the rights and interests of his people. I trust, therefore, Sir, that by rejecting this most incorrect and inadequate Address-as unworthy of the House as it is of the occasion; an Address contradictory in some parts to itself; in more, to the established facts of the case; and in all to the ascertained sense of the country; and by adopting, in its room, the amendment moved by the honourable member for Yorkshire, and seconded by the member for London, the House will stamp the policy which the King's Ministers have pursued-feebly perhaps—perhaps erroneously—but at all events from pure motives, in the sincerity of their hearts, and as conducive, in their judgment, to the tranquillity, welfare, and happiness, not of this country only, but of the world-with that highest of all sanctions, the deliberate approbation of the House of Commons.

The original Address was negatived without a division. On the amended Address the House divided. The numbers were,

THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

MAY 15th, 1823.

Mr. F. BUXTON submitted the following Resolution :-"That the state of Slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British Constitution, and of the Christian Religion; and that it ought to be gradually abolished throughout the British Colonies with as much expedition as may be found consistent with a due regard to the well being of the parties concerned."

Mr. SECRETARY CANNING said:-Sir, the appeal to His Majesty's Ministers with which the honourable gentleman concluded his speech, makes me feel it my duty to address myself to the House at this early period of the debate, for the purpose of stating, without reserve, the opinions entertained by myself and my colleagues with respect to this most important, and, I must say, at the same time (notwithstanding what has fallen from the honourable gentleman), this most fearful question. I never in my life proceeded to the discussion of any question under a stronger impression of its manifold difficulties; not indeed in reference to the principles on which my opinions are grounded, nor with respect to the practical conclusion to which I may think it expedient to come; but on account of the dangers,

which, even after all that the honourable gentleman has said to the contrary, appear to me to attend a discussion, in which one rash word, perhaps even one too ardent expression, might raise a flame not easily to be extinguished.

I mention these circumstances, Sir, not for the purpose of imputing any blame to the honourable gentleman, or to those friends in conjunction with whom he has brought forward the resolution in your hands, nor for that of discouraging fair and free deliberation; but I take the liberty of throwing out a caution to those who, in a more advanced stage of the discussion, and when conflicting opinions may have produced a warmth which I do not feel, might be induced to colour more deeply the pictures which the honourable gentleman himself has sketched with no light hand; and who might thus excite feelings which it is not necessary to awaken for the accomplishment of any practical good, but which, if awakened, might either impede the attainment of that good, or expose it to gratuitous hazard.

And here the honourable gentleman must allow me to ask-what had the latter part of his speech to do with his present purpose? Why did he think it expedient to recur to the former delinquencies of this country, which, if capable of expiation, have been expiated? Why did he back to a state of things in the West Indies, to which, so far as they could be remedied, remedy

go

has been applied? Why did he go out of his way to recal the horrors and cruelties connected with the now abolished Slave Trade, which were at former times brought under the notice of Parliament? Why, when he was stirring a question totally new-(and I mention that character of the question, not as matter of blame, but as matter of fact)-why did he mix it up with that other odious question, often, indeed, discussed, but long ago decided, with which, during an agitation of twenty years, it was never before placed in jurta-position, but for the purpose of being contrasted with, and separated from it? In all former discussions, in all former votes against the Slave Trade, it cannot surely be forgotten, that the ulterior purpose of emancipation was studiously disclaimed. I have myself frequently joined in that disclaimer on former occasions. In doing so, I certainly did not mean to advance so untenable a proposition as that it was intended to purchase the abolition of the Slave Trade by an indefinite continuance of slavery. Undoubtedly that was not my meaning; but what I at least did mean-what in all fairness any man who took the same distinction must be held to have meant -was, that the two questions should be kept separate, and argued on their separate grounds; that the odium of that which we were labouring to abolish should not be brought to bear with increased intensity on that of which we were

compelled to allow the continuance. Slavery, not willingly, but necessarily, was allowed to continue. I do not say that it is therefore to continue indefinitely; I speak not of it as a system to be carefully preserved and cherished, but as one to be dealt with according to its own nature, and with reference to its inherent peculiarities. We must be considered as having tacitly, if not expressly, taken the engagement, not, on every subsequent discussion, to look back to atrocities which have ceased, not to revive animosities which have been extinguished, and to throw in the teeth of those whose interests are at hazard, cruelties with which they in fact had no concern. After such an implied pledge, it is somewhat hard in the honourable gentleman to revert to those past-gone topics, instead of confining himself to facts and arguments which properly belong to the motion which he has introduced.

I will not follow the honourable gentleman through the various matters of this kind which he has brought to his aid; but I will here take the liberty to dismiss the consideration of the Slave Trade, as of a thing forgotten and gone by: and I will entreat the House to look at the present situation of the West Indies, not as at a population accumulated by a succession of crimes such as those which the honourable gentleman has detailed, but simply as it is.

The honourable gentleman has treated this