be made to obtain every possible diminu- | believe, but for them, the British Slave tion of the term specified in the Treaty." Mr. G. Philips rose, and spoke nearly as follows: Trade would at this moment have been continued to the disgrace of the country, to the outrage of public feeling, and in violation of every principle of policy, justice, and humanity. I cannot help, Sir, remarking a coincidence, or at least an extraordinary ap conduct of the governments preceding that of Mr. Fox in relation to the British Slave Trade, and the conduct of the noble lord and his colleagues, in relation to the Slave Trade with the French colonies. Mr. Speaker; I should be sorry, Sir, to protract a debate which so many gentlemen seem desirous to close; but I hope that the House will excuse my unwilling-proximation to a coincidence between the ness to give a silent vote on a subject in which I have felt a deep and uninterrupted interest, since the time when the writings of Mr. Granville Sharp and Mr. Clarkson drew general attention to it down to the present moment. Whoever, Sir, has at- The British public are not less, perhaps tended to the history of the abolition of even they are more, anxious at present to the British Slave Trade, must have had prevent the renewal of the traffic in Slaves this reflection forced upon him: that, not- with those colonies, than they were to put withstanding the unexampled industry an end to it in our own islands: but miused to communicate information on the nisters, professing the same feelings, have subject among all ranks and descriptions not employed all the influence of the of people; notwithstanding the eloquent British government to do that which they and unanswerable arguments by which had the means of doing, which the public the necessity of the measure was enforced had a right to expect from them, and which in both Houses of Parliament; notwith. they were bound in duty and honour to standing the numerous petitions heaped, do. No combination of circumstances year after year, on your table, and the could have been more favourable for acalmost unanimous expression of the public complishing the object to which the atabhorrence of that traffic; the British tention of the government had been called Slave Trade could not be abolished till an by the unanimous addresses of the two administration, acting from the pure and Houses of Parliament. We had long been honest motives which they professed, in possession of the French colonies, where brought all their official influence to bear the Slave Trade had ceased for some years. on the question, and did that great act of We were also in possession of settlejustice and humanity which no preceding ments on the coast of Africa, which had administration had the virtue to accom- formerly been rendered subservient to the plish. No man, Sir, could reason more French Slave Trade. Why were we not, justly, or declaim more eloquently, on the before engaging to restore these colonies enormities of the African Slave Trade than and settlements, to require that the French Mr. Pitt; but having adopted the prin- government should not renew that infaciple that it was necessary on this subject, mous traffic? by a sort of metaphysical abstraction, to separate the influence of the minister from that of the man, the influence of his government was never applied to it; and the traffic was not abolished. I have heard it asserted, that public opinion alone put an end to the Trade. No man, Sir, exults more than myself at the recollection of the spontaneous, and nearly unanimous, detestation of the Trade, which was expressed by all ranks of our countrymen; but I cannot forget that the public voice had been raised even more loudly against it before the administration of Mr. Fox, than during its brief existence; and to such a degree do I think the gratitude of the friends of justice and humanity due to that short-lived, and much misrepresented administration, that I do in my conscience ( VOL. XXVIII. ) The noble lord, it seems, wanted a precedent to guide him. Why did not he take the precedent set by his own government in the treaty with Sweden, and which he has this night told us has been followed in the treaty with Holland? But he preferred, it seems, copying the precedent of Mr. Fox, who did not, he says, insist, as an indispensible condition in his negociation with France, that the Slave Trade should be abolished in whatever colonies we might cede to that government. The noble lord did not, however, advert to the fact, stated by my right hon. friend, (Mr. Ponsonby) that the British Slave Trade was not at that time abolished, and that the relative circumstances of the two countries were so different then from what they are now, that Mr. Fox could not reasonably have (U) proposed to Buonaparté those terms which we have at this moment a right to require from the French government. Besides, how do we know that the negociation was advanced to that stage at which the question of the Slave Trade could have been introduced with propriety? In the circumstances of the noble lord, what had he to fear from requiring of the French government, that the Slave Trade should not be renewed with the islands to be restored? Was he afraid they would not receive the islands on that condition? Why, then, should we not have retained them for the advantage of our own empire, shewing, as we should have done, the sincerity of our professions, by enforcing on our own subjects the condition which we had required from France? the three great powers of Europe, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, having, as the noble lord has told us, declared unequivocally their abhorrence of the African Slave Trade? How were they to have assailed us, their