appeared at the bar with the following answer from her Majesty to the Address of the House relative to the slave trade:—

"I have received your dutiful Address, expressing your opinions, your wishes, and your hopes, as to the measures best calculated to accomplish the effectual extinction of the traffic in slaves. I assure you I fully share your regret in observing the extent of human suffering that is still occasioned by this cruel trade. I have recently concluded with some foreign states additional stipulations for the purpose of putting down this traffic. I have engaged in negotiations with other foreign states for arrangements founded on the principles recommended in your Address, and I am urging Portugal to fulfil her engagements with Great Britain, by the conclusion of a treaty adapted to the suppression of the slave trade now carried on under the Portuguese flag. You may rely on my earnest endeavours to give full effect to your wishes on this interesting and important subject."

rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. He felt it would be urged by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, and also by many other Gentlemen on both sides of the House, that it would be unwise, injudicious, and perhaps unparliamentary, in him to bring this question forward a second time after it had been once decided. But he held it to be the duty, as well as the privilege, of every Member of Parliament, if he conscientiously believed, that the House had decided wrong, to bring forward the subject a second time, in order to induce it to revise and rescind its resolution; and that if any evil should arise from the agitation of the question, that that evil should be equally shared by those who opposed as by those who provoked the inquiry. He had other reasons for bringing the subject forward again. First, because he did not think it had been fairly met by the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, when it was last before the House. He thought, that the hon. Gentleman, if he were really sincerely and conscientiously opposed to the motion, should have met it by a direct negative, instead of moving the second reading of another measure—a measure which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had always understood was introduced to run pari passu with another bill. It was upon these grounds he was induced to bring forward the present motion. In doing so he begged to assure the House, that he should not attempt to excite its feelings or its passions by enumerating all those horrors which had been related as occurring in the West Indies. He wished only to appeal to the generosity and kindness of the House whilst he endeavoured fairly and impartially to bring the whole of this important question under its consideration. When he first undertook to bring the subject forward, he felt that he had a difficult task to perform—that he had two distinct objects to attain; first, to convince the House of the truth of all the allegations which had been made as to the enormities committed in our colonies, which the House and the public disbelieved, as impossible; and also to convince the House that the immediate abolition of the apprenticeship system was the best and safest mode of remedying the evil. As to the first of these propositions, he was almost entirely relieved of any difficulty—for nobody who had read the documents—the authorised documents upon which these atrocities had been proved—nobody who had heard or read the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen in favour of or against abolition—he alluded especially to the speeches of the ex-Chancellor of Ireland (Sir E. Sugden), and the Secretary at War (Viscount Howick), speeches which, undoubtedly, though levelled against, were decidedly in favour of immediate emancipation—no person could have done all that without coming to the conclusion, that the allegations as to the enormities of the slave-trade had been fully proved. But, in addition to that, he held in his hand the Act of Parliament recently passed, an act which had been carried within the last six weeks or two months; and he said, that that act was in itself a plea of "guilty" to the charges brought against the West-India planters. Further than that, he had the language of the noble Lord (Lord Glenelg) at the head of the Colonial-office, in which that noble Lord admitted, that the apprentices had been cruelly treated; that women had been brutally flogged; that the allowances of food to the apprentices had been illegally reduced; that the parents had been unlawfully separated from, and debarred from intercourse with, their children; and that prædials and non-prædials had been unjustly confounded. All this proved, that no trust whatever was to be placed in the colonial legislatures, and that the Imperial Parliament, if it wished to see its measures carried into full and complete effect, must take the task entirely into its own hands. If the colonial legislatures and the planters had scorned, ridiculed, and laughed at the Act of 1833, which was an Act for their advantage, and by which they received 20,000,000l. of money; upon what ground was it expected that they would not equally laugh at, and ridicule, and evade the Act recently passed, which was an Act for the advantage of the negro? He trampled upon the Act; he did not take his stand upon it—he assumed a higher ground; he held it to be the undoubted right of every man to be left in possession of the liberty given to him by the Almighty, and which no man had a right to take from him, except for the commission of crime. If both parties were tried at the tribunal of justice, there could be no doubt as to which of them would be adjudged entitled to compensation. The first objection made by the friends of the planters against any alteration of the present law, was on the ground of contract. Now, with respect to that objection, the Act of Emancipation was either a contract or it was no contract. If it was no contract at all (and he had always declared it to be his opinion that it was not), there was end of the question. He contended that Parliament would not enter into a contract with any party. It might command it—it might enact; but it could not contract. But nothing was so strong a proof that the Emancipation Act was no contract as the very Act of the present Session, a copy of which he held in his hand; for by that Act, that part of the contract, as it was termed, which made children under a certain age for a certain term apprentices, was repealed. Now, if Parliament had power to repeal a part of the contract, why should it not have the power to repeal the whole of it? If Parliament could justly give liberty to infants who were included in the Emancipation Act, why should it not be capable of giving liberty to adults? But, supposing it were a contract, he would maintain, that it was either void in itself, or voidable by Act of Parliament. Indeed, those who were most interested in it, were not even parties to this assumed contract. Parliament, by the Act of 1833, abolished slavery, by enacting that from thenceforth slavery should cease; it then created a new species of slavery under the mask of liberty; but upon what conditions? Upon conditions which made the contract, if it were one, voidable by an Act on the part of the same authority which created that new state of things. What were those conditions? They were, that Parliament, on the one hand, should give to the planters the sum of 20,000,000l. of money, and allow the negroes to remain in a state of servitude, termed apprenticeship, for a certain number of years; while, on the other hand the planters should perform certain covenants and engagements specified in the Emancipation Act for the benefit of those apprentices. Had the Parliament, he would ask, performed its part of the contract? Undoubtedly it had—it had given its 20,000,000l. But had the other parties performed their part of the contract? He would maintain most decidedly that they had not. He knew it had been urged by an hon. Gentleman, and who gave instances, that there were certain estates on which the apprenticeship clause had acted well and beneficially; but, on the other hand, there were many instances in which it had not acted beneficially; and, therefore, he would put the two testimonies against each other; and, in doing so, he took his stand upon this Act of Parliament. When he should have read to the House what had been said by a noble Lord in the other House of Parliament—a Member of her Majesty's Government, and, perhaps, the best authority upon his side of the question, the House would perceive which of the two testimonies was of the more value, and worthy of the greater attention. The noble Lord was considering the question, whether the attention of the nation and the Imperial Parliament in passing the Act of 1833 had been fulfilled, and he stated that

"The special magistrates, in their endeavour to discharge their duty in administering justice, had been thwarted in every possible way; that the apprentices were sent to the workhouses for the most trivial offences, in order that they might be removed from the protection of the law, the special magistrates not having the power to visit them in the workhouses; that they were abridged of the hours allowed them by law for labouring on their allotments, and were prevented from attending their children even in a dying state, or if they did, they were required to make up for the time so employed by extra work."

After such testimony from the head of the Colonial-office, was there any one who would argue that the planters had per- formed their share of the contract—if any contract ever existed, which he again denied? But it was said, that the emancipation of the apprentices by the first of August next would be a spoliation of the property of the planters. He denied, that they could have any property at all in the persons of the apprentices. If there were any party which could claim the ownership of such a property, it could only be under the Emancipation Act, which gave it under certain conditions, and these not being fulfilled, the property reverted to the original owners. If there were any proprietor, the Legislature, which paid the money, was the proprietor. He wished to speak with the greatest respect of the owners of the estates in the West Indies. He respected their talents, their characters, their stations in life. He gave them credit for all the moral virtues; he had no doubt they filled the stations in which they were placed with perfect credit to themselves, and with advantage to the public; but he must still say, that the plague spot was upon them; they were slave-owners, and were, therefore, morally incompetent to give testimony on this question. He should feel it more honourable to be a slave for a year than a slave-owner for an hour. He would, therefore, put their testimony entirely out of the question. Then, as to the Members of the Colonial Legislatures, why, they also were slave-owners; he should, therefore, equally put their testimony wholly out of consideration. With respect to the managers, overseers, and agents of the planters, he would not say a single syllable, because it was impossible for them to feel the cruelty of the system. They had been born, bred, and educated, amid scenes of horror and of every species of inhumanity practised towards the slave. They had learned the cruelty of the system in their very cradle. The cries of the slave, while enduring the anguish of the lash, had been the song that lulled them to sleep—his very fetters had been the rattles that amused their childhood. It was impossible that men thus reared could be sensible of the horrors of slavery. But the missionaries, who had gone forth from the land of liberty with hearts capable of sympathising with human suffering, and had visited the huts and gaols in the colonies where the victims of these cruelties lingered and pined in agony, were men whose testimony was worthy of all acceptation; and these men now raised their voices and called upon the Legislature to redress the grievances they had witnessed. Hundreds of thousands of the people of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland, joined in this call, and what was the answer which the Government had deigned to give? Why, the provisions contained in this miserable bill, introduced by Lord Glenelg in the present Session. It was argued, indeed, by those who opposed immediate freedom to the apprentice, that it was necessary the negro should be trained for a state of liberty. In all his life he had never heard any argument more absurd, or more destitute of foundation. Without going over the old ground—without alluding to Antigua, Bermuda, and other islands, where the slaves had obtained their freedom, it was enough to say, that wherever free labour had been tried it had succeeded, and the produce of those places had, instead of being diminished, been much increased. The proposition that the slave required training did not appear in the bill of 1833, for it said that any slave who had money might purchase his freedom. If he had money he might be manumitted to-morrow, and that without any training. The Act itself pointed out that money, and money only, was necessary to the release of the slave; money, and that alone, was the object of the slave-owner. No slave-owner would keep his slaves an hour if he could money enough for their release. He spoke with such a conscientious conviction that the House would soon be awakened to the necessity of an entire abolition of slavery, that he felt it unnecessary to go into particulars. He called upon the House to put an end to this inhuman system, and restore, in its original splendour, the brightest jewel of the British Crown—liberty. He called upon them to make the slaves free, to break their bonds asunder; and if they must be bound, to bind them in fetters infinitely more lasting than fetters of iron—in the fetters of gratitude and of affection. He begged leave to move—"That it is the opinion of this House that Negro Apprenticeship in the British colonies should immediately cease and determine."

