockery and an insult to those who demanded its abolition on the grounds of justice or religion; and in this point of view, the Bill deserved condemnation at its earliest stage. Secondly,—As to its compliance with the almost universal wishes of the English people; scarcely anything could be more remote from it than this Bill. The people of England demanded immediate emancipation for the slave, as his undoubted right, to be given to him without delay and without price; yet, by this Bill, the delay was to be twelve years, and, in many instances, much more: and the price was to be 20,000,000l. sterling, as a grant from the nation; 14,000,000l. of interest for being paid twelve years in advance; 21,000,000l. as the appraised value to the owners of the labour of 800,000 slaves for the master's benefit for twelve years, at seven-and-a-half hours per day. As a still further cost to the nation, the protecting duties, bounties, and other privileges of the West-India planters, were to be continued during these twelve years, making, at least, 24,000,000l. more;—forming altogether the enormous sum of 75,000,000l. sterling, for the purchase of that freedom which ought to be given at once to the slave, without a single shilling of purchase-money, or a single hour of unnecessary delay. He had no objection to the principle of compensation; but the very term implied a previous loss; and the only reasonable footing on which the question of compensation could be put, was, not as a purchase-money for a property in the persons of the slaves to be liberated (the legality of which property he wholly denied), but as a remuneration for loss sustained by the adoption of one mode of culture for another. When loss should be proved to result from such a change, it would be time enough to compensate it; but compensation without data, and without loss proved, he held to be in violation of every principle of justice; and to that, this Bill pledged the House and the country, and should, therefore, be rejected. Thirdly,—As to its granting freedom and improvement to the slaves,—it did neither; but, on the contrary, it placed them under a system, which, though called freedom, they would soon discover not to be so; and becoming irritated by the mockery of all their hopes, and the breaking of all the promises held out to them, they would be even more dissatisfied than before. That dissatisfaction would be resented by the master,—punished by the magistracy,—denounced by the Colonial governments,—and, as sure as cause ever produced effect, would bring about a servile insurrection; which, though it might secure their freedom, would throw back their improvement, by the devastations of life and property which such insurrections would occasion, and by keeping the whole population in a state of irritating warfare, instead of calmly pursuing the arts of instruction and peace. Fourthly,—As to the benefit of the West-India proprietors;—nothing could so effectually do this as a Bill which should guarantee to them, on the faith of the nation, the full enjoyment of the actual annual profits now derived from their estates; and the putting by a fund, say 20,000,000l. or more, from which any actual loss proved to arise from the cultivation of their estates by free labour instead of by slave labour, should be repaid; for then, freedom being granted to the slave, all parties would be satisfied, and the experiment might be cordially and safely made; but by the present Bill no such freedom was to be given, no such experiment was to take place; and as the disappointment of the slave population, if this Bill should pass into a law, would of necessity beget an insurrection, they would obtain their freedom by their own hands,—the purchase-money to be paid by the nation would be refused—the whole system of protecting duties and bounties would be overturned—the very colonies themselves might be lost both to the nation and to individuals, as America was severed from England, and Hayti from France; and the ruin of all the proprietors would be complete. He contended, therefore, that the Bill being defective in principle, ought to be opposed in its present stage; and he only regretted that those who considered themselves the leaders on this great question, should not have so opposed it. He had, however, discharged his duty in thus entering his solemn protest against the whole measure; and if he had succeeded in convincing the House that it would fail to effect any one of the objects it proposed to accomplish, he trusted that it would be so purged of its defects in its passage through the Committee, as to come out of their hands in as different a shape as possible from that which it now bore,—where evil so preponderated, as to make the good (if, indeed, it contained any whatever) wholly inoperative and impracticable.

said, that as emancipation formed the great feature of the Bill, he had no doubt that it would meet with the concurrence of the House. He was opposed to the long period of the apprenticeships, and had hoped, when the right hon. Gentleman changed the loan of fifteen millions to the proprietors, into a gift of twenty millions, that he would have taken the opportunity of curtailing the terms of the apprenticeship. He hoped, that this part of the Bill would be re-considered. As to the money, he was the last man in the world who would quarrel with a liberal expenditure for such a purpose; but he hoped that the liberality of the House would be met by a correspondent liberality on the part of the proprietors. It ought to be remembered, that if the proprietors had vested rights, the slaves had vested wrongs.

