5. "Because the extreme anxiety of his majesty's ministers to hurry this bill. through the two Houses at so early a period in the session, and after such very liberal supplies already voted, leads us to suspect that this farther sum of two millions and a half is immediately wanted to discharge some secret debts which have been improperly contracted, or to defray the expense of some extravagant project not calculated to meet the eye of parlia ment. civil list appropriation of this fund would | cessary for every expenditure which the not rest upon these statements, there was national service requires. nothing like certainty in the constitution. "The pillar'd firmament is rottenness, and the broad basis of the earth unstable."-The noble earl had charged ministers with secrecy in this transaction, and had said that it might have escaped detection some time longer, if it had not been seen peeping out by accident at the foot of the accounts upon the table. Now, he not only denied this charge, but contended, that there was no occasion for secrecy. Ministers had done that which was consonant with the practice of former periods. On these grounds, he resisted the motion of the noble earl. The House divided: Contents, 6; Proxies, 4; Total, 10. Not Contents, 42; Proxies, 31: Total, 73. Protest against the Vote of Credit Bill.] March 4. The following Protest was entered on the Journals: "Dissentient, 1. "Because no Vote of Credit has, in any former war, been given or asked to the amount of more than one million; which Vote of Credit has also been invariably postponed until a short time before the rising of parliament. 2. "Because this mode of granting money to the crown is that which is at all times to be regarded with the greatest jealousy, and ought only to be adopted when there is a reasonable presumption that sums of money, of which no present estimate can be formed, may be indispensably necessary for the public service, at a period when parliament is prorogued. 3. "Because the enormous sum of two millions and a half, granted by this bill, cannot be said to be voted on any such presumption, inasmuch, as from the early period of the session, as well as from the state of the public business, there is no prospect or probability of a prorogation of parliament taking place for some time to come, and whatever sums may be wanted for the public service during the sitting of parliament, ought to be specifically voted by parliament itself, and not loosely provided for by a general Vote of Credit. 4. "Because the supplies for the year have been granted with an unprecedented liberality, and already amount to above twenty-four millions sterling; a sum fully equal to the utmost demands which his majesty's ministers have stated to be ne 6. "Because to give so extensive a credit so early in the session, is, in a material degree, to take from parliament, during the remainder of its sitting, the best security it possesses against the extravagance or corruption of ministers that constitutional security which arises from the power to control and direct the application of the supplies granted to the crown. 7. "Because, although we should on all occasions conceive it to be our duty to protest against such a measure, we feel it more especially to be so when we reflect upon the conduct of the administration with whom the present bill originates. The enormous sums expended on services not previously voted by parliament, exceed within the last three years, all former example: and we cannot but look upon the bill in question, as being part of a system which acts in contempt and defiance of those wholesome forms and regulations, which the wisdom of our ancestors devised for the protection of the public purse, against the encroachments of corrupt ministers. We are disposed to be liberal towards the crown, but we are bound to be just towards the people. We maintain that the most important duties of parliament are overlooked when the supplies are granted before the services are explained; and we solemnly protest against a measure which grants two millions and a half of British money for purposes which are kept secret from the British parliament. "LAUDERDALE." Debate in the Commons on the Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade.] March 3. Mr. Wilberforce having moved that the Bill for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, at a time to be limited, be now read a second time, general Tarleton moved to leave out the word "now,” and to add the words "upon this day | passed, these ships would lie useless on three months." Sir W. Young thought the amendment wise, temperate, and highly expedient. Mr. Wilberforce said, that as the sense of parliament had been repeatedly taken on the subject; as they had come to a determination of abolishing this horrid traffic in the present year; and as the sense of the House was so recently taken when he moved for leave to bring in his bill; he had imagined that gentlemen would let the second reading pass as they had done the first; and that in the committee they would merely consider of limiting the time when the disgraceful commerce should cease for ever. Gentlemen saw that he had not his friends about him; and hence they wanted to take him by surprise; but he assured them he never would be found off his guard in this business. He called upon them to remember, that whether the numbers present were small or great, that the decision of that night would be considered as the sense of the Commons of Great Britain, and he hoped, that, bearing this