The Sun.
London, England, 1825-06-04 00:00:00

StT N

\_'-~

SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 4, 1825.

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, JUNE 3.

•
The Marquis of HASTINGS appeared in the House for the
first time since he obtained his present rank in the Peerage, and
took the Oaths and his seat. He was introduced by the Alar-
quia of Thomand and the Marquis of Ailesburv. The Duke
of Norfolk officiated on this occasion as Earl Marshal. •
.The Earl of DERBY presented a petition front Ashton-
under-Line, praying for a reversion of the law regulating the
hours of labour in cotton-factories.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL laid on the table the first report
of the Commissioners on Irish education. He also introduced
a Bill relative to the law of Merchant and Factor, which was
read a Qrst- time, and ordered to be read a second tiiiie.Oh:TtieS-
dar next.
The LORD CHANCELLOR-alluded to the Bill for regu-
lating the striking of Juries, which is now before the /louse ;
and stated, that as soon as the Bill was printed, he would fix
such a day for the second reading as might be most convenient
for their Lordships.
Lord Eer.Exuottouou and Lord KENYON presented peti-
tions from certain individuals, praying for compensation in case
the County Courts Bill should pass into a law.
The Earl of KINGSTON presented a petition from 1 oug-
hall, in favour of the Irish Joint Stock Companies
EX PLA NA TION.
The Bishop of CHESTER wished, by-way of explanation,
to state that .he had received a letter from Manchester, from
one of, the persona who called the meeting for presenting a pe-
tition to the House in favour of the Roman Catholics, com-
plaining of certain erroneous statements in the report of
(the Bishop's) speech relative to that petition. lie wished,
however,'to observe, that the allegations which he had laid be-
fore their Lordships were made by him on the authority of a
respectable individual ; but he was now desirous of doing
.jus-
tice by a more correct statement of the facts. The first point
related to the mode of :adjournment. There had on this sub-
ject been some misunderstanding. It appeared that on the
motion being put, some persons thinking it was carried by a
show of hands, went away; but all the respectable part of the
meeting did not, as had been said, go away, and the motion-
was afterwards. negatived. He had in his speech stated, that
the petition was signed by 16.000 persons, but that 12,000 were
of the lowest description. He was, however, now informed
that a very great number of the signatures were by the most re-
spectable part of the inhabitants. What he had said about the
insertion of Irish names appeared also to be founded in mistake.
All he could say was,- that he had oialy stated precisely what
had been stated to him, and he had never intended to state any
thing which was not-perfectly correct.
The Earl of DERBY entered into more minute details of the.
circumstances of the: meeting, and more particularly of what
took place. on the motion of-adjournment, which had been so
grossly misrepresented.
• The Bishop of CHESTER said, he had, from this occnr..
rence, learned a lesson not to make assertions on the autho-
rity of others. In future lie certainly should not repeat, in
that House, the' statements Of interested parties, without due
inquiry.
Lord SUFFIELD was assured, on the best authority, that
none of the names to the. Manchester petition had been canvass-
ed for, and that all the signatures had been Voluntary.
UNITARIAN MARRIAGE BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN rose to move the' second
reading of this Bill. He reminded their Lordships, that last
year be had the honour to propoSe to them a Bill to the same
effect as the present, which had this Session been brought up
from the Commons. That Bill had been thrown out -on the
second reading ; but now a- Bill for the same object had not
only been agreed to by the other House of Parliament, but had
passed that House without a division on any of its stages. The
present Bill differed in some respects from that-which he had
introduced last Session. Much pains had been taken to improve
it. Ministers of the Established Church had given their ad-
vice,• and lent their assistance in framing it. He did not state
'this fact with the view of thereby obtaining any improper in-
fluence over the minds of their Lordships, but to induce those
who were disposed to object to it to consider the subject well
before they opposed a measure which came before them under
such a sanction, and which was fOrtified by the approbation of
the House of Commons. The. Bill related to a grievance not
very difficult of remedy, but not the less felt by those whom
it affected. The object of the measure was to remove the
diffiCalties which stood in the way of the ferforimmee of
the marriage ceremony with regard to certain, .
That should- be open to persons of all opinions;
bihtafi- reocienttriy mariner in which it had been treated, it
would appear that giving the means-of marriage was regarded
as boon. Every individual, however, whatever his opi
nions might be,- was entitled to have all obstacles removed.
which tended to prevent him -from celelirathg, in what
he considered the must solemn manner, that 'ceremony
which formed the most sacred Of all ties. EverY unnecessary
restriction and regulation which affected particular classes of
persons in regard to such an object as marriage, ought surely
to be done away without delay ; and on this subject it was their
Lordships' duty to give every relief which was consistent with
the safety of the state. Only those regulations which appeared
to be called for by necessity ought to-be maintained. The dif-
ferent regulations adopted in this and other countries resolved
themselves into two kinds—namely, civil and religious. With
regard to the former, in as far as related to matters of police,
the object of the Pill was to maintain every civil right. The
persons for whose benefit it was introduced were ready to sub-
mit to any civil regulation on the subject of marriage which
.their Lordships might think fit to impose. The religious part
of the question, their Lordships would
perceive, wastotally ills.
tinct from the civil; and all that the Bill proposed to do, was
to provide against the depreciation of the sacred ceremony of
marriage by regulations to which Unitarians could not consci-
entiously submiL To Make the legality of so solemn a tie as
marriage depend upon declaring what the parties did riot be-
lieve to be truth, .was to invite them to do that which their Lord-
ships, who were sensible of the sacredness of the obligation I
entered into, must regard as highly improper. According to
the-former Bill, the marriage ceremony was to be celebrated b3r.
the Clergy of the Established Church. That mode had, how-
ever, been thought objectionable, anti it was therefore provided
by the present Bill that the ceremony should be carried into
'effect by the Unitarian Ministers in their own congregations.
When it was considered that the ceremony of marriage wasin-:.
tended for the benefit of the whole community, it would be
proper to perform it, as far as -possible, in the same manlier for
all classes ; but as conscientious scruples about performing the
ceremony to Unitarians were known to exist in the minds of
many Ministers of the Church, this mode had been abandoned.
In the same way some of the Ministers of the Established
Church had objected to registering the marriages of persons
who were united by a ceremony inconsistent with the principles
of the church ; and to obviate this difficulty, the Unitarians
also took upon themselves the trouble of registering their
own marriages. In fact, the Bill professed to do, and did notliing
more than afford relief from regulations inconsistent with
the eonsciencious scruples of individuals: None of their
Lordships would say that the opinions of the persons whom the
bill proposed to relieve were not tolerated by holy ; anti being
so, the law ought to protect them, and facilitate to them, the
means of duly forming the most sacred of all the relations of
society. It would, perhaps, be asked, why were the persons for
whose benefit the bill was framed so scrupulous? Some, he
was-aware, might make a compromise with conscience, and he
able to -satisfy themselves of the propriety of every opinion that
was consistent with their temporal interests ; but their Lordships
surely would not encourage a species of reaSuning which led to
a disregard of the mull of the most solemn declarations. Their
Lordships ought not to discountenance or despise scruples which
were opposed to a practice inconsistent with morality and reli-
gion. Persons ought notto be forced to enter the temple or God
second
they ought to be met half-way,
With equivocation on their- tongues, nor made to subscribe to
to their Lordships the
what they did not believe to be true. Wherever sincere anti
es of the Unita-
readine- of this bill.
NTERBURY bad voted for the bill
The Archbishop of C.
(hi th conscientiousesegrousnczhlees
proposedexistetl ,
of last session, and intended to give his support to the present,
because its tendency was equally to relieve Utilitarians anti Al i-
hiefl anxious he believed to he sincere; but lie was c anxious to
remove, by this bill or some other, the difficulties in which Mi.
nisters of the Established Church. The scruples
nisters of the church were involved by i'nitiarian marriages.—
The bill, he thought, might be amendet, ; au for that purpose
he would propose some c C chances in the ommittee. By this or
some other measure, he wished to do await/ with that midallow_
ed equivocation which, sanctioned by law, now took place at
the altar.