moved a clause, prohibiting the exclusive manufacture and sale of salt by the Government of India. At present the manufacture and sale of salt, was a close Government monopoly in India. It was manufactured there at a considerable expense, and in an unhealthy situation. The evil of it was enhanced three or four fold by the monopoly. It was subject also to all kinds of adulteration. The salt of Cheshire, which was the best in the world, might be sent to Calcutta and sold for a much less sum than the salt made in India. The abolition of the monopoly, therefore, would be a great advantage to the inhabitants of India, and it would also be a great advantage to the opulent and extensive community which he represented. Ships required heavy goods to carry to India, and salt would answer the purpose of ballast. It would therefore be equally for the advantage both of the inhabitants of India and of Britain to put an end to this monopoly.

seconded the Motion. There was already a large export of salt from Liverpool to New South Wales, to the United States, and to the Mediterranean; and there could be no doubt that it might be advantageously sent to India. He conceived it would, therefore be very bad policy to cripple the trade between England for the sake of raising a small revenue in India by an odious monopoly.

begged to tender his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham), and to offer a few remarks in confirmation of the evils to which this monopoly of salt by the India Company gave rise. It was one of the ancient abuses of the country; and, in the time of Warren Hastings and Lord Clive, the salt monopoly was a private perquisite of the servants of the East-India Company, who, in lieu of direct salaries corresponding to their rank or station, had certain shares assigned them in this monopoly, by which they enhanced the cost of salt on some occasions as high as 1,000 per cent above its natural price. This was an evil to be examined in two distinct points of view—the one as it affected the people of India, the other as it affected the people of England; for the monopoly was deeply injurious to both. To the people of India, salt was much more a necessary of life than to us, from the circumstance of their religion prohibiting the use of any but vegetable food. The want of this article, occasioned by its high price, was frequently the cause of disease; and he had himself, in a voyage from the Red Sea to Bombay, witnessed the death of sixteen seamen in a few days, from a disease of which all on board were ignorant, but which, on being described to the medical officers of Bombay, was recognized by them as a disease occasioned by the absence of salt and those other stimulants which can alone render exclusively vegetable diet either nutritious or wholesome. Besides the deficiency of quantity to which the high monopoly price gave rise, there was an evil just as great, occasioned by the system, which was the admixture of saline earths, and other deleterious ingredients, which were almost as unwholesome as the entire absence of the salt for which they were offered as a substitute: and, from this double evil, the privations and sufferings of the poor Hindoos were extreme. But the sufferings occasioned by the process of manufacture were greater still. The salt of Bengal was chiefly made in a district called the Sunderbunds, where the branches of the Ganges run through a flat country, intersected by innumerable channels, liable to constant floods and inundations, and infested in every part with tigers. The people were compelled, under severe restrictions, to work in the salt pans under the scorching heat of a meridian sun, and kept to their labour by sepoys and police guards; and, from all he had heard of the cruelty of their treatment, he must confess, that if he were unfortunately driven to choose between the condition of the African employed in the cultivation of sugar in the West Indies, or the Hindoo employed in the manufacture of salt in the East Indies, he should prefer the former. as being the least miserable of the two, The liability to destruction from floods and tigers, was merely the result of that barbarous system by which India had been hitherto ruled, as a farm held at lease, of which the most was to be racked out of it, at the least present cost, in utter disregard of its future condition. There were, accordingly, neither dykes nor canals, nor embankments, nor any of those securities by which civilized governments protected their lands and their subjects; so that, at some periods of the year, thousands were swept away by inundations, which covered miles of surface, and from the devastations of which only a few escaped by taking shelter in the tallest trees, and lingering out a painfully protracted existence in the branches and the boughs: and, at the drier seasons of the year, the jungles being filled