rose to second the motion of the hon. Baronet, and, differing, as he said they did, so entirely in politics and in all other matters, he hoped their agreement on this occasion would be taken as an assurance by the House, that the advocates of this cause were as anxious now as they had hitherto shown themselves to preserve this question from all taint of a political or party kind. He supported this motion, because he believed its purpose was recommended on grounds no less of wisdom and safe policy than of justice and humanity. He entertained that opinion firmly; and though he, perhaps, was moved to avow his opinion on this occasion by that influence from without which had been the subject of some comment in the former debate, yet he could say, that before the excitement on this question had commenced, he had, on a public occasion, expressed the same opinion, and had ventured to say then, that if by any means the people of this country could be induced to give their attention to the facts and evidence on which that opinion was founded, they would not only arrive at the same conclusion; but would, in one voice of complaint throughout the country, call upon the Legislature to give effect to their opinion. He thought that every friend of humanity, every person who considered that the moral condition of the dependences of the empire should be the subject of their care, ought to feel deeply indebted to those benevolent persons who, with such unwearying energy, and disinterested zeal, had agitated the country upon the question, and had thus succeeded in rousing the attention of the British Legislature to the subject; and observing the good that they had already effected and were daily effecting, he not only did not deprecate that agitation, but sincerely hoped, that their example would be followed, and that other persons would, in matters of deep interest to the country, also act upon the lesson which was taught by this House, namely, that it would refuse to give its attention to any subject, not of a personal or party character, unless it were presented to it as the creature of agitation. This was now the case, as every man knew who ever brought forward any subject of national interest, not backed by excitement from without. It was idle, therefore, to complain of the pressure from without as long as indolence and indifference prevailed within. He did not say that agitation was desirable; but he contended that it was necessary; he, however, was not afraid of agitation, for he believed that there prevailed in the country a fund of sense and honesty that would render success in agitation hopeless, unless the question that was agitated came re- commended by the evidence of truth and justice. In the present instance, it was his belief, that if there had been a pretence for saying, that any compact existed, the conditions of which, though flagrantly violated by one party, were still binding on the other party; or if there had been any pretence for maintaining that the apprenticeship system was in the slightest degree satisfying its purpose of qualifying the negro for freedom, all the agitation that had taken place on the subject would have been unattended with any result. But it was because the evidence was overwhelming, and not to be questioned, that a deliberate, predetermined system had been adopted throughout the principal slave-colonies to resist the object, and in every way to pervert the spirit of the Abolition Act—and because that by evidence as little to be doubted, it was shown that this horrid purpose had been so far successful as to render the condition of the negro apprentice worse than that of the negro slave—it was because of the conviction of these disgraceful truths that the great mass of the middling class who were ever the most cautious as they were the most moral class of the community, had risen up to express their indignation at what they considered a fraud practised upon the benevolence and liberality of the country. It was from a like conviction that that active body of philanthropists, who had so peculiarly interested themselves upon the subject of negro liberty, to whom mankind were indebted for that revolution in opinion which had occurred of late in all civilised states upon the subject of slavery, now considered after the flagrant violation of all the conditions attached to the first arrangement by those who had been paid to observe them, that the great question by what way the abolition of slavery could be abolished, was as much open for consideration as it was in 1833. They now, in his opinion, came to the Legislature fortified in their demand for immediate and unqualified emancipation in two most important respects. First, in its being proved that there was nothing in the nature or character of the negro that unfitted him for freedom; and, secondly, in the discovery that in the anticipation of a contrary result they had granted an enormous sum to men as an indemnity for a loss which they never had sustained. Cleared as the subject now was of every obstacle to its free consideration, the House had only to determine what would be most advantageous to those colonies, regarding them in their social, moral, and commercial condition; and not overlooking the determination of this country that the horrid relations of slavery should cease throughout every part of the British empire. It was after calmly and deliberately regarding those colonies in that view that he came to the conclusion, that in no way could that be effected so well as by the complete emancipation of the great mass of their population. He believed, that there were many cautious and timid men who had now come to this conclusion, who had before been in doubt; but that they were yet prevented from publicly supporting their opinions from the notion that they were bound by an Act of the Parliament to endure and uphold the apprenticeship system for two years more. This, then, rendered it necessary to examine what system it was, that the people of this country had consented to endure for that time; because, if it appeared that the system that was undertaken to be maintained was totally different from that which the colonists insisted on enforcing, he considered that they were bound to maintain a system totally opposed to the wishes, feelings, and original intentions of the people of this country? What, then, was the system of apprenticeship which was undertaken to be upheld by this country? It was a system which was to be subject to the provisions of the Abolition Act; it was an apprenticeship system, without the flogging of women; it was an apprenticeship system under which the labourer was to be secured adequate food, clothing, lodging, and medical care; it was an apprenticeship system that was to secure a portion of every week to the apprentice; it was an apprenticeship that admitted of domestic rights and habits, and that was for the avowed purpose of training the slave for freedom—that was the apprenticeship system that was agreed for and which was promised, and as long as it was maintained by the colonists this country would have felt bound to let it endure till the expiration of its term. But what was the system that, in violation of these stipulations, had been substituted? The first person that he would call to announce this to the country should be one of its most wretched victims; it should be the unfortunate apprentice, James Williams, he whose statements had been all verified, after strict investigation by persons commissioned under the Crown, and he would take that as a case illustrating the working of the system, because all the horrors detailed in his narrative had occurred within the cognisance and with the sanction of a special justice, and without the knowledge of the Governor of the colony. Everything which had been verified in that narrative corresponded with all that had been now officially recognised, as having been manifested in the spirit and conduct of the colonial authorities. To this moment the House would have been ignorant of all the said horrid proofs of the working of the apprenticeship system had they trusted to the constituted authorities; and had not one virtuous and benevolent man left his home at his own hazard and expense, for the purpose of examining for himself the operation of the system, had he not disclosed to them the horrid case to which he had referred, it would have been at this moment hidden from them. But if any man objected to the case of Williams let him turn to the volume published by Lord Sligo, and he would there find the statement, that the planters were opposed to the apprenticeship system till they found that they could so far pervert its object as to secure for themselves greater power than they used to exercise over their slaves. Again, let any person read the candid admissions of Lord Glenelg as to the horrid abuses which existed under the apprenticeship system in his speech of last November; and, last of all, if any person should have a doubt of the truth on which the charges had been made against this system, let him consider the purpose and effect of the last act of the Legislature. What was it that that act said in effect to the authorities and the proprietors in those colonies? It was, that they had so far abused the confidence which had been placed in them, that they had so neglected to observe and had so openly violated all the conditions of the contract that had been made with them, that it was impossible to forego further legislation on the subject, and that though there was a stipulation by this country that the Abolition Act should remain in force for six years, yet that such had been the conduct of the colonists that it was necessary to disturb the original arrangement and to legislate de novo on the subject. But this was the case pre- cisely of the friend of the negro, who, also contended that the violations of agreement had occurred on the part of the colonists and that it was necessary now to take other means to accomplish the great object of abolishing slavery in every part of our empire; and they, finding themselves in a condition to legislate de novo on the subject, now called upon the Legislature, founded on the experience that they had of the character of the negro and the conduct of the planter, to take the only step which ever had qualified or ever could qualify men for freedom—namely, to make them free. The question really was, what remedy should now be applied under circumstances which had not been contemplated? Should it be the continued experiment of apprenticeship, or should it be freedom? Now, considering what the Legislature had acknowledged in the breach of contract on the part of the colonists, and what they now had ascertained respecting the character and dispositions of the negro, what was there, he would ask, in the apprenticeship system that recommended its continuance? Did any person suppose, that it had in any respect placed the colonies in a condition more favourable for the intended change in their circumstances? Would any man say, that it was calculated to improve the feelings between the different classes into which society was divided in those colonies? Did it tend to raise the character of the negro, or soften the disposition of the master? Had it, he would candidly ask, done anything as yet but add greatly to the dangers and hazards of ultimate change? With regard to the apprenticeship system, from the first moment it was proposed he had never entertained but one opinion of it—he had always considered it to be one of the most unwise, ill-advised, unstatesmanlike, bungling schemes for the purpose for which it was intended that the wit of man could have devised. Apprenticeship was always, in fact, a species of slavery, and never could be tolerated unless checked and watched by sound public opinion; but in this case it had all the objectionable features of slavery without some of the alleviating incidents to that system. There were the two prime characteristics of slavery in it, the right of one man to the labour of another without a corresponding obligation of rendering him pay or reward; and what was still more important, there was the denial to the labourer of the right of choosing his master. The master was told, on the one hand, that his dominion should only endure for a limited time, and he, professing to believe, that he never could procure the service of that man after the expiration of that term, was alone interested in extorting from him all the labour that he could, and was divested of the interest he had before felt in the economy of his health and strength. On the other hand, the slave, doubtless tempted with the prospect of freedom, affected in his disposition by the promises of the Abolition Act, was more alive to the ill-treatment he received, and less disposed to submission. He only lived upon the hope that he might survive the day when he could change his master, or, if he had only the feelings of a European, when he might revenge himself upon his master. He (Mr. Villiers) could hardly conceive a more devilish system of society than this would produce; the master would be more tenacious of his power, and the slave more impatient of his condition, and thus a constant state of irritation would be maintained. And what was the contrivance which was devised to check all the evils too probable to occur from this system, and to restrain the masters from an oppressive exercise of the power which they wielded with such complete authority and irresponsibility throughout these colonies? It was the constitution of the office of special justice. This was an important feature in the case, and he hoped the House would give it their attention, as the whole working of the system turned upon it. Who, he asked, was this functionary that was to assume an independent station in these slave colonies—that was to extend protection to the apprentice, and restrain the power of the master? Who was to arbitrate fairly between them in the eternal disputes that would arise between them, that in fact was to administer the English law with intelligence, independence, and courage? Why, it was any person who could be induced to leave this country for a salary of 300l. or 400l. a-year, and settle in a tropical climate, where he would find no society but that of the planters, whose hospitality he could not accept if he intended to perform his duty, and whose hospitality if he did not accept, rendered him obnoxious to the hostility of the planter, who had in his power every means of harassment and persecution should the special justice decline to be the ready instrument for all his purposes. This was the functionary on whom the whole working of the system was to depend! Let any man calmly reflect on the probable conduct of such persons, judging them only as they would other men—namely, by the circumstances under which they acted, and then say if they wondered at the charges that are brought against them, if they felt surprise at the following account given of them by Lord Sligo from his personal knowledge. The noble Marquess said:—

