The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN,

it down, and when the Sultan had just abolished the
slave-market at Constantinople, and sent witnesses
from Constantinople to Malta to depose against a
Maltese who had been tried for trading in slaves on the
coast of Tripoli. This measure would not entail any
additional expenses on the country, it would be only
necessary to give powers to the vessels on that station to
carry into effect the agreement which had been entered
into with the Imaum of Muscat.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask whether there
was any likelihood of a better understanding being arrived
at with the Court of Brazil with regard to the slave trade.
The instance of that country ought to be a sufficient
example of the inexpediency of interference by the British
Government with other countries to put down the slave
trade. He should support the amendment of his Hon.
and Learned Friend.
Captain PECHELL said that in all matters connected
with the slave trade he pinned his faith on the Noble
Lord's conduct, and he should certainly support him in
this Bill.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said he certainly agreed with
the inadequacy of the means employed in putting down
the slave trade. He was certainly surprised to see the
present Member for Ycughal opposing any measure for
abolishing the slave trade, since one of his (Mr. J.
O'Connell's) chief recommendations to that constituency
had been an uncompromising hostility to that infamous
branch of traffic. He should support the Government in
this Bill.
Mr. E. DENISON appealed to the report of the
Committee of the House on the slave trade, which stated
that naval intervention was quite inefficient to put down
the slave trade. That, in his opinion, was quite suffi-
cient to justify him in opposing this Bill.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not consider that the
passing of this Bill would at all commit the
House. The report of the Committee and the evidence
given before it would certainly form matter for serious
consideration to her Majesty's Government during the
next session. But he must also remind the House that
the report was not an unanimous report, that it was
only a majority of one which decided the report.
The difficulty on this subject in the Committee, whether
the means adopted were sufficient for the suppression of
the slave trade, and, in reply from the Committee, the
only answer the Government received were some vague
generalities, condemning the system. The Government
were anxious to put down this detestable slave trade,
of the re-
duce the expense and increase the efficiency
and only desired to obtain such assistance as would
sys-
tem which they had adopted.
Mr. HUME said that there were many objections to
arrying the system for suppressing the slave trade
farther than it had already gone. In his opinion that
system, so far from lightening the miseries of the slave
trade, only tended to aggravate its horrors. And when
they had the fact before them that not less than 500
human beings had during the last year been thrown
overboard, in consequence of the pursuit of our cruisers,
he was convinced that no efforts whatever could be suf-
ficient to mitigate the evil.
Mr. BERNAL said that, in his opinion, the question
respecting the system of putting an end to slavery on
the coast of Africa, and in the Persian Gulf, stood upon
a very different basis. In the Atlantic it was necessary
to blockade a coast some thousands of miles in extent;
whereas it was ouly necessary to close the mouth of the
Persian Gulf, and the whole of the object was ac-
complished.
Mr. ANSTEY was anxious to explain the way in
which his Hon. and Gallant Friend opposite (Colonel
Thompson) had misunderstood him, but was interrupted
by the impatience of the House, and strangers were
ordered to withdraw. The Hon. Gentleman, however,
declined to divide the House, and on our re-admittance to
the gallery we found him moving the first of the other
amendments of which he had given notice. None
of these amendments touched the principle of the
Bill, and were only intended to show the technical
effect of the phraseology of the Bill, and which
was, as explained by Lord Palmerston, proved
to be perfectly consistent with the object of the
Bill. The only one of any importance was the following:
—After " Admiralty,",in line 8, page 5, to insert, " Pro-
vided always that, in applying so much of the said Act
or Acts as relate to the indicia or evidences of slave
trading, regard shall be had by all such courts respec-
tively to the general habits and customs of the said tribes,
and of their respective countries, with reference to the
build and equipment of ships." He trusted that the Noble
Lord would assent to this amendment.
Lord PALMERSTON said that so far as the mere
build and outward appearance of vessels was concerned
there could be no objection to the motion, nor any
necessity for it either. The grand rule in those cli-
mates was, to ascertain whether there was an excess of
food or water on board any vessels for the supply of the
crew, allowing for all contingencies.—(Hear.)
After a few words frrom Captain PECHELL, the
amendment was negatived without a division.
The other amendments were also negatived, and the
Bill was then read a third time and passed.
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.—CONSIDER-
ATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that before ho pro-
ceeded with this Bill he would wish the House to have
the benefit of the Speaker's advice as to the course
which should be taken by that House with regard to the
Lords' amendments to this Bill.
The SPEAKER proceeded to state the practice of
the House. The rule was, that the Lords could delibe-
rate and propose amendments on any Bill sent up to
them by this House, - provided that they did not
interfere with the amount or disposal of any rates, or
with the persons who had to collect such rates. This
rule had been strictly adhered to up to the time of the
passing of the Irish Municipal Bill of 1831, when a con •
siderable infringement of these privileges took place.
