The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-27 00:00:00

ad been his salvation. I r*, indeed, they could, as in the case
of the Irish police, make dismi,sal from the service a punish-
:rent, it would be highly desirc.ble. That force compri7,,ed
7,030 of the finest men he ever saw, and during the whole
time he passed in Ireland he hid never seen one of them
drunk. Put they could rot place the sJldier in such a po-
sition. It would be too expensive to raise his pay to such an
amount as would rety!cr dismissal a punishment.
Air. HUME sail thcre were many instances of regiments
in which no corporal punishmeas were inflicted, and he

thought, therefore, aat i:isc ipliee could be F,:served isitbout.
He wondered the principle of rewards, instead of punishments,
was not tried in the army as well as elsewhere. la hi. opinion
the appointment of a Committee would be very beneficial, if it
were only to ascertain what effect even honorary rewards
would be calculated to produce.
Mr. PEMBERTON said that if, in the present consti-
tution of our army, corporal punishments were abolished, it
would be better to disband our regiments eltogether. Ile was
satisfied that the agitation of the qu. stiou bad been productive
of the most mischite.ous results. %Vial respect to what had
been said relative to the ()icier issued in Spain by the Hon.
and Gallant Member fur Westminster, he ( Mr. Pember-
ton) should like to know what cons:ruction the law oil
cars of the Crown would put upon the lOist Article of War.
It would be iicportar.t to know whether his conduct in issuing
such an order as he had isseed was approved of by Govern-
ment, or was by them considered consistent with the Articles
of War. The question was this—was it or wis it not a ;art
of the Provost system to punish only those offonces of which
the Provost- Marshal was an eye-witness—and that no punish-
ment could be inflicted by an order from any officer below the
rank of Commander-in-Chief? The Provost system was only
resorted to in the fi, Id or on the march, and it was very doubt-
ful whether it gave the power of life and death ; because in
the Mutiny Act under which the system was established, there
were to be found the words short of life and death." The
Provost-Marshal was generally selected from non-commissioned
officers, and lie was empowered to punish breaches of discipline.
It was requisite, however, that, whatever was the offence cc.rn-
rnitted, that functionary should be an eye-witness of it. Now,
no person could rosiibly read the order of the Gallant Morn-
tier opposite, together with the Articles of War, and assert
that they were consistent with each other. The order of the
Gallant Gentleman did not render it necessary that the Pro-
vost- Marshal should be an eye- witness of the offence. On the
contrary, he was to hoar and decide evidence, pro and con,
befoce coming to an alternative which the law did not vest even
in officers of higher rank.
Sir H. VIVIAN had never seen the order alluded to ; but
if a steict scrutiny were made, he felt satisfied it would be found
that similar orders had been issued, and he had his doubts
whether such a proceeding would not be quite consistent with
military law.
Sir A. DALRYMPLE did not think the Committee was
called :en
Sir G. EVANS was better pleased that the charge against
him had taken this tangible shape, rather than that it should
continue to exist in unfounded rumours. The power of punish-
ment which he (Sir G. Evans) had given was the very mini-
mum, and therefore it was not necessary that so great a vigi-
lance should be used with respect to the exercise of it. Indeed
it was scarcely more than a nominal punishment. With re-
spect to the flogging of women which had been urged against
him, both in that 'House and at the hustings, ho had never
heard of it until it had been stated its some newspaper, and he