"During the two first years of the apprenticeship more than twenty special justices fell victims to the climate and to their own exertions, and many more resigned, from finding that the emolument was not sufficient for their support; or sickened by the opposition they met with from the planters; or in consequence of their bodily strength being unequal to the severe labour imposed on them. The first thing that a special justice has to do on landing is, to establish an agent and borrow from him money enough for his outfit of horses, saddlery, portmanteau, &c. He thus becomes embarrassed at the outset, and is obliged to pay a portion of his salary for the liquidation of his debt. If he has the misfortune, not uncommon, of losing one of his horses when on duty, he gets into difficulty still farther; and unless he has a private fortune, with which his expenses as a special justice has nothing to do, he cannot long maintain his independence. The stipendiaries are compelled on this account, as well as in consequence of the scarcity of inns, to have recourse to the hospitality, so proverbial in Jamaica, of the planters; and then it is difficult for him to do his duty honestly in a house where he has been received with kindness."

Again the noble Marquess says:—

"Unless a magistrate be a notorious partisan of the planter nothing is too bad for him; whereas, for those who are what are called 'Busha Magistrates,' that is, under the influence of the overseers, nothing is too good. Two magistrates have been dismissed, both of them accused of an improper administration of the abolition law; for both of these a subscription was immediately and liberally entered into—to one a present of plate was made, and the other received the amount of the subscription in money. The persecutions, on the other hand, with which the planters visited those who showed a leaning to the side of the negroes, prove the disposition which exists to take advantage, if possible, of any mistake which the special justices may happen to make, with the best and most humane intentions. The cases of Bourne and Oldrey are remarkable instances of the feeling which pre- vailed throughout every part of these transactions. The other instance of persecution of the special justices which it will be necessary particularly to advert to, happened to fall to the lot of Mr. Baynes. From the time that he took an active part in trying to punish those gross and cruel violations of the law which took place in the workhouse of the parish of St. John's, it was determined that all means of annoyance should be put into force against him."

What does the Marquess say besides? Why, that upon the special justice depends the whole good working of the system. Why should there be any wonder, then, after this avowal, that a special justice should be cognizant of all the horrors detailed in James Williams's narrative, and not print them? Why should there be any wonder, that those in this House, who were connected with West-India property, and desired to vindicate the system, should eagerly quote the reports of the special justices, and denounce the persons who bring to light the case of James Williams as anonymous slanderers? How could hon. Members doubt, that the majority of the reports would be in favour of the system, and that only a minority would have the nerve to detail to us all the horrors of which they had had cognizance? This was an important consideration for the House, because it should be remembered, that the special justice was the only security which they had, that the system in future would not be as bad and as infamous as it had already proved to be. And now, having shown, that the apprenticeship system was attended with no advantage, and with no security against abuse, he wished to learn what was the objection to complete emancipation? Would any person pretend, that if not beneficial to the apprentice, it would be injurious to the proprietors? Why, it was now acknowledged, and beyond question, that free labour was more economical than slave-labour. This point had long been settled. The only doubt was, whether the negro would labour if he were free; but if he would not, that was an argument against freedom, not for the apprenticeship system; but that doubt had now been removed by experiment, and it was shown that the negro was as industrious, orderly, and docile when free as any peasant in any part of the world; that he coveted all the objects of civilized life, and was actuated when free by all the motives that influenced other men in free communities. Evidence there was now in abundance, that it was greatly to the interest of the proprietors to emancipate their slaves. He had seen letters from Antigua, from Jamaica, and from other places, all showing that the estates had risen in value since the slaves had been made free. What, then, he would ask, was the excuse for keeping these wretched people any longer in bondage, exposed to all the cruelties and abuses of which the system was capable. He would not longer detain the House by going into all the details and documents which would substantiate his views, but he defied contradiction in any quarter, deduced, as his opinions were, from a careful perusal of all the evidence which was now before the public. He contended, that the apprenticeship system was of advantage to no party—that it engendered bad and bitter feelings between those whom it was an object to unite by every social tie; but it was above all things dangerous to suffer the partial emancipation that was to occur this year, inasmuch as the most horrid state of feeling would be produced by the distinctions that would then be erected, and the sufferings of those who were continued in bondage would be rendered far more severe. If there was no other reason that justified immediate emancipation, it was, that in direct violation of the Abolition Act there had been no proper classification of those who were entitled to freedom this year as the non-prædial, and those who were termed prædial, who were to be emancipated in 1840. Indeed, the distinction at all was most unwise, as nothing was more calculated to render field labour distasteful to the negro in future than the brand which was now imposed upon it by the law in postponing the boon of freedom to those who had been so engaged. Regarding it, then, in every view, he could not discover one solid reason against the object of the present resolution. All that could be alleged was the compact with the planter that he should retain his wretched power till 1840, which, if there was any person fastidious enough to consider binding after its gross violation by the planters themselves, he would only ask the House to reflect whether any other moral could be drawn from its disregard but this—that when a great and generous country, like England, determined, at an enormous sacrifice, to accomplish a generous and benevolent object, it did not suffer itself to be defied and defrauded with impunity by those with whom it had, in a liberal and confiding spirit, bargained.

said, that as this was a question which much interested his constituents he wished to say a few words. The question was not how by abolition they were to punish individual cases of cruelty or oppression on the part of the planters, for which he wished the House had the power of visiting them with punishment, but rather how they could reconcile the general welfare of the whole body of planters with the duty of the House, of the negro, and with the faith of the country. He had looked over the evidence most carefully, and though he might have come to a decision which would be unsatisfactory to many to whose good opinion he was much indebted, and whom he held in high esteem, yet he felt compelled to adhere to his first opinion, and to support her Majesty's Government. Could it be supposed, he would ask, that in any vote which he might give he would be indifferent to the fate of the negro, and that he would not be most happy to emancipate him if he could do so with a due regard to safety and justice? When the Abolition Bill was introduced, Mr. now Lord Stanley had stated, that negro labour was to form part of the compensation to be given to the planters, and he could not see how a resolution solemnly entered into by the Parliament of this country could be altered. He thought, also, that many of the evils in the practical working of the measure would be remedied by the arrangements of Lord Glenelg's bill, which would give an honest and immediate relief to the abuses which had been pointed out, and the remedies proposed by that bill had the merit of working independently of the local legislatures; and he thought, that under this good government, the intervening time might be well employed in preparing the negro in comfort until the last shackle should fall from the limbs of the slave, and he should enjoy that perfect freedom to which every man was entitled.