armies disheartened, and in captivity, and devoted, as they have proved themselves to be, to the preceding government? Must not another revolution have been the infallible consequence of a war in which no national enthusiasm could have been excited, no military ardour kindled, and of which the detail would have been as tiresome and disgusting to the native impetuosity of the French, as its principle. would have been abhorrent to every man who had any sense of justice or bumanity? I hope, Sir, that I shall not be suspected of an inclination to speak with disrespect of the noble lord of whose conduct on two very important occasions I have highly approved. (I allude, Sir, to the question relating to the Irish Catholics, and to the spirit of moderation which he shewed upon the extraordinary successes of the allies.) But I must beg the noble lord's permission to express a doubt whether a declared and active opponent of the abolition of the Slave Trade, down to the very period of its enactment, could be an adequate representation of the deep interest felt by parliament and the country on that great question. Whatever may have been the cause, the opportunity of preventing the renewal of that infamous traffic has been lost, and I have little hope of its recurrence. But the noble lord says, it is all to end in five years-In five. years, Sir! but in those five years what ages of misery and desolation will be crowded! Can the House forget to what an extent the British Slave Trade was increased in the interval which passed be tween the first declaration of the public feeling against it and its entire abolition? And will not all the iniquities and horrors of the French Slave Trade rage with tenfold fury during the next five years? The heart sickens at the thought of destroying, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) said some nights ago, at But the noble lord asks, "Would you have risked a continuance of the war for that object?" I will answer his question by another question-Would the recently formed (for we can hardly call it the established) government of France have risked its own existence on the question, whether it should have the privilege of renewing all the iniquity of the Slave Trade for five years? Must it not have been obvious to that government, that its only chance of securing to itself the affections of its subjects, was to pursue a course directly opposite to that which had led to the destruction of the preceding government? that it was indispensible to its existence to put an end to the system of conscription, and to restore peace and repose to that distracted empire? Besides, Sir, what class of its subjects could have any interest in the renewal of the Slave Trade? Would the marshals of France or the military in general, or would the peasantry feel any interest in the question? The only persons who could by any possibility suppose themselves concerned in it, were a few of the reduced commercial class; that class which had been injured, insulted, and out raged by Buonaparte. Was it necessary to conciliate this class for the French government to offer them a trade in human blood, at the very time when a peace, long, and in vain wished for, was opening" one fell sweep," all the effect of those to them channels of commerce, in which industry and enterprise might secure to themselves a reward with innocence and peace? But, supposing the French government had been infatuated enough to enter into a war for so disgraceful an object-Where were they to look for allies in such a cause benevolent schemes, so gratifying to humanity, which have been employed to substitute in Africa mutual confidence and the arts of civilization, and peaceful industry for the mutual suspicion, and perfidy, the dread, and slaughter, and ravage of the Slave Trade. Even our exultation at the great events which have restored would again remain long enough in our possession to admit of our extinguishing the Slave Trade in them for the same number of years, and establishing the same means for the progressive improve. ment of the people of Africa. peace to Europe, and for which we have this night heard that the Prince Regent has ordered a day of national thanksgiving; even an exultation at these glorious events (for which every religious heart has offered its humble tribute of gratitude and praise), is exchanged for regret and shame, when we reflect that the peace of Europe is to be the signal of war and havoc in Africa! But the evil is to end in five years! This, Sir, is the usual way in which vice tries to flatter and deceive itself, and to stifle the upbraidings of conscience. Another throw, and the gamester will quit his play-but he persists to his ruin,-another winter, and the house-breaker and highwayman will abstain from acts of violence, and discontinue their nightly depredations-but they go on in their guilty career till they meet with the condign punishment which they have merited -and will the course of the French government be different? I am unwilling, Sir, to speak otherwise than with respect of a government with which we are at peace, but it would be treachery to use reserve on a subject like this. I would ask, Sir, will that government which has not learned in adversity to reflect on, and compassionate human misery, be taught better sentiments among the splendours, and dissipation of a court? And will a residence in the metropolis of France communicate to them those principles and feelings which one would have thought it almost impossible for them to have failed catching from the British public, while they were receiving, as exiles among us, a generous protection? But will not the next five years produce many arguments for continuing the Slave Trade in addition to those