with tigers, they were carried off by these also in considerable numbers. Besides the evils thus inflicted on the makers and the consumers of salt in India, smuggling, upon a most extensive scale, was induced by the high duties on the commodity; and this was attended with all the evils of smuggling in every country—but here presented in an aggravated form. He had himself taken a cargo of 1,200 tons of salt from the coast of Coromandel, at Covelong, near Madras, to the Company's dépôt at Calcutta; and he had reason to know, that on that occasion, the temptation of large profits had induced many of the natives to load smaller vessels and boats with salt, which was smuggled into Bengal; that several of these smugglers had affrays with the police; that many lives were lost on both sides; and that, in addition to the loss of revenue from this cause, the survivors from these combats were often induced to become robbers; from robbers they passed on to become murderers—and then joined the regular banditti or dacoits of Bengal, to carry on a system of plunder and devastation, which generally ended in their apprehension and condemnation to death. But, in addition to this long catalogue of evils inflicted on India by this odious monopoly in an indispensable necessary of life, the injury to the merchants and ship-owners of England was considerable. It must be well known to gentlemen at all conversant with foreign commerce, that a large portion of the cargoes of manufactured goods sent out from this country to India consisted of light articles, occupying considerable space, but not sufficiently weighty to form the entire cargo of any ship; while those articles of metallic manufacture were yet insufficient to fill the necessary bulk required for the ballast requisite to preserve the safe and steady equilibrium of the ship. Now, the salt of Cheshire was an article peculiarly well adapted to this purpose; and it could be laid in at Liverpool, of so good a quality and so low a price, as to be certain of realizing a handsome profit on being taken to India, were it not for the monopoly of that article continued in the hands of the East-India. Company, What was the consequence? That the ships from Liverpool being unable to take this salt, frequently took in common stones as ballast, which not only paid neither freight nor profit, but were attended with a considerable expense to get rid of, after the ship's arrival in India, as they could not be thrown overboard, for that would injure the anchorage and the navigation of the harbours or rivers in which they might lie; and therefore they were obliged to convey them to a distance before they could be deposited on the land or sunk in the sea. At the same time, the ships returning from India, and being equally in need of some heavy and bulky material for the lower portions of their cargoes, were practically as much prohibited from taking on board the sugar of Bengal for the homeward passage, as they were the salt, from Cheshire for the outward voyage, because of the monopoly granted to the West Indies by the extra duty imposed on sugar coming from the East. We were thus crippling our merchants and ship-owners on all sides; and, instead of legislating for their benefit, were absolutely making laws to perpetuate their injuries. Of this he felt assured, that if the Americans had passed a law which prohibited us from exporting salt from Cheshire to India, or importing sugar from Bengal to England, we should have deemed it abundantly sufficient cause for war; and the whole English nation would join us, most cordially, in declaring hostilities against America, and demanding redress. Was it, then, the less an evil because this state of things was the result of laws made by ourselves? He thought not. On the contrary, he considered that a blow aimed at our prosperity by the hand of a professed friend, was more painful and mortifying than a blow struck by an open enemy; and if, as was contended, the Government of England was a paternal Government—if the King were really, as it was professed, the father of his people, and these were as much his children as they were the subjects of his realm—it was high time that we, who, as the legislators of the country, were presumed to be the King's advisers, by our counsel, should carry up our remonstrances to the throne against these intolerable evils, and ask the Royal sanction to legislative acts that should sweep them for ever away.

thought the monopoly of opium, as well as that of salt, should be put an end to at once. He had no doubt, that a great many of the diseases with which the poorer classes in Bengal were afflicted were caused by the want of salt. As the Government, he understood, fully admitted the inexpediency of the monopoly, the question was now only one of time, and he should not, therefore, enter into a lengthened discussion on it.