said, there was another reason, besides those stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, why he should support the course taken by her Majesty's Government upon this question. He thought that this country had been guilty of as great a crime as had ever been committed, and a crime which would never be effaced by the mere shortening of the term of apprenticeship, when it had allowed the importation of slaves into its West-India colonies; and that, without effacing the crime by the immediate emancipation of the negroes, this country would thereby lower its position, and be enabled to take a less firm position with the colonial legislatures, and would be less able to compel those legislatures to pass the necessary laws for securing the perfect freedom of the slaves, than if it maintained the act as originally passed. The object of the Legislature should be, by securing the good will of the planter, to promote the permanent interest of the slave. The present proposition was well calculated to throw odium on the Government, and to alienate the good-will of parties in the colonies from the Ministers who had ably and zealously co-operated with the country in striking the shackles from the slave: such an effect the motion was intended to have; such an effect it might have, because he believed, that her Majesty's Ministers would enter upon no such consideration, and that no thought of that kind would make them shrink from what they thought to be their duty; and that they would not give way to any immediate or personal interest, but would look to the good of the country generally, which all ought to support. It was thought, also, that a possible majority on this motion might have the effect of displacing from office that Government to whom belonged the honour of destroying the great curse of this country, negro slavery. This honour, however, would not soon be forgotten, and the Ministers, he was sure, had deemed it greater than any emoluments to be derived from office. This was the effect which the motion was intended to have. [Oh, oh! and No, no!] He heard cries from some Friends near him disclaiming such intention; but did they suppose, that it was on the consistency of enemies of negro slavery that he meant to cast censure? far from it; but if he cast any censure it was upon those who, having been the supporters of those who have all their lives been opposed to emancipation, now took advantage of the present proposal to obtain a little popularity in the country, and to strike a blow and inflict an injury on her Majesty's Government. It was true, that the course which he was taking demanded a sacrifice on his part in differing from many individuals for whom he felt great respect, but he did so because he was satisfied, that the motion was made without any regard for the safety or advantage of the country, and only to obtain some temporary popularity at the expense of Ministers. In conclusion, he would say, that if he did not believe, that the vote which he proposed to give would benefit the cause of the slaves, he could assure the House, that no party feeling or bias could induce him to vote in opposition to the motion of the hon. Baronet.

said, that this seemed to him to be one of those occasions on which the Government might sacrifice the principle which they had laid down, in order to obey the voice of the country, and the voice of the majority of this House. He thought, that the arguments of the opponents of the measure resolved themselves into two considerations, one of which grounded itself on the alleged contract of 1833 between this House and the West-India planters, by which a compensation was given by this country to the planters, which it was contended consisted of a sum of money, as well as of the services of the slaves for a certain term, to which the right of the planters could not be contested. The other argument seemed to be, that no adequate case had been made out against the present working of the apprenticeship in the colonies. He could understand, that in a country like this there might be a great tenacity of the regulations made by Parliament, and that too great jealousy could not be exercised in order to secure the preservation of the national faith; but he was at a loss to understand how a deliberate act of the Legislature could be construed into a contract, because he conceived, that in order that it should be a legally constituted contract there must be two parties to it. Here, however, such a state of things did not exist, for there was the Parliament alone which acted as arbitrator between the contending claims of the negro and of the West-India planter. With regard to the question of compensation, if it should be contended that in the event of the abolition of the apprenticeship system, that which had already been given was insufficient; he, for one, was ready to go into the whole question, but he would never accede to the proposition that any part of the liberty of the negro should be taken as a part of the compensation given. The apprenticeship system was created solely, in his opinion, for the benefit of the negroes, and in the Act which had been passed, that was the reason recited for its adoption: it could not be said, then, that it was a part of the compensation, for the real object was to afford proper means to the slaves to pass from a state of slavery to one of freedom in such a manner as that they might be calculated to enjoy the improved means of existence afforded them. During the last discussion on this question, the hon. Baronet, the Under-Secretary for the Colonial Department had said, that the House should not listen to the statement made by persons whose imaginations were heated by the scenes which they professed to have witnessed, but that hon. Members should refer only to the official documents, and on them should rest the opinions which they formed. He had adopted the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, and he was bound to declare his belief, that, so far as Jamaica was concerned—and there was reason to believe that the system was productive of equally bad consequences in other colonies—no disinterested man could look at the facts which were proved without coming to the conclusion that the Colonial Legislature, the stipendiary magistrates, and even the minor functionaries, had been leagued in one common attempt to annul and render useless the provisions of the Emancipation Act. As regarded the condition of the apprentices, it appeared to him that it was worse even than that of the slaves. Formerly, it was the interest of their owners to see, that they were properly fed and taken care of, but now an extent of labour was exacted from them greater than their bodily strength would enable them long to sustain, while their allowance of food was decreased, and they had, in many other respects, been placed in a position infinitely worse than that in which they were as slaves. The same observation applied to the women and children, who were tasked beyond their powers, because their inhuman masters no longer had any interest in keeping them in health, and because, therefore, their only object was to procure as much work from them as was possible. Nor was this system confined to the planters alone. The special justices had made themselves the tools of the planters; and so long as they continued to obey their wishes and views with reference to the unfortunate negroes they were welcomed with kindness and hospitality. If, however, on the other hand, they should persist in carrying out the wholesome provisions of the statutes for the protection of the apprentices, they became immediately the objects of obloquy, and they were hunted down and persecuted, and made the subjects of civil actions, and instances were even known in which, having applied to courts of justice, justice had been denied them. With regard to the punishment of the slave, he found, that the slave for any dereliction of duty, or improper act, was subjected to punishment with the lash; while the master, on the other hand, for any act of impropriety towards the slave, was liable only to a penalty not exceeding 5l. in amount; and although, in some instances, the slave was compelled to give extra services to his master, yet, in no instance, was any portion of the penalty inflicted on the master appropriated to the benefit of the slave. Then, again, let any man look into the system of workhouses, and he would venture to say, that he would find in that alone matter such as, if it were dealt with by one skilled in eloquence, would be sufficient to rouse all the feelings of humanity against it, and to induce every hon. Member in this House to raise his voice against a system so horrible. He did not propose to go into minute details, but he found cases in which men, and even women, were put to work, and being unable, as the phrase was, "to dance the mill," they were tied up by their wrists and allowed to hang there by their arms till they fainted, and even in some instances until they died. He had derived these facts from the papers referred to by the hon. Baronet, and even these were not all that he had learned. With reference to the hours of labour, the recommendations of the Government received no attention; and although it was admitted on all hands that the nine-hour system was more advantageous for the apprentice, inasmuch as it afforded him an extra holiday on Fridays, yet the planters persisted in retaining the eight-hour system in opposition to the wishes of the Legislature as well as the interests of the apprentice. He would ask the House, then, was this the state of things which had been purchased by the people of this country?—and was there one man in the House who would consent to be a party to the continuance of such a system for one hour longer? He was quite sure that the immediate abolition of slavery in all its forms would do no harm, and he was quite sure that until that step was taken, there would be no happiness and no peace for the unfortunate apprentice. The necessity of preparatory enactments had been talked of, but he was quite confident that the necessity for them was not so pressing but that it might be dispensed with, although he must admit, that some such preparation would be advisable; still, however, such a reason ought not to weigh with the House when a measure of such vast importance was under consideration, but they should suffer all those minor details to be more fully considered when the time should arrive at which they were required. It was on these grounds that he was determined to give his support to the motion of the hon. Baronet opposite; and, on these grounds, he called on any hon. Gentleman who might entertain a doubt on the subject to give the motion the benefit of that doubt, and to vote in its favour.

supported the motion, and would refer the House to the state of Antigua to show that so far from any danger being likely to result from immediate emancipation the effect would be quite the contrary. He was sure the Government was actuated by the best motives with respect to the negro apprentices, but it was exceedingly difficult for the most vigilant Government to see that the engagements entered into by the slave proprietors from whom they were distant 3,000 miles, were executed. He certainly should vote with the hon. Baronet if the motion were pressed to a division.