The Bishop of BATII and ha.ving stated his sen-

timents at some length upon this subject when it was before
the -House last year, would trouble their Lordships with very
few observations upon it at present. lie felt himself bound,
however, to state as briefly as possible the reasons which ins.
pelled bins to-oppose this BM. His objection lay to the prin-
ciple of the measure. He did not see on what grounds mar-
riage, according to the rites of_ the Church of England, was to
be considered a grievance to the Unitarians. First, what were
they called, upon to subscribe ? Merely the parties' names.
He admitted, however, that they were obliged to make a decla-
ration " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy.Gliost ;" hut these very words were used in their oWu
printed form of prayer. The words used by the Unitarians in
their ceremony of baptism were these—" 1 baptize thee in the
name of the Father, Son, and thily -Ghost." They therefore
could. not justly object to their own form of prayer. He also
admitted that the. clergyman who performed the ceremony of
marriage gave to the parties benediction, by. prdying to God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, to bless them.
Now, if they (lid not think that they were tile better for this,
surely they could not feel themselves' the worse for it. Ile 'de-
fended the Ministers of the Church of England from the charge
of equivocation in the performance of this ceremony for the Uni-
tarians. There was no ground whatever for such a charge, for
the word equivocation implied saying one thing and meaning
another, for the purpose ofdeception. Now there was no decep-
tion here, because the Minister knew beforehand the opinions of
the Unitarian, and the Unitarian knew those of the Minister, so
that neither party was deceiving or deceived. He therefore re-
pelled with indignation the charge brought against the Mini-
sters of the Church ; they were neither guilty of equivocation
nor pious fraud. Ile denied that the Unitarians had any just
grounds for saying that their con sciences were violated.- Occasions
were continually occurring when points of doctrine laid down
by Ministers of the-Church were disapproved of by some indi-
viduals, who said - that they would not again go to-Church to
hear them ; but that was no reason why the Church of England
should not lay down the pure doctrines of Christianity. If the
Minister of the Gospel did not propound the true principles of
faith in Christ Jesus how else was the gainsayer to be con-
verted ? -He contended that if this privilege were ceded to the
Unitarians, it must also be granted to every other sect and cons
munity, however erroneous their opinions might be. The doe_
trine of the Unitarians gave them no right to be looked upon as
a favoured sect; yet this concession would be calculated to give
it Spread to the opinions of that sect ; although by denying the
divinity of Christ, they laid the axe to the root of the tree of
Christianity itself. For these reasons he moved, as an, amend-
ment, that the BilVbe read a second time that day three months.
The Bishop,of•Micif FIELD and-COVENTRY considered
the opinions of the- Unitarians as utterly destitute of any thun-
dation ; and grossly erroneous as they were, he must believe
them to affect their conduct ; but still he looked uon their pre-
sent complaint-as founded on fair grounds, and hie conceived
the Bill entitled -to their Lordships' support, as being calcu-
lated to. deliver the Church of England from the scandalous
protanation...of a compromise at the altar. He was a general
friend to toleration ; although he did not wish to give any en-
couragement to those sectaries; but he did not conceive that
the present Bill would operate as any encouragement to them.
His Lordship concluded by supporting the original motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR would be very glad if any
Noble. Lord would inform him what he meant by the word
" Unitarian ;" for if a Unitarian were a person who denied tile
divinity of Christ, their. Lordships, before they could pass this
bill; must first pass an act rendering it lawful for him so to
do. His. Lordship then referred to Act of William to shew
that the denial of the divinity of our Saviour was declared to
be a heinous crime, which subjected-the party guilty of it to a
severe punishment. • The Act of Toleration did not repeal the
law as it had stood before ;- it only excepted the parties in some
eases from the consequences of those crimes which were crimes
at Common law before the passing of that act. No man who
should propose to repeal that law, could feel as an Englishman
or.a Christian ; but if it was a crime at common law to deny
the divinity of Christ, their Lordships must begin with the
common law, and not with an Act of Parliament in the teeth
of it. The Jews and the Quakers had marriage ceremonies of
their own, and he should not be sorry to- see a bill introd'uced
declaring their marriages to be valid ; for although they were
excepted in Lord Hardwicke's Act, yet in a case which had
lately come before him, considerable doubts had been raised as
to the validity of the Quakers' marriages, He considered the
doctrines Of the Unitarians as calculated' to work an essential
mischief in this country, and he called upon the House not to
-sanction that which the Judges of Westminster-hall must deny
in judgment.
. The Earl of LIVERPOOL felt great pain in differing from.
his Noble and Learned Friend on the \Voolsack, particularly
onosnu col a question
isesubec as h
es
should
bnoutt e
b,
eitsitiesretlaminrginingaa strong opinion
ty
if h e
did not state the grounds of that opinion. Ins -Noble and
Learned Friend had stated at some length the principles of the.
common law as respected this subject, and said, that notwith.'
standing the Act of Toleration: the common law was still in
force. But the NOble and Learned Lord, towards the Conclu-
sion of his speech, furnished an argument against himself; for
what did he admit ? An understanding that JeWs and Quakers
might lawfully marry according to the rites of their own com-
munions, for they were- excepted in Lord Hardwicke's Act.
Now could any man assert that the doctrines of the Unitarians
were more at variance with the • principles of Christianity than
those of the Jews were? The Unitarians denied the Divinity.
of Christ ; but the Jews denied the truth of Christianity alto-
gether—they blasphemed and crucified him whom we adored.
The same argument would apply to Mahometans and various
other persuasions, if the members of them were sufficiently nu-
merous in this country. But how did the law stand at present ?
In some cases marriage according to the rites of the Church of