admitted, that this subject was well deserving the attention of the House. The hon. Member who had spoken last, truly stated, however, that the question was only one of time. His Majesty's Government did not defend the continuance of the tax. One great object of the present Bill was to separate the government and the commerce of India. Into such a question as the present, however, there were many considerations of caution and prudence entered; no one could deny the expediency of removing the taxes on salt and opium; but it was not to be forgotten, that those taxes produced a revenue of 2,500,000l. of which 1,600,000l. was from salt alone. It was the opinion of the Authorities in India, however, as well as of the Government, that the tax on salt should be got rid of as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, he hoped, that the House would be satisfied, and that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that when he was connected with this branch of the public economy, he had felt satisfied of the necessity for endeavouring to levy the revenue of India in some other way than by imposing a monopoly duty of salt upon the natives; he was now more than ever convinced of that necessity, and he should support any feasible proposition for some change in these respects. However, after the declaration of his right hon. friend, he hoped his hon. friend would feel satisfied, and withdraw his Amendment.

said, that the prejudices of the Indians were so powerful as to offer a complete bar to the substitution of any other tax in lieu of that on salt, to which they had been so long accustomed. He thought, therefore, that the matter had much better be left to the discretionary power of the local government of India.

, in explanation, said, that he by no means wished to get rid of the revenue arising from the duty upon salt, but merely by lowering the tax one-half to increase the consumption of that article, and to supply the deficiency which would arise from the native manufacture by pouring in a sufficient quantity from without.

having moved the third reading of the Jews' Disabilities Bill,

rose to oppose the further progress of the Bill. To the Jewish people he was friendly, as far as they were entitled to a participation in constitutional privileges. Christianity, however, formed a part and parcel of that Constitution, to participate in the whole of which they now aspired; and he concurred with many that it would be a solecism to permit men denying the truth of Christianity to expound our laws, and administer justice to professors of Christianity. He was sure, that this measure would lead to the most disastrous results. All who wished well to the Church Establishment ought to set their faces against the admission of the Jews to Parliament. The proposition that all men, be they Jews, Hindoos, or Mahometans, were fit to legislate for this country, would lead to the principle that a Church Establishment was altogether unnecessary. He felt bound to oppose the measure. He gave the supporters of it credit for the most pure and praiseworthy motives, but as he felt that the measure was one of the most destructive that had ever been proposed to Parliament, he could not do otherwise than vote against it.

said, his opposition to this measure did not rest upon any apprehension as to its practical results, but was based upon much higher grounds. The question was not whether three or four, or half a dozen Jews, should be admitted to Parliament, but whether the Legislature should continue to be an exclusively Christian Legislature? It was now proposed, that they should admit the avowed and inveterate enemies of Christianity. It was the duty of the House to legislate for the interest of religion and the maintenance of Christianity. With what consistency could they admit the enemies of that belief to assist in legislating for it? He knew, it was argued, that in these liberal days all civil rights and privileges, and even power, should be opened to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. He was not going to dispute that proposition at present, but he asked whether Jews were his Majesty's subjects? He had never heard that an Austrian, or a Swiss, or a Russian, or a Calmuck, let him have lived never so long in this country, would he entitled to any thing beyond protection. He did not see, that the Jew had a right to any higher privileges. As an alien and a stranger he was entitled to protection, but not to a share in our legislation. He knew, that many Gentlemen considered, that religion, being a matter between man and his God, a national recognition of our allegiance to the Divine Founder of our creed was unnecessary. But he did not see why that which was fit for an individual or a family was not also good for a State. The Scriptures enjoined national recognition of religion, and the frequent calls to nations, and the rulers of nations, amply proved this. He could not consent to a measure which was calculated to draw down national chastisement upon us for our abandonment of that recognition which we owed to the Divine Being. Men might "rush in where angels fear to tread;" but for his part he shrunk from the responsibility which such a measure as this would entail. He might not hope, that the Bill would be rejected in that House, but he thanked God there was another tribunal where its merits would be weighed. He was sure there was no feeling in favour of the measure out of doors, but that its rejection would be hailed with gratitude and enthusiasm by the serious and reflecting, and would be received with indifference only by those who were indifferent to everything. The only pledge that had been required of him by his constituents was, that he should vote against the Bill. That pledge, however, he refused to give, as he would have refused any other pledge. But he did not feel it the less his duty to oppose it from conscientious feelings, and that duty he should discharge.

