Star. — London, England, 1828-03-07 00:00:00

—" That no person whatsoever shill hateritlol. Itsithenefit of this Attick, that shall n lea or Mime to t e the oath of allegiance made by Acted * Parli gland, in the first year of the n t heir pjesent Majesties, when thereunto required." • tst as it intended tes admit the Catholics, generally. to all kinds of privileges, upon merely taking the oath of allegiance? Surely not ; for in so doing King Wil liam would have placed the Catholics upon a more ad vantageous footing than his Protestant subjects, from whom the oath of supremacy was of course exacted. — Now, let the House for a moment consider the meaning and effect of the 7th Article of the Treaty. It is as follows: " Every Nobleman and Gentleman, comprised in the said second and third Articles, shall have liberty to tide with a sword and case of pistols if they think fit ; and keep a gun in their houses for the defence of the same, or for fowling." Now, is it to be supposed that the Catholics, who found it necessary to ask for and obtain such a privilege, should conceive they were to b e admitted, without ask ing or obtaining, to the full enjoyment of every other privilege whatsoever, and to be so admitted upon merely taking the oath of allegiance? Let the House recollect what was the state of Ireland at that period, and for some time before it. I wish to avoid entering into this question, except as one of law, and it is my object to discuss it temperately, as I would any other question which involved any disputed point of law.— Now it is contended, that the first Article of the Treaty admitted Catholics to power; but my opinion is, that neither party expected to receive,nor intended to give,any such advantages by that Treaty. But what, Sir, was the state of Ireland at this period and previously to it ? The Treaty was signed in 1691. and let us bear in mind what had taken place two years before, in 1689—and if we do so, is it possible to conceive that it was ever contemplated by King William's Government to admit Catholics to full power upon merely taking an oath of allegiance? Be it remembered that the Parliament of Ireland—the Parliament of King James—was actually sitting in Dublin in the year 1689—and of whom did this Parliament of King James consist? It was com posed of 241 Members. Ido not mean to refer to the Acts of that Parliament, because, be they right or wrong. it is of no importance to consider them now; but when this Parliament met, out of the whole 241 Members, there were no more than six Pro testants. Is it possible, then, that King William, with this experience, and the full knowledge of this fact, could ever have been prepared to have admitted the Catholics into such a power, as would have given them absolute Government, upon no other security than that of taking the oath of allegiance? It seems to be the greatest absurdity to imagine that under such circumstances Catholics could have been intended to be admitted to Parliament. If such an intention were contemplated, is it possible that a m Atter of such im portance could have been settled at once, without any discussion, and merely by the introduction of the words 44 Oath of Allegiance?" If not, why were the words " admission to Parliament" introduced into the Treaty ? Why, when the Catholics stipulated for the " enjoy. ment" of such privileges in the exercise of their religion as were consistent with the " laws of Ireland,"did they not also stipulate for the distinct recognition of that privilege which they have appeared to consider as so paramount? The Hon. Barcfnet has quoted the authority of Sir Tuby Butler in defence of his argu ment—but to that very authority I will refer him to , learn what were the terms which the Roman Catholics of Limerick insisted upon previous to capitulation. It is, of course, well known that the Catholics sent into the English camp certain proposals, to which they received a reply the Lest day. Tne following are the seven propOsirions: st. That their Majesties will, by an Act of Indemnity, pardon all past off:aces whatsoever. • 4 2i. All Irish Catholics to be restored to the estates of which they were seised or possessed before the late Revoiution. " ad. To allow free liberty of religious worshif, and one Priest to each Parish, as well in towns andchies, as in the country. "4th. Irish Catholics to be capable oe holding all empfoyments, civil and niihtsry, under the Crows, and of exercising all trade% professions and callings whatsoever. `• sth. The Irish As my to be kept on foot, and received in their i present condition into their Majesties service, in case th-y be wilting to serve their Majesties apinst Prance, er any other enemy. • " litb. The Irish Catholics to be, at liberty to reside in Citiesand Towns Corporate, to be Alembere of Corporations, and to exercise all Corporate franchises and immunities. 