Content
Proxies

Not Content
Proxies

England was not necessary, even amongst members of the
Church of England itself; for they might go to France and be
married by a Roman Catholic, or to Scotland and be married by
a Presbyterian, and in both cases the marriage was good and
• binding. He believed that if, in a country where a priest could
not be had, a marriage was performed by a civil person, that
marriage was also valid by law ; and the reason was, that every
possible facility might be given to marriage, in order to prevent
immorality. He would now adVert to the ground of expediency.
The strongeSt argument which he had heard against- the Bill
was that which had been urged. by .a Right Rev. Prelate, who
said, if the concession were to be made to the Unitarian,
why not extend it to every other sect ? The answer was,
because it was impracticable. When a bill had been brought
in for that purpose by a Noble Lord, he (Lord Liverpool)
voted for it : but he afterwards stated, that he could not give
it his support in the Committee, having been convinced, by the
speech of a Noble Friend of his, that it would be impossible to
frame a:general Ant to meet the object in view. They had an
example for the present measure in the case of the Quakers._
He thought, That where there was a sincere and conscientious
objection entertained, it ought to be respected. A Jew could
not, a Quaker could not, a Unitarian could not, submit to have
the ceremony performed by the Church of England, or, if he
scaawstiinngthaeslpuarpoerns tshtaatte(n-llhetnirteshot protests,
; fbr their
.
could,,
pt
constantlyswasoil
which must have filled them with disgust. The Church had a
right, and it was hey duty, to compel marriages according to
only
y
her own rites, amongst her own members ; but as she did not
asianne to be an infallible Chinch, he did not see why she
should lock with any jealousy on the doctrines of those who
were of a different communion. lie therefore saw no objec-
tion lo the present Bill, and on
.these grounds he would give it
his support.
The Bishop of CHESTER would trouble the House with a
very few observations. There could be no question as to the
importance of this subject to the Unitarians. If they were
Sincere in their belief (as he had no doubt they were) against
the Divinity of the Trinity, and if they really considered that
by submitting to the ceremony of marriage in the Church of
England. they were brought to worship the Trinity, he cer-
tainly thought them entitled to relief. While the Noble Mar-
!Pis opposite defended the sincerity of the Unitarians, he had
tnougnt proper to cast an unmerited imputation on the body of
the English Clergy.—(,, No. front Lord Lanstiown.)
.11e
certainly understood his Lordship to allude to:them.. -
The Marquis of LANSDOWN said, he had not made
any
such allusion;
ly to • •
. The Bishop of CHESTER was rem admit the sincerity
of the Unitarians, but they were spurred on to their present
complaint by the sneers of a -sect who call theniseives Free •
Thinking Christians. Here his Lordship read an extract from
the Free-thinking Christian's Magaz•inc, in' which the writer
animadverted upon the marriages of` the Unitarians by Minis-
ters of the Established Church. As, however, there was no
very great grievance imposed upon the consciences-of the Uni-
tarians, he thought that, after having submitted so long, they
might submit for one year longer to the privation of what 6
he
considered a right. fie agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate •
(the Bishop of Lichfield) that the present measure Cvould afford
not only relief to the Unitarians, but also to the Clergy of the

PRICE. SEVENPr,NCP,.

! Church of England ; and he would therefore put the former on
the same footing with the Quakers, and .all the other. Dis-
: centers, before the passing of the Marriage Act. Ile was not
. . for imposing. the doctrine or the discipline of. the Church of
England upon those • who could not 'conscientiously entertain
them ; but the Unitarians were not prepared at present td give
the necessary securities against clandestineness, and, conse-
quently, he was inipelled to oppose the Bill. He had no ob-
jection to give the Unitarians the same privilege which was en-
joyed by Jews and Quakers, but nothing further; at the sante
time, that he would provide effectual barriers against clandes-
tine marriages.
Lord REDESDALE opposed the Bill.
Lord CALTHORPE supported the Bill, on the ground
that it was a measure of relief •to the church rather than to the
Unitarians. He also contended, that it was unfair to place the
Unitariani on the same footing as any other Dissenters, be-
cause, to other Dissenters who did not, like the Unitarians,
deonlyiatrhdeshlpoctbriunte
itof%
theas Trinity, the marriage J,eirafegrceeartentonone.y was
no Unitarians lle
would-not attempt to impue the legal argument of the Noble
and Learned Lord on the I% oolsack, but the present law, ad-
mitting it to be correctly stated by the Noble and Learned
Lord, afforded, in his mind, a strong reason for passing the
Bill. The church could not better promote her true interests
than by conforming herself to 'the increasing knowledge and
genius of the age. Nothing could be more injurious to her
than to place her in opposition to liberal ideas. The church
was able to. rely on her own strength, and might, without fear,
appeal to the augmented learning and assiduity of her clergy,
to the increased number of her churches, and to the two great
Universities, which year after year sent forth distinguished
champions to upheld her rank and maintain her security. In
conclusion he supported the measure, because he believed that
it would add to the dignity and character of the Church of
England.
After a few words from the Marquis of LANsnowN. in
which his Lordship denied., that the sect of- Free-thinking
Christians had any part in bringing forward the present Bill,
the House divided. The numbers appeared, for the second
reading—

-52
31
25

-56
Majority against the„Bill - 4
The second reading of the County Courts Bill was post-
poned to Thursday next.—The House then adjourned at Eight
o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
WESTERN SHIP CANAL BILL.
Lord FOLKESTONE objected to the bringing up the re-
port of this Bill, on the ground that the standing orders of the
house had not been complied with. He maintained that the
list of subscribers presented was altogether fictitious ; there were
persons names down for two hundred and three hundred shares
each who were not holders of 311; and many names down of
persons who had no share or interest at all.
The SPEAKER said that, by the forms of the House, the
report must he received ; but it would be open to the Noble
Lord to take his objection on an after stage.
Mr. A. BARING hoped that this objection taken would not
prejudice the House against the bill ; the Committee which
had-agreed to the report had
,4en remarki.bly well attended.
• Mr. BROUDEN said, that the object of the Bill Was a bene-
ficial one, and contended that, though there might be error+.
in the .list of subscribers, it could not be considered as a fabri,
cation.

Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE contended, that the stand.'
ing orders of the House had been complied with.
Sir JOSEPH YORKE thought that the list was altogether
fabricated. There were contained in it the names of member%
of that House, who had declared they had nothing to do with,
the concerts. At least, he considered the transaction as very
suspicious.

fir THOMAS ACLA ND supported the Bill, and trusted
that the Noble Lord opposite would withdraw his objection.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS had not the slightest faith in the con—
tents of the list of subscribers. Ile thought the scheme entire-
ly a delusion, and would not lend his support to it. In tact, it
was avowed that the subscribers, as they were called, did not
hold themselveS liable for the amount of their shares, bqt
merely for a deposit of one per cent.
The SPEAKER said, that whatever might be the view of
those subscribers, by the Standing Orders of the House their
pledge must be given for the whole.
Mr. B. GORDON wished, to know what course Gentle-
men should take whose names were put down without their
consent?

The SPEAKER said, that of course such persons would not
be subscribers.

The Report was then received.
Mr. HOME DRUMMOND moved the further considera-
tion of the Repart on tire Edinburgh Water-works Rill.
Mr. P. GRANT moved that it be taken into further conSi-
deration this day six months.
The House divided, after a discussion,•in which Sir R. Fer-
gusson, Sir J. Majorihanks, Mr. J. Smith, Sir J. Yorke; Mr.
Sykes, Mr. Calcraft, and Sir G. Warrender, took part, when
the numbers were—..

For the Bill, 49 I
.Against it, 54 Majority against it, 5.
Mr. CURTEIS presented several petitions from the inhabi-
tants of Brighton, in favour of the Brighton Improvement Bill;
and others from the builders and public bodies connected with
the town, against it. The further :--onsideration of the report on
this Bill was postponed until Monday next.
The Irish Mining Joint Stock Company Bill was read a third
time, and passed.
Lord BINNING presented the 22d Report of the Commis,
sioners of the Caledonian Canal.
LUNATIC ASYLUMS..

