of our
colonies the exhortations sent by government, for the amelioration of
the condition of their slaves, had been treated with intolerable neglect
and contempt. In the lords the resolutions were objected to, on the
ground that they were too feeble for the nature of the subject; that
though adopted they would produce no practical effect; and that the
three years which had elapsed since they were voted by the house
of commons--for they had been adopted in May, 1823--had furnished
irrefragable evidence of their futility. Lord Calthorpe expressed his
deep regret that the commons had not passed resolutions more conformable
to the light in which slavery ought to be regarded by a Christian
community, and that their lordships were now called upon to concur in
opinions better suited to their own dignity. There were not 'wanting
members in the commons who were equally desirous of legislating in the
spirit of Christianity, equally with his lordship. It was maintained
there with great eloquence that slavery was inconsistent with
Christianity and the constitution. Occasion was given for the expression
of these sentiments in the commons, by a motion made by Mr. Brougham on
the 19th of May, to the effect that "the house has observed with extreme
regret that nothing had been effected by the colonial legislature, in
compliance with the declared wishes of government and the resolutions
of the house of the 15th of May, 1823, for ameliorating the condition of
the slaves in the West Indian colonies; and that this house, therefore,
pledges itself, early in the next session of parliament, to take into
its most serious consideration such measures as may be best calculated
to carry into effect the recommendation of the government and the
house." This motion was supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Denman; but
opposed by Messrs. Canning, Ellis, and Horton. Mr. Canning, however,
asserted that government only wished to retard a little the attainment
of the object, in order that they might arrive at it with greater
security. Sir T. Ackland said, that he did not wish directly to negative
the motion; but as he thought the adoption of it would retard the good
effects to be looked for from the resolutions of 1823, he moved the
previous question, which was carried by a large majority. In the upper
house, on the 17th of April, Lord Suffield brought forward a motion to
prohibit persons in official situations in the West Indies from being
proprietors of s