himself not prepared to give an ungraduated reception to the uniform expression of complaint, which pervaded his hon. and learned friend's resolutions-he was not prepared to give one sweeping affirmative to the charge of violated justice and perverted law, upon trials, in the description of which it was one great and leading part of his speech to separate and discriminate. The hon. and learned gentleman, doubt less, in order to aggravate one case, had quoted another, which did not, in his conception, partake of the same repulsive character. He had contrasted the proceedings at St. Mary's with those at St. George's and Hanover, marking distinctly the differences between them, and admitting candidly and frankly, that in the one there had been an observance of form, a cautious delicacy of proceeding, widely different from the other. Indeed, so clear had the hon. and learned gentleman himself drawn the line, that if his speech had been the preface of a motion on the subject, it would have applied very differently to each of the three cases which were involved in the present inquiry. But while this discrimination was essential for coming to an understanding upon the original motion, it was quite otherwise in the view taken by the amendment; and on that account, were it for no other, he greatly preferred it; for there, whatever might be the shades of difference as to the colouring of the facts, the only proposition pressed into their consideration, was, that they collected from the whole of these proceedings additional cause for feeling regret at the existence of distinctions in the law, as in its operation it affected the lives of the white and the black population of his majesty's colonies. That these distinctions in the laws for shedding the blood of two classes of persons, only differing in colour, ought not to endure, he, for one, most readily admitted. Such a system of law called for, and required, considerable alteration; and it was the principle of that reform which he was ready to embody in the amendment that should have his support. Indeed, there was no considerable substantive difference between the original motion and the amendment; for their object was alike, though they aimed, by different degrees, to arrive at its accomplishment. Indeed, if the hon. and learned mover's resolutions had run thus, "That the attention of this House being called to the consideration of certain judicial proceed |ings in the island of Jamaica, on the trials to be directly false as applied to the pro- | ceedings of the judges; for they who had the power to order immediate execution had stayed the exercise of it, and referred the judgment to the governor. Then as to the charge respecting the governor, how did that stand? The duke of Manchester was, it should be recollected, acting in his judicial station, as the representative of the Crown, in possession of the high prerogative of mercy. The argument upon the exercise of that prerogative, from its very statement, could only become a question, after the ends of justice were satisfied. He could not conceive, by way of example, a more formidable question to have been mooted, than the remission or non-remission of punish ment by the prerogative of the Crown, or its deputy: it was at once to launch into argument upon the most delicate of all human responsibilities; it was to probe a prerogative, the exercise of which must, from the nature of things, be left to the conscience of him who was invested with it. To his sense of justice, and of the deep and awful responsibility of its duties, this trust must be consigned. It must unquestionably be left to his breast unfettered, or it must be taken away. Were they to make a matter of such delicacy a debateable question in that House, they would destroy the essence of the prerogative, and impair its vitality and obligation. He should never, he hoped, be forced in that place to give an opinion upon the non-exercise of this prerogative; and a fortiori, he would not call for its condemnation in the manner now proposed. He meant not to blame the hon. and learned mover for the course he had taken, though he assured him if he had thought fit to communicate his resolutions to him before this debate, he should have felt much more satisfaction at trying how far he could have agreed with him, than in framing or concurring in, at the last hour before he entered the House, a resolution such as he could sanction by way of amendment to the hon. and learned gentleman's proposition. Nay, he would go further and say, that if his resolution were not so strongly drawn up, and did not contain propositions which were as untrue as, he believed, they were dangerous, he should have even gone more to conciliate the feelings of the gentlemen opposite, than perhaps the nature of the case called for-he would have gone as far as could be, to satisfy all just feelings between man and man; and, under all the peculiar circumstances of the occurrence, to have called for that expression of the opinion of parliament, which would have been as good, in the way of example, as any specific censure, and at the same time would have wholly avoided the dangerous precedent of that House passing a formal censure upon judicial proceedings, which did not appear to have outstepped the letter or spirit of the law. The preferable motion which had occurred to him was as follows, "That this House, sees in the proceedings which have been brought under its consideration, with respect to the late trials of slaves in Jamaica, further proof of the evils inseparably attendant upon a state of slavery, and derives therefrom increased conviction of the propriety of the resolutions passed on the 16th of May, 1823." They would thus be showing the working of an imperfect system of law, and then quickening the necessary desire to bring such a state of things to an end. But, after he had seen the hon. and learned gentleman's motion, he had added the following to his orginal resolution; viz., "But that, however desirable it is that the laws under which the late trials took place should be amended, it does not appear to this House to be expedient or safe, to impeach sentences passed by competent tribunals, upon persons brought to trial according to law, and convicted by a jury empanelled and sworn to give a verdict according to evidence laid before them." He particularly wished the last sentence to be preserved, because it recorded the reasons why he could not agree in the sweeping censure pronounced by the original motion. He was most anxious that his difference in opinion from the hon. and learned gentleman