6 '7th. An Act of Parliament to be passed for ratifying and con &egg those condition s." Now, Sir, all that the Cobol:: of Limerick them **Nee demanded, as the terms on which they would submit, did not antount to that which the Honourable Baronet con tends Was afterwards granted to them. What, then, was Giukle's Ottawa* to these propositions? • He stated the propositions to be so "extravagant, that, although be was comparatively a stranger to the laws of England, he understood them so far as to perceive that such propositions were contrary to their spirit and meaning, and 'to - grant which would, therefore, be dishonourable to himself. Me therefore rs jicted them, and immediately ordered a new bat- • tery to be raised against the town; but at the request of the Irish •theanseives, sent them twelve propositions, which formed the ground-work of the Treaty that was afterwards entered km—. Now, Sir, when (in 1702) Sir Toby Butler made his celebrated appeal, did he say one word about the admission . of Roman Ca tholics Antis Parliament, grounded upon this Treaty? The Treaty, I will observe, is published in a great vatiety of works; I have referred to it in " Plowden's History of Ireland," and in " An Historical Apology for the Irish Catholics," written, I be lieve, by the brother of the Honourable Baronet opposite. But, Sir, the Honourable Member for Dahlia has referred to an an tkority which very much surprised me-4 allude to the authority' of Bishop Barnet—and I confess I am at a loss to know how be could, for a moment, conceive that the authority of this Learned and Reierend Prelate supported his view of this question. The Hon.• Member described the Rev. Prelate as. being In the intl- slate confidence -of King William, sod consequently io possession of his Monarch's plans and intentions; this testimony, therefore, spots this matter is, as the Hen. Member described it of great weight and impottencm Nor, I entteat the attentldn of the House to this fair, that la the year 1611, after the Treaty of•Limmiek had Jives 'lg:redoing when the Oath of Supremacy was required to be takomin the Irish Parliament by an At of Parliament, which Act was acted upon in the Irish Parliament —now, Bishop Bernet being well acquainted with this fact, being well aware of the intent sod meaning of each situate Article in the Treaty of Limerick, and !plowing well that no Catholic thee sat in the Irish House of Par. wariest; speaking of the Treaty of Limerick, says.-. 4 The Articles of that Capitulation were monetually executed, and some differences .xerhicik arose, out of certain ambiguous words, were decided in • *yaw of the Irish." That is the expressions's/Id let Bishop Bur. set, open whose authority the Hon. idemborutolieneo to rely, in defence of his argument. Sir, it is upon those•grounds that I differ from the Hos. Moser and the Hun. Seconder of that motion now before the Itiouse. The subject ensbnoes so many topics that I cannot now attempt to enter am it at length; I can only repeat that I have given it the best consideration in my power, and that the strong impression upon my mind ls, that at the signing of the I ' Treaty of Limerick, it was not contemplated by one party to de- mend, or by the other party to grant, even those privileges which the Irish timilles haste since obtained. I admit that the Penal TAWS which were matted ender Queen Mme and George the First—(span the question of abets being, or not beinguecossary, I do opt, of cootie, meanto ante:l—were enacted in violation of that Treaty, but I. contend, th at t h e Catholics can now claim nothing whh they de not peons, grounded upon the faith of that Treaty. Sir, fam not one of those who think that the Articles by which one party'desired an essential advantage front the ether, ought to be, • or can he, set aside besause of their . age; but- if I can be coll' Mated that it was the intention of both parties that the Roman Catholics should be admitted to Parliament merely upon taking the salmi( allegiance, I emu, far from thinking old Treaties are of ne ay* that I should certainly permit it-at will not say to settle my Amiga on-tie subject, but I will say; to base much weight von my Welitd• in 00014eriag the great question -which it 111 snaiseially *aim. U an advantage bed been actoalbr liven by riewparty to weber, with the, uoderstandiag that a corn:speeding and specific advantage should be granted by that other in return, it would have onosidee able effect with me in determining the course I should put one I bat, feeling *VI do, that the Catholics sea now make no Otini gemmed vs. that Treity. I can only state that soak Treaty wifl in no way influence me I. the view which I take of the question, of which it is intro:Need ss's principal branch. Mr. S. RIQE said, that in giving every Credit to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the sweerity of his opinion, he must claim an equal portion for his owls 6tm b e li e f that the construction which ought in justice and in fair ness to be put upon the Treaty of Limerick, was di , redly the reverse of that stated by the Right Hon. Gen tleman. He contendtd that the authority of Burnet was in favour of his view of the Treaty. He found it asserted in that writer, that in conformity with the at tides, the Roman Catholics 4 , were restored to all they enjoyed in King Charles's time, and admitted to all the privileges of subjects upon taking the Oath of Alle giance to their Majesties, without being bound to take any other oath." Was it then no privilege of the sub ject to have the right of sitting in Parliament, to con troul the Government, and watch over the affairs of the country?