straining the commissioners of the tax from disclosing the information they obtained in the discharge of their duty, was regarded as an important improvement, and was agreed to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved that provision should be made in the bill for rendering the assessments of the year, ending April 5, 1815, the basis of those for the year ending April 1816, and that no new assessments be made, which was carried. A motion by Lord Milton for an instruction to the committee, that they have power to amend the act, was negatived. The third reading of the bill took place on May the 5th, after a division of 160 in its favour against 29.

It passed the House of Lords on the 11th, after a single division of 23 contents to 8 non

contents.

In the debates on this bill, particular objections were made to the continuance on the same assessments on landed rents, although the great fall of product had in many instances rendered their payment impossible. The objection had not been attended to during the passing of the bill; but at length it occurred with so much force, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a representation on the subject to the Lords of the Treasury, which induced them to enter a minute of their opinion, dated November 14. By this minute, relief was allowed to tenants at rack rent, and to occupiers of estates, in case of proof of new leases at reduced rents, or reduced annual value of estates, for the year commencing in April, 1815; and a circular

was issued from the tax-office to the commissioners of the property tax, with directions for carrying

the same into execution.

The benevolent zeal of the opposers of the slave trade was in this session exerted in an endeavour to pass a bill, which was the occasion of much discussion. On April 18, Mr. Barham, after an introductory speech, in which he mentioned it as a well known fact, that at the present moment a large British capital was employed in this trade, the profits of which had become enormous, moved for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit British subjects, or persons resident in the united kingdom, from lending capital, or doing other acts, to assist in carrying on the slave trade to colonies belonging to foreign states; or persons residing in this country from lending capital, or committing other acts, the tendency of which was to assist in carrying on the slave-trade of foreign colonies."

Mr. Wilberforce expressed his full concurrence in this measure, and leave was granted for bringing in the bill.

On May 5th, the House being in a committee on the bill, Mr. Baring objected to it, as it was to have an immediate operation in the different quarters of the world. He also particularly objected to the clause which punished as felons those who lent any money on mortgage, bond, or loan, in any of the islands which still trafficked in slaves, which, he said, would at once extinguish the trade that existed between this country and the Spanish settlements, since it would be impossible to carry it on without that species of credit

which was made criminal by the proposed act. With respect to the first objection, after some discussion, a clause was adopted, that the bill should have operation within three months after its enactment, in Europe, Africa, and the West Indies; and within six, beyond the Cape of Good Hope. Different amendments proposed of the other clause objected to by Mr. Baring were rejected on divisions of the committee. The bill does not appear to have met with any further opposition in the House of Commons.

On June 1st, the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords was moved by the Marquis of Lansdowne, which being done, it was committed. Being brought under discussion on the 3d, the Earl of Westmoreland objected to its provisions on account of the risk to which innocent persons would be exposed by them. It appeared to him that any person in this country lending money by his agent which might be applied to the slave traffic, though entirely without his knowledge, would be liable to be tried where the act was committed, which might be in the West Indies, or on the coast of Africa. Lord Ellenborough ako strongly argued against a measure by which a crime, very loosely described, was to be regarded as felony. No one more ardently than himself wished for the abolition of the slave trade all over the world; but he could not give his consent to such crude acts of legislation as that before their lordships; and he recomnended its postponement. The Marquis of Lansdowne then pro

posed some amendments, with which the bill was printed.

The report of the bill, being moved by the Marquis on the 16th, the Earl of Westmoreland renewed his objections to it, which he said had not at all been removed by the amendments introduced since it was last under discussion. He understood that further amendments were to be proposed; and not wishing to object to the principles of the bill, he moved for taking the report into consideration on that day se'nnight. Lord Ellenborough said, that when the bill first met his eye, it was much more defective in mercy and in sense than any bill he had ever known. He doubted whether it would not be better to reject at once such a crude production, as the labour of reducing it to any thing like a proper shape would be incalculable. It not only advanced at once to transportation for 14 years, but rendered several things liable to this punishment which were no crimes at all. After some more observations, the bill was ordered to be committed in the next week.

The final discussion of the bill took place on June 30th, when it was opposed by the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Ellenborough. The latter, in his forcible way of speaking, called it "an emanation of that fanatical irregularity of mind, which would render that excellent measure, the abolition of the slave trade, odious in the West Indies." On the motion for bringing up the report, the house divided, when there appeared, for the motion 19, against it 24. The bill was therefore lost, though it had

the

the ostensible support of the ministers. Its fate may serve as a warning against rash and inconsiderate efforts in a good cause.