then instituted an inquiry. Two cases had been alleged.
In one case the officer, who it had been said committed the out-
rage, was dead, and of course any inquiry would be useless.
In the other, inquiry would have been equally useless,
for the :officer had been cashiered. He could not then
have instituted an inquiry into the allegation, but he repelled
with scorn any imputation of ever having authorised or being
party, to such proceedings.—( Year, hear, from both sides of
the -House.) He could not say whether any such outrage had
taken place, but if it had the same had occurred durine.
the Peninsular war, where women had been slightly puni'JieS.
No powers of the Provost had to do with punishments of a
capital nature ; and, therefore, it was not inconsistent with
the articles of war to confer the power of inflicting inferior
punishments on officers in the force. The Duke of Welling-
ton had admitted that there were abuses in the administration
of the Provosts' power in the Peninsular army. That was a
sufficient justification for any abuse in the Legion. He (Sir
G. Evans) did not deny that they might be traced in the army
under his command. All he had to do was to inflict such pu-
nishments as he thought fittest to enforce the necessary disci-
pline of that force. He could state, that in several cases offi-
---cers were obliged to leave the service in consequence of abuse
of the power confided to them. Shortly after his arrival, he
directed his attention to the subject of corporal punishment,
and the result was the adoption of the system of delegating the
power of minor punishment to the officers, with their concur.
rence. This power had no connection whatever with capital
punishment ; and as to his consistency in doing so, that had
been already judged by the vote of 1,10(i of his constituents.
who formed his majority at the last general election. He should
support the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Member opposite,
because, from his own experience, be believed that capital pu-
nishments were not necessary.
Sir H. HARDING E agreed with the Honourable and
Gallant Officer when he wished the House to believe that he
was actuated by none but humane motives in adopting the
system of punishment practised in the Legion. He could not,
however, do tha same as regarded the judgment which he
displayed. The estiblisliment of the Provost system was
decidedly en error of judgment. The Honourable and Gal-
lant Officer had said that the Duke of Wellington acknow-
ledged the existence of abuses in the system of his army, but
it was not of the abuses, but of the adoption of the system
that he ( Sir H. Hardinge) complained. It was a system
contrary to the law, and it was, therefore, altogether an abuse;
whereas, the abuses complained of by the Duke of Wellington
were those inseparable from every system, however legal. He
(Sir H. Hardinge) objected to the system of prevotal power
as established by the Honourable and Gallant Officer in the
Legion. It was the delegation of the despotism which
should always rest with the Commander-in-Chief to inferior
and less trustworthy hands. The consequence was that it
was no uncommon thing for twenty men to be taken out of
the rinks of a morning and flogged upon parade. Such a
power as that system gave to officers was never before given
in a British army, and he hoped would never be given again.
It was all the consequence of the irresponsible command held
by the Honourable and Gallant Officer. It was stipulated in
the articles of engagement entered into by the Legion, and
signed by the Honourable and Gallant Officer, that the men
should be treated in the same manner as the British army were.
Sir G. EVANS had never signed the document alluded to,
which was drawn up without his concurrence by the Spanish
Government : he had merely signed a certificate that the do-
cument to which it was sin.lated was a true copy of that agree-