upon their mind, they would come to a decision favourable to the interests of mankind, and becoming the dignity of a British senate. The question being put, That the word "now" stand part of the question, the House divided: March 7. Mr. Wilberforce moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the bill. On the question, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair." General Tarleton said, that many classes of the community were deeply affected by the war, and that the adoption of this measure would aggravate their distresses. A variety of articles of manufacture were made merely for carrying on this commerce, which supported numerous bodies of mechanics; and, if it was abolished, their means of living would go along with it. The merchants of Liverpool had, at a great expense, built ships of a peculiar construction for the convenience of the trade, and if the bill their hands. Hence it would be incumbent on government, should the bill pass, to indemnify them for their losses. The encouragement given to seamen by the Liverpool merchants was a great source of naval strength to this country. Ministers had had given commissions to many gentlemen for raising black regiments. By the bill these regiments would be emancipated. The disturbances in the West Indies rendered the present period very unfit for the abolition. The war had greatly reduced Westindia property; and the bill, if passed, would inevitably bring it to utter ruin. He would therefore oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. Mr. Dent contended, that the impolicy and injustice of abolishing the Slave trade at this moment were obvious. So far from serving the cause of humanity, it would encourage disaffection and rebellion, and instead of being a real advantage to the slaves themselves, would be a misfortune to them. Mr. Barham was convinced, that the bill would not effect the abolition aimed at. Gentlemen, by such a measure, would hazard the security, peace, and prosperity of the colonies; and probably excite revolt and rebellion. A few months would show the impolicy of the bill: gentlemen would then see that they were wrong. This, however, would be little satisfaction to the planters, when their property was destroyed. Mr. W. Smith said, that those gentlemen who had taken up the cause of the slaves in that House, did not want the abolition on the ground that they were ill treated by the planters. Were they ever so humanely treated, the trade itself ought not to be allowed on any principle of justice or humanity. Mr. Bouverie declared, that his opinion on this business had been always the same: he was at all times friendly to the abolition; and surely, if the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Barham) was sincere in what he said, namely, that the trade is now reduced to a non-entity, he need not be so much averse to the bill before the House. Mr. J. H. Addington opposed the bill on the score of humanity. He thought the immediate abolition would be attended with dangerous consequences. Mr. Milbank said, that he had only one reason for voting in favour of the bill; The House having resolved itself into the committee, Mr. Wilberforce moved, that the trade should be finally abolished on the 1st of March 1797. Mr. Dent said, that the period was much too short. It was little more than eight months. So long as Magna Charta remained, the bill would be a disgrace to this country. The very principle of it was hostile to the declaration of that great charter. It went also directly to annul the various proclamations that had been issued in favour of the slave trade. Mr. Buxton said, that the slave trade was a disgrace to this country. He was glad that Magna Charta had been mentioned, for it formed a strong contrast to this abominable trade. Mr. Serjeant Adair said, he had some concern for the reputation of Magna Charta, having often professed, and as often felt, great veneration for it. He had read it over many times, but he had never seen any thing in it that was favourable to the slave trade. This business, was, indeed, a disgrace to the nation; but it was not the abolition, it was the continuance of the traffic which created this disgrace. Mr. Dent said, he would repeat it, that the proceeding was contrary to the express declaration of Magna Charta, that right shall neither be sold, delayed, or denied." Now, if this bill passed, would not right be sold, delayed, and denied? What was the committee now doing? Mr. Serjeant Adair said, that before we talked of right, we ought to establish the existence of that right. He denied the existence of our right to enslave others: he knew of no origin to the right of slavery in this country; he knew of no power that the legislature of this country had to protect the slave trade; and he [VOL. XXXII.] must protest against the authority, if any such there was, for that protection. He agreed, however, that right, in this case, was sold, delayed, and denied: right was sold when the Africans were sold; right was delayed when the abolition of the slave trade was delayed: right would be denied when the legislature of this country should refuse to put an end to a traffic which created misery and promoted murder. The question was put and carried. After the other clauses of the bill had been agreed to, the House being resumed the report was received, and ordered to be taken into consideration on the 15th. March 15. The order of the day being read for taking the report into consideration, Sir W. Young said, he objected to the bill, in