On the motion of Lord BINNING, an humble Address was
framed to his Majesty, praying for accounts of the number and
names of all houses licensed for the reception of lunatics, to:
gether with a statement of the number and dates of confinement
of patients, from the year 1815 to 1824, inclitsiye. And similar
accounts of unlicensed places for'the reception of lunatics. '
Mr. KENNEDY presented the report of the Salmon Fishery
Committee.

Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY presented a petition from
ninety farmers of great respectability' in the vicinity of Wolver-
hampton, complaining of the late sacrifice of the interests of
the growers of barley to the West India trade, by the regula_
tions admitting the rectifying of rum, tinder undue advanta-
geous terms for those engaged in that trade.
After a few words from Mr'. BERNAL. and Mr. CURTEIS,
the petition was laid on the table.
COM BINA TION LAWS.
Mr. HUME presented three petitions, from the woolstaplers
of London, the tin-plate workers, and the operative cotton-
spinners ofGlasgow—the last petition signed by the heads of
the trades, and only acceptable as the prayer of
imploring the House not to re-enact the-old combination-laws.
" He begged to take the opportunity of presenting those petitions,
to declare that he understood there was no intention of reviving
the combination laws, and therefore the prevailing alarm of the
workmen was groundless. He understood the Committee, now
sitting, only meant to render more effective the intentions of the
Legislature in passing the Act of last Session.
Mr. HUSKISSON' rose to confirm what was said by the
Hon. Member opposite respecting the intentions of the Cont-
mittee now sitting. They had no intention of reviving the com-
bination laws ; but to render more effective, and practicably
applicable, for master and man, the resolutions of the Com-
mittee last Session, upon which the House had subseNuently
founded a Bill. All they desired was to repair the practical de.
fects of last year's Bill.
•
The petitions were laid on the table.
LONDON COLLEGE BILL.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in moving for leave to withdraW:his
Bill, which stood for a second reading on Monday, and subti-
tuting in its stead a notice, that he would on Tuesday presont
a petition for leave to bring in a private Bill for the foundation
"of a London College on a comprehensive plan of education.
begged to explain the reasons which influenced him in .raking
this course of proceeding. The alterations from a pnt)liktt6. a
private Bill had become necessary, owing to some regulations
--of the .House which affected such matters, and the alteration
would'have also the recommendation of diminishing the nedes-
, tsity of discussion upon the Bill. The greatest misappreqn-
sious had gone forth respecting the measure, and it was ine'Um_
bent upon him to explain both what it was - not and what, it
really was. In the first place, the terms of the Bill we rp to
incorporate a Company, with power to sue and be sued as Am-.
porate body, and not to be a joint stock concern in any.affier
quality than as having the power to hold lands anti issueahares,
and make such. exectitive'arrangements as the case-required.—