ment.
Sir 11. HARDING E was convinced that the Hon. and
Gallant Officer would never have accepted the command if
the soldiers were not to be treated in the same mariner as Bri-
tish soldiers—that was by the Articles of War. Now the 3d
article of agreement stated distinctly that they were. to be so
treated. It expressly said, " The force to he governed by the
British Military Articles of War, and in matters not con.
netted with military discipline by the laws and institutions of
Spain in all other circumstances ;" and yet the officers of the
Legion had a power entrusted to them by the Hon. and Gal-
lant Officer which was unknown in the British army. The
Gallant Officer in August, 1833, a few days after the Legion
lended at San Sebastian, and before the ritish system had
even been tried, issued a general order, of which the follow-
ing was an eltract i—
" For the I.:reselit there will be one Deputy- Provost- Mar-
shal, with the veal: and pay of Ensign. This officer is to be
attached to head-quarters generally, but is liable to be sent
with any brigade, rejisnent,or detachment, as maybe directed.
Each regiment farther orders, have a Sergeant
Assistant Provost, selectet; from the most able-bodied,
steadiest, and most efficient of thc non-commissioned officers,
with the pay of quarter-master-sefgeant. The Assistant-
Provost to be under the controul of Coe Deputy Provost-
Marshal, but all are liable to receive orders from General and
Staff Officers and regimental Commanding Officers—provided
always that such instructions are rot in o?position to the fol.
lowing outline of the duties of the Provost, viz.—All Provost-
Marshals and their assistants are empowered to inflict sum-
mary punishment (on the breach) to an amount not execeditig
two dozen, according to the degree of offenee, on soldiers teed
followers of the Legion found in the commission of offences
against discipline, plundering, drunkenness, violence, and, in
short, every offence leading to the subversion of good order in
the army. The Prevost must either see the offence himself,
or have it from the testimony of competent eye-witnesses."
Yet one of the British articles of ear, to v hick the Gallant •
Officer was bound by the Conditions of service countersigned
by him, distinctly states that " whatever be the crime, the
Provost-Marshal shall SEE the offender commit the act for
which summary punishment may be inflicted." Two indi-
viduals had come to him ( Sir Henry Ilardinge) very re-
cently, one of whom, an officer who had served in the
Legion, as Adjutant of a Regiment, stated that the Captains
and subalterns had the power at their will to order sol-
diers to he flogged by the Provost, but that some commanding
officers would net allow this power to be delegated. This
gentleman further stated that it was not unusual fur the coni-
manding officer to say to him when he had brought him the
morning's report, without inquiring further, " Give the ras-
cals four doz"n each, and turn them out ;" and the other, a
Provost, sergeant of the same force, who bed held that appoint
ment for fourteen months, told him that the captains had a
power of ordering four dozen, and that they generally in-
flicted that amount of punishment for the most trivial offences.
On one occasion a subaltern had broeght him, he said, five
risen to be flogged for absence from morning parade—a se.
verity of punishment ne‘er heard of before in a British
army. On another, an officer had ordered a man to receive
four dozen lashes in the morning and four in the evening. Or
a third, the cononaliding officer had sent a poo: fellow with a
verbal message to receive two dozen, which were given ac-
cordingly.—( Laughter.) Such occurrences were most infre-
quent ie the British army. Thee, as to the severity of pu-
nishment, there was in London at this time a soldier of the
Legion, tried by courtmartial, who received in the convent of
Corban 309 lashes with the man-of-war's cats. He (Sir H.
Handinge) would not mention his name, for he was respectably
connected, but it could be given if necessary. Serjeant So-
merville, who wls. he believed, well known to the Honour-
able Member for Kilkenny, said in hit book that he saw forty
or fifty men punished at the same time in the Convent of Cor-
ban, some of them being barely convalescent ; and he further
adds that such was the impression ;produced by it that tiea eol-
diers threatened to shoot their officers. He (Sir H. Har-
din:To trusted that the discussion of the eves ing would not be
without its beneficial results ; but when the Honourable and
Gallant Officer said that in his. opinion his systeM wassy_-
cordance with the Articles of War, he could not agree loth
him.—( Hear.)
Sir G. EVANS said, in explanation, he had always, vibes
in his own power, commuted the heavier penalties.