said, that, although the debate had hitherto proceeded in a very languid manner, yet the subject was one of the very first importance connected with the interests of this country. It might be considered that the deliberate opinion of Parliament having been taken on the subject already in the course of the present Session, the question was of so little importance as to induce many hon. Gentlemen to stay away from the House this evening; but the question having been brought forward, he thought that as he was unable to support the motion of the hon. Baronet, he was bound to state his reasons for supporting the view taken of the subject by Ministers. He could not but express his satisfaction that in all the discussions which had taken place on this subject no person had been found who was bold enough to stand forward to say that the slavery system was one which should be continued. Every man had reprobated that system, and he was convinced that the situation of the House since 1833 in reference to the question, was such as to induce every hon. Member to wish that some means should be taken to secure a final adjustment of the question on the most advantageous footing. He did not forget that he was a party to the Act of 1833; but he must express his conviction that the Government had done all that was in its power to carry out the measures of that enactment. The question was, whether the intentions of Parliament had been frustrated, and if so, what should be done. He had heard with deep regret, of many instances of individual cruelty; but he was not able to find, that there had been an indiscriminate violation of the Emancipation Act. On the contrary, those instances to which he had alluded seemed to have been received with general reprobation. The result of his observations was, that the cases of violation of the Act did not form anything like the majority of cases. If, then, this was the case, was it just that they should overturn the compact made for the benefit of the negro? If they broke the agreement that was made with the colonies, would the result not prove detrimental to the negro population? They had made a solemn promise, that the state of apprenticeship should be continued for a certain time; and they had pledged themselves that this should be observed by this country. The colonies had at once assented to the agreement, and they had repeatedly been assured by the Government that they would not interfere further than by endeavouring to promote every measure connected with the future welfare of the negroes. He was of opinion, that it was the duty of the Legislature not to lend themselves to a proposition of this kind, which involved a sudden change without making adequate provisions for the consequences that must ensue. He did not intend, by these observations, to cast any reflections on those who demanded immediate emancipation; on the contrary, he was prepared to bestow every praise, on the Quakers in particular, for their exertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought that the Legislature should be slow in lending themselves to the opinions of those who were excited by their feelings, and who believed the reports which they had received from the colonies, but which had been greatly exaggerated. With regard to the existence of abuses, he could not shut his eyes to the evident existence of the grossest abuses for a long time in this country, where there were laws to protect all classes, and where public opinion was so strongly expressed; therefore he was not at all surprised to hear of outrageous proceedings occasionally occurring in the colonies; but every desire had been manifested by the Government and the colonial authorities to put a stop to these objectionable practices. At any rate, it was the duty of the Government to take care to prevent any future abuses existing in the colonies, and if any should now be found to exist they should at once be put down. The hon. Member then read a number of extracts from the report of the Anti-Slavery Society, with the view of showing that where abuses existed, the Government had always, on complaint being made, shown a disposition to put them down. The inference he drew from all that he had read on this subject was, that the Legislature should be extremely cautious in taking any hasty steps such as were involved in the present moment. If the Act that had been passed was not found sufficient to protect the negroes, let them at once proceed to make a more stringent law which could be readily enforced. He agreed that they had not gained all that had been anticipated by the appointment of special magistrates; this, he believed, had chiefly arisen from the circumstance that they had not been able to induce a class of persons which they expected would be willing to do so to undertake that office. This, however, was a failure, rather from the want of adequate means that could be employed, than from intention. He was most anxious to fulfil those engagements which had, as he thought, much to the honour of the country, been entered into in 1833, and he never could agree that they should be broken in the way now proposed. Would it be for the advantage of the negro population in the West Indies that the present arrangement should be set aside? What would be the result of, even in this country, at once breaking the ties between master and servant? Would it not be to cause a great deal of distress to the latter? Under these circumstances, he was anxious to see oppression removed in all parts of the empire; and, although, there were many acts of the Government which he disapproved of, he had no doubt that they had a sincere desire of enforcing the Act of 1833.