which now urge the French government to renew it? Establishments, employing large capitals, will be created, which will be destroyed, or rendered useless by its abolition. A class of French subjects will then have acquired a deep interest in it, who will urge their claims on the government for its continuance. If we insist then in the annihilation of the Trade, will not a war betweeen the two countries be not merely the probable, but the almost certain consequence? And shall we be enabled to do that by a war, which I contend we might easily have done without one? Even if a war should transfer to us all the colonies and settlements which we have ceded, we cannot suppose that they No man, Sir, can be sanguine enough to hope for the recurrence of such an opportunity of putting an end to this enormous evil as that which we have neglected to profit by. If any thing, Sir, could increase one's disgust with this Article of the Treaty, it would be the hypocritical cant which is introduced into it-[Here Mr. Philips read the Article.]-I would just remark, in passing, that it is expressed in terms which exclude from observation the important fact, that the African Slave Trade to the French colonies does not at present exist, and that, unless it be renewed by the French government, its abolition cannot, strictly speaking, come under the cognizance of the approaching Congress. But let us just consider what the French government undertakes in this Article. The government of France characterizing the Trade as repugnant to the principles of natural justice, and to the sentiments of the enlightened age in which we live, coolly, and deliberately determines to incur the guilt of renewing it, and at the same time announces the inconsistent and contradictory determination, not only to repent of that unrepented crime which it is going to commit, not only to reform itself, but to use its efforts to reform all its associates in iniquity. Do the annals of diplomacy present an instance of an attempt so gross, so palpable to impose on human simplicity and credulity? And was it not essential to the success of such an attempt that there should be as great an aptitude to be deceived on the one side, as there was an inclination to deceive on the other? The plain and obvious interpretation of the whole is, the French government sought for a licence to kidnap, enslave, and murder in Africa for five years without molestation. That licence we have given them, and by so doing, we have involved ourselves as accessaries and accomplices in the guilt. After acceding to this Treaty, with what consistency can we urge upon other governments the abolition of the Slave Trade, even upon those over whom our influence on such a subject ought otherwise to have been paramount, and supreme as it is to us that they owe their existence. The more, Sir, I reflect on the war. Lord Lascelles thought, that while gentlemen were so full of humanity for the Africans, as to prefer continuing the war to signing such an article, they ought to have some compassion upon Europe, which had lost so many thousands during the He was astonished to hear from the other side of the House, that because four large armies were in France, we had a right to dictate to that nation, when he recollected for how many years they had maintained the doctrine that we had no right to interfere with the domestic concerns of that country. He gave his assent to the motion. Mr. William Smith thought the last speaker mistook the true point of humanity in the present instance. It was not necessary to desolate Africa, in order to restore peace to Europe. But as we had the colonies in our possession, and as we had put the inhabitants in a certain situation, he conceived we had an undoubted right, either to keep them our selves, or if we gave them up, to insist on the inhabitants retaining all the advantages we had put them in possession of. If we demanded nothing for ourselves, we had a right to demand every thing for justice. The hon. member then observed, that the mildness with which this question was often treated arose, in a great measure, from the fallacy which lurked under the word "trade" it was no more a trade than robbery or murder was a trade. Mr. Marryatt referred to the French colony of Cayenne, as the one to which there would be the greatest traffic in slaves, under the new stipulation. They were easily transported there from the neighbouring coast; and in 1804, ten thousand had been carried over in twelve months. From the particular nature of the country, which was liable to inundation, and the employment of the slaves, who were forced to stand up to their middle in the mud and water, only males were imported, and consequently the breed could not be kept up, without constant supplies from the African coast. Mr. Whitbread, in an animated speech, lamented the rapid steps with which we had descended from the resolution of the House on the 2nd of May, in their Address to the Prince Regent to the motion of his hon. friend this day, and from that motion to the speech of the noble lord. If six weeks ago it could have been known that such an article would have been inserted in the Treaty then pending, he was sure it would have been prevented by an unamous address from that House against so inhuman a concession. If the noble lord, having the colonies in his possession, could effect no more for this great object at Paris, what could he expect to do now at Vienna, after having thrown the game out of his hands? If the noble lord complained of the ignorance in which the French people were kept on the subject under Buonaparté, did he expect greater facilities of information to be afforded by the present government, who had embarked in the Trade, and who had refused