Sir H. HA R.DINGE said that this did not relieve the
Hon. Gentleman from the charge of inconsi,iteiicy.
Mr. TENNYSON D'E YNCOURT de&are_ol his bel:ef
that this motion was commenced,. not with the intention of
cting ae practice of corporal punishment, but with the
rersonul and exclusive object of attacking his Hon. and Gal-
lant Friend, who he was convinced was actuated'by the purest
and most humane motives in avoiding capital punishments, not
one of which had 'aken place under his command'in Spain.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Captain 130 LDER 0 said that the Hon. Gentleman who
spoke last had attacked him most unwarrantably and most un-
justly. Ile had attributed to him what he never intended, and
what he must have known was actually contrary to the fact ;
fur the first Session that he had had a seat in that House, he
(Captain Boldero) had given notice of his intention to move
for the abolition of corporal punishments in the army. There-
fore lie had no right to— _ _ .

The SPEAKER interposed, to say that the Hon. Gentle-
man was going further than what appeared to be necessary.
He had done quite sufficient in disavowing the interoions im-
puted to him, and station- what his own really were.
Captain BOLD E felt that the individual who had so
aspersed him had a right to apclogiac, and he demanded an
apology accordingly.
The SPEAKER thought that the lion. and Gallant Gen-
thman was proceeding too far in demanding an apology for
the misconception which he had Just announced that another
Hon. -Member had committed in the view he had taken of the
(night of the debate. If that Hon. Member persevered in his
misconccp—

Mr. TENNYSON D'EYNCOITRT rose to assure the
lion. and Gallant Gentleman that he had no intention of im-
puting a personal and vexatious attack upon his lion. and
Gallant Friend to him. He thought at the time that he had
bren selected by some other person to bring forward the sub-
ject, to afford them an.opportunity of attacking his Hon. and
Gallant Friend.— (" Name, name.") He would not name.
Sir H. HA R DING E said that it should he recollected that
when the Spanish question came before the House on a former
occasion the Hon. and Gallant Officer himself suggested that
they had better discuss the topic of corporal punishment when
the Mutiny Bill came on.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord HO WIC K said that the House could not possibly de-
cide such a question, so important to the discipline of the
British army, by any repo, t a Select Committee might make;
nor did he think any such inquiry as had been suggested at till
necessary at the present moment. He was not prepared to
assent to taking away the power possessed by Courts-martial
at present, although the Hon. Member for Kilkenny argued
that it could not be necessary, because he could show them a
certain regiment in which it was not used ; but that was no-
thing to the purpose, for the power still existed there, to be
exercised if required. The lion. Member said that great deal
might be done by a judicious system of rewards by promotion.
Now, this was difficult in peace, but he held in his hand a
return showing the number of commissions which had been
given away within the last four years. F: am April I, 1834,
to March 6, 1838, there were given, without purchase, 396.
Of that number there were 86 transfers from the half-pay, and
84 to non-commissioned officers of the army ; 106 of the re-
mainder
were given to pupils of the Military College. He
had also submitted to his late Majesty another mode of
reward for good conduct—viz., by honorary distinction, which
had already had the best effects : 2,491 soldiers, entitled by
length of service to increase of pay, had given up that right
under the resolutions, and accepted the distinction ; 6,71 i
others had established their claims thereunto. Total so re-
warded, 9,206. lle hoped, however, to diminish corporal
punishments in the army by another and more effective means
—confinement ; but for that purpose the House must, in the
first place, afford the means to render their ideas practicable.
He was sorry to observe that, from the first agitation of this
question, though corporal punishments had been diminished,
other inflictions, pursuant to sentence of Court-martial, had
taken place. In 1825 the number of soldiers sentenced was
4,708, and 1,723 corporal punishments were inflicted. In
1836 foe total number of Courts-martial amounted to 8,965
(nearly double), while the number of corporal punishments
was only 863 (just half). He believed that this motion for an
inquiry was merely a trap for inexperienced votes, and trusted
that the House would negative it by a large majority.
Sir C. B. VERE would not vote against the motion.
General JOHNSTON stated his intention of voting for the
motion.
The House then divided.
On returning to the Gallery we found the numbers to be—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion 93
The House then resolved itself into Committe on the Mutiny
and Marine Mutiny Bills.
Mr. HL'ME wished to ask the Noble Lord the Secretary
at War if there had been any diminution of corporal punish-
ments in the army?
Viscount HO\VICK made some reply, which was quite

inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME then wished to ask whether any abstract had
been prepared of the number of corporal punishments in the
navy? He understood that great improvements had been
effected in that department, and he thought it would be more
satisfactory if the House was formally made acquainted with
the fact.
Mr. WOOD (as we understood him) expressed himself un-
prepared to answer the question of the Hon. Member.
After some further conversation both Bills passed through
Committee, and the House resumed.
SUPPLY.
On bringing up the report,
Lord HOTHAM could not refrain from saying a few words
On a subject which of late had engaged a good deal of the
public attention. He meant the order lately conferred on the
Hon. and Gallant Member for Westminster; at the same time
he begged to assure the House that nothing could be farther
from his intention than to cast any personal reflection on that
Hon. and Gallant Member, whom he knew, and if he did not
know he had many opportunities of hearing, had distinguished
himself by his services. He was willing to give the Gallant
Member full credit for his zeal and gallantry, and he felt con-
vinced that if that Gallant Member had not achieved a better
claim to the honour lately conferred on him the deficiency
should be attributed to want of opportuuity, not of inclina-
tion. But that Gallant Officer had been promoted over the
beads of officers whose services even himself would admit
were greater than his own ; and he (Lord Ilotham) believed
that if the Gallant Officer had not served her Majesty's Go-
vernment elsewhere than in the field he never would have been
Commander of the Bath. —( Hear, hear.) Perhaps he might
be told that in alluding to this subject he was trenching on the
prerogative of the Crown. But when such a gross injustice
was done to so many veteran and gallant officers it was no an-
swer to talk of the prerogative of the Crown.—(Hear.) He
did not intend to pursue the subject further.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the honour conferred, he
believed de,ervedly, on his Hon. and Gallant Friend should be
disapproved of in the society frequented by the Noble Lord
was not a matter of surprise to him ( Lord Palmerston). The
Noble Lord was mistaken in his view of the statutes of the Or-
der of the Beth—there:was no statute which required that any
person obtaining the rank of second class should previously
heye enjoyed that of third class.
Lord HOT HAM had assented to no such thing.
Lord PALMERSTON—Then if the Noble Lord said no
such thing, of course that part of his criticism fell to the
ground.—( A laugh.) There was no fault to the exercise of
the prerogative on that score. Another objection made by
the Noble Lord was that officers of long service had been
passed over to make way for his (Lord Palmerston's) Gallant
Friend. Now he was not going to enter into any discussion
as to the merits of individuals ; he felt that nothing could be
more invidious ; but he begged leave to aay that the Order of
the Bath was riot intended as a reward for length of service,
but for distinguished services. The Noble Lord had asked
why his Hon. and Gallant Friend was not placed amongst
the supernumerary class of foreign officers ? Why, because
he was a British subject, and held his commission in the Bri-
tish army ; and although it was the peculiar circumstance of
his holding the rank of General Officer in a foreign service,
by the permission of his own Sovereign, that cnabl--d
Government to make, in his case, an exception to the
ffeneral practice; yet it would be great injustice to him if, on
that account, they had classed him as a foreign officer. He
would only say that the services performed by his Hon. and
Gallant Friend :Fe re know to the world—( Hear, hear, and
ironical cheers)—and on Iliern he would rest the vindication
of Government.
Sir G. DE LACY EVANS said it would be invidious of
him to go into an investigation of the services of other offi-
eers ; but he challenged comparison, and he was willing to
pet his services beside those of any officer who had ever re-
ceived the honour of the Bath. He thought this motion
quite superfluous on the eve of the lengthened discussion
threatened to-morrow ; but the Noble Lord would have his
anticipatory speech.—(" No, no I") He ( Sir G. Evans) Wag
not surprised that Hon. Gentlemen opposite should question
the honour he had received from his Sovereign, as he believed
' the same gentlemee would not long since have consigned him
to the tender mercies of the Durango decree.—( Hear, hear.)
With regard to the small mallea of those individuals—
The SPEAKER here called the lion. and Gallant Mem-
ber to order.
,Sir G. EVANS—With regard to the feeling there had
been evinced be had no objection to its continuance, as, if it
always proved as abortive as in the present instance, its only
effect would be to enhance his estimation of the honour he
had received.
Lord El OTHAM, in explanation, said that his motion had
no reference to the subject to be diseussed to-morrow. It had
been his intention to ask the question on the passing of the
Army Estimates.
Mr. PALMER wished to know whether it was fur services
performed fur a foreign State or for this country that the Gal-
lant Officer haul beee reiverded ? If it was for services per-
formed for a foreign State, C3.):-3-;:ncnt had placed themselves
by their conduct in a situation not sery geeeil)ing.
Mr. SHAW wieltoul to know whether it wes into; pled to
keel-, up the Hospital of Kilelainham (Dublin) on its present
footing?
Mr. HUME thought the support of the establishment
entailed an unnecessary expense.
Mr. G RATTAN thought it desirable that the establishment
should be kept up, and it was decided some years ago.
Sir H. VIVIAN tlen:2_,,ht that as the establishment was in
some measure formed by deduetiene from the pay of the sol-
dier it ought in justice to be kept up.
Sir P. NCH was of opinion that the establishst.ent
,shouldrbeicK.
supported.
Lod no
said fl=at persons who had not seen mill.
tary seeviee ee entitle them had been admitted to the institu-
tion. It should his COD§ned to those only who had secri Ipng
service, and be made as rtvail,bl,2 possible for that purpose.
The Report was then agreed to.
IRISH POOR LAWS.