every point of view in which it could be considered. The principle of it was founded in injustice, and every clause was replete with tyranny and oppression. He addressed the House upon this subject with the strongest feelings. He felt for the West India merchants and planters, who would be consigned to inevitable ruin, if this bill were to pass, and he felt for his own property in the West Indies, of which this measure would neces sarily deprive him. He begged gentlemen seriously to consider what were the provisions of this bill, and what were the means by which those provisions were to be carried into execution. In the first place, in order to facilitate prosecutions under this act, the West Indies are to be taken to be in the county of Middlesex, and therefore, in every prosecution, the cause must be tried at that immense distance from the residence of the planter; they must come into England, and leave all their concerns, to defend every prosecution. This, in itself, was a most intolerable hardship; but there was another still greater. The penalty imposed for the violation of this act was no less than fourteen years transportation to Botany Bay. This was a severe punishment even upon a guilty man; but under this act, an innocent proprietor might be made liable to it by the act of his overseer. begged the House to consider what must be the effect of such a sentence as that of fourteen years transportation to Botany Bay, to gentlemen of rank in society, of polished manners and of extensive connexions. The bill would also terminate [SK] He all spirit of adventure, all incitement to industry, all thirst of emulation, for hitherto it had been the hope of overseers to rise in the world, so soon as they had obtained that employment; and the means they had of doing so was, by saving a portion of their wages to purchase two or three negroes, which they let out to the planters for hire. Such had been the progress of our blue-coat boys and apprentices who had gone out to the West Indies; but such, if this bill passed, would be their progress no longer. Henceforward, the planter would be subject to the penalties of the bill without any share in the offence. With him would rest the onus probandi, since upon the malicious information of any overseer who might be detected in importing slaves for his own advantage, he might remove the whole weight of the transgression, and swear that it was done with the connivance of his master. Every gentleman of character and fortune would be liable to lose his reputation, to suffer in his estate, and be separated from his wife, his children, his country and his dearest connexions. Nor would the interests of the West Indies be injured only, but the interests of this country, which he was ashamed to call the mother country, since, by this bill, it had already forfeited that appellation, would be injured with them. The bill might, with propriety, be called a bill of general foreclosure. Every mortgagee in this country upon West India estates, would have the whole of his security withdrawn. Was this the return for the services of the West India planters in the present war, who, raised 3,000 blacks to act as pioneers and save the health of our army? He wished when gentlemen brought forward this bill, upon the score of justice and humanity, that they had included a little justice and humanity towards the planters within the pale of their benevolence. He wished them to remember what had been the conduct of the colonies. He could not but remember it, for he had relations there who had uniformly acted with loyalty and courage. He had a nephew, who, at the head of some black troops, had been fighting for territory in the island of Guadaloupe, and he hoped to be restored to his estates. What did his expectations with many others amount to, if the present bill passed? After having been dispossessed of his property, after encountering danger and fatigue, and hazarding his life to recover what he had lost, after becoming a party in borrowing the loan of 1,500,000l., advanced to the sufferers by this country, he was to be burdened with a debt which he could never hope to discharge, and was to be numbered, perhaps, in the general exile from Great Britain. As to the bill itself, it was problematical as to the means of putting the clauses into execution; it was problematical also as to the manner of executing them: for it would be the cause of bloodshed and horrors on the coast of Africa, as the slaves would be put to immediate death, if the commerce was suddenly to cease. He hoped the House would weigh this, and would pay some respect to the trading interest of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and Glasgow, which would be ultimately ruined if this bill passed into a law. General Smith prefaced his observations with stating, that he had no property in the West Indies, nor had he any friends or connexions there to influence the part he took; but he should be wanting in his duty to himself and to the country, it he did not meet it openly, however unpopular his opinions of the abolition might be, or however subject to calumny. He then desired the act of the 9th of queen Anne to be read, to show what the proceedings of parliament were in 1709 and 1710, and compare them with the present. If the right hon. gentleman opposite had been for the continuation of the slave trade, the whole House would have rung with the injustice of this bill, but that right hon. gentleman had said, that no consideration of policy ought to weigh with humanity. He admitted the preamble of the bill to be true, but then it was true one hundred years ago as well as at this time; and yet the parliament at that time gave the preference to the policy of the measure, and by that means encouraged our trade, our commerce, and our shipping. We were grown wiser than our ancestors, and now we said that they were wrong in the principle upon which they acted, although we felt the good effects of their proceedings; for who would presume to say, that it was not owing to the wise regulations he had just referred to, that our commerce was at present so extended? If the hon. gentlemen who introduced this bill had said, that it was to prevent the cultivation of new grounds, he would have said the truth. How different, then, was such a proceeding to the proceeding in 1709. 