The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-12 00:00:00

=1;:y, the loss of reason. He -(Mr. B.) had of course no wish
-I) press any thing whatever against him.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he had in his public character
received a letter from Mr. Gourley, the contents of which left
• no doubt in his (Mr. P.'s) mind, that the writer was some un-
.happy person not of sound mind.
Mr. HUME said, that Mr. Gourley had been confined in
Canada, and was then, it was understood, subject to temporary
derangement. He went to some parish in the county, and
sought the parochial relief, in return for which he broke flints
on the road, although he at that time held a farm under the
Duke of Somerset of 14001. per annum. He (Mr. H.) believed
that he had latterly been revisited by insanity.
Mr. WYNN said that if the fact of the insanity of this per-
son was established, the House would have nothing to do but
to guard agabastlhe repetition of such an outra,,,re.
Mf. Secretary CANNING observed, that the better course
would he to detain the man in custody until certain information
bad been procured as to whether he was insane or not.
Mr. BROUGHAM said there could be no doubt whatever
of the man's. insanity.
Atter a fel words from Mr. Secretary CANNING,
The SPEAKER-said he then understood it to be the pleasure
of the House that the person should remain in custody untilsthe
Holm should further order.
There Appeared to be a general assent through the House,
and the conversation then. dropped.
MISSIONARY SMITH.

Sir MACKINTOSH-said he held in his baud a petition
which he wished to present before his Hon. and Learned Friend
moved the Order of the Day for going into the adjourned de-
bate.. ' It was from persons to whose opinions he was bound
to give particular attention, they being inhabitants of Knares-
borough. It wax signed by the Clergymen and several very
respectable inhabitants, praying for the gradual abolition of
Negro Slavery ; and stating that nothing which had taken
place recently at Demerara had -induced them to alter their
ipinion as to the necessity or the practicability of the abolition.
The petition was read and ordered to lie on the table and be
printed.