—(Here the Hon. Gentleman referred to a political pamphlet written by Sir James Mono , null, a Jacobite, charging King William with having entered into that Irish Treaty—for so was it called). Was it because General Ginkle had rejected an article in the Treaty, which provided that in each village a Catholic Priest should be kept up at the expense of the Crown—was it to be inferred that, ex necessitate, the Irish army was not to be supported? Mr. Secretary PEEL—What Irish army? Mr. SPRING RlCE—That Irish army which re turned to France—that Irish army which afterwards on the Continent fought against us—that Irish army from which sprung the Irish Brigade—that Irish army which on so many occasions snatched the laurels from the grasp of British soldiers.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Secretary PEEL begged the Honourable Gentleman would not understand him as intending to am the slightest reflection upon that army. He had said, that tinkle's objection to these terms was, that-they were contrary to the Constitution of England. Now be (Mr. Secretary Peel) shuttle( like to know what was the objec tion to the King's taking into kis service a portion of his own sub j ects? Mr. S. RICE.—The establishment of Roman Catho lic Priests, and of the Roman Catholic religion, was, in fact, the grand objection. For that he had the autho rity of the Right Him. Gentleman himself—the autho rity also c,f Lord Liverpool—that if such measure were to be enacted, it would be a violation of the King's Coronation Oath. Ginkle's mind was, perhaps, con- fined to the observation of what was passing before him, and he was therefore more likely to concede than ethers. It so happened, that about the Ist of August, 1691. a letter was addressed to the Dish Gi.vernment by Gen. Ginkle, representing how absolutely necessary it was for the peace- of Europe that the Irish war should be terminated. In short, while there was in the Irish army a French party. anxious (or the continuance of resistance, there was in the English army anEnglish patty which was desirous that no ter ms should be made with the Irish, hoping, in the event of their defeat, to benefit by the for feitures and confiscations thatiwould, no doubt, ensue.— The Government, however, stepped in, and, by conclud ing the Treaty,did that which no other party could. If the Terms of the Treaty were so objectionable, how did it happen that for so many years no complaint was made of them? When, in fact, did the first notice of them take place? When Sir Toby Butler was heard in the House of Lords against tie patsies of an Act which went to deprive the Catholics of many of their best privileges—that Act which first took away from the Roman Catholics the elective franchise. That Act was, therefore, a gross violation of the Treaty of Lime. rick. Sir Toby Butler thought so, and on that precise ground had he argued against the 15th section of the Bill, which took from the Catholics the elective flaws. chise. Therefore, instead of its being a new doctrine in favour of the repeal of the Catholic disabilities, to refer to that Treaty, it was an old doctrine, a doctrine of lawyers, brought forward within the walls of Parlia ment; and although Parliament had rejected it—for fortunately the speech of Sir Toby Butler remained, and showed that the feeling existed among persons who were cotemporaries of those who had been parties to the Treaty. The Right Hou. Gentleman asked why, if that Act had been a violati not the Treaty of Limerick, the Irish Catholics had not appealed to the British Par liament? What ! were they to apply to that Parlia ment which bad just declared the Irish wool-trade a nuisance, and had add' essea the King, requesting of him to discourage it ? Headmitted that in the government of King William there were to be found many distin guished names ...alll mg others, that of one, an orna merit to the sciei , ce and literature of the country (Sir Isasc Newton), who was the then Master of the Mint— (A laugh). Many other . most excellent persons held office under that Government—but neutralized as that G.:• vernment had been, he would ask, was it not quite vain to say to us that we hadn't justi.e at our side, because in King William's time no appeal had been made? He was sorry to have ono uded at so much length upon the patience of the Hi us ; but, representing as he did that place in which the Treaty had been concluded—repre. senting persons, every one of whom knew that Treaty by heart—having also a sort of hereditary right to contend for the observance of that Treaty—he should not have been doing justice to them and to himself had he refrained from presenting himself io the