said, he had presented a petition from the port which he represented, very numerously signed, in favour of the measure, and he should support it.

said, that having once been himself disqualified on account of his religious opinions, he felt a strong sympathy for those who were not in the full enjoyment of civil rights. He thought the arguments on the score of expediency were much stronger against the Catholics than against the Jews, for there were millions of the former, but the number of Jews who could avail themselves of the privileges proposed to be conferred upon them would be very small indeed. Where-ever the Jews had been admitted to the possession of civil rights they had shown themselves capable of the sentiments and the duties of citizenship.

said, that as a question of principle he should vote for the third reading. Those who had supported the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts and the Catholic Relief Bill, would act inconsistently if they did not support this measure.

said, that he should oppose the Bill on the same ground upon which the hon. member for Kircudbright supported it—namely, on principle. He believed the Jews to be industrious and well conducted, but he did not think that they had any right to sit in a Christian Parliament. The prophecies of the Bible, according to the interpretation of a celebrated author, had been completely fulfilled. He must refer to the work itself in proof of this fact.

said, that having already had an opportunity of declaring his sentiments on the principle of the Bill, at its second reading, he was not now going into the general question; but there was one argument of the opponents of this Bill on which so much stress had been laid, that he felt it his duty to show to the House, as briefly as he could, that it was founded entirely in error. It had been asserted, that the Jews were a people who had no attachment to the land of their nativity or habitation; their affections being wholly absorbed by Jerusalem and Palestine, to which they looked with such anxious longings, that they had no feelings of patriotism for any other country, but directed their regards, and concentrated their affections entirely on the Holy Land. Now, having been himself for some time at Jerusalem, having made Palestine the subject of his peculiar and careful observation, and having examined into the state and condition of the Jews there and elsewhere, he was bound to say, that he had never heard of a single English Jew having visited Palestine, even as a matter of curiosity or recreation. If their affection for the Holy Land had been so unconquerable as had been supposed—there were many Jews in England, who had leisure and means in abundance, to enable them to make a visit to that country; but they never thought of going so far: and as to those who inhabited Jerusalem, or any part of Palestine, of which there were many of Asiatic and some of European birth, the oppressions under which they suffered, and the degradations to which they were subject, were such as to make their abode a continued scene of suffering: and, accordingly, as soon as they could possess themselves of the means of competency, or even of removal, they generally hastened with all possible speed, to get away from the country and its persecutions, and repair to some other happier land. The error lay in this—that we assumed the Jews to feel all that their sacred book represented them as feeling; and to act as their Scriptures prescribed. In this sense it was, no doubt, their duty to remember Jerusalem, and they recited prayers and hymns in praise of the Holy Land. But it did not follow, that they felt what they said, or acted up to what they professed, any more than many Christians, who recited in their worship, that into which their feelings never entered; and who, while they professed temperance, chastity, justice, and mercy, were frequently violating every one of these virtues by the daily acts of their life. As a purely theological question—the Jews, no doubt, looked to the restoration of their nation, and the establishment of a temporal kingdom at Jerusalem. But no one pretended to fix the exact period of that change. When it should be announced by such signs as could not be mistaken, they would, no doubt, avail themselves of the event. But the question before the House was—whether, during their residence among us, and their performance of all the duties of good citizens, paying taxes to the State, obeying the laws, and living in peaceful communion with their fellow-men, we should continue to exclude them from all those civil privileges which they were fully competent to enjoy usefully to themselves, and not injuriously to us, from the fear of some anticipated change, which might never arrive in our day, and if it did, could produce no evil by any extent of elevation which we might give to the Jews in the period previous to its accomplishment. He had yet heard nothing to lessen his confidence in the justice and policy of the measure for their emancipation; and he should, therefore, continue to give the Bill his cordial support.

said, that in supporting the Motion, it was not his intention to enter into the details of the question, because in considering these details in his own mind (and he had fully so considered them), he felt that no danger could occur either to the Church or State by the adoption of this measure.