The Bin was not intended no -convey any individual power
of eithdrawing from the responsibility incurred by their per-
sonal undertaking, so as •to come within the exceptions
taken to other associations.: With respect to the measure
itself, the promoters of it bail no intention of applying _for ,
any exclusive privileges, or creating fellowships, conferring
'degrees, or seeking those libtioars which for a very long time
had been considered as, the exclusive privilege of the two
great Universities. The plain object was, indeed, this—that
assthere were notoriously hundreds of thousands of persons in
London who were deprived by a variety of causes of givingtheir-
-children the benefit of the, collegiate education, as at present,
established, both by distatice from the spot as -well as ex-'
pence.. It was expedient to provide the means of their ace.
seeiring such education for their families, in the only way:
in which it could be made available for their habits and situa-
'Oon of life. There were some who disliked .sending their child-
Pt 7.! from home to a college, others who had not the means of,
-sending their children to a distance tar purposes -of educa-
Col. Indeed, the present_ expence of a University education
w a great objection to numbers—it could not be had at Oxford
•or Cambridge for less(arid that was a low average) than 2001.
a-yean, accompanied, too, with all the collateral expences of
,•such a system, which often involved worse than mere pecuni-
ary consequences in their train. He spoke from the very highest
authority when he declared that the expence and dissipation
consequent upon it at the two great Universities was so great,
that if not checked it-would produce the greatest evils .to so.
ciety. To such a pitch had this -.4ystem of expence been carel
ried that at this moment the .greatest pains were-taking no
check it at the Universities. - -He understood, • too, 'that other
great improvements were 'in progress at the- two Univeritiei,
and that a better system of education was in -progress at both.
The object of his bill was, -in fact, 'to enable the people of.
et
this great metropolis to ring home to ;their own doors ex
good college system of eiliicationeso as to include those who
did not like (whatever were their means) to send their children
to a distance, and also those whose restricted means did not
enable them to encounter the expence. He wished to have
established on the spot a college for teaching the scieacee,
literature, and the arts; and the student's expenditure would
•at the outset lie only three guineas • for each ofe those branches,
and one guinea admission, making the whole expence of his edit.-
cation cost ten guineas a. year only, instead one hundred and
eighty or 2001. a-year, as at Oxford. In these branches it
-was not intended that the professors should haae sinecures, for
their general salaries were not to exceed from ROI. to 1001. a. year, 1
except in the particular case of the Oriential professorship, and
perhaps One other; and they were to depend mainly upon the
successful progress of the business of the school, according to
a suitable arrangement which -would be provided for the pur-
pose. They were not to have houses, nor were-they to.be al-
lowed to take boarders. One great result of this new college
would be, the formation, on cheap terms, of a good medical
school. All experience had shown that this could only be had
in the vicinity of a large hospital ; and where could that be so
well provided as in a great metropolis? They might have it
perhaps in Liverpool, Bristol, or Manchester, but in London
-only could sufficient means be found of rendering it more geneei
rally useful. It was therefore desirable that the site of the new 1
college should be within twenty minutes' walk of one of their
great hospitals. This would afford a peculiar advantaga.to
naval and military professional students, and also to the great
societies of mechanics which. were so widely and usefully
spreading throughout the country, more particularly those of
the metropolis. The present was therefore the time for taking
• advantage of the general desire for education, and affording the
facilities for which a college in the metropolis was calculated.
In the formation of this establishment it was intended to take
the utmost care to make its benefits as comprehensive -as posS
sible: there was to be no religious test which 'could affect
any class of churchmen or dissenters, nor was-there to be,
any theological lectures or -course of education of that-kind,
it being considered that the two great -universities, and the
seminaries for the religious education -of dissenters, -were
better adapted for such a purpose. an fact, this was to be the
only branch of education not included in-the neiiplan. -It was
-proposed that the government of the college should be vested in
-a Governor, or Chairman, or some such officer, and -19 other
Directors, with other proper-officers, to whom the management
of discipline was to he intrusted. -He hoped this explanation
-would remove the many mistakes-which were felt respecting the'
object of the bill, for which he meant to present a petition for
leave to bring in on Tuesday, as a private bill, and not a pub-
lic one as he had at first intended.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR defended the system of education
which-was established at the University of Oxford, with which
he had been for more than 40 years acquainted, and -.insisted
that they had made the utmost strides to improve it, according
to the growing lights of the times.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he had expressly stated that faet.
All lie had disparaged the present system for was in the strides
to expence and dissipation which had attended it.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR said, that lie was in the occasional
habit of going to Oxford, and lie knew that the discipline of the.
young men there was unexampled, and could not be exceeded.,
Indeed, every thing was done which discipline, science, and•li.-
- terature could accomplish. :Habits of reading and study, formerly
en known, *ere eitablished in the colleges. !Noblemen and gentle-
men of rank now commonly took real degrees of-11. A., whereas
formerly persons of their rank never thought of-taking any but
honorary degrees. A great many foolish notions had got abroad
about the idleness and dissipation of the Universities. What--
ever might be the vulgar impression, idleness did pot prevail
diere, If the House would compare the number of scholars
entered with the number of degrees obtained, it would be dis-
•-covered that there could be very few who did not obtain those
' honours. As to the Bill, lie felt sure that all the liberal views
'-of his Hon. and Learned Friend must fail. Without the disci-
, • • pline of a higher authority and the constant examinations-which
took place at the Universities, it-would be in-vain to expect
- much progress from the students. •
Mr. GOULBURN observed, that the opportunity for dis-
cussion, supposing the suliject to want any, upon the principle
was not well chosen. . It would be better to bring it-upon some
store after the introduction of -the Bill. •
Mr. BROUGHAM again denied having imputed any fault,
to the discipline or science of the universities, for their im-
provenients in which, on the contrary, he had very much
praised them. -What he had urged upon the various conse--
quences of expences among the students, he had derived frorn
the highest authorities in -theuniversities. This-institution was
not intended in any way to rival those establishments. lie Te-
ther expected, that by rendering the thirst for scientific know-
ledge, as it were epidemic, among a totally different class, that
more property would be-sent to the Universities -inconse,queneee
Such was not his expectation only, but also that of-the heads of
those institutions with whom lie had communicated, and of the
Fellows and past Fellows Of Colleges, who constituted four out
of five of the Committee.
The Order was discharged, and the notice stood for Tuesday.
PRESERVATION of SHIPWRECKED PERSONS.
Mr. TREMAYNE Presented petition from Mr. Tren- '
grouse, respecting his invention of an apparatus for-saving lives
-train shipwreck.
Mr. T. WILSON supported the petition, and stated,- that
to his certain knowledge it had been approved of by the Com-
mittee of Lloyd's, by the Royal Humane Society, by die So-
ciety of Arts, and by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House.
Sir J. YORKE, in allusion to the claim made on the Ad-
miralty toreward this invention, which was not by any means
so new as the petitioner supposed, advised•those honourable
societies who approved of it so highly, to buy the-apparatus of
the petitioner, anifierid one set Out in every ship. -
Sir I. COFFIN said that the•kindest thing the friends of this
poor man could do for him; -would be to advise him to take up
box, or bundle of traps, and burn them. Ile-was once -ship-
wrecked off the coast of Labrador, and he could safely say there
was was no timelerany man to think, in that situation, of -a
box of apparatus for saving himself. The ship:gifts under
water in half an hour, and every man was busy in-finding-a"
place upon-the riggiag, or wherever else he could get, for a
little more safety.:....• . -
lir. HUME was astonished at the indiffereniel of the Gal,
bait Member toalre lives of. seamen. From his long Service in
that department., he .had expeeted, a different sort ;of foeling
from him. Surely all shipwrecks were not like that'Which the
Gallant Member had suffered. Sometimes the crew were -near
enough to the shore to -•reoeive assistance, if it could be.rene,
dered to theme and ifnne life were saved in five years, the in-
vendor. -would deserve the grstitinie of.-:he country and a public
reward. , •
Sir GEORGE: CLERK said, that a Committee appointed
under the Admiralty Board had approved of the invention,
though it was not•uew—being only like a counterpart of that
of Captain Manley-, who threw a rope with a shell from the,
shore, whereas this plan was to give small boats . and yes-
eels a chance of throwing a rope to the shore from the neSsels.
The discussion, tuelanasat had gone, must have folly answered
the purposeof the petitioner, who really only looked -.to :the ad-
vantage which the notoriety would give him. already
_in possession of the letters fromahe Admiralty in favour of his
invention. The House need not be put to the.. trouble of print-
ing them—that the petitioner-could do-for himself.
Mr. TREMAYNE moved for copies of the papers which
bed been communicated to the.petitioner by the Board of Ad-
miralty.—Ordered.
POPULATION RETURNS of the WEST INDIES, .&c.
Mr. BUXTON _rose to move for numerous Papers contain-
ing returns of the population of the Colonies of St. Vincent's,
St. Lucie, St. Nevis, Jamaica, :and -the -Cape of Good Hope,
distinguishing the black and coloured population. Also the
returns of all tereenhandize exported to-China, the East •Indies,
Sierra Leone ' • and of all the inerchandize re-exported from the
Westlndia Colonies, and from St. Domingo, the Cape
-of fGood Hope, and the. Isle of France; of returns from all the
Colonies in the West Indies, and from the Isle of Tratiee and
:the Cape of Good Hope, from the Ist January, 1821; of the