The Poor-4w
,(.p-eiand) Bill was re-committed pro forma
Ad pram() $.O c Teseiyed9n Monday next.

HOUSE OF LORDS, Mutat 26.

NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP.

THE SUN, LONDON; TUESDAY, MAI4CR 27, 1838.

, The Grand Jury Cess (Dublin) Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed after Easter.
The Annual Indemnity Bill was read a third time anc7. passee.

Sir F. TlZENeilr:sTie bring under the consideration of
the House an alteration in the position of the Houses of Lords
and Commons, which, without any important derangement of
the general plan, would very much contribute to the comfort
and health of the Members of br,th Houses. The lion. Gen.
tletnan, who was imperfectly heard, said that if the House
were to be ventilated artificially, his motion would be none-
c,ssary ; but if it were the intention to procure atmospheric
eir, the alteration would in his opinion be most desirable. He
thought it would be highly desirable to revive the Committee
upon the subject.
Mr. HUAIE regretted that the lion. and Gallant Officer
had not made some specific motion on the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged to remind the Hon. Member
for Kilkenny that there was no question before the House.
Mr. HUME said it was his intention, at sJrne future period,
to tike the sense of the House with respect to these plans.
He thought in the course they were pursuing, they were only
doing mischief.
Sir F. TRENCH said he had abstained from making any
motion at present, not thinking such a course necessary.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Mr. P. TH ONIS O N, in pursuance of the notice which he
bad given, moved .4 that the names of the Members ordered
t brin,, in private Bills be printed on the back of such Bills."
The H7m. Gentleman said that the present course was highly
inconvenient, and that he a 3 wen as others had suffered
greatly fram it. He did not think there would be any objec-
tion to the motion. .

Mr. WA KL E Y wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to
withdraw his motion, foi• the purpose of enlarging the terms
of it.
Mr. BROTHERTON did not think the observations of
the Hon. Member fur Finsbury bad any application to the re-
solution under consideration.
Mr. HUME said that the question was one which deserved
more consideration than it had received. .

Mr. P. ~ THONISON did not think his proposition and
that of the Hon. Member for Finsbury would exactly chime.
Mr. WAK LE Y said that, although he wished the terms
of the resolution to be enlarged, it was not his intention to
oppose it.
The SPEAKER said that the resolution proposed would,
lie thought, answer the purpose they bad in view.
Mr. WAK LEY thought that no one but a Member of the
Committee, or one appointed by them, should be allowed to
bring in a private Bill.
The resolution was then agreed to.
CHINA.

