prehending, it is a fraud on parliament thus covertly to effect it. Without a more visible necessity, so much power ought not to be surrendered to his majesty's ministers, nor so many great interests be alarmed with respect to their nearest concerns. I certainly can not justify myself, venerating as I have been taught to do the navigation laws of the country, unnecessary placing such vital interests at the mercy of any government whatever: and I least of all am disposed so to place them at the present moment, after the sentiments that have been expressed, and the opinions it is to be presumed are entertained. I trust the house will retain those laws under its own immediate protection, as the source of our greatness, the surest preservative of our power, and the best bulwark of the British empire."

Lord Henry Petty, in reply, maintained that the naval superiority of this country depended essentially on the prosperity of the West India islands. This plan was most conducive to their advantage, and therefore must contribute to support that maritime strength which could not be too highly estimated, and could not be too zealously maintained. Then it was objected that a secret would be discovered by America, that the existence of our colonies depended on her aid. It was no secret, he said, that, after thirteen years experience afforded to that continent, the assistance of America was useful to our colonies; and if promoting this intercourse could receive from America any conciliatory construction, this was not an objection but a motive for

the bill.

The master of the rolls, in a

very elaborate argument, contended that this bill went to grant a power in favour of American shipping, which cannot be granted to that of our own country; and he demanded if it were possible that such a power could be conceded by a British parliament, and whether minis.ers were aware of. the meaning of the bili under discussion. "I have shown," said the learned gentleman, " the danger of assenting to any measure of this kind without inquiry; I have shown that it is different from any measure that ever was yet adopted in parliament; I have shown that no situation in which this country can be placed can ever require such power to be given to any body of men in it; I have shown the intolerable insult which it offers to the British shipping by placing it below that of a foreign state; I have shown the ruin which will attend an attempt to put in force any thing like the extent of its provisions. Is it, then, after all this, is it too much to ask of a British house of parliament, not to destroy the best interests of the British empire by destroying its navigation, and that without the regularity of inquiry? Sir, if ever there was a time in which it was the duty of parliament to guard against the introduction of these destructive principles, by which the navigation laws are threatened. with annihilation, and more particularly against giving any person in the state the power of producing that effect, the present moment is the very time; and I think that the necessity of caution is considerably increased by the very arguments which have been urged in support of this bill. Good God! sir, what has been the ground on which this bill has been defended?

Ministers

Ministers are determined, it seems, to carry every thing by storm; for they do not reason on the wisdom or the policy of the bill, but they recommend it to this British house of parliament by showing that it is of the same kind as other acts of hostility which have, at different times, and under different circumstances, been committed against the navigation laws of this country! I say, that if this bill pass into a law, a foundation will have ben laid, by which ministers may come to parliament with any claim which the intoxication of successful power may dictate or suggest."

The attorney general replied, and contended that it went merely to place under the control of his majesty, in council, and by law, a practice which, for thirteen years past, had been uniformly assumed by the governors of the West India islands, without law, and upon the presumption of future indemnity. He contended also, that it was the self-same principle of control, and discretionary power of dispensing with the rigour of

the navigation laws with respect to America, and the East India trade, which had exi ted in his majesty and the privy council ever since the conclusion of the Ame rican war, and this too under bils successively brought in by a late right honourable gentleman, and suppor ed by his supporters, with out any of those apprehensions for the safety of the navigation laws, or the ruin of our commerce, our navy, and our national power, which seemed to excite so much clamour in the vigil int guardians of our prosperity and safety.

After some additional remarks from Mr. Perceval, Mr. Windham, and Mr. Rose, the question for the third reading was carried, and the bill was passed, and ordered to the lords, where it was read a first time on the 10th: and on the 17th, after a short debate, in which lord Hawkesbury and lord Eldon op. posed the measure, and lord Hol land, lord Spencer, and lord Lauderdale vindicated it, the bill went through all the stages and was passed.

THE

HE discussions on the slave restriction bill will be found interesting to our readers, and the more so as they may be regarded as introductory to further debates, that will be found in the following

chapter. We have given the debates in the house of commons much at large on the repeal of the additional force, because it was undoubtedly a trial of strengta between the minis ers of the time and

L3

those

those who had lately held the reins of government. We might, inWe might, indeed, have extended the debates on this subject to any length, but we have thought it sufficient to present our readers with a detailed account of one debate in the commons, and a sketch of what took place in the house of lords on the same subject.

On the 31st of March the attorney general moved for a bill respecting the supply of certain colonies with negroes. He trusted he should have the concurrence of the house, since humanity as well as policy dictated the measure which he was about to propose, and morality went hand in hand with the best interests of the country. As the law stood at present with respect to the slave trade, negroes might be directly carried to any colony belonging to a power not at war with us, though this might contribute in time to render them our rivals in maritime strength. As there was the liberty of a direct supply to neutral colonies, the enemies' colonies had an opportunity of having an early supply from them. His majesty, it was true, had the right of preventing a supply from being sent to hostile colonies, but with regard to those that were neutral, these might be directly supplied to any extent. The consequence of which was, that not only the Spanish but even the French colonies had a ready resource; and, of course, this trade would tend materially to increase the maritime strength of our enemies, and add materially to their naval force. If this had only been a mere carrying trade, such as the exportation of cotton, there could not be so much objection to it; but the trade was an

existing evil, which was tolerated at present, as far as the neutral colonies were concerned, but which ought to be confined to the British colonies. The object, therefore, was to prevent the trade from being carried on with any foreign islands. He concluded by moving "for a bill to give further effect to the order of council in 1805, re, specting the importation of slaves to foreign islands." Some objections were taken in point of form, but the motion was carried.