permission to publish the resolutions of the 2nd of May in the French newspapers? Did this look like a disposition to diffuse light and knowledge on the subject? He ridiculed the idea of lord Castlereagh, that the refusal to concede this Article would have dissolved the union of the continental powers; as if Russia, Austria, and Prussia would go to war with us to enfore the renewal of a Trade, for the abolition of which we had the assurances of the noble lord himself that they were sincerely anxious. His organs of understanding must be dif ferently constituted from those of another noble lord (Lascelles) who had compared our refusal to give up the islands which we had conquered, except on certain conditions, to an interference in the internal policy of France. He alluded to the conclusion of the speech of Mr. Marryatt, which, he said, reminded him of the speeches he had formerly heard in defence of the Slave Trade, and also of a proposal he had lately heard with horror, of our renewing the Trade in order to carry it on with more humanity than our neighbours. With respect to the appeal which had been made to the example of Mr. Fox in was taken, and their verdict was, "that he had died a natural death, but accelerated by his removal to prison." Such were the facts of the Petition; and the petitioner further prayed, that the murderous practice of Mesne Process, which had deprived her of her only comfort in this life, might be wholly abolished. The Pe tition was ordered to lie on the table. 1806, Mr. Fox was not armed with the power which the noble lord had to enforce his demands, and he was well convinced that Mr. Fox would have sooner parted with his right hand, than have signed such an article as that contained in the present treaty. Mr. Whitbread said, he did not expect much from the terms or the tone of the motion of his hon. friend, but he hoped the noble lord would do every thing at present in his power to redeem the character of the country which had been thus forfeited. After a short conversation, the amendment was withdrawn, and the motion for the Address was agreed to nem. con. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 27. IMPRISONMENT ON MESNE PROCESS.] Earl Stanhope rose to present a Petition from Elizabeth Booth, the widow of Peter Booth. Her husband had been arrested on Mesne Process on Saturday, the 7th of May last, although at the very time he was so afflicted with illness that he could not rise from his bed. In this condition he was willing to give up all his furniture and whatever other effects he had to his creditor. His wife, the petitioner, also obtained a certificate from a medical person, stating, that her husband's life had not three days purchase in it, and that it would, therefore, be useless to arrest him. This certificate she delivered to the sheriff's officer, but it had no effect, for he actually took him on his back, and in that manner conveyed him down stairs He was met in the passage by the landlady of the house, who asked him "where he was going with the man?" He answered, "to Newgate;" she replied, "do you not see that you are murdering him, by removing him at such a moment?" to which he said, "I have nothing to do with that, I am only doing my duty." The prisoner was then conveyed in an open cart to a lock-up house; from whence he was removed, on Monday, to Newgate. There was neither cell nor room to receive him, and he was actually laid upon a bare bench in one of the yards; nor could his wife obtain for him any shelter till she had promised to pay four shillings a night for a bed. The consequence of this treatment was, that he became insane on the Thursday, and in which state he expired on the 27th of the same month. A coroner's inquest THANKS OF THE HOUSE TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.] Earl Bathurst rose to propose to their lordships a motion of Thanks to his grace the duke of Wellington. It was now upwards of five years since he had accepted the command of the army in the Peninsula, and at that time almost the whole of Spain was in the possession of the French troops: but before he closed his renowned and glorious campaign, not a single Frenchman was left in that country. During the whole of that period he had never once left his command, though he had the same inducements to return home as other individuals. One of those inducements might fairly be presumed to be the honourable wish of receiving from his sovereign and his country those grate-ful acknowledgments of his services, which formed their present reward. And let no man underrate such rewards, by those chilling lessons of a selfish philosophy, which saw in them nothing to animate the exertions of genius and heroism. All those and various other inducements, however, the duke of Wellington had resisted; but that liberty which he denied to himself, he freely granted to his officers; employing his own time, meanwhile, in preparing those resources, and maturing those plans, which led to fresh glory. All his thoughts, his whole soul were engrossed by the mighty conception of working out the salvation of Europe by the progress of his arms; and now that he had accomplished it-now that he was returned victorious to his country, it would not, he trusted, be necessary to use many arguments to persuade their lordships to shew by their vote that they were sensible of all his great and splendid services. In congratulating themselves upon the deliverance of Europe, they could not hesitate to mark with their approbation the man by whose example that deliverance had been accomplished. He should not detain the House any longer, but conclude by moving, "That the Thanks of that House be given to his grace the duke of Wellington, for his eminent and unremit |