--

Another measure, as well for the more effectual prevention of the traffic in slaves, as for securing their more humane treatment in our islands, was the object of a bill brought into parliament by Mr. Wilberforce on June 13th.He had been informed: (he said) that the illicit introduction of slaves into the West India islands (Jamaica excepted) was still carried on to a very great extent, one proof of which was, that there had been but little increase in the price of slaves since the passing of the abolition act: also, that dreadful abuses in the treatment of those unhappy beings still prevailed. As the most effectual remedy for these evils he looked to a new mode of registering the slaves. He was aware that a register of them was already kept in every island, but it was not so exact as to render it a specification by which the identity of a slave could be ascertained. The mode of registry he intended to propose would fully accomplish that object. A duplicate of it would also be transmitted to this country, where it would constitute the title of the owner to the negro, so that to prove that title it would be absolutely necessary to produce the register. The illicit introduction of slaves would thus be effectually prevented, as all falsification of the register would be subjected to heavy punishment. With respect to the objection, that this measure would interfere with the colonial legis

T

latures, he denied its cogency, the paramount right of control onthe part of the legislature of this country being an acknowledged principle. After other observations in favour of his proposal, Mr. W. moved for leave to bring. in a bill for better preventing the illicit importa ion of slaves into the British colonies."

Mr. A. Browne spoke in opposition to the motion, chiefly on the ground of its implying that interference with the colonial legislatures, which might occasion unpleasant and dangerous discussions relative to matter of right, and ought not to be hazarded without due proof of an existing necessity; and he said he should propose as an amendment, "That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any clandestine importation of slaves into the colonies had taken place since the abolition act.".

After several other members. had spoken, on each side, the general sense of the House appeared to be, that at this advanced state of the session, a measure of so much importance ought not to be pushed. Mr. Wilberforce said he should yield to this consideration; and Mr. Browne having withdrawn his amendment, leave was given to bring in the bill.

On July 5 a motion being made for the first reading of the bill, much hostility was displayed against it by members connected. with the West Indies, and an opposition was declared in all its stages. It was, however, read, and ordered to be printed.

It was remarked, in the history of the last year, that the

cause

cause of Catholic emancipation had been injured by the dissensions which took place among the persons of that persuasion in Ireland and by the violence displayed at their public meetings against any attempts to reconcile them with Government. They agreed, however, upon a new petition to parliament; and on May 11, a paper to that effect was presented to the House of Commors by Sir Henry Parnell, which he stated to contain the unequivocal opinion of the mass of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It was read, and concluded with imploring the House, " to grant to them the redress of the oppressive grievances of which they so justly complain; and to retore to them the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the rank of free subjects of the einpire."

On the 18th, the same hon. Member rose to submit to the House certain resolutions with respect to the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. These resolutions were read, and after some discussion relative to form, the first of them was moved; upon the suggestion, however, of Mr. Banks, the motion was withdrawn.

On the 30th, Sir H. Parnell presented a petition signed by 6000 Roman Catholics in York, Birmingham, Norwich, and other places, praying for an unrestricted emancipation from all civil and military disqualifications oppressing them He then moved for the reading of several entries in the journals of the House of the proceedings relative to the Roman Catholics; which being done, he began a speech on the subject.

He assumed as a principle, that parliament had admitted the expediency of a legislative measure, for the removal of the disqua→ lifications under which the Roman Catholics labour; and that the question now was, how such a plan was to be carried into operation? The only obstacle, he said, now existing in the way of Catholic emancipation, was the claim to give the crown a control over the future appointment of bishops, which had been set up on one side, and objected to on the other. He proceeded to shew that the Pope's influence over the Irish Catholic church was at present not such as to excite apprehension; and he concluded his. speech by moving, "That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into its consideration the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects."

Of the copious debate which followed, and which in great part was a repetition of former arguments on the subject, we shall not attempt any summary. It may however be interesting to quote some of the sentiments expressed on this occasion by that long-tried friend of liberty, both civil and religious, Mr. Grattan. After affirming that he should certainly vote for going into a committee, but would not pledge himself to the support of the resolutions exhibited by his hon. friend, he said, "When the petitioners desire emancipation without any conditions, they desire two things incompatible; because the annexation of no conditions must render the grant in this House impossible. I have told

the