Mr. G PA LM E R said, seeing the Noble Lord the Se-
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, he wished
to put a question to him on a subject of some importance.
The question which he wished to put to the Noble Lord was,
whether he had received any despatch or other communica-
tion from her Majesty's superintendent in China stating that
he had been compelled to forego the happy understanding
with the Chinese Government at Canton established in the
course of the last summer ?

Lord PALMERSTON had received no such despatch or
communication. He had seem some account of the kind in

the newspapers, and he had no doubt he should receive a des-
patch in a short time.
Mr. G. PALM E R said he considered the matter of so
much importance, that he would repeat the question on a
future occasion.

The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

The Loan CnANCELLOR took his seat at five minutes past
Five o'clock.

Lord DURHAM presented petitions from Belmont, and
several other places, praying for the abolition of Negro appren-
ticeship. Also a petition from Glasgow, and one from Dun-
barton, against any further endowment to the Church of
Scotland. Likewise a petition from Newport, and from an-
otl:cr place, in favour of Vote by Ballot ; and a petition from
the Corporation of Glasgow, praying for a repeal of the
Corn Laws.

Lord ROSEBERY presented a petition from Stirling►
against any further endowment to the Church of Scotland.

The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from
the clergy, gentry, bankers, traders, and inhabitant house-
holders of the city of Hereford, signed by 1,468, praying
for the abolition of Negro apprenticeship ' • also a petition from
the Independent Dissenters of Hereford to the like effect ;
and similar petitions from the Dissenting congregation of
Lady Huntingdon's Chapel, and from the Primitive Me-
thodists of the same city.
Earl SHAFTESBURY presented a petition from Dork-
ing, highly respectably signed, praying for the abolition of
Negro slavery.
The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from reli-
gious congregations of a great many different places in Man-
chester, Salford, and Chester, praying for the immediate
emancipation of the apprenticed slaves. Tne Right Rev.
Prelate's opinions on this subject very much accorded with his
Right Rev. Friend's who addressed the House the other right.
No one could hear what had been said, and read what had been
written on this subject, without feeling that both parties were
su..,ject to great difficulties and temptations, so that it could
not be doubted that it was desirable the apprenticeship sys-
tem should be put a speedy end to.—(Hear, hear.) In his
opinion it might be put an end to with perfect safety.
Lord CARLISLE presented a petition from Morpeth,
praying for a total abolition of slavery.
Lord RADNOR presented a petition from Maidenhead, to
the same effect.
The Duke of CLEVELAND presented petitions from
several places in the county of Durham, to the same effect.
Lord FOL E Y presented several petitions of a similar nature.
The Marquis of SLIGO presented petitons from numerous
Dissenting places of worship in Oldham, Saddleworth, Ash-
ton-under-Line, Croydon, Banbury, and several other
places, praying for the immediate abolition of negro ap.
prenticeship ; and a petition from the Wesleyan Chapel in
Whitefriars-street, Dublin, signed by 500 persons, to the same
effect. The Noble :Marquis wished to take this opportunity
of stating*, that he had had communications from two per-
sons connected with Jamaica on this subject. One was
from Mr. Morris Jones, the custos of the parish, a
gentleman of very large property in the West Indies,
and he stated that he looked with the greatest anxiety to the
emancipation of the Negro apprentices. He believed it would
be for the interest of the Planter, as well as for the interest oi.i he
Negro, that that emancipation should take place without
delay. The other communication was from a large proprietor
in the parish of St. James's, in which he did him (the Marqnis
of Sligo) the honour of approving of what he had done, and
stated that he ha:l directed his Manager in the West
Indies to adopt the very same plan—(hear, hear)--but
that he feared, unless other Managers could be brought
to take the same course, much difficulty might be ex-