number of slaves, stating the diite of their imptortation,hhe sex
of the slaves, where they
.Were brought from, the purchaser;
the return of slaves exported, or manumitteel,..,:ite.
• Mr. CANNING. said that be would be the last man in the
House to object to returns-valculated for the dueinfortnation of
the House.. But upon the face of it this was a method of moving.:
for them which could not be tolerated. How was it poSSible
for any man to*say, with respect to one half of these now asked, '
that they could or could not be made out, or what time would
be necessary for the purpose, if 'they could bemade out? It
was but reasonable for Gentlemen toput motions of this extra-
ordinary scope into the hands of the officers of Government
beforehand, that they might be apprized of -the possibility or
impossibility of producing them. .
Sir I. COFFIN denounced en obvious impossibility in the
returns. - They required to have the parentage .-tof the negro
children described ! Why,. the fathers, as commonly as could
be, might be ten or 'twenty miles off on another estate, and
nobody but lie and the mother have the least knowledge of the
fact.
Mr. CURTEIS, as an agriculturist, objected to the returns.
Every time an outcry -was made about the West India colonies,
setnethipg was done 'to let in their rum to the disadvantage of
British malt spirits. He world resist this motion as one full of
Mischief to the agricultural interests.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER began to
look at the motion with considerable alarm, on account of the
endless topics to- the discussion of whiCh it threatened to give
rise—a danger of which he was suddeniy.reminded by the re-
mark of his Hon.-Friend the Member-for Sussex.
Mr. F. BUXTON defended himself front the severity of the
Right .Hon. Gentleman,' by assuring -the Ilotise that he had
subthitted the returns to the proper authorities.beforehand, and
that he had received their written consent in theproduction of
them, which proofs of their assent lie.read to the house. Since
titerc were oiNectinne, lie would withdraw his motion, and re-
peat'it on Mentlay.
Mr. 'WILMOT HORTON never objected "to returns for
which there was a precedents, but the evil,was of immederate
'growth. The Hon. Member for Montrose had moved for 36
different returns respecting Siera Leone, whirl, at the lowest
• Computation, would employ.four-skilftil and industrious men at
least six month;. The fact was,,that in his department-it would
soon be impossible to go on with treble the establishment.—
When he entered office in .1822, {he number of pages of printed
returns-amounted in that session to 270. In the current session
he had already laid on the table more than•s,ooo pages. It was
vain to hide it any-longer. This system -called for the active
interference of Parliament, otherwise that which was among the
most useful of their privileges would become an engine-of the
worst abuse.
Mr. HUME said, that as the observation glanced at him
though thrown out generally, he must be allowed to say that
it was not his fault, but the fault of-the system in the Colopial-
Office, that these returns were so tedious and expensive. No
accounts had been kept there for 30 years running, of the af-
fairs of Sierra Leone. His object was to have a saving effected
of 150,0001, a year, which the establishment needlessly cost the
country. If his opinion could prevail, -the expence of all the
returns would have been saved out of the quarter of a cargo of
goods habitually thrown away upon that coast. For everyloo/.
expended at his suggestion for making returns, thousand had
been saved to the country.
Mr. CANNING objected to,.centinuing a discussion upon a
motion which -was withdrawn.
Mr. W.. HORTON meant no partictilar reflection. lie
only wished to illustrate one thing by another. .
:QUARANTINE LAWS BILL. •
:The frier of the Day for the third reading was read.
..151r., G. GRANT rose to -correct a very strange misappre-
hension which had gone forth, .as if .it had been the design a
the:Committee of the framers of this Bill, and of the Bill itself,
to do away entirely with.the precautionary system of the qua-
rantine laws. Those who so thought and argued could have
read neither-the Bill or the Report upon which it was founded.
The Right -Hon. Gentleman went on to show from the report
and the bearing-of the evidence, that it never had been the de-
sign of Government to relax the sanatory principle of the Qua-
rantine Laws, but, on the contrary, to strengthen it by taking
away the inoperative :capital penalties, and substituting others
which tverelikely toeecute ,the efficiency-ef the-laws. It had
been recommended iin .the Committee, whose investigations
had been so frequently made the subject of discussion in that
House, that goods from 'the plague countries should perfsrm '
quarantine of ewenty--one 'days after being lended at the Ia
zaretto. The conclusion at which the whole of the evidence
taken before the Committee seemed to point, was the same as
the recommendation of the most experienced practitioners—
namely, the propriety of reducing the number of days under
the existing law devoted to quarantine. It would seem, theretine,
upon the whole, and even according to the opinions of those
who ware most apprehensive of contagion, that this important
principle was establislied—narneloltatstinlespeet to ships ar-
riving in the ports of this kingdom ffoni c6ittitries infected with
the plague, the number of quarantine days might properly be
reduced. In regard to clean bills of healthrit was not necessary
to dchtin the House on that -subject. -Ile thought it would be
sufficient that-Vessels arriving with clean bills should be Visited
by proper officers, who.would reportip.t.oi.Privy Council; and
upon favourable answers, which whrcti•-,would be received by
return of post, such vessels might be admitted. 'in all arrange-
. ments of the kind the object of Government would be,-that the
.modifications to be adopted should not exceed the modifications
recommended .by the medical , practitioners. . The Ring in
council was already even, under the existing aysteth, vested
with large discretionary powers in regard to _the quarentine
laws. The Privy Council might declare the trade with other
countries, besides those already :included, to be subject to the
regulations of quarantinea ardit. might by its order remove
that liability front the trades at present subject to it. There
was one other object which it was necessary to mention as one
that had been maturely considered by -the Government ; and
that was the appointment of some experienced and able medical
inspector, whose dutyit would be to overlook stil the reports
made to the Privy Council, and to advise them thereon. .It
would be slesirahle„.aiso,..thahhe should inspect all the quaran-
tine stations.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN, after complitnentieg the Right Hon.
Gentlemanon the clear and explicit manner in which he had
stated the grounds of this Bill to the House, said, his principal
ohjectin rising now was to do away with an idea that had pre-
-railed .in some quarters as to -the plague never having ma-
nifested itself tothe northward of Cape Finisterre. Every man
at all acquainted with the history of the plague must know that
it had made its appearance in England no less than four times,
and was supposed to have swept away altogether 116,000 per-
sons in such-visitations. His own apprehension about the pos-
sibility of its re-appearance in these parts of the world had been
more than once (as we understood) seriously excited. The Gal-
lant_Admiral then read an extract from the letter of a phySician,
who had been eight years with our army in Egypt, in which
the writer stated that a friend of his, who was a strong non-
contagionist, bad thought proper, during his sojourn at Malta,
to go and shut himself up in the little 'lsland .of GOZO, when
the plague had declared itself there. In a few days his temerity
cost hinihis-life.—(Hear!)—He (Sir 1. Coffin) was only sur-
prised that the same fate did not overtake Dr. Maclean, who
ventured to betake himself to, and reside in, the pest-house at
Constantinople, among the plague patiens confined there. In a
very little dint all the assistants he had caused to be hired at
two dollars lie,. diem pertahetFoKheinfection, and every one of
the patients too, leaving the doctor the only survivor of the
whole compan'.
Mr. CANNING felt greatly relieved by the speech with
which his Right Hon. Friend had just obliged the Reuse. He
was very anxious that the House. should understand that the
dectrine of non-contagion had really not received any counte-
nance from the most experienced and practical men. The mss.
~chief, had been producad by the unreserved and confident
declarations that had been made by the disciple's of this doc-
trine,' was positively much greater than perhaps those gentle.
Men *ere aware of. Already at Marseilles, at Genoa, a much
longer, quarantine was:imposed on British shipping, thin on the
shipping-Of any other Enropean nation. At Naples, in addition
Mihe usual term ofquaranting prevailing_lhere„-they had im-
A-ed.p. term of 21 days upon British vesaela that hat quitted
';44l#4.3rltaln, ten, since the gentlemen who were such detee-
-minett nob-contagionists had. -promulgated in all places their
opinions.--(Rear l)—Under these ' circumstances, : he'certainly
'did wish that Hon. Gentlemen would be pleased to keep such
opiniona a little more to -themselves ; or if they would continue
theireiperiments,ite -heartily trusted that they would be tried
arid 'eillibited, as such experiments anciently were, in corpore
viii, rather than in a manner to prejudice the general welfareof
the cornintinity.—(Hear !)—He was happyto say, however,
thatthe public appeared' to have no disposition to-concur-in 'the
theories tdivitich he had alluded.
' 'Mi. Tnati T a-n 4, Colonel Da t-sts• au. LE were inaudible in the
gallery.. '
Mr. HUME quite agreed 'thit the mischief to which the
Right Hon. (gentleman had just adverted bad been consider,
able, and he thought it was bet right that Ministers should do
every tbingin their power to contradict the opinion that had
gone abroad., that our present quarantine laws vrere about to
be r4eared. ' But he had to complain that this declaration was
not made, as it should -have been, -when the present bill was
first introduced by the Government. He could not help ob-
serving on the lecture which bad been read by the Right Hon.
Gentleman, 'however, to the Hon. Member for Westminster,
and others who thought with that Hon. Gentleman, on the sub.
ject of contagion; hi respect to whom the Right Hon. Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs had expressed so strong a wish that they
would keep their opinions.to themselves. NOW he (Sir. Hume)
was himself by no means satisfied that the principle of conta-
gion did exist to the degree. in Which; it had been long supposed
to exist ; antl;'at 'irty rate, lie 'believed -that -the discusston of
the queition could not be productive of any harm. With regard
to the appointment of that medical 'Officer—the the. or