should be confined to the prudence, the expediency, the safety, of censuring by a parliamentary vote, judicial proceedings conducted according to a system of existing law. It was to save the House from establishing such a precedent that he was anxious to have the amendment adopted; because while it would sufficiently tend to correct these disgusting tribunals, it would not create a precedent which might hereafter be used, to affect other courts very differently constituted. In the moral estimate of these transactions, he concurred with the hon. and learned gentleman, but he could not concur in his legal inferences. The transac tions were monstrous and disgusting enough, but they were not corrupt or illegal. He would not follow hon. gentlemen into their details; indeed, he was not competent to do so, neither did he care to touch such topics, for the purpose of blunting the edge of any susceptible man's feeling, or of insinuating that he did not himself participate in them, but to prevent the dangerous adoption of a precedent so convertible to purposes hereafter which they might all have to deplore. In endeavouring, while he delivered these opinions, to impose a bridle on his own feelings, he did not wish to restrain those of others, but to ward off a precedent, which, in other times, might lead to the worst consequences. Mr. Denman claimed the indulgence of the House while he briefly replied to some of the observations of the hon. gentlemen opposite. In the first place, he must deny that he had withheld from them any knowledge of his particular motion. On the contrary, more than a fortnight ago, he had communicated its import fully. Still, he felt so strong a desire that their decision should go forth unanimously, that he begged to assure the right hon. gentleman, no partiality to any particular phraseology of his own would prevent the adoption of his amendment, could he consent with any sense of justice, to compromise the imperative duty which that House owed to the country, in maintaining and guarding the due administration of justice. He had early in the evening regretted his inability to do justice to this subject, and had anticipated that his defects would be abundantly repaired by his hon. and learned friends who followed him. The hon. gentlemen opposite had also come to his aid, so as greatly to narrow the point in contention. Upon all the strong points they were clearly agreed, and were now only disputing upon a quibbling fallacy. It was broadly stated, that the lamentable proceedings which he had detailed were by the laws of Jamaica justified. He would reply, no, and he spoke from the Jamaica code, which, through the courtesy of the Colonial Secretary, he held in his hand. In what part of this code were they bound to bring these parties to trial within two days? Why try them without the assistance of counsel, without having the opportunity of calling a single witness? In what page was it prescribed, that eight men should be tried and convicted before one and the same jury? Where was it enjoined that a wife should be admitted a witness against her husband? The common law of Jamaica was the same as the common law of England. Then why this dissonance in the practice? The thing was monstrous, and justified and called for the terms which he had applied to it in his resolutions. He denied that there was any thing in the Jamaica code which could sanction these atrocities. But it seemed that this woman was not the unhappy man's wife in the legal acceptation, but a woman with whom he had cohabited. She had, however, stated the contrary at the trial; and he would say that the common law was violated in the unnatural admission of her testimony. The principles of justice had been sacrificed, because the law of nature had been invaded, the solemn obligations of kindred had been trampled under foot. He admitted the justice of his hon. and learned friend's discrimination, as to the classes of these slaves; but, taking them altogether, was there not a gross violation of law, and a perversion of justice in the whole proceedings? Persons were tried and condemned on the testimony of witnesses not sworn, and on hearsay a wife had been adduced as evidence against her husband— the executions had been indecently precipitated. All these were perversions of law-all of them clearly supported his resolution-and the House would abandon its duty if it adopted any thing short of it. Then as to the judges, it was said that they had not been precipitate, and they had almost been praised for not ordering immediate execution, but referring the sentence to the governor. It was a lame cause which required this sort of bolstering. The juries were certainly the least blameable, because they had been misled by the judges. And who was the chief judge in this case? The military commander, who headed the troops which surrounded the Court-who was anxious to have executions before Christmas— who condemned these poor creatures on such unheard-of testimony-and who was said not to have been precipitate, because, forsooth, he did not order instant execution, but referred the sentence to the governor-then came the defence of the governor. It was said that it would be most dangerous to interfere with the exercise of the prerogative of extending or withholding mercy. But he maintained, that it was not a question of mercy, but of justice; for the governor was bound, in justice, not to have ordered execution in such a case. Suppose a case had come before the Secretary for the Home Department, where persons had been condemned upon evidence clearly bad and insufficient; would he, in such a case, advise execution without further inquiry; and that too, in order to have execution done, and an example made before a certain day? Then his resolution called for a reform-of what? Not of the law, though that doubtless required it, but of the administration of criminal justice in the island. But they were told, that the system of law ought to bear all the blame. Was it to be endured, that public functionaries should thus carry unjust sentences into execution in such a precipitate manner, and that the House should do nothing more than coolly say, that all the blame rested with the system? Where were the checks that were justly to be expected from the controlling superintendence of an English governor, endowed with prerogative, possessing the sympathies of national feeling, and the education and habits of the high rank in which he moved? Should they not expect to see him wield his authority for the protection of the weak, from the violence of the mighty, instead of lending the