notice of the House on that occasion. —(Here the Honourable Gentleman referred to the situation of the Catholics in the reign of Charles IL when the first attempt was made to exclude Catholics from Parliament, and to the ma. nagement of the Duke of Ormond, who had, first by pro. roguing, and after wards by dissolving that Parliament, got rid of the Bill, the heads of which declared its object to be the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament, and the Duke of York from the succession to the Crown). In fact—and a most temar kable fact it usts--that it was not until 1782 that Catholics had been really disenabled . to sit in Parliament. From the moment the Irish Par liament had declared that the English Parliament had no right or title to bind his Majesty's subjects of Ireland —from that moment the right of England to impose an oath respecting the admission of members into the House of Commons ceased. He wished there a ere a legal tribunal before which the question was to be des cided, and he would gladly and with pleasure join issue upon the construction of the Treaty of Limerick.— If any Honourable Gentleman still continued to doubt on the subject, he entreated of him to recollect the na• cure and the situation of the parties to it. That the Irish were the weaker party could not be doubted ; yet, al though Previous to the conclusion of the Treaty a reinforcement of 18,000 men arrived to their assistance from France, the Irish refused to avail themselves of them, and remained faithful to the preliminary ar itkles—(Hear, heat). At that very time too a Prelate, from the pulpit, in Dublin, in a political sermon, declared that no faith ought to be kept with the Irish. It was a principle uniformly recognised, that wherever, in the construction of the terms of a Treaty, any doubt 1 11706 f, to interpret them in favour of the weaker party ; and bearing that principle in mind, and looking at the subject under all its circumstances, he was quite sure those Members would come to a. sonelusion different from that of the Right. Honotiiabie Geittleman. They had now at the head of the Government a great mill• tary character—a man conversant with sieges and with ,T rea ti t i—aud be (Mr. S. Ricci would ask, if this ha' been a Treaty by which the Government of Spain we' conveyed to her legitimate rulers. would it not No recognised and enforced by the aid of all the Posner : in gurnpi?—(Hear, hear. hear.) 1 Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. Mr. MOORE rose to express his dissent from the views taken of the Treaty of Limerick by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Rice) and some others who ha preceded him in the debate, and contended that the l construction put upon that freaty by those Honourablol Members had been a forced and unjust construction. 'The operation of that Article extended only to those Catholics whose submission was required. The first ,Article provided, that the Catholics should enjoy the undisturbed exercise of their religion, and such other :privileges as were consistent with the laws of Ireland, and such as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles 11. not of James, which was just past. Those privileges , enjoyed in the reign of Charles If: must have referred to the exercise of their religion, as in that reign the restrictive laws of Ireland against Catholics were less severe than the English Statutes; tor instance, the Act of uniformity, and that was the season why the Catho lics, who were a party to the Treaty, sought the privi leges consistent with the laws of Ireland ; they could not have referred to the reign of James 11. as in that time the Catholics not only enjoyed the antis turbed exercise of their religion, but steps bad been taken in that reign to raise the Catholic religion to the highest splendour and power. That the ex ercise of their religion was all that was intended to be conceded to the Catholics by the Treaties of Limerick and Galway, would appear from a document alluded to by en historian who was eyewitness of the events (the Rev. George Storey), namely—the Procla mation of the Chief Justices, promising to such of the rebels as should submit, " that they Should not be pro secuted or disturbed on account of their religion." If the first article merely referred to the exercise of poll tical privileges, where was the necessity of introducing those latter words of the Proclamatiotisinto the Treaty? The lion. Member concluded by expressing his hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman, in moving for a copy of the Treaty of Limerick, would mr.ve also 1,4 a copy of that Proclamation of It e Chief Justices. Mr. A. DAWSON denied that the Irish Parliament, two years before the Treaty of Limer.ck, consisted ex clusively of Catholics—it was impossible that the Ca tholics could have had a majority in the Commons, as the greater portion of the property was in the hands of the Protestants and in the House of Lords. The Protestants were to the Catholics as 79 to 32. Neither the Lords Justices then, nor General