:^* Sir, I do no dispute the good effects produced by the agitation of this question without the walls of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, that agitation without is often the result, and the corrective, of indifference within. It is an excitement of which no man can complain, unless he complains of the strongest instincts and the holiest sympathies which Providence has implanted in our nature,—it is the excitement which in all ages has existed where Humanity could lift its voice against Oppression—it is the agitation which never can be allayed in a free and generous people, while they feel for the sufferings which they have it in their power to relieve. To deprecate agitation in the cause of men who have been wronged, is to mourn over all that is active in virtue—over all that is charitable in religion. But though I rejoice in the almost universal feeling which exists upon this subject, and which makes the people of England more anxious, more importunate, more resolute, in behalf of others, than they have ever been in demanding justice for themselves, I am not insensible of the disadvantage under which those who agree with me labour on this solemn occasion. The agitation that may swell the number of votes in favour of our motion, diminishes the influence of the arguments by which it is supported. Too often jealous of our rights as deliberate legislators, we forget our first character of responsible representatives; and where a man is supposed to be influenced by his constituents, we are inclined to doubt the sincerity of his own opinions—as if Truth were discovered only by individuals, and lost in its value in proportion as it penetrated the multitude. I know—I painfully feel—this disadvantage in your secret prepossessions; the friend of the negro, in these walls, addresses a languid audience; and it is almost a hopeless prayer when I ask for that patient and unprejudiced attention which you have refused to men whose abilities would, on other subjects, have enforced the claim. I enter not into the abstract inquiry, whether there was a contract with the planter, or whether we only passed a law with conditions attached to it. Heaven forbid, that England should resort to casuistry whenever there is a question of her faith! I allow at once that the honour of Parliament was pledged to the planter; [Hear!] ay, but are there no other parties in the bond?—our honour is pledged to the planter, but it is pledged with no less solemnity to the negro-population, and to the British people, whose gold we obtained upon the most explicit promises—upon the most definite understanding. Those promises and that understanding were, first, the English Act of Parliament, which announced that slavery should cease, and, secondly, the speeches of the Government in explanation of that Act,—especially of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in which he declared, that after the passing of that Act, 'every slave should enjoy every right and every privilege of a freeman, subject to this restriction only, that he should, for a certain time, remain under contract to labour industriously in the service of his employer.' Now this is the question from which the opponents to the present motion shrink. They talk of preserving a compact and keeping faith solely with one party—the planters—and seem quite to forget the two other parties to whom they had given equal promises with whom they had entered into equal obligations—namely, the negroes and the English people. Has faith been kept with the two last; have the promises of the noble Lord been fulfilled? The hon. Baronet, the Under Secretary for the colonies, says—yes, by the majority; he says, that "in the great majority of instances there has been on the part of the West-India proprietors a bonâ fide adherence to the spirit as well as to the letter of the Emancipation Act." But I contend that the act or the compact has been violated, not by a minority—not even by a small majority, but by the whole body of the planters in every colony where legislative assemblies exist. For how can nation deal with nation, or a mother country with her colony, except through the medium of the legislative assemblies in those places where legislative assemblies exist? When you suspended the constitution of Canada you said, justly, that it was not so much on account of the revolt, as because of the conduct of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly, where it exists, is the legitimate organ, not of a minority, not of a majority, but of the whole community which elects its members as agents and trustees. Well, then, is it not of the Legislative Assemblies freely chosen by the white population—the voice of all the planters—that your governors the most bitterly complain? For the Assembly of Jamaica, containing the largest slave-population of all, you have not a word of defence. You have the evidence of your own governor that that assembly violated the law or the compact in almost every particular—in the hours of labour, in the allowance of food, in the flogging of females. You have Lord Sligo's evidence not only that the members of that Assembly violate the law or the compact, but that when the violation is pointed out, they do not pay the smallest attention to his remonstrances. Mr. Jeremie, in the appendix to the report of the select committee on negro apprenticeship, after comparing the Jamaica Act with the English Act, states (p. 5 of the appendix) that "nearly every one of the enactments of the Jamaica Act is directly opposed to the spirit and letter of the British Act, and therefore that they are legally null and void ab initio." Who is Mr. Jeremie? Why, the prime, favourite, selected, panegyrised authority of the Government. Mr. Beldam, after analysing the Jamaica acts, states, "that the passing of the act No. 3, and the subsequent conduct of the Jamaica House of Assembly on the question of the revival of the act No. 2, which, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the home Government and the colonial Governor, had been suffered to expire, removed all further motives for delicacy in treating with this refractory colony, as it plainly demonstrates the want of good faith, so long and so loudly complained of by the friends of the enfranchised negroes. It now remains to be decided by a competent tribunal whether laws of the character already exhibited in the preceding analysis are to be accepted as an adequate and satisfactory fulfilment of the conditions upon which twenty millions sterling have been paid by the mother country?" And is Jamaica a single instance? No! Pass on to page 83 in the same report—we come to Barbadoes. "The Barbadoes abolition acts, even in their amended form, exhibit most of the glaring defects already notice in the Jamaica abolition acts, "these defects being nothing more nor less than violations of the English law, in other words of the mutual compact. But are Barbadoes and Jamaica solitary instances? Not so. For the same authority (your own authority, mind) goes on to state "that the laws of nineteen colonies, in many respects equally objectionable with those already commented upon, must undergo the same inquiry." So, then, not by individuals, not by minorities, but by the constituted delegates of their whole bodies the planters have been guilty of systematic, general, deliberate, formal violation of your boasted compact. Even in the first flush of their pecuniary triumph, with the British gold yet heavy in their hands, with the ink scarcely dry on the Imperial Act, we behold these men making their own assemblies the systematic defeaters of the law and the fraudulent violators of its conditions. Well, but are the legislative assemblies the only criminals? Where next should we look to see if the planters have broken faith as a body? Not to individuals; no; but to their subordinate authorities, their officials—these are the next representatives of their opinions and conduct. What does your favourite Mr. Baynes say (Part IV., p. 314) of the local magistrates? Why, that "the illegal commitment of apprentices to the house of correction by the local magistrates is a practice prevalent throughout the island of Jamaica, though a manifest violation of the first principle of the abolition law." What can we say of a coroner's jury who, in the celebrated instance of the woman tortured to death at the treadmill, returned a verdict"—Died by the visitation of God?" What can we say of constables, generally selected for their qualifications as slave-drivers? What of grand juries, charged by Sir Lionel Smith himself with disregard of their oaths? The fact is clear, from the highest to the lowest, the officials are not dispensers of law, but the legalised tools and instruments for consummating oppression on the negro, and completing the fraud upon British credulity. But, well said the seconder of the motion in that acute and luminous speech which, if it fell cold on the House, would not fall cold on the country—well said the Member for Wolverhampton, that we could not want a stronger proof of the universal violation of the compact than your own bill, which is to be universally applied. What does your bill propose?—merely to enforce the former act, which in all its provisions had been invaded; and what was that act, but the parchment of the very contract upon which you insist? I then throw back upon you your own assertion of breach of faith. I assert that with the planter we have kept faith; that there was no adulteration, no paring and filching of the gold he received; perfect it was in tale and weight. You have kept faith with the planter; but I tell you with whom it is you ask us to break faith—with the thousands and tens of thousands whom you mocked with the name of free—with the majesty of the Imperial Parliament, whose acts have been trampled under foot—with the people of England, who paid their millions, not to abolish the name slavery, but the thing slavery. You ask us to break faith with justice, with humanity, with Heaven itself, in order that you may keep faith with Mammon. But the hon. Member for Newark, in that speech the ability of which is above all praise—but the arguments in which are happily not beyond all reply, claims exemption for British Guiana! Barbadoes, Jamaica, the Mauritius, you cannot exonerate or defend; the first lawyer in England (Sir E. Sugden) has allowed that Jamaica violated the compact. Well, then, what is Jamaica? Why, the colony possessing the largest slave-population of all. Jamaica has four times the slave-population of Guiana; Barbadoes has nearly the same population as Guiana. What, then, if we were to meet the Member for Newark at once by making him a present of Guiana? What if we were to say, This is but one colony; it is subordinate to Jamaica, the colony which it is impossible to excuse. Its population sinks into absolute insignificance when to Jamaica you add Barbadoes and the Mauritius. Grant that Guiana is immaculate—grant that your facts are true—and still the innocence of one colony is never to be held as an exemption for the guilt of the others—or at most, all you can do is to make a special case for Guiana; and I call on the House to observe, that all the hon. Member can say on that subject may be at most to vindicate one colony; but till he has proved Jamaica, and Barbadoes, and the Mauritius innocent, he cannot prove any thing against the passing of the present resolution. But is Guiana innocent? The hon. Member for Newark on a former night complained of ex parte and unproved statements. Did he indulge in none himself? Have not some of his facts—have not most of his deductions—been denied in public meetings, and in the face of day—denied by eye witnesses of the state of Guiana—denied by references to Parliamentary documents?—[Mr. Gladstone shook his head and smiled.]—Ay, and though it may suit hon. Members to sneer at the zeal of the friends of the negro, I say that, according to all the laws of testimony, it is more likely that men having no sinister and selfish interest to serve will give more faithful accounts, than the planters, who have a direct personal interest to bias their judgment. I grant, that in Guiana the negro is much better off than in Jamaica. I grant, that it is the colony in which slavery seems least odious. But is Guiana innocent? Has not Guiana violated the law? Has it not invaded the contract? Listen again to your own beloved authority in the report upon the system of apprenticeship. Does not your own analyst assert that in many most important points the British Guiana Act violates the compact, that is the Imperial Act, for the Act and the compact you allow are one and the same:—"The power of inflicting unlimited extra labour as a punishment for grievous complaints is repugnant to the Imperial Act, and would of itself explain much of the apparent content of this colony." So again, sections 9 and 10—"These classes contain direct infringement of the rights of manumission, and are plainly repugnant to the Imperial Act." But is this all? I will concede to the hon. Member, that punishments in Guiana have greatly decreased of late. But in the returns before the House, the third table, from the 1st of June, 1836, to the 31st of May, 1837, gives a total of punishments of 7,596, which averages one in every nine apprentices throughout the colony; and if you will compare this with any return from Jamaica for that or any other year) you will find it (compared to the relative populations) equal in the average to the number of punishments in Jamaica; viz. to the most barbarous of all the colonies. But punishment has decreased since. Yes! and why? I call in Sir James Carmichael Smyth, who is your authority for maintaining the apprenticeship, as my witness for its abolition—because (according to Sir James Smyth's uniform testimony), not of the leniency of the planters, but because of the exemplary conduct of the negroes. He tells you, that whatever complaints have been made against the labourer, it has appeared on investigation, that the fault arose from the fraud or illegal exactions of the planters. He asserts, that in no part of the globe are the labouring population more peaceable, more industrious, than in Guiana. In his speech of January, 1836 (2. Part III, p. 120), he says, "I ask if any Gentleman can point out any part of his Majesty's dominions where fewer crimes are committed, where greater tranquillity is enjoyed, or where the labouring population is more industrious?" Well, will the House believe, that in the very year—the very month—in which he pronounces this eulogium on the population, the returns of punishment—yes, in that very month of January, 1836—amount to 922, which would give an average of 11,064 for the whole year, being nearly a sixth part of the whole population—a population thus industrious, thus orderly, thus free from crime, and yet thus punished under the orders of the special magistrate. Oh, blessed inversion of all the laws by which society redeemed from barbarism is bound! Behold the maximum of punishment accompanying the minimum of crime! What do Sir James Smyth's statements prove? Why, that this admirable population is fit for liberty, and every word in favour of that population is a testimony in favour of the motion before the House. We remember the effect produced by the Member for Newark, when he told us of the slaves on an estate clubbing together, and sending to their white brethren in these realms who were in distress, the contribution of their savings. And when I heard that touching instance of humanity and beneficence in those poor negroes, I did compare them with us; I did ask whether those men had not proved themselves by that very act fit for emancipation, and I blushed to think that the genius of one of our ablest Members was at that instant citing their very virtues as an argument for their continued degradation. And you assert that the slaves are not fit for immediate freedom! Will two years of additional misery render them more fit? What a school for liberty you found and defend!