influence of his power to sanction oppression and injustice? If any thing in the arguments of the right hon. gentlemen opposite more particularly called on him not to consent to substitute the amendment for his own resolution, it was the observation of one of them who had long been connected with the colonies, who said he was afraid that if censure were passed upon judicial proceedings regularly carried on, it would establish a dangerous precedent. But, was the House prepared to say, that it never would inquire into any judicial proceedings, in which, although the essence of justice had been violated, the forms had been complied with? If they were, he must protest against a doctrine so unconstitutional. Whatever forms were observed towards these eight slaves, the substance of justice had been denied them, and eight men were consigned to death who ought not to have suffered. It was proved, that four of them were convicted on the evidence of a perjured rogue and robber, and that one of them was executed after the governor was aware of the infamy of the witness. If they were to be told, that it was neither safe nor expedient to VOL. XIV. pass censure on those who duly acted under the solemn obligations of judges and jurors, why then had the cases of Russel and Sidney, and other murdered victims of arbitrary power, been revised and reversed? Had they not been tried according to law, before judges and juries, closely observing judicial forms? If the doctrine now insisted upon had been enforced by our ancestors, how could they have wiped off the foul stigma of these murders from the national character? He would no further trespass on the time of the House, than to say, that the government must bring this system of judicial abuse to an end, unless they were prepared to make a mockery of their whole proceedings. He could not adopt the amendment, because his conscience told him, that he ought not to bestow a qualified praise upon individuals, on the ground that what they had done was not in violation of law. The House divided on Mr. Denman's motion; Ayes 63; Noes 103; Majority against the motion 40. List of the Minority. Acland, sir T. Fergusson, sir R. C. After the division, Mr. Brougham, re-endeavour to prove that the real interests ferring to the course and temper of the of the manufacturers and labourers condiscussion, suggested the propriety of sisted in eating the dearest corn, and in cutting off the latter part of the amend- being confined to the narrowest market. ment relative to the inexpediency of im- To him nothing could be more absurd peaching the verdict of the court, being than this; for when the price of corn was all that part which followed the words made dear, the labour of those who con"the year 1823." Mr. Canning assented, sumed it must be increased, as they could to the suggestion, and it was agreed nem. not get proportionate wages. There could con. to alter the amendment accordingly. be no greater injustice than this, and he believed nothing was so likely to diffuse angry feelings, and separate the labouring community from the owners of property. He was therefore most anxious that the subject should be gone into without loss of time. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, March 3. CORN LAWS.] Lord King rose to present a petition against the most gigantic of all jobs. It came from the working community of Manchester and its neighbourhood, and was signed by 40,000 persons, and would have been signed by 20,000 more, had it not been for the delay and expense of collecting them. He thought that the character of that House would depend on the result of their lordships' determination respecting the Corn-laws. In coming to this question, their lordships ought to recollect, that the public were very good judges, not only of the value of their decisions, but of the motives of them also. The petitioners stated, that the Corn-laws were made for the benefit of the landlords; but in that House it was always argued, that those laws were established for the benefit of the public; and those who were most forward in maintaining this doctrine, were among the persons who contended for unlimited trade in every other respect. The people, however, were now too well informed on the subject, and their lordships must expect to draw very largely on public credulity, if they thought they could make it be believed that those laws were for any body's benefit but the landowners. Some noble lords, however, objected very much to "little harangues on corn, and wished to have nothing said on the subject, except in a real debate, in which they might sport all the variety of their ingenuity. These great orators were like those sportsmen who wished to abstain from shooting occasionally, in order to have ne great shooting day. Others, on the contrary, chose to shoot every day in the year, and he believed that, in the end, they killed more than those who reserved themselves for one great annual battle. When the great debate day did come, he had no doubt that some noble lords would Ordered to lie on the table. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, March 3. SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.] Mr. Brougham rose for the purpose of asking the hon. Secretary for the Colonies, whether any act of the legislature of St. Vincent's on the subject of improving the condition of the slaves, had recently arrived in this country, and whether it was of that character which would cause its being allowed by the government here? He was anxious that information should be given to the House on the subject of any recent advices received of the proceedings of the colonial legislatures; for, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the course which some of those legislatures had adopted, was not borne out by the facts that had transpired in this country. Mr. Wilmot Horton said, that a bill had been received in this country which had been introduced in the colonial assembly of St. Vincent's. It had been read a second time, and ordered to be committed; and he supposed that ere now it had been passed into a law. This and all the other acts which had emanated from the colonial legislatures would be laid before the House. His right hon. friend had not stated, that in the acts of any of the colonies the whole of the points mentioned in the Orders in Council had been embraced. Many of them had, however, been introduced. Mr. Brougham said, he had no wish to impute any intentional misstatement on the subject. He was aware that the accounts that had been received were as yet imperfect; but undoubtedly there did ap |