Ginkle, felt any apprehen sions from the admission of Catholics to Court, and Military Offices, for this reason, that they knew the Catholics already bad the power of sitting in Parliament, and that they enjoyed that privilege would appear from a regulation of the Irish House of Lords, which ordered the Protestant Peers to attend prayer s at four o'clock, on forfeiture of one shilling, and directed that the Catholic Lords should enter the House at a quarter-past four (when prayers might be supposed to be over), or pay a similar fine for non-attendance at that hour. He trusted that if any argument used by him, or the speakers on his side of the question, should raise a doubt in the minds of their opponents, the House would give the benefit of those doubts to the weaker party. The motion was then put to the vote, and agreed to without op position. LAW Of ENTAIL--SCOTLAND. Mr. KENNEDY rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law of Entail in Scotland, and he was satisfied that in doing so he showld have the concurrence of akshose who were interested in, or acquainted with, the subject. He would not enter into a detailed history of the Scotch Law of Entail, but there were some particular circumstances to which be felt it his duty to call the attention of the time, in order to show that be did not make the motion with which he should conclude without reason. The law was framed for the support of the Aristocracy of Scotland; bat he should be able, when an opportunity was afforded him, of showing, that if persevered in it must lead to its destruction. Previous 1685 there was no statute law upon entail in Scotland. The com mon law alone operated. In that year, however, a statute was passed, which enabled an individual voisessed of an estate to name a series of unborn heirs, and to entail his estate to perpetuity. That sta tute prevented any heir front alienating any part of the entailed property. To that prospective tyranny no limits had yet been made. By that statute a record was established ; and in order to show the House the quantity of property which was already thus bound down, checked, and injured, be would read an account copied from the record, of the number of proprietors who had taken advantage of the statute. In the first twenty years follow. ing the enactment of the statute in 1685, there were 79 entails registered ; in the next twenty years there were 185 ; in the next twenty years there were 158 ; in the nest Q 0 years there were 138; in the next twenty year s there were 272 ; in the next twenty years there were 560; in the nest twenty years there were 475; and daring the few years which had elapsed since the last period there were 54. The whole of the entails in force and recorded under that Statute amounted to t,645. The necessary effect of the pre sent law, if perstared in, would be to occasion, which he con sidered as a great grievance, an absentee aristocracy of a great magnitude. Upwards of half the landed property of Scotland was already subjected to the present law of entail, and the evils to society were in consequence very great. Commerce was checked, and also agricultural improvement. Certain restraints were undoubtedly necessary, but all modified principles were set aside by the present law. No latitude whatever of expression was allowed, and such was the strictness of the interpretation, that the omission of a single word tendered a deed worthless. He re. membered an instance in which the deed said " shall not be sold," and the words in the record were " shall be sold;" and that variance set aside the deedaltogetber. Under a limited system of entail a good understanding between the members of a family would subsist; but under the present law the father and the son were incapable of accom modating each other, and much confusion was the consequence. He ►new it might be said chats:sericulture had flourished inScotland ; but he would reply, that it-would have flourished much more had it not been trammeled by the present system of entail. The present law had given rise to an immense mass of litigation, and its evils had lung been felt. That celebrated Judge Lord Eames bad alluded to them very strongly ; and again in 1817 they bad been noticed. The present system, should it be allowed to go on without alteration, would render it impossible for any person to receive above one-third of his rental on entering upon an entailed estate. Fortunately, a great deal of attention bad been paid to the subject by eminent professional men, and therefore the House would not be asked to proceed in the dark. A most excellent work upon it bad appeared in 1826, and still more recently a Professional Gentleman of the highest reputation and abilities bad turned his mind particularly to It, and published the result of his labours. The plan which it w::1 his intention to submit to the House was taken princally from the suggestions furnished by the very able work to which be bad last alluded. He brought forward no crude notions his own, and therefore he looked with hope to a successful' revolt. It