—treadmills on which females are tortured for twenty hours at a stretch—dropping from that wholesale rack, bleeding, mangled—exhausted—dying; hospitals for the sick characterised by such inventions as Spanish cruelty may have hatched in the Inquisition, for the prisons of the guilty;—dungeons more desolate and fœtid than feudal tyranny ever built in ages when liberty was a forbidden word;—the pitiless planter—the brutal overseer—the iniquitous judge—the perjured jury—the blaspheming coroner—the slave-driving constable;—oh, what noble aids and appliances, what tutors, and what textbooks for the education of destined freemen! Not fit for liberty, when in Guiana your governor tells you that there is no more improving and industrious population—not in the colonies alone—no, but in all her Majesty's dominions. Not fit for freedom, when in Jamaica your own special magistrates declare, that in respect for the law, and in religious sentiments, the negroes are superior to the planters! Not fit for freedom!—Let the new freemen of Antigua answer the calumnious charge! There you have at once, the comparison and contrast between apprenticeship and emancipation. Say what you will of apprenticeship, you must confess, at least, that the experiment has failed of entire success—say what you will of it, you confess the hardship, the cruelty, the injustice, the fraud which it has failed to cure. But will one of you dare to tell us that immediate emancipation has failed in effect—that there is one stain of human blood upon the Act of Antigua, which made men free? Is not Antigua a fair instance?—you slur it over—you pass it by. What is Antigua? a colony possessing but a handful of whites—a whole population of negroes. Property and life were at the mercy of the enfranchised slaves. Look to the result. Not an estate abandoned; not an outrage committed; not a hair on the white man's head that was not sacred! Danger from the free negro! Why, in Antigua, who are the police themselves?—who are the constables?—Negroes; and if there be no danger in Antigua, where the whites are so few, and the negroes so numerous, how can there be danger in Jamaica, where the white population could at any moment master any insurrection of the blacks? But would you insist still on some mystic differences between Antigua and Jamaica? Would you still say, that the parallel is not fair? would you still assert that emancipation, safe in Antigua, would be perilous in Jamaica? Well, then, I nail you to Jamaica itself! What does Sir Lionel Smith, in one of his last dispatches, November 13, 1837—what does he tell you? Why, that so far from the Jamaica planters thinking there would be the least danger in emancipation, "all parties would agree to abandon the system to-morrow for further compensation." But we are not provided with laws for the apprentices after they become free, and they will be in a worse condition if you emancipate them than they are now. Oh, how this argument condemns the colonial government, for are you not going now to emancipate the non-prædial labourers? On the 1st of August, 1838, you will turn loose on society, thousands and thousands of men absolutely and abruptly made free. Where are the laws to provide for them? And you cannot draw any distinction between them and the prædials, without also condemning yourselves. For though no laws are passed, you have been yet recommending to the various states to enfranchise the prædials. The Isle of Nevis has already done so, Tortola will follow the example, Dominica and Grenada appear disposed to obey your wishes; and if, therefore, your argument were good, you yourselves would have recommended the very measure which you tell us would be more injurious to the negroes than the present system. But then you say there is a difference whether the colonists do this of their own accord or whether we compel them to do it. And how does Barbadoes (the third greatest slave colony) meet this assertion? Why, the House of Assembly tells you, that it would be placing itself in an onerous position with the British Parliament, were it to supersede by an act of its own, one of the most important provisions of the abolition law, and thereby assume to itself the responsibility of a measure which could be carried into effect with more safety and with greater chance of success by that august body. The fact is, that the very colonies that hold out are the very colonies that have most insulted the mother country, most duped the English people, and most flagrantly violated the compact. And they hold out avowedly in the hope of extorting a large ransom, and doubling the pieces of silver they have already received as the price of blood. It is not to them—it is to us you owe an account; we have paid the ransom—it is for you to obtain the redemption. Farther compensation!—yes, indeed, by your act, your compact, farther compensation is due. Compensation, not to the planter—he has been paid in full; but compensation to the people of Great Britain for wasted millions, for violated faith! Can the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, can the Member for Newark, rise and tell us that we have attained the object for which we counted out our gold? Can you tell us fairly and boldly that this apprenticeship has been that mild and hopeful interval between slavery and freedom which you contemplated when the Act was proposed? Can you tell us, that if we had possessed the gift of prophecy, and foreseen with what records these Parliamentary documents were to be filled—can you tell us, that one man in this House would have dared to insult the English people with the proposition of purchasing such a system at such a cost? Will the noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire, say, on the pledge of his reputation and his honour, that when he made this bargain for the English people, he anticipated this species of fidelity from the planter? In these despatches, these reports, these tables of hideous affliction, these summaries of the monthly average of human groans, can he find the rigid fulfilment of that promise which he made to the millions who hung upon his word, "that the slave should retain no taint of his former servile condition," and called upon the name of Wilberforce to attest the promise, and to sanctify the deed! Yes, to us compensation is indeed due; but if to us, how much more to the negro!—No, not to him—the very magnitude of his wrongs denies even the possibility of compensation? No gold can buy back to him the agonised years already wasted since that act of mockery was past; no gold can buy back human life itself! Will twenty times twenty millions compensate to the son for the mother who has died beneath the torture, and whose very death the officers of planter-justice have imputed to the visitation of God?—compensate to the mother, who in the very agonies of childbirth found no exemption from the grinding toil and the lifted scourge, and who has been robbed of a hope, cherished, perhaps, amidst all her own anguish, of giving birth to an offspring happier than his sires? No! we cannot demand compensation for the negro—we cannot call back the past. But justice and sympathy for the future—these at least are in our power! But only two years remain. Why, you ask, make this stir and commotion for two years—two little years? What! are two years nothing in the life of man? Do we not know—we who have constituents—that when one individual in whom those constituents are interested, is tried, found guilty, condemned, sentenced to the prison or the hulks—do we not know what interest is made to strike two years from the term of punishment? Two years of loss of liberty, two years subjected even to the discipline of responsible and mild control—what efforts do we make to save a fellow-creature from that affliction! But now we ask the boon, not for one man, but for thousands—not for guilt, but for innocence—not for exemption from legal penance, but from irresponsible oppression! Complete the picture—add to the loss of liberty all the whips and stings which power can inflict on weakness, and, then, will you dare to tell us that two years are nothing in the aggregate of human existence? You say this system shall not be abolished; but will you explain to us how it shall be continued?—continued in defiance of the loud and indignant voice of the English people. How can you expect security, and peace, and order, when the negro on one estate sees the negroes on another (no better than himself) are free, when father and son are separated by your unintelligible verbal barbarisms of prædial and non-prædial—when you yourselves are recommending their legislators to emancipate them, and when, if they were to rise (which heaven forbid) you would not dare to interpose a military force from this country between mutual massacre and revenge? And the colonial government hope that the parchment of the act passed through this House will serve to remedy all evils. If so, why do you urge upon the colonies the propriety of immediate emancipation? But you know it cannot. Four sheets of paper never yet built a wall between tyranny and weakness. Your bill devises two remedies:—1st, you propose to give to proclamations the force of law; secondly, you arm your special magistrates with new authority. As to pro- clamations, your own governors tell you that the planters laugh them to scorn. As to giving them the force of law, law itself is a dead letter, when the public opinion of those on whom it is imposed does not breathe into it the only principle of life it can receive. Special magistrates! why, what have they been? Either the mere tools of the planter, or else, where they have been the friends of the negro, they have only succeeded in embroiling matters, and exciting false hopes in the negro, new tyranny in the planter. Take the case of Judge Palmer. He was superseded: for what offence? Will the House believe it?—because the Commissioners of Inquiry declared, that "he administered the law in the spirit of the English Abolition Act, and that the present state of St. Thomas-in-the-Vale was to be attributed to such a mode of administering the abolition law." So, here is a special magistrate condemned and punished for administering the law in the spirit in which we framed it, and according to the object for which the English people paid their gold. But few magistrates commit the same offence and incur the same fate as Judge Palmer: oh no, I find the Jamaica Standard (the organ of the planters) loud in praise of special magistrates as men who have done their duty, and calling upon the planters to contribute money to the widows and families of such of them as have died. See then on one side the special magistrate who befriends the negro, harassed by commissions of inquiry, calumniated by the planter, abandoned by the Government, superseded solely for the offence of keeping faith with England—and behold on the other side, the special magistrate who lends himself to the planter, who reports in his favour—who applauds the system and vindicates its instruments, quoted by Ministers as an admirable authority—admired by planters as an exemplary judge—praised and flattered—patronage here—pensions there—and can you doubt for an instant on which side your dispensers of law will lean? Depend upon it, all attempts to relax and mitigate slavery are hopeless and absurd. There are no ways of patching up the everlasting distinction between slavery and freedom; all that you can do is to diminish the interest of the planter in the health and life of the negro, and leave the wretch more exposed to the jealousy, because more obnoxious to the fears of the tyrant. I cannot understand this one-sided niceness of conscience, this terror of violating by a hair's breadth your compact with a planter, and this deaf and blind indifference to the equal obligations due to the other parties of the compact, the negroes and the people of these realms. You know that our law, which was the compact, has been violated in all the colonies; you know that the English people have not got that for which they paid their money, and yet you give up the rights of two parties for the sake of the third, you betray the innocent on behalf of the guilty;—you see no justice but where you confess oppression;—you venerate no sanctity but where you discover fraud! The hon. Member for Newark would represent the planters as men equally merciful and maligned. [Mr. Gladstone: No.] What! did you not attempt to defend their general conduct; to prove them innocent of the charge of cruelty?—if you did not, where is the answer to our accusations? But if you did, what then? Is it not the old reply to the earliest advocates of emancipation? Let not the House be carried away by assurances that the planters are merciful masters, and injured men:—such were the assurances, with which Wilberforce and Clarkson were met at the threshold of their great design. Had Parliament listened, in former years, to such declarations, with the same respect and cordiality with which it greets them now, Wilberforce would have lived in vain! I accuse not the planters; I accuse the system: men are but the tools of the circumstances that surround them. Where tyranny is made legal, I execrate the tyranny, but I acquit the tyrant. You have heard from me no individual cases, branding individual persons—you have heard from me no doubtful references to anonymous authorities. My charge is against communities, not persons—my facts are in the books you appeal to as undeniable records. If the despatches of your governors, if the reports of your magistrates, if this whole mass of parliamentary evidence be not one lie—I tell you that your arguments against this motion are shivered to the dust! I have proved, that not individuals, not minorities, but (where legislative assemblies exist in your colonies) whole communities have been, from first to last, invaders of your law, violators of your compact. I have proved that faith is due, not to the planters, but to their victims and their dupes. I have proved that there is no danger in the course we recommend—proved it by reference to actual experience in Antigua, to the assertions of your governor in Jamaica, where all parties would abandon the system for compensation—proved it by your own recommendations to the colonies. Answer all this if you can; if you answer it to your satisfaction, you belie your governors, you impeach your witnesses, you condemn yourselves. Year after year, and Session after Session, we debate on the mere forms and ceremonials of our religion, whether this oath may be abolished—whether this distinction may be removed—whether by one law or by another we can best preserve the husk and shell of religion—its ecclesiastical establishment; I honour all men's consciences upon these points; but here we come to the fountain of Christianity itself—its all-protecting brotherhood, its all-embracing love. When scholars and divines have summed up the blessings that our common creed has conferred upon mankind, first and foremost of those blessings they have placed the abolition of that slavery which stained and darkened the institutions of the Pagan world. I know of no Pagan slavery wor e than this Christian Apprenticeship. Here, then, we fight again the same battle as our first fathers, the primitive Christians, from whom all our sect and divisions have emerged. Here is a ground upon which Catholic and Protestant, and the wide families of dissent, all may unite; and I do believe that he who votes against this dark hypocrisy of slavery in disguise will obtain something better than the approval of constituents—something holier than the gratification of party triumph and political ambition—in the applause of his own conscience, and in those blessings that will not rise the less to the Eternal Throne because they are uttered by the victims of human avarice and pride.

