Star.
London, England, 1821-06-01 00:00:00

SLAVES REMOVAL BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the second reading of
the Slaves' actual Removal Bill being read,
Mr. W. WYNN stated, he held in his hand a Pe-
tition on behalf of three hundred and ninety negro
men, women, and children, the slaves of Max-
well, Esq. in the Island of Antigua, who would be
liable, under this Bill, if passed, to be removed from
the place where many of them were born.—( Hear,
hear).—They presented their claims to this House
through Mr. Stephen, in the character of their guar-
dian or next friend. If this Bill should pass, the
House could not refuse similar requests coming
from any other quarter. The object of this Bill was
to authorise Mr. Maxwell to remove his slaves from
Antigua to Demerara, a colony where the Dutch
laws prevailed, which were particularly severe upon
slaves—(Hear, hear).—The Petition was read.

Mr. MARRYATT was against this Bill, He had
looked .over the Papers now before the House, and
from these documents it appeared that the increase
of sugar made in the Island of Demarara,•within the
last seven years, had been in the proportion of two
and a half to one; and if it went on improving in
the same degree, in less than seven years there would
be more sugar made in Demarara than in Jamaica.
This was, in his mind, a proof of the advantages re-
sulting horn the present system, and under that im-
pression lie should oppose the innovation contem-
plated by the present Bill.
Mr. WYNN then moved that Mr. Stephen, the in-
dividual who presented this Petition, should be heard
by himself against the Bill on the second reading,
should he think fit.
Mr. J. P. GRANT objected to the, motion, as in.
consistent with the established rule of the House ;
otherwise he would be glad the Petitioner should be
heard by himself or Counsel at the Bar, as he was
most desirous that the subject should be fully sifted.
Mr. WYNN said, the Petitioner did not ask to be
heard by Counsel; he requested to be allowt•ed to ad-
dress the House himself in person, and was in at-
tendance for that purpose.
Mr. BARHAM wished to have some information

as to the knowledge which Mr. Stephen had on this
subject, befoie lie could consent to admit him a
pleader in behalf of the three hundred and ninety in-
dividuals in question.
Mr. WILBERFORCE was in favour of the Peti-
tioner being heard.
C~ilonel BARRY was also in favour of the Peti-
tioner being heard.
Mr. GOULBURN was against the motion for
hearing the Petitioner, who had not any opportunity
of communicating with tho,e whose cause he stood
forward to espouse. He was decidedly hostile to
the Bill, but Still he could not agree to this motion
for hearing Mr. Stephen ; for although they all knew
that Hon. and Learned Person,-yet it might.establish
a dangerous precedent if they were, now to hearhini,

PRICE SEVaN-PENCE.

he not having shewn his connection with, or know-
ledge of the wishes of the individuals 'concerned.
Dr. PHILLIMORE hoped the Petitioner would
be heard. This was not the case of a stranger
making an application. Every individual in the
House knew the Learned and Honourable Petitioner,
and was aware of the part which he had taken in
promoting the interests of this unfortunate class of
persons—( Hear, hear).
Mr.- ABERCROMBIE said, every one was ready
to do justice to the merits of Mr. Stephen, but still
the Home would not be justified in departing from
its established rule, especially as there were many
Members in the House •fully competent to discuss
this measure.

Mr. BROUGHAM was surprized that his Hon.
Friend, who was the gnardian of the privileges of
the House, should have made such a motion as this.
lie should be most glad indeed to hear the Hon. and
Learned Indiridual in question at the Bar, and re-
gretted that his Hon. Friend was not a ember of
the House on this occasion; but not being so his
Learned Friend must conform to the rules of the
House. A Learned Civilian (Dr. Phillimove)
said, the Petitioner came as the next friend of these

individuals, and therefore ought to be heard. Why,
if this doctrine was onee allowed to have ground,
the House would soon have some one coming and
claiming to bd heard as the nest friend of the un-
represented People of England ; and Parliamentary
Reform might soon be discussed at the Bar of the
House—(Hear, hear)—and that perhaps at no in-
considerable length, and by individuals who would
urge, and perhaps truly, that they had devoted the
greater portion of their time to the consideration
of this subject. On these grounds he must oppose
the motion—(Wear, hear).
Mr. F. BUXTON thought the House ought to have
all possible information on this subject, and therefore
he was in favour of hearing the Petitioner at the Bar.
After a few words from Mr. COURTNEY and Mr.
BRIGHT, the House divided—