10, when 103,000l. was given-to do what? to cultivate new grounds and encourage the importation of negroes for that purpose! How did it clash, also, with the proceedings on a late occasion, when 1,500,000l. was ordered for the defence of the colonies! Was the right hon. gentleman opposite ready to say that he would provide funds for the risk that would be incurred by this bill? He feared not, and therefore advised him to be cautious how he carried it into execution, or we might be threatened with the loss of the colonies, to the utter ruin of England. Gentlemen might go home to their dinners or suppers, after voting for such a bill, and enjoy their luxuries at their ease: but it behoved them to have some consideration for those whom they thereby deprived, not only of luxuries, but of necessaries also. It had been said, that the continuation of the slave trade was contrary to justice and humanity; so was the act of pressing seamen; but if he attempted to abolish it, it would be defended upon the plea of necessity. Upon the same plea, then, he opposed the abolition of the slave trade. He wished to have justice and humanity shown towards the proprietors of lands in the West Indies, and to persons interested in the prosperity and cultivation of those lands in our own country, as well as to the negroes on the coast of Africa. Much abuse had been thrown out against the planters for their cruelty, &c., but the strongest proof of the falsehood of these accusations was, the alacrity with which the slaves turned out in defence of their masters and their property against the French. He said he should not look at any of the regulations in the bill, because he held the whole principle of it in absolute abhorrence. Mr. Francis rose and said; Mr. Speaker; I really had no thoughts of taking part in this debate. My opinion of the slave trade is sufficiently known. But I confess I have not patience to hear what I have heard this day, without feel ing indignation, and endeavouring to express it. The hon. general introduced his speech with premising, that he had no property in the West Indies, nor any connexion with those who had. Allow me in my turn to declare that, although I have no property in the islands, I once was intimately connected with some, who possessed a great deal. The person I allude, to had no relations but in my family. Her personal fortune was very considerable. The succession to the greatest part of it would undoubtedly have gone, as in justice it ought to have done, to her own relations, to whom she always expresed, as in common gratitude to me she ought to have felt, the warmest affection. Why was that just and reasonable expectation on our part disappointed? Because I did not yield to her earnest and repeated solicitations to vote against the abolition of the slave trade, or at least to be neuter. I voted and spoke for it, and she disposed of her fortune accordingly. The hon. general says, that we are very much at our ease, while we are voting away the property of others; that we go home to the enjoyment of our dinners and our beds, without thinking on the misery and ruin we are to bring on a great body of our fellow-subjects. Well, sir, of me at least it cannot be said that, while I neglected or sacrificed their interests, I was careful of my own. I acted with my eyes open, for I was distinctly threatened with the consequence. And yet I went home that day with appetite to my dinner as I shall to day, and slept soundly that night. Had I done otherwise, I should, have lost the quiet mind, without which neither can the luxuries of the table gratify the palate, nor the bed of down give repose. Forgive me, Sir, for speaking of myself in this manner. The facts I allude to are well known to every one who knows me. My object in referring to them is to obtain credit for my sincerity in the part I now take, even with those who may undervalue my judgment. The hon. baronet, in vehement language and passionate terms, complains of the enor mous loss and injury, which the West India proprietors and planters are to suffer by this bill, without any compensation. I deny it as a fact. But, if it were true, let them begin by entitling themselves to redress, before they expect that the House will listen to their complaint. I answer them with the authority and in the language of English equity, ever since equity was known in England; "Do justice before you demand it." "Non feret æquum, qui petit iniquum." As long as you are guilty of an enormous injustice, on the very ground and subject matter of your pretended wrongs, the court will not listen to you, even though it were true that you had some equitable claim to compensation or relief. The hon. baronet says, that the preamble to the bill, in |