was right he should style, that he wished to Now under the old law those Peers of Scotland who at present pen sessed propetty, and he did so, nut from any belief that eirail would result from it, but from a respect to prejudice. And be would ask, if jt was peeper that the alterations in the systems• should laa prospective, why should it not also affect, after a des time, the prima mails? He cookl see no reason why it should; not, and; therefor*, his plan would propose a measure for gradually relieving the property at present bound down. The measure had' been prepared by those who mere fully competent to the task, and he hoped it would be approved of. It was not to be compulsory. By it no party could be compelled to change his 'situation with respect to the present law. He trusted, therefore, that he should obtain the leave he sought, and be pledged himself, when the Ihll was in Committee, if he were allowed to proceed so far, to prove that not a single individual would be injured by its operation. The Honourable Member then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Law of Entail in Scotland. 'flit LORD ADVOCATE said he should pot object to the very reasonable course proposed to be pursued by the HMI. Member, but in so doing, he must not be considered as pledging himself to approve the principle of the Bill. Its object was neither more nor less than to do away with the power of entailment alto getheup and he thought the us rid of Scotland was not prepared is. such a change. There were persons who would be tound to übjec MI principle, to the proposed changes. Mr. bUIiDEN said, that it thc 1331 intended to se, aslde the Act of 1685, it would strike at the.root of an the laws* Scotland regarding real property. If that were to be its chara et% he must oppose it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL th ngh t that as the Honourable Member had three objects in view, it would he betti t to keep the several beads separate. Mr. KENNEDY in le iy, said hi= coMect. hid heat much misunderstood. He did not desire to do away with the law of entail entirely; but his views could be satisfactorily explaiir4l/4 the Coramitttee. - Notion put, agreed to, and 'rave given to bring in the BM. COLONIAL SLAVERY. Mr. WILMOT-HORTON rose, pursuant to noties i to move for Minutes of Evidence taken before his 114 i. jesty's most Hon. Privy Council, in the Matter of die Demerara and Berbice Manumission Order in Council, Before, Sir, I proceed with my motion, which stands lo t this evening, I feel it necessary complain some circus"; stances which occurred yesterday. The House is pro. bably aware, that a short discussion arose on a pennail that was presented relating to this subject. Tke Hon Member for Winchelse.t made several observations during that discussion, which I ni,w sigh to answer.—: He begged me to postpone my motion till six or seven o'clock, but he has now feud himself unable to stay and has begged me to postpone it altogether. I bete been obliged thus to allude to the Hot. and Learned Member, in order to explain to the House the situation in which I stand. lam ready to go on, and lam not aware that any thing I have to say will require au answer from the Learned Member; but I wish to know, whether, underthe circumstances, it is the pleasureof the House that I should proceed—(Cries of go on, go on.) The SPEAKER said that the Hoo. Klauber must decide for himself. Mr. WILMOT-HORTON proceeded. I move for those minutes of evidence, in older that tt ey ess4y be laid upon the table of the House and printed. I feel it my duty to tall the attention of the House to the ci t . cunostances which make me think it necessa y to take such a course. I beg, at the same time, to be uncle,. stood, in what I am about to say, to have had no coo. munication with any Member of the Government on the subject. I was myself present at the Privy Council during the discussion, and it is in consequence of wha t I then learned, that I now, es an individual Member 01 the House of Commons, think it my duty to make this motion. That resolytion (the Right Hon. Gentleman continued) was to this effect, " that the state of slavery is repugnant to the spirit of the British law." That re solution was rejected by the House, and others were submitted, which was partly to the following effect:— " That the House was anxious to pass such laws as may be compatible with the well being of the slaves them selves, the safety of the Colonies, and the interests of private property."—The House was aware that his M. jestv's Government were called on to execute these la. solutions ; and it was necessary, on the pre,ont occasion, to crave the attention of all those Honourable Men. bets who took an interest in the welfare of the slave, to the extreme difficulty in which the Government was placed with reference to these resolutions. It was necessary, in the first place, to observe the series of circumstances which had conducted them to that point at which the Berbice appeal had been brought.