Star.
London, England, 1824-03-31 00:00:00

llOw'

'

PP"'''-

\'

• r -t•

mon origin with ourselves, speaking one-common lan-
guage, and adhering to one common religion. Such
were the generourand patriotic ties bidding the United
States. with' Eisglend.;. Amiiie trusted that such nations,
once acting in concert, would by able to treat for ever
z"llrotatra gOserirAlictsl countries who should
• So sha al WWII* to milting staves Here he•
Flt it to be due main. individeal to mention that
the saase measure-had been adopted in the Arabian
Sea and. the Persian Gulf by a British Officer (Sit
William Keir Grant), who in all his treaties in that
quarter tad established the principle of piracy in
regard 'to _the slave trade, and it was only due to
• that Officer to. state, that he had made this great
printiOe the condition of any peace with theAtabian
Princes; and it would redound ,to the honour of such a
commander, that lie had already made treaties, for which
the principle of the present Bill might be found and
referred to practically. He hoped that this saving clause.
ofrestitation to humanity, this great antidote to slavery,
would be inserted in, and insisted on, in other treaties,
?hat the Slave Trade might be swept away for ever. He
hail observed with sincere satisfaction, the steps. of
his Majesty's Government on this occasion ; and he
offered to the Ncible Earl opposite his thanks for the
seal with which lie had forwarded the present Bill.
Earl BATHURST, in explanation, said that a right
of mutual search respecting slave ships was established
between this Country and the United States ; so that, hi
effect, whether the present Bill passed or not, the Slave
Trade was adjudged to be piratical, both by America
and England.
The Bill was then read a third time,"passed, and mes-
saged to the other House.
Several private Bills were brought from the Commons by Lord
G. Sowell/11T, Sir J. OILLHAII, and others.
Afijourned till to-morrow morning, at Tm.
HOUSE OF COMMONS. -

A person from the Treasury brought up certain Returns con-
nected with the Excise and Customs.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE moved the second reading of the Bris-
tol and Taunton Canal MIL
Mr. W A BRE opposed the Motion, on the.ground that the Ciinal
could be of no public advantage. and would materially interfere
with much valuable private property. He Moved that it be read a
second time tbat•day six months.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE supported thft Bill. Theretitions pre-
tented in favour of the Bill were sufficient proof of the public ad-
.vantagt expected from the Dill.
Mr. C. HAILTET opposed the Bill, and Mr. %tour supported it.
Aker a few words from Sir T. ACLAND, who said that he wished,
that the Bill should go into Conimittee—
The House divided—Ayes 102—Noes 34—Majority for the se-
cond reading, 68.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON presented a Petition from several
Merchants and Shipowners of the City of Loudon in favour of the
St. Catherine's Dock.
Mr. Alderman BRIDGES presented a simiiaf Petition from
certain Wine Importers of the City of Loudon.—Both Petitions
were ordered to be printed.
Mr. MAN' ' -- the Dock

-.Jr. ANN INo presented a Petition from London
Company, praying that the St. Catherine's Dusk Balmiest not paw
into a law.—Ordered to be printed.
Lord LOWTHER presented a Petition from Whitehaven, in
favour of the Small Debts 13111.—Ordered to be printed.
Lord I.9,WTHER presented Petitions from Malvern Port, sod
another place in Westmoreland, against Slavery in the West Indies;
Ordered to br ptinted.
Petitionspraying for the gradual AboUtion of Slavery in the West
Indian Colonies, were presented by Sir W. Isomer from the townx
Almon and Pickering, in the county of Lincolti ; by Sir T. Lwrrt-
saltine ft ont the town of Wells ; by Mr. Ceuwen from Workingtoit,
in the county of Cumberland ; by Mr. W. SMITH from the towns
of Dereham, Stoketerri, Downham. Barton, and Marham, in the
county of Norfolk ; by Mr. Anxitcaoststr from DowntoO, in the
county of Wilts; by hlr. lioxxxanonrit from Penzanco, in Corn-
wall ; :..nd by Lord Mirrors front Halifax, in the county of York.
Mr. 10 RC II said, that he had a Petition to resell( front the
Mayor and Corporation of Nottingham against the Allen 'Act. He
was liqvy to say that there was one Corporation at least in the
country which had the courage to oppose this unjust, arbitrary, and
unconstitutional measure. The Petitioners roinlemned this Act,
because it enabled the Allied Sovereigns, flushed as they were by
their recent successes, to pursue their victims with vindictive malice
even into this country, the last asylum for persecuted freemen.
Mr. Alderman WOOD assured the Honourable hlembet that
the Corporation of Nottingham was not the only Corporation that
bad courage enough to oppose this Act. In a few days he expected
thnt the Corporation of London would present at the bar of the
}louse, a Petition as hostile to the principles of this Act, as that
Which had just been presented by the lionoutable Member himself-
The Petition was ordered to be prin,ted.
MANCHRSTER GA6 BILL.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH said he rose for the purpose
of presenting a Petition from an individual named Wil-
liam Walker, a solicitor of Manchester. The Petitioner,
he said, complained of an attack made on his character
before a Committee appointed to inquire into the merit,
of a Petition on a Private Bill. He prayed that the
-House would afford him an opportunity of refuting the
charges made against him. He should give no opinion
on the merits of the Petitioner ; indeed, as far as he was
informed, his opinion was rather adverse to him. These
charges he stated to have been made before a Committee,
on a private Bill, by 01)C of the witnesses who had been
examined. This Committee, the Petitioner said, was ad-
journed sine die, and he was thus precluded from an
pottunity of refuting charges which, if allowed to re-
main unan,werea, must be ruinous to his character.
Mr.IIItIGHT opposed the Petition. He conceived
that as a Report had not been made, no Petition could
be received having reference to what took place before
the Committee. The House could afford no remedy.
The SPEAKER said it would be difficult to lay it,
down as a rule, that a Petition could not be received
because it prayed for something whieli the House could
not do. The Petitioner, however, referred to circum-
stances of which the House could have no cognizance.
Until a Report had been made they could not he aware
of what pasted in the Committee, neither did they
know, except horn the statement (f the Petitioner, that
the Committee had adjourned sine die.
Air . I lUM E said a few wry: ds in favour of the Petition.]
Tile SPEAKER said the Mouse could have no know-
ledge as to the fact ‘k nether the Committee was sitting
or riot. It was cornpe:cnt for any ll,mourable Member
to movethat the p!occedir.gs of the Committee should
be laid before them.
Mr. BRIGHT said, if the House could not be cog' ii.
Lint of what took place in the Committee, a fortiori, a
person out of doors could not.
The SPEAKER said the House could not be cogni-
sant of it until the Report had been made.
Mr. B. WILBRAHAM said the Committee sat on'
the Manchester Gas Bill, and in the course of inquiry at'
fact came out which the petitioner thought bore against
him. He did not think the Committee was bound to
be hearing witnesses pro and con whenever an individual
supposed that anything which came out in the course
of examination might be injurious to him.
Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH said he had no objec-
tion to withdraw the Petition, as the subject would be
brmight on in antther shape that night by the Member
for Sussex (Mr. Curteis), wile. had given notice c.f. a
isiosion to revive the Committee.
The Petition was accordingly adtbdrawt.
Mr. CURTEIS then rose to move for the renewal of
the Committee ou the Manchester On Gs* Da The