said, the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member was not so satisfactory as might have been expected. The subject was of paramount importance, and after having given his most anxious consideration to it, he was prepared to give his determined opposition to this Bill. The measure went either too far or not far enough. Either they were legislating on principle, or with reference to living interests. If on principle, not the Jews alone, but all other sects, of whatever belief or of no belief at all, should be admitted into the government of Church and State. He had always contended, that by the very terms of the writ issued by the Crown, they were called together to legislate for the whole interests of England—for Church as well as for State. Thus, persons who were by profession and by personal belief hostile to them in one half of their subjects of legislation, could not be fit to be trusted with any share in it. He was always ready to do an act of justice to individuals as well as to numbers; but denying it to be an act of justice, and looking upon this measure as one of expediency only, how small was the advantage it would confer on any one. So small it was, indeed, that the title of the Bill ought to be, "a Bill to enable an hon. Gentleman to come from the Lobby into the Body of the House." Supposing one was an understatement, four Jews were certainly the utmost that would ever be admitted into that House. No great temporal mischief would arise, but the principle involved was great; and that principle would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. The hon. member for Stamford had very properly referred the House to what had been done in other matters by foreign states, whose example they were requested to follow in the present case. He had shown, that in the matter of slavery, the most liberal of republics was completely at variance with England. The example of any foreign state could be no rule for their conduct; but if their example were quoted at all, it ought to be done correctly; and as Prussia had been referred to he would state, that the liberality of the government of that country went so far as to allow the Jews to marry at the age of twenty-four, and to hold a certain set of inferior offices. In fact, their situation could not now be compared to that of the Jews in this country, not one of whom, he was sure, would give up the rights which he enjoyed here for the enjoyment of those of his brother in Prussia. The hon. and learned member for Kircudbright had stated, that the common law was not against the Jews; yet how could that assertion be reconciled with the great law maxim, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land, which had been promulgated by one of our greatest and wisest Judges, and adhered to for the last 200 years? The hon. and learned Member had also asserted, that there was no statute law against them. The very oath required to be taken on entering that House was incorporated in a statute; and there was a yet unrepealed statute of the Irish Parliament passed in the 23rd and 24th George 3rd, in which it was declared, that whatever indulgence might be granted to other sects should not be granted to the Jews. The opinions of a man formed an important part of him, and it was therefore of great consequence to consider the opinions of those whose fitness for being admitted to that House was under discussion, particularly their religious opinions. He had not yet heard from any of the hon. Members who had spoken in favour of this Bill any thing which tended to show, that the opinions which the Jews entertained made them proper persons to be admitted to that House. He should, therefore, move, that this Bill be read a third time this day six months.

congratulated the hon. member for Oxford on having shown himself so true an advocate of Christianity, and giving proof, that it was part and parcel of the law of the land. With respect to the oaths talked of by the hon. Member, the House must bear in mind how oaths were found binding on Roman Catholics, according to the evidence given by Roman Catholic priests and other authorities. He would return back to the question more immediately before the House, and call upon the House to consider upon the solemn form of prayer which was daily performed in that House, and then ask themselves how they could expect Jews to join in that prayer? He would ask the hon. Member how he could defend this part of the case? It was not his intention to trouble the House much further on this subject; but he would say, that the British Constitution, which had been maintained for centuries on principles of Christianity, ought to be continued upon those pure and Christian principles upon which it was founded.

having all his life supported liberal measures, wished to state, that he could not support this Bill, because it gave a character of complete indifference to all religion. To the Legislature, Christianity was interwoven with the law of the land, and he would not consent to admit the Jews into Parliament.

was not guided by prophecies, but by precepts. He held, that every civil disability imposed on a particular sect, for which no reason was shown (for on those who opposed the Motion the burthen of proof lay) was not only oppression, but persecution. The advocates of the present measure might be compared to the good Samaritan, who did not refrain from relieving the man at the way side because he was an alien, and professed another creed. The arguments used to exclude the Jews from the ordinary rights of citizenship, were precisely those arguments used on the present occasion. He must express a hope, that this great question might be settled on the basis of charity, and in accordance with those great principles on which the Christian religion was founded, namely, of glory to God, and good will to men.