-- The appellants prayed that his Majesty would be go ciously pleased not to issue any Orders in Council to I enable the slave in Berbice to obtain his freedom by appraisement, or otherwise, without allowing the pet• tioners to be first heard by their Counsel. The Right Hon. Gentleman was most anxious to have this pat t of his subject rightly stated to the House and to the cows try ; and begged to observe, that with respect to this clause of compulsory manumission, his observations hail contained no direct allusion to it. The history of the clause was this; the resolutions of 1823 pledged the House to the alternative of reconciling the freedom of the slave, by purchase or otherwise, with the interest of the master. Earl Bathurst, in this dispatch, dated the 9th of July, sent out certain instructions to the West Indies, requesting the Legislative Colonies, and direct. ing those which were more immediately under the con troulof the Crown, to adopt measures in furtherance of tin principles contained in that dispatch. In that dispatch no allusion was made to the subject of ma. numission ; but at the same time Sir R. Woodford, the Gores nor of Trinidad, was directed to prepare the draft of an Order in Council embodying all those instruc tions; and in fact those instructions, with the single exception of the principle of slave evidence, upon which there was now more accordance than upon any other, were sanctioned by the whole t..f the West India body in England. Sir Ralph Woodford, in obedience to Lord Bathurst's dispatch, framed the draft of au Order in Council, according to the Spanish law on that subject as it existed in the colony of Trinidad. Mr. Canning, at the time he brought forward his motion, in the begin. ning of 1824, had laid down the s e as the principles of the Government—that it was expedient to collect togo dor all the various measures of improvement which were to be found in any part of the West Indies ; to con. centrate thens,and to form them into a general slave code for the West Indies ; consequently, compulsory mann mission, or manumission by appraisement, being found to be part of the law of Trinidad, was deemed expedient to be introduced into this general code, and the fact was announced accordingly to that House by Mr. Canning. It would be seen from the Order in Council of Trinidad, laid on the table, that it contained clauses relating to compulsory manumission which were in effect identically the same with those which had been se, over to Sir Ralph Woodford. It might here be proper to state, that neither on the part of those Gentlemen who were considered more particularly to represent the slaves, nor on the part of those who mire supposed more particularly to represent the West Indian Proprietors in this country, was any reclamation made at the time of a parliamentary nature against this manumlasins law. Allusion, indeed, was made to it, in the course of some debates, but the sense of Parliament was never taken with respect to this measure of compulsory manumission. No sooner, however, was it extended or proposed to be so, to Demerara and Berbice, than the Court of Policy there, to which was entrusted the duty of preparing a general law on the subject, condensing and interweaving the Dutch law with the. Spanish recognised in the instructions issued from home, made a strong protest against this proposal of compulsory manumission. Protests were sent over to the Secretary of State ; difficulties and inconveniences were disco. vered to attach to it, and the Government here wete prayed to modify it considerably, or to revoke it alto. gether. It was declared that nothing could induce s i e n rc il ise ue i the t w Colonies the e ostfiothnattoovaedrop_ruthtnhge me a s ure, unless power which the mother country was allowed to be capable of exercising over the institutions of a ll h er C o l on i es . Voluminous do cqments had been from time to time laid on the table of the House connected with that subject: but though much information was conveyed in the dispatches to the Secretary of State, no law was yet in operation in Demerara, as to compulsory nianurnis•ion, •arying from that law which Existed in Timidad. Now, be would go the length of saying, that it the abolitiont,o • rue prepared, as he had nude rsti od them to have edared, to stand or f a ll by the l a w of 'bt u d a d, th.e ?ere prepared to stand en fall by that whrs It cou.J 6 steely be said. to exist. it was completely inoperat slave was as imps- tected " taibter. By the Sdaiki sh law, C )10nies, the right of ti was supposel to have heel law which governed the respect of his Moorish slay -*market was in existence, II inanumissiim WJS simply , i this les non seriph" (for such putable its existence, it was 'any written traces of it), to purchase his manumissi , *appointed two appraisers , what they considered to be the slave; and with this pri I bnarket to obtain another general or particular incon , It transaction. In Trinidar tilave Trade, this law bperation, in consequence from day to day of slaves poorer soils of the West thus enabled, without 1 js,itt with slaves by