Mr. Rose strongly opposed the second reading of the bill, as of most serious importance to the commercial interests of the coun try. He asked if this was the time to stop the sale of our manufactures in other places, when it was already interrupted in Europe to the amount of five or six mil, lions annually. The exportation of these to America was nearer the value of two millions than one, This was not the only immediate advantage that would be lost, for it was by the means of this traffic that the colonies were supplied with bullion; and yet, in these circumstances, it was proposed to stop the exportation of those to Africa, both from this country and the West Indies. The interests of the merchants, manufacturers, and of the shipping, would by this means be materially injured. What object could be attained by it? It would do no more than drive the trade into the hands of the Americans, who had considerable facilities for carrying it on; for, in one instance, a ship from Africa to Carolina buried 115 slaves, and yet the voyage was profitable. He begged the house to consider what would be the consequences of leaving the manufactures of Manches

tera

ter, Paisley, and other places, to go naked, and without any channel for their sale.

The bill was supported by sir John Newport, and opposed by the generals Tarleton and Gas coyne, when it was read a second time. On the third reading, May 1; it was opposed by the same gentlemen, sir Robert Peele, and sir Charles Price; upon which

Mr. secretary Fox said, that, possessing the same sentiments upon the subject of the slave trade which he had so uniformly professed in that house, it was not likely that the arguments used by gentlemen should change his sentiments. He was ready to admit, that any measure tending to depress the commerce of the country should be avoided, especially in a period of war; yet he could not see how this would happen from the regulation proposed. As to the bill having an operation gradually to abolish the slave trade, as some gentlemen seemed to apprehend, he owned he could not flatter himself in the hope that it would produce such a consequence; and if he thought it would have this tendency, instead of that being with him an argument against the bill, it was one which would render him ten times more enamoured of it: but so far from such a consequence, he thought it would only operate, some two years hence, to furnish a new argument, added to the old ones, of those who opposed that abolition, but on which, certainly, he never placed any very strong reliance. They had predicted in the same manner of the slave-carrying trade, and of every other regulation calculated to palliate the enormous abuses of that trade. With respect to the total abolition of the slave

trade itself, whatever gentlemen might think of the consistency of those ministers in office, who had voted for it out of office, he would not take upon himself to answer for the opinions of all his majesty's ministers: he could answer for himself and several of those with whom he had the honour to act, that neither he nor they had ever changed the sentiments they had so repeatedly avowed upon it. They still felt it as one involving the dearest interests of humanity, and as one which, however unfortu nate this administration might be in other respects, should they be successful in effecting it, would entail more true glory upon their administration, and more honour upon their country, than any other transaction in which they could be engaged. The bill was then read a third time and passed.

In the house of peers, on the 7th of May, several petitions were presented against the bill, and counsel was heard in behalf of those who opposed it. Counsel being withdrawn,

Lord Grenville rose to move the second reading of the bill. Nothing he had heard, he said, had tended to convince him that the principle of the bill was erroneous or impolitic; on the contrary, he still believed it to be a measure which was called for by every dictate of sound policy. The islands in the West Indies were now nearly all of them in the possession of this country, or of our enemies; and, if it was clear and obvious policy that we should not give advantages to our enemies, it was surely equally clear that we should not supply their colonies with slaves, thereby affording them additional means of cultivation, contributing to increase the produce of their islands, and L 4

thus

thus enabling them to meet us in the market upon equal terms of competition, or perhaps to undersell us. This appeared to him so obvious, that he thought it unnecessary to argue it. The first object of the bill, therefore, was to prevent British subjects from supplying foreign colonies with slaves. The same principle was also applicable to the supply of colonies captured from the enemy, and only held until peace. In the islands captured last war, and which were given up at the peace, British capital was employed to so great an extent, that the exports from those islands equalled the exports from Jamaica. All this went to benefit and enrich the enemy, and to increase their means of rivality. Another object of the bill, therefore, was to enforce the order of council, issued to restrain this species of trade, enacting, at the same time, additional regulations, in order to prevent the importation of slaves into the islands thus conquered from the enemy, and the consequent investiture in them of a large portion of British capital. No consideration relative to our commerce or our navigation could induce him to think that the slave trade ought to be continued. He considered it as a cruel and unjust traffic, which ought to be abolished. If, however, it was to be continued, it ought to be carried on under those regulations which might, at least, render it less revolting, by making it conduce to the benefit of our navigation. The third object of the bill, therefore, was to prevent British subjects from carrying on the slave trade in any other than British vessels.

The duke of Clarence said, if we were enabled to prevent any

supply of slaves from being carried to the enemy's colonies, then he would agree to the policy of preventing British subjects from supplying them; but this was not the case: the colonies of the enemy would be supplied with slaves from other sources; and therefore he saw no reason why the profits arising from this trade should be taken out of the hands of British subjects.

The bill, he contended, would, in its operation, greatly injure Jamaica and the Bahama islands; the former island was several hundred leagues to leeward of all our other colonies, and unless the trade with slaves to the Spanish main was allowed, it would not be worth the while of any trader in slaves to come to Jamaica, as in case, as it probably might happen, he could not find a market for them there, he would be subjected to enormous expense and loss. He therefore objected to the bill, and should take other opportunities of stating his objections.

Accordingly, on the third reading on the 16th of May,

The duke of Clarence rose, and expressed his regret that the duty of opposing the principle of the bill had not fallen upon some other noble lord.

He was convinced

that, if this bill should pass, it would be the complete ruin of a very considerable branch of our commerce, he meant the capital employed in the traffic of slaves. That branch of our trade gave employment to one hundred and sixtyeight ships, to two thousand seamen, and to one million of money. The quantity of English manufactures which it was the means of circulating was immense. If the trade was prohibited, it would be impossible to introduce

them