For the Motion -
Against it - -

- 45
- 154

Majority against the Motion - --109 •
The Bill was then ordered to be read a second
time to-morrow.

DECLARATION AT LAYBACII.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, he was desirous of put-
ting a question to his Noble Friend. A Circular had
been published in this country, purporting to be a
Dispatch of the Allied Monarchs, relative to the Con-
gress at Laybach. It contained a Declaration which
he considered as dangerous to the liberties of this
country—(Hear, Hear ! )—he therefore wished to
know from his Noble Friend, whether the document
was authentic, and whether it had been communi-
cated to the Government of this country ?—( Hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, in reply, said
-he had no hesitation in saying • dint the document in
question had been communicated to Government...-.
He was not justified in calling the communication
an official one, but the document was authentic.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said, upon this answer of his
Noble Friend, he felt it right to give notice, that he
would on Tuesday nett move for the production of
this document before Parliament—(Hear, hear).

PURITY OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. BENNETT then rose, .pursuant to his notice,
to bring forward his Motion on ;his subject. The
Honourable Member proceeded to take a review of
the present formation of the Rouse of Commons, and
contended that the number of persons sitting in the
House, and holding places and pensions dependent
on Ministers, must tend to destroy the purity of that
Body. Our ancestors had, early in our history, looked
with jealousy to the influence of the Crown in the
House of Commons. In the early part of the reign
of James I. there was a letter extant, from the Lord
Chancellor to the. Speaker, stating that several per-
sons-had been appointed to offices by the King, and
requesting to know whether the House would permit
those individuals to take their places in the House?
and many of them were rejected by the House. In
1713 the Act of Settlement passed, and in that Act
was a clause declaring that no person who held office
under the Crown should be eligible to sit in Parlia-
ment, but this clause was repealed in the 4th of Queen
Anne. The. 6th of Queen Anne following up- the
original system of opposition to the Crown, an Act
was passed excluding persons holding pensions of the
Crown at pleasure, and this Act was renewed in the
reign of George I.; but in the reign of George 11.
the Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, adopted that plan,
which had been followed up by his successors of the
present day, namely, to suffer popular Acti to pass
this House secure of their being rejected in the Lords.
This was repeatedly done with the Place and Pension
Bill ; but in the 15th of George 11. Mr. Pelham passed
the Act which cleared the House of Commons of
clerks and underlings, who at that time overran
The Hon. Member then proceeded to advert to Mr.
Dunning's celebrated Resolution, and to Mr. Burke's
Reform Bill. Since the passing of this Bill, Parlia-
ment bad been studiously reforming itself without
doors, but it had cautiously avoided looking within.
It had avoided its first duty, namely, to look at home.
Ministers had been careful to reserve to themselves
that influence which enabled the Ministers of the
Crown to carry their measures; and he would put it
to the 1-louse to say whether, in the time he had sat
in the House, namely, since 181'2, all questions against
Retrenchment and Reform had not been carried by
such majorities? He spoke not of great questions of
_peace or war, but matters of Economy and Reform
had been negatived by Placemen. When the infla-
lence of Government was less than now—when its pa-
tronage was nothings—and when the Revenue-was
less, in the reign of George 11. or when George 111.
came to the Crown, than the present. Revenue cost
in the collection, there were fewer Placemen... His
object was, to remove the clerks and underlings from
Parliament. The first he looked at was the Treasury.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was necessary sn
Parliament; but these were five Lords of the Trea-