this The House would not the trade from Africa 'hole case was altered it Ad th'e slave. Now, the in Conntit required, n thai taken oft slave applying if any difficulty diott)d aril the slave and the proprietor shall nominate a third party, ing." Nothing could appe, e lex than this direction in gineJ more difficult of eses obterve, that there was nothi ascertained or directed chi taisemetof il va w lu h ew e a as w, although, 1 master could have repairk omission would have been One, under present circumf , bad altogether ceased in • sential character. The wi /single point, therefore, ani , sort, namely, the di ffi culty - a slave whom he might ' . Mpurchased. In 1823, this orton) felt boand to ob tions that it was the gt ever been known, to sup! not execute more benefit the master the duties of labour could , execute the toast wish most heartily, soul, that this were the faci mot so. It was for the cut House the multiplied diffit _ subject, and to show at sot documents would bear on ject, that he should move t taken before the Privy Ci Demerara and Bel bice Mi should be laid upon the was convinced that the mi men would be very muck by the study_ of those mini speeches of the Counsel aide and on the other. end, without perusing them, perfectly aware of the di pan) had spoken• of. The she dispatch of Lord Bub which it was intended that take place, was the princi that is,. that if the master iris compulsory manumist nearly as possible, to reply sealue. The. former lieso; Commons ietolved,. two that, in his judgment, no • effect could deny that .., one hand, the slaves state of freedom; and, equal clearness, an avoidi arriving at such a state, w sised for the interests of Gentleman. illustrated thi showing the loss to which , by re4son of having a valve bis.estate, the cultivation him, ,the master, with the himself and his family fact, therefore, his whol ' .—the,limited market fc it.was notorious, was cal brkbody of slaves labour that their work should I out interruption, and cat at all periods. The car upon a compulsory prim that of working classes i country like our own, for would usually be too ha! sible amount of employ! would willingly devote of his time, as the means of wages. All that he d:- Hon. Gentlemen shoulL which surrounded this sir their desire to better the in which every man of i with them), to legislate questions which involved sands amongst us, as well population. The greatest • be to suppose that the ' general equal value (a pr Gent.proc• eded to &mini from the cultivation of West Indies, of unequal \ bands,and by hands of mm; there was no alternative b measures that had yet been, slave, and a complete purelsal the colonies and planters of .compulsory manumission, stmts. By both Houses of _ called on to do away slavery alt. • hand, they were equally required and to'show a regard for the is , ' 11 ell as for those of the slave; , difficulty of the problem; for it all that slavery in the abstract • it state of freedom. After this succeeded in convincing the throughout the colonies that thi Weighed the difficulties of the c; .better t ight to expect the consent legislative Colonies of Great which, he must contend, such CI to carry into &cat, without prc; st. Ars Otte erative, end id by it as iw,which pr- the mate been des iv e Spani s h ilaves. At , the history ply this; th such it wa was estre ,), bad obta weu era, who st tbeaftirp price the her in his iconvenienc idad, before remained ce of the .4 ayes into . est Indies. : any diffi• his process t fail to I was stop • I in respect it clauses in hat a fair an ig for his ma arise on this ictor of the arty, Whose Ippear More n terms. N. execution. s nothing i the principl ts to be ma. a market e aired to rep seen of no c Imstances, a in cur Colon whole que and upon o sky of the sl ht so lose b his country, observe, w grossest •• suppose tha neficially fo of sugar cu them. No y, and fr. • fact ; but, u purpose of ifficulties wh some future on the consi. re that the i Council, in 11 Aim mission he table of minds of uch informe ninntes, and ,sel engaged r. The hitt- :hem, perhap difficulties fhe House lathurst, that rat the slave a Iciple of equi tter lost his mission, he ch .eplace him b Resolutions vo pt opwiti no man ss, at they .con arriving nd, on Ale i °Oaf iiistalf • with an • f the master the difficu ch the slave valuable sla ttion of whi the whole • ily were, to hole difficult for slaves. carried on u During togeth d be continu capable of • case of such rinciple Was es in a free for example happy to obt oyment, sinc • rte the great ns of realising he was arm. , uld be awar s subject, an. he condition f right feeli ate rashly or red the inter well as of th atest mistake le slaves shou proposition tonplify by se of lands bet ual value, by f unequalskil Live between been suggest purchase of ers in the W mission, this iouses of p slavery alto ! . illy required for the inter - :he slave; an• bletn; for it e abstract wa After this dig the We ties that they ies of the cas • the consent a • it Great Brit. !nd, such Col• idiom pr (jut!