- A Message from the Lords here announced their Lordships'
asent to several Bills.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.
~ Dr. LUSHINGTON moved the Order of the Day for re-
-naming the Adjourned Debate on the Motion respecting the
proceedings at Demerara, against Mr. Smith.
The Order of the Day was accordingly read, and the SPEAKER
having :put the question,
DreLi/SHINGTON rose and supported the Motion in de-
fence of Mr. Smith. On no occasion in the course of his poli-
tical life, had he ever addressed a public assembly with a more
earnest desire to perform his duty faithfully and impartially.
It would be his wish to avoid as much..as possible, in the course
of his address to the House all severity of remark ; but he
feared it would, notwithstanding, be his lot to speak with some
severity of the Court Martial which had tried Mr. Smith, and
particularly of one of its members. In the defence he was
about to make of Mr. Smith's character, he should not con-
sider it necessary to rely upon the Documents put forth by the
Missionary Society, or upon any other evidence extraneous
to that • which was furnished by his Majesty's Government as
copies of the proceedings on the trial. TO these he should
-strictly confine himself. Neither should he think it neces-
_ sary to go into the question, whether the Court Martial itself
was legal or not. Ile should proceed upon higher ground, be-
-tense he should contend for Mr. Smith's perfect innocence.
tie thought that on the whole, that Gentleman was not only
unimpeached but unimpeachable. Yet though he should not
contest the legality of the Court Martial, he must observe that, •
-supposing it to have been legally constituted, its members
were hound in duty to observe the ordinary rules of law, and
- the known and admitted principles of justice; and he be-
lieved
they had shewn a total disregard of both. He should
proceed to a consideration of the facts by stating that for the
present purpose, he would admit that the charge of treason,
.according to the laws of Demerara, was made out; supposing
the facts themselves to be well-founded. It appeared that in
the month of May last year, the Governor had issued certain
orders respecting the attendance of slaves on Sunday at places
.of divine worship. In July, arrived Lord Bathurst's orders
-containing. the substance of the regulations humanely laid down •
by his Aiatesty's Government; among other things prohibiting
-the flogging of females, and the use of the whip in the field. Ou
the 17th the revolt took place; on the 21st Mr. Smith was
taken up, and on the 13th of October lie was tried. He (Dr. L.)
should not notice the charges upon which Mr. Smith had been '
acquitted, even by the Court-martial in question. The prin-
ecipal charges upon which they had found him guilty were, the
cmating of dissatisfaction among the Negroes, the knowing
:and concealing the conspiracy for the Revolt, and the corres-
ponding with some of the Negroes after it. The mos; impor-
tant of the transactions referred to by the evidence appeared to
have taken- place previous to the 17th of August, which was
on a Sunday. In the preceding week Mr. Smith was not at
Le Souvenir, the place of his residence, but was on the coast,
in company with a brother Missionary. He returned on the
.Friday, and on Sunday the 17th, after evening service, he was
in conversation with several of his congregation. The charge
sgainst him was, that on this occasion, he had received
r::ation of the revolt, and had remained silent. If this were
true, he was undoubtedly guilty and this brought into
--view the whole question before the House. lie must here re-
gret that his lion. and Learned Friend, the Member for Peter-
borough (Mr. Scarlett) was not in his place,- because lie should
be obliged to advert to the remarks made on
,the former night
'by that Honourable and Learned Gentlemen, and lie should
. -be sorry if it were supposed that he made those remarks merely
.because • his Honourable and Learned Friend was absent. It
.was not his (Dr: Lushington's) fault that he was so. The prin-
cipal witnesses in support of the prosecution were Negroes
the-names of Bristol and Romeo ; and it was deserving of
remark and consideration, that their testimony was admittedly
'that of accomplices, and it therefore became necessary to
.ascertain, first of all, who and what these men were. ristol,
.the chief witness, was a Negro slave, a person, whose evi-
dence, when legally admissible, was always received by the
;colonists with distrust. In Dcnierara, under certain circum-
stances, this kind of evidence was certainly admissible ; but,
ia Jamaica and many other colonies, their evidenie was not
'admissible in any case, affecting even property, in the slightest
fle2fee. lint, assuming the admissibility of the evidence, no-
-thing could be more clearly-laid down as a legal rule that the
•evidence or an accomplice was always to be received with hesi-
tation and jealousy, and that no conclusion unfavourable to the
-prisoner was to be drawn from it unless it was corroborated by
other evidence, not open to suspicion. In addition to this, there
-was a circumstance. attending Bristol's testimony which still
more increased the doubt with which it ought to have been ae-
• ceived. Bristol himself knew,
_ that it' the evidence he gavei
should not be satisfactory. to the Court, they might make Wm
their victim; and that, Immediately after giving his evidence,
• he might have been put upon his own trial. And notwithstand-
'Mg all this, it was remarkable that Bristol was called to speak
not to the acts committed by Mr. S., but to conversations which
•it was said had taken place in his hearing. The evidence to mere
conversation was often of a general and uncertain nature ; but
when referred to by negro slaves must be especially so. There
-was one respectable planter, a Mr. Vancouven, who had ad-
- mitted that such was the state of intellect in these slaves, that
-it.was. not customary to entrust them with verbal messages, as
there was little chance of their being delivered correctly.
• This was the opinion of a Gentleman who hat] lived in the
4.."..010ny upwards of fifty years, and was well acquainted
with the staves of the district 'in question, and with their
-general capacity. It appeared that Bristol and Quamina
went to Mr. Smith's house after Church, and asked him " if
-any freedom had been-fotind ?" That they said they should ob-
•tain it " by force," and " drive the managers to the courts ;"
that Mr. Smith answered, they had " better wait, as the sol-
-diers would be too strong for them." Another slave of the
name of Seton, was called. to corroborate this witness ; but he
-rather contradicted him. Seton said, he was present at the
conversation ; but it happened that Bristol said only he and
Quamina were present. Ile had already observed that negro
evidence as '_to conversation, was the very worst ; and
this would appear evident to the House when •he called
their attention to the fact that Seton said he heard nothing
shout 4' force" or " waiting," or about " soldiers." The not
recollecting any mention of the :soldiers_ was particularly re-
markable,. seeing that it must have been so important with re-
gard to the immediate object which the slaves were said to have
in view. There were then only two persons on behalf of the
prosecution who said a word about a knowledge of Mr. Smith
of the conspiracy; and these two persons were two negro slaves
who contradicted each other. It was to be observed too that
, one of these spoke of a trifling conversation he had had with
.-Mr. Smith about his little girl; and•then added,
..
that he im
mediately went home; whereas he had previously said , that
after this trifling conversation, he had gone into Mr. Smith's
_
room. If this was a misapprehension on the part of the wit-
ness it was a fresh proof that no reliance could be placed upon
shis kind of ,evidence. it afterwards-appeared that another
Person, and a -fourth 'were present; although in the first in-
-stance it was.confidently said there were • but two. Peter was
- but
alsl an accomplice open to all the fore going observations ,
-his evidence, being slightly in favour .of the accused, was the
more deserving . attention in this respect, because there could.
be no doubt that he had not exaggerated in favour of the
herewas
prisoner, Peter said that six persons were present; so that
three times the number originally stated, .and by tile
• two principal witnesses. 'Peter also negatived all that had
been said about soldiers.'
dep There was another person called
Hugh, who confirmed Peter, and thorefore, contradicted Bris-
-101. Under.all these remstances, he might confidently al=. firm that no. Court ofJustice
cneould say that Bristol was deserv-
if.ag of any credit. But even
.the moment, to be considered as
we will
Bristol's evidence were, for
_. riie—what did it amount to?
Acbir, that the slaves edict;W
Will drive the managers -from