.superintendant mentioned by the Right Bon. Gentleman (Mr.
Grant)e--he thought it ought not to be left_ to the discretion, or
put in the power of any one man to replace, in thit respect,
that system of examination and inquiry which had gone on so
well for so long a time. .
. .
,
Air. HCSKISSON-felt assured that if the Hon. Gent. would
only think-of the resonsibility which attached to the I3oard of
Trade, when left toUecidc upon he case-of every vessel arriv-
ing with either a foul- or a sustiected bill of health, he would see
that it was desirable they should have the assistance of some
such officer, possessing the advantage of having visited coun-
tries where the plague raged, durihg its visitations; and where
lobservation and -Judgment, therefore,- in that matter, might
guide the board in all questions of quarantine. At present
there was no person attached to the Board of Trade who had
ever witnessed the ravages of plague at all. - For his own part,
he could only say that be thought this sort of appointment a
most important object, inasmuch as there were no cases that he
felt to be more difficult, or experienced greater hesitation in de-
ciding upon, than cases of quarantine. He had always endea-
voured, in respect of them, to act upon the safe side ; and that
was, to follow the belief which the law of this country re-
cognized-ethat the plague was capable of being propagated by
contagion. As to the objection- taken by the Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Hume) that Ministers should have made the declarations
which the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Grant) had
i
I made to-night upon an earlier occasion, the fact was, the Right
Hon. Gentleman had in the very first instance stated the prin-
ciple of the present measure. lie (Mr. Huskisson) had seen
the most idle reports in print about the intentions of Govern-
ment in respect of bills of health ; and he was obliged to con-
concur with his Right Hon. Friend, that the most serious mis-
chief was occasioned by such means ; and that they who pro-
fessed the doctrine of non-contagion, although they were at per-
fect liberty-to publish their theories in the usual course of pub-
lication, had yet no right to propound-them in places and under
circumstances where they might be erroneously supposed to
have a certain degree of sanction from the Legislature. (Hear !)
He had seen it stated in the newspapers lately, that a dangerous
case had declared itself in the lazaretto at Sheerness; whereas;
in fact, every ohe of thepersens in or about that establishment
had been strictly examined, and was found to be in perfect
health. This report also had, as he had reason to believe, done
us a great deal of mischief abroad.
Mr. DEN3I AN, alluding-to the opinions and evidence of
Dr. 'Millie, examined in 1819, stated that it appeared to be the
doctor's.-belief, as that was to be collected from papers in the
possession of his .brother-in-law, that it would be unsafe to
repeal the existing laws of quarantine.—(Hear !)
After a tew technical amendments, the Bill was read a third
-time, and passed, under this title," A Bill-to repeal the several
laws relating to the performance of quarantine, and -to make
other provisions in lieu thereof."
UNIVERSITY POLICE. -
Mr. Secretary PEEL obtained leave to bring in a Bill " for
the better regulation of the Police by night, in the Universities
at Oxford and Cambridge."
COMAUTTEE OF SUPPLY.
On the motion of- Mr. lIE IMES, the House resolved itself
into a-Committee of Supply. I
Mr. HE It RIES moved that the sum of '13;000/. be granted
for the repair of the Cob, at- the :Harbour of Lyme Regis.
31r. HUME observed, lliatthe House would be surprised to
hear that upwards of 106.0001 had been paid towards that har.
boor, and he, therefore, objected to-the present grant, as it did
not appear to himao be a grant of a public nature. In the
year 1822, there were 22,000 tons entered at that port, of which
there -were but 38- vessels above -100 tons.; he complained that'
the quantum of tons had been swelled by every possible artifice.
If it could be sheavn that the trade of the country would be im-
proved by the grant, he would not Opposeit, but he had heard
the opinions of several naval men; that-they dotiked upon it as
useless, and merely got up as a job.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that
the Harbour of Lyme Regis was the -only one that afforded a
shelter from the winds between Portimouth and Plymouth ;
be, therefore thought that there were Very good public grounds
for maintaining-the harbour. He did not lay any stress upon
the trade of the harbour, but the utility was of a public nature;
the vessels that. took -refuge there actually paid a tonnage for
the privilege of entering, and the annual amount (about MM. a
year) was applicable to the-repairs that the-Pier might require,
and it was in agitation to raise on that security the sum of
6.000 t towards defraying those expences. A great -part of the
aiier bad been swept away, and it therefore would be worse than
eeseless.to,leave it in its present.state, as the whole of the work
that wa:estanding would-doubtless be weakened if it was allow-
ed to remain in its present-state. In its way, though he granted
that it was-a small way, ,he believed it would prove a most
.useful grant.
Mr. A. 8A.P.1 NC; said, that in the course of an investiga-
tion that had taken place before a Committee, the inutility of
any grant tor such apurpose had been.most deafly elucidated,
and had no doubt, ifalie Right lion. Gentleman had heard the
,evidence that had -been adduced, lie- never would have been
willing to grunt another shilling to the work.
'After a few Words from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCBE-
-Qn En, Sir. BERNAL, and Sir Isaac Corrier,
Mr. 11ER RLESeraitl,etliat the Hon. Member for Aberdeen
had made no trifling blunder in his calculation of the exnenees
heinglo6,oool..; the fact-was, that they had only been 67,0001.
the Hon.- Member having introduced into his account the sum
of 30,0001. twice over, a strong proof to the Committee of the
_little consideration the Hon. Member for Montrose had given-to
the subject. •
31r. IlU3lE—Well, if it.is noanore than 67,0001. that is too
much to throw away. -
31r. 8.-0001'ER said he could speak from his own expe-
-rience of alieutility of the harbour-; had it not been for the
Shelter which that harbour had afforded him, he should not
now have the honour of addressing the Committee. lie should
' certainly give his vote for maintaining .a 'harbour which had
saved himself and his from destruction.
The 1111 A I RM AN expressed a doubt whether the resolution
proposed by the-BOn. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) could
be put in a Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUEReaid he appre-
hended it would be quite unprecedented in a Committee of
Supply to put such a resolution as that proposed by the Hon.
Member for Alontrose. .
Mr. HUME did not -ee the irregularity, hitt -it would an-
swer his purpose equally to move that the Chairmen report pro-
gress. He should therefore take the sense of the „House on
that question. On this motion the House divided—
Ayes,-15 -I Noes, 4;6 I Majority, 51.
The original Resolution, was then agreed to.
On the Resolution- for a vote of 200 -,000/. as a compensation
to the American Government for a number of slaves carried
away during the last-war, ' - , -
Mr. BERNAL wished to know what had become of these
slaves.?
Mr Secretary CANNING replied in a -low tone, that the
question in this case was not as to the restoration of the slaves,
but-whether a pecuniary compensation should be made for the
slaves carried away, who were-considered in the United States
as private, property. It had been agreed to refer the difference
between this Government and the Government of the United
States to a third Power, and the arbitrator -was the Emperor of
Russia. The present vote was the sum adjudicated by. the Corn-
missionners as a compensation for the detriment done to private
property - - . -
The resolution was agreed to, the House resumed, and the
report was ordered to be received on. Monday.
e MAURITIUS TRADE BILL. . .
Mr. W. HORTON moved. die Order of the Day for the see
cond reading of the Mauritius Trade Bill. .
Mr. BERNAL said, the object of this Bill was to place the
trade of the Isle-of Mauritius on the same footing as that of
the West India Colonies, so that their sugar would be admitted,
on payment of the same duty as West India sugar. He believed
it was not denied, that slaves had been illicitly imported into
the Mauritiusup to the year-1821: This practice had continued.
during a period of ten or eleven years, while the Slave Trade
was prohibited in the West India Colonies, and Creoles-were,
for. the most part, employed in those Colonies. Even at the pre-
sent moment an armed vessel seas obliged to be kept in the straits
, of Seychellei, which lay to the eastof the island of Mauritius, to
prevent the traffic in slaves, and strong suspicions existed that
that traffic was still illicitly carried on. The island of Mauritius
had, in the first instance, requested to be considered as a port
within the limits of the -East,lndia Company's Charter. For
Ave or six years they enjoyed the advantages of a free port;
they then turned round, and stated to the Government that they
no longer desired to be entitled to the advantages of a free
ort, but that they M
Th io be placed on the same footing as
'the West India Islands. e fact was, however, that the trade
of the Mauritius stood on an entirely different footing from
that of the West India Colonies. No provision had been made
in the present Bill to prevent the importation of other foreign
sugars, such as the sugars of China and. the coast of Africa,
through the Island_ of Muritius.
Mr. W. HORTON observed that a provisionhad been made
in the Bill to prevent the importation of such sugars.
Mr. BERNAL said, he was glad to hear that measures had
at least been taken to prevent this inconvenience. He could
not conceive, however, on what principal the -sugars of the Mau-
ritius were to be admitted on the-same footing as those of the
West India Colonies, while the sugars of the East Indies were
in effect prohibited. He exhorted the Government to reflect
upon the dilemma in which they were placing themselves, and
he particularly called upon.the /lon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
W. Horton), to state the grounds on which he supported the
present Bill. - -
Mr. W. HORTON said, that at the time:the Mauritius was
captured, it was stipulated that they should beplitced in the same
situation as oureother.Colonies. _lt was a rriere eiccident that it
-was contained within the' limits of the East India Company's
Charter, and . that could not take away its right tb -enjoy