pected. He requested him (the N able Marquis) to move as
an amendment to Lord Glenclg's Bill that minors and wards
in the Court of Chancery and guardians should be enabled
to emancipate their slaves.
Lord ABERDEEN presented a petition from Dundee,
against additional endowments to the Church of Scotland.
The Noble Lord said that he had presented this petition
because it had been sent to_ him with a request that
he should present it, although it was unnecessary for him
to state that he did not concur in its prayer ; and that he
should take this opportunity of giving notice, that on Friday
nex. he should move for certain returns on this subject, and
again draw the attention of her Majesty's Ministers to what
he had say upon it.
Lord HOLLAND presented petitions from Preston and
its vicinity, in favour of the immediate abolition of Negro
apprenticeship.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from Edinburgh,
agreed to at a public meeting held in that City, the Mayor
being in the Chair, against further endowments to the Church
of Scotland ; also petitions praying for the immediate
abolition of Negro apprenticeship, from the following
places : —Borough of Stoekpert, and its vicinity, signed
by the Mayor, and 5,562 of the inhabitants, from several
Dissenting congregations of the same borough, from Stamford,
from places in the counties of Chester, Kent, Rutland,
and Lancaster, from Winslow, Scarborough, Yarmouth,
Penzance, Northallerton, Stirling, Boston, Sudbury, Oldham,
Bradford, Thirsk, Bath, Huddersfield, Matlock, South Moul-
ton, Holywell, Gainshorough, Colchester, Coventry, Dundalk,
Bridgnorth, Lincoln, Pershore, Knaresborough, Coverley,
Tralee, Hearthery ; six from Ashton-under-Lyne. The Noble
Lord also presented similar petitions from Hyde, Horsley,
and several other places. The Noble Lord also presented a
petition from the P,otestant Dissenters of London, which
was agreed to at a meeting held at the City of London
Tavern, against any additional endowment to the Church
of Scotland ; also similar petitions from Irvine and Salt-
coates. The Noble Lord stated that he bad a vast number
of similar petitions to present, but he would reserve them for
to-morrow.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions from Nor-
wich and other places for the abolition of Negro slavery.
The Marquis of LANSDO\VNE presented petitions from
Cornwall and several other places, praying their Lordships to
adopt some measure for the purpose of putting an end to the
present mode of collecting tithes in Ireland. The Noble
Marquis also presented petitions from Westbury and Devizes
against Negro slavery.
RELIGIOUS RITES—INDIA.
The Arcbiaiebep of CANTERBUR Y presented petitions
to the same effect frod Canterbury, and severaLother places.
410 a
sirtiu. number of Dissenting Clergymen, againstf ee c
the interference Thoeßyighitßevhrg
Rev. Prelate
o
releateaf thel c
s prostrated
f Entle
ocl petition signed by
twenty-tai: a
nocid
at
araing_
lan'
of the servants of the East India Company,
relative to the superstitions of the labalsitente of Hindustan.
i The petitioners felt bound to address thetesseieee tf3
f,ordshii s on this important subject, and prayed that such or-
ders mighe be forthwith sent out as would procure the iraine-
gw4hoPCwtietlr°erdesir4l49 t-'!""ling
dist° abolition of ail i,delat,Tous worship in India, and release
obligation to
take part in any ceremonies, rites, or festival, who_
all persons, whether civil or military, fropspro:::
ever, eolliiec;94 with the superstitions. of that country.
:from' per-
sonslt wasof frequentlyheatheated
said timaginationshstt
these objects without any regard to the consequences that
might( ensue. Their Lordships would except the
petitioners
from tile einirge, tehen hp stated that they proceeded upon an
undoubted authority. The shersesi wa' of ptittipg ttlene
Possession of elle question, was to refer to 06 04 *4 5.,14 PH
by the Directors containing these instructions, on the guilt
of Febr4ary; 1833, which entered minutely into the subject.
The Rev. prelate 11:1,4 ;1;e instructions, which were of colisi-
-1 dc.rabc leng,th, and proceeded to say tall the del:q which had
tiakep 2•l4ce in carrying. those instrat!tions into'ea'eet, was
viewed- with great *patience -V. the Chiistiin putitiO.
r