From a corrected report, published by Saunders and Ottley.

The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 93: Majority 3.

Resolution agreed to.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to the Registration of Voters and for taking of polls in Ireland. It might be asked, he said, why he had moved for leave to bring in the bill when there was one before the House, brought in by his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, on the same subject. He would state his reasons for so doing. The bill of his right hon. Friend was good, so far as it went; but it was, in his mind, very deficient in some most essential particulars. One of those related to the registration of freemen. The bill introduced by his right hon. Friend, said nothing on that subject; but there were some clauses furnished to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, evidently by some party who had a deep interest in the matter, which, if adopted, would go the length of disqualifying every freeman in Dublin, by excluding him from the right of registration. Another objectionable part of the measure was that part which dealt with the subject of beneficial interests in the case of persons qualified to vote for land. His right hon. Friend had said, that in the matter of election law it was his intention to make a declaratory clause in the bill for the purpose of declaring what that law was; but as the bill stood, the view of his right hon. Friend was diametrically opposed to the decision of the judges of Ireland, in the ratio of ten to two; so that, in strict fact, the bill was not to declare what the law was, but to declare what the law was not; the usage and custom in Ireland being, that the opinions of the majority of the judges ruled those of the minority. He objected also to the bill, because it made no at- tempt to assimilate the election law of Ireland with that of England, an object, in his opinion, of a most desirable nature. His right hon. Friend had taken no steps to remedy the evils of the election law in Ireland where it differed from that of England. The bill he proposed to bring in was not only for the purpose of amending the law of registration in Ireland, but also of amending the election law itself. He had authority in favour of such amendment. In the April of 1835, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin gave notice that he would introduce a bill to that effect, but it never came to anything. Four months after the then Attorney-General for Ireland, now Mr. Justice Perrin, assisted by the then Solicitor-General for Ireland, Mr. O'Loghlin, now Master of the Rolls, brought in a bill, having the same objects, and passed it through that House in the short space of nineteen days. Thus he had these authorities to prove the necessity of such a measure, and to bear him out in its introduction. The year following, a bill was brought in by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland on the same subject; but it omitted the most important part, the assimilation of the law in that country to the law as it stood in England. That Bill, however, had not passed, and nothing was done in the matter since, until the 13th of March last, when the right hon. the Attorney-General for Ireland, brought in the measure now before the House. Having stated his objections to the bill of his right hon. Friend, he hoped, the House, if they were not of opinion that some such change as he proposed was necessary, would, at least, give him permission to bring in his bill. By that means, both measures could go together, and, if requisite, each be made the means of amending the other.

should naturally have felt, that, as a bill on the subject was already before the House, there was no occasion for another; and that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to amend the law, it was competent for him to do so in the shape of alterations in the other measure. But as the subject was one on which there was much diversity of opinion, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated various points of difference and objection to the bill before the House, he thought it the better course to let the whole matter go before the public, and to have the opinion of the House taken on the entire merits of the case. Under these circumstances, therefore, he should offer no opposition to the motion.

Leave given.

begged leave to make a communication to the House, in consequence of the result of the division on the question which had lately occupied it, as it might be productive of great evil if the intentions of Government were left in doubt even for a single evening. The resolution just carried by a majority of three, could only be carried into effect by a bill laid before the House, a measure which it would be for the hon. Baronet to introduce, if he thought proper. If such a bill were brought in the Government, would consider it their duty to give it their most strenuous and determined opposition.

said, that he had to propose to the committee a resolution on the subject of the Slave-trade, and on which, should it meet with approbation, it was his intention to found a bill. Hon. Members were aware, that, as the law now stood, captains of vessels engaged in repressing the slave-trade, were entitled to a bounty of 5l. per head on every slave taken on board a slave-ship, provided such slave should be brought to the nearest port alive, and for every slave captured, but who died on the way, a bounty of half the amount per head was granted. The latter bounty, however, was not generally paid. It was quite plain, that it was not merely important to check the slave-trade after it was actually in operation, but to prevent it before the slaves were taken on board. It was also clear, that the service rendered in destroying ships before they had got the slaves on board, was as useful, and even more useful, than capturing them after they had got the slaves on board. The necessary consequence of this service would require, that some reward and encouragement should be given to officers engaged in this service, but who at present were entitled to no reward, unless the vessel had slaves on board. In the bill which he intended to bring forward upon this resolution, it was his intention, with re- spect to cases where the ships were broken up, to propose a bounty of 1l. per ton, and where vessels were taken under the equipment article, to propose a bounty of 4l. per ton, instead of the bounty per head at present granted. In making this proposition, he wished to guard himself against any supposition that he considered there was, under the existing law, any indisposition on the part of the officers or men to perform their duty, but he thought that when they did their duty in capturing those vessels before they were enabled to take in their cargoes, they ought to have the same reward as if the vessel was full of slaves. Under these circumstances, he begged to move the following resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this committee, that it is expedient that a provision should be made out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland to provide a bounty on the tonnage of all ships seized and condemned under the treaties made with foreign powers for the abolition of the illegal traffic in slaves."

did not intend to oppose the motion, neither was it his wish then to go into any discussion of the general question. He agreed in the necessity of some alteration of the law, but he hoped when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his bill he would provide a larger bounty, and such as would be equivalent to the sum paid at present for captured slaves. He was sure that money was the last consideration that would enter into the mind of a British officer, when engaged in the performance of his duty—but when it was known, that capturing vessels before they had taken the slaves on board was a more dangerous service than capturing them afterwards, he thought that the officers engaged in this service ought not to suffer by the proposed alteration. It was calculated that each vessel carried about two slaves for every ton of her measurement, and under these circumstances he trusted, when the Bill was before the House, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to enlarge the bounty in this respect.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the ton-age was to be taken according to English admeasurement, or according to that of Portugal and Spain? He hoped, that all vessels found on the coast of Africa, and under circumstances which left no doubt of their intention as to slave dealing, should be so considered and dealt with accordingly. He was anxious that this should be so, because according to some of the treaties with some of the powers, there could be no condemnation of the vessels unless slaves were actually found on board. He objected to the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, for if he understood it correctly, it would take from officers of the navy being captors of slavers some of the bounty to which they were at present entitled. If that were so, he could tell the right hon. Gentleman, that overboard his bill would go.

observed, that the hon. and gallant officer could not have heard his remarks, or he would not have come to the conclusion with respect to the object of the intended bill. That object was not to take anything away which captors now received. On the contrary, the bill would be cumulative as far as they were concerned. At present the captors of a vessel equipped for slave-dealing got nothing for the capture unless slaves were found on board; so that if they had been filled with slaves, and that all of them had been thrown over-board before the capture took place, the captors got nothing; but in the measure he should introduce, a bounty such as he had already described would be paid on the capture of vessels equipped for the slave trade. The hon. and gallant Officer had asked whether this was to apply to all vessels so equipped? It would apply to all vessels as well as Spanish and Portuguese ships, and he trusted that the equipment and breaking-up principle would be followed up by some general European international law, which would effectually put an end to this nefarious traffic. As to the conduct of British officers engaged in the suppression of the slave-trade, it never was meant on the part of Government to say a word against them.

thought, that a bounty of 4l. per ton to the captors would be too small, considering that, according to the practice of slave-dealing ships, there were two or three slaves on board to the ton, and as 5l. per head was paid for each ton, 4l. per ton on the new plan would be too small, and he hoped this matter would be taken into consideration in the progress of the bill, but he was glad of the introduction of such a measure.

said, his hon. Friend should bear in mind, that in addition to the 4l. per ton, the captors would receive half the value of the vessel when broken up, &c.

Resolution agreed to.

The House resumed.