The Irish poor•laws of 1838, and of 1847, also furnished
opportunities for like infringement ; and it was for the
House to consider whether they would consent to accede
to these precedents, and waive their privileges, or
whether they would assert them.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that on the ground
of precedent the House was bound to assert its privi-
leges. He thought that the Legislature would be car-
ried on more amicably by the two Houses if this House
consented to waive its privileges in this case, and pro-
ceeded to discuss the amendments which had come down
to them from the other House.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was with very great
reluctance that he had ventured to differ from his Noble
Friend ou a point involving a question of such import-
ance. But he could not discharge his duty conscien-
tiously it he did not state to the House his opinion on
this point ; and in doing so he thought it was right to
endeavour to separate the constitutional question en-
tirely from the merits of the enactment which had come
down from the other House. They had had a declara-
tion from the Speaker as to what the privileges of
the House were, and on what occasions they had been
interferred with. In the poor-law of 1848, the Lords
entirely changed their area of taxation, and caused the
rates to press heavier upon certain parties. The ques-
tion was now for the House, whether they would consent
tei waive their privileges as they had done in the case
cited by the Speaker; but he would ask of them if they
consented to do so, what claim would they after-
wards have to resist the interference of the Lords
in a question of local taxation ? It would be
better, if they decided to waive their privileges
in the present instance, at once to give up all claim to
such privileges ; for they would never again have a
chance of asserting it. This question was not a new
one ; it had been referred to a Select Com-
mittee of the House last session, and the
opinion of that House had been decidedly
against any relaxation being given to the other House.
Now, did the alterations which had been made in this
Bill, in the whole of the clauses which regulated
the distrainment for arrears of interest and the sale
of estates, justify this House in waiving its privi-
leges ? Well, supposing they were to waive
those ancient and undoubted privileges, were
all b
othersure
of eoaursrey
joefgPar
thatlia mßetlnl t ,
for tt a
wt
ht
eehy wt
hoeuyl dwae frtee r
the Government so sure of their majority in the
recom-
mended to make so large a sacrifice?—(Hear, hear.) He
had no personal feeling whatever in the matter; but be-
fore they came to a decision on so important a matter
he trusted that the Noble Lord—aud he was sure
their object was the same—would carefully consider
the result of the proceeding which he was
about to take—(Hear, hear)—for it was his impression
that, the privileges which they possessed should not be
lightly sacrificed when the conjuncture of affairs was
particularly important.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that there could be no
question whatever as to the importance of waiving the
privileges of the House upon any occasion, especially
upon this. But yet whilst asserting this, and while per-
fectly concurring with the Hon. Gentleman opposite
(Sir James Graham) in the necessity of upholding their
privileges, he still did tbink that at this particular mo-
ment it was not, in his opinion, either wise or expedient
to assert them so strongly at the present moment.
Lord Canterbury, when he sat in the chair which
the Speaker now occupied, had laid down
the doctrine, that while no secession should
be made from the ground which they were entitled to
occupy on any matter which concerned money levied
for the public service, yet that on questions which merely
affected rates levied in local districts, for local purposes,
they might, without any constitutional danger, assent to
alterations which were made in the Lords. Yet he care-

fully guarded against the waiving of any general prin-
ciple, and, therefore, it was that he (Sir G. Grey) was
glad the general motion of the Member for the University
of Oxtord (Sir R. H. Inglis) had not been adopted. On
the present occasion, therefore, be thought there was no
danger whatever, and he trusted, therefore, that the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord would be adopted.
After a few words from Mr. F. FRENCH in support
of the motion,
Mr. HENLEY said, that as one of the members of
the Committee he felt bound to say that those alterations
of the Lords would be greatly detrimental to the Bill,
and if they were to waive their privileges now they
oft
hLaotr ds.
formarn.yitputumreEospapidostihtiaotn
atso
athmeeHra
bouerseaof
would cut the ground altogether from under their feet
Committee
he also felt bound to give his most strenuous opposition
to the motion of the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell).
The Lords bad reduced the area of taxation, and in
other respects had entirely taken the virtue of the Bill.
Mr. 11. GRATTAN said, that although the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had found fault with the
arrangement which was proposed by the Government,
he had provided no alternative whatever.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL said that, in his opinion, al-
though it was unwise to waive a privilege, which was at
any time inconvenient, it was just now expedient, if not
indispensable for the welfare of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. DENISON put it to the Right Hon. Baronet
whether when this House was placed beside the House of
Lords, and a rivalry even occurring between the two
Houses, there was any probability that this House would
have anything to fear from the encroachments of the
House of Lords?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that tho course which he
3110111c1 suggest would be to takepreciisely the coats(' which