the same privileges as the West India Colonies. The Oilier in
Council in .1816, to give that Island a free trade, was followed
by a prohibition on the part of France to import the productions
of the Mauritius into .France. Their claim to have the duty
remitted on sugar' was to be decided by the question whether
their situation did not entitle them to all the,privileges of other
colonies. In point of fact, the' Slave Trade, which the lion.
Membir dreads, does not exist. Under no general system could
the Mauritius be excludtd from the advantage of our market.
The apprehension of the Slave Trade being carried on by the
means of the Seychelles, expressed by 'alii-lon. Member, was
an apprehension of the Slave Trade generally, and not any par-
ticular apprehension" of the Mauritius carrying it on. As to
sugar, the produce of other countries, being imported here, in
the name of Mauritius sugar, the smaller islands, even of the
West Indies, -produced more than the Mauritius, which made
such a supposition very improbable. Unless the Mauritius
were placed under some peculiar circumstances, it would be. a
gross act of injustice to continue an accidental exclusion, which
would be of great injury to that colony.
Mr.'ll. ELLIS contended that the condition of this island
Was regulated and fixed at the peace, and that it ought not ,to
be altered unless some special and strong grounds for doing it
were shewn. He contended, on the authority of the African
Institution; that the Slave Trade had been carried on by all the
Islands of the Mauritius, and that the inhabitants had taken an

active part in it. The 'Honourable Member read some ex-
tracts from the Reports of-this Institution, to shew that'this

Was the case, and the people were opposed to every measure
of prevention. He gave great credit to Sir R. Farquhar's
meritorious exertions in suppressing the Slave Trade, but he
atributed his success to his treaties with the Native Princes,
and ,not to the co-operation of the inhabitants. What, he
asked, would be .the effect of this measure on the .minds
Of the inhabitants of the West India Islands, who had.
never violated the laws against the Slave Trade, when they!
saw the inhabitants of the Mauritius, who, wise in :-their
day and generation, had carried on this trade in spite of the
laws, and were now to be rewarded for it by the GovernMent,
to the ruin of the West India islands ? The moral effect.could
not, he contended, be other than injurious, and he:should
oppose the measure, which lie hoped would not pass into a law,
Mr. HUSKISSON said, that in the last Session it had been
proposed to reduce the duty on Mauritius sugar; but the answer
of the West India interest hadthen been that theMatiritiusenjOyed
Commercial advantages in which the West India islands did not
Participate : that plea was now taken away ; the restrictions which
had operated upon theWestlndia islands,and which did not affect
thetliauritius, had been removed, and bothinterests being now.
as regarded commercial advantage, on a footing, a new ground of
objection must be taken to the reduction of the Mauritius duty.
Accordingly, the opposition at present made to this reduction
was of a different description—it was alleged that the colony of
the Mauritius, contrary to the law of Great Britain, had carried
on, and did still carry on, more or less, an illicit commerce in
slaves. But this allegation—as it applied to any trade exist-
ing—was not supported' by fact. Prior to the year 1820, some
smuggling of slaves had taken place ; but, according to the best
evidence before the House, that practice continued no longer.
Then the Murititts must be judged, not according to what it
had been, but according to what it was. If it was to be laid
down as a general principle that every colonyapossessing slaves,
and not entirely adapting itself to the wishes of Parlia-
ment with respect to them, was to be visited with a
heavier tax, let that principle be sustained and applied uni-
versally. Ile decidedly supported the present measure, and
thought that the West India interest was wrong in opposing it.
The small quantity of sugar which came from the Mauritius—
say 12,000 hogsheads a-year-would make little difference to
the West India produce; and even if it did not come direct
into this country, its operation in the West Indies would be the
same, for it must of necessity be sold somewhere, and would in
fact go to meet their surplus supply (and reduce its price) in the
general market of Europe. The Right Hon. Gentleman sat
down by assuring those gentlemen who opposed the pill, that
this mist be the case so long as the. West Indies produced
more sugar than could be consumed in Great .Britain ; and as
soon as oar consumption began to be at all equal to the supply,
this fact the West India merchants might be sure of—they
would hold their present monopoly no longer.
Mr. .BRIGHT said that there was one fact which proved
that a slave importation must be going on in the Mauritius.---
The colony-since its,capture,. from being commercial, had be-
come altogether agricultural. Within the last few years its
production of sugar had increased from 4000 hogsheads to 12,000.
Now he should like to ask how that increase was poSiible, un.,
less slaves, and in large numbers, bad been imported ?
Sir R. FA RQUHAR said that the House would excuse
him for pressing himself at that moment upon its notice, as
he had naturally felt a strong interest for a colony which.
he had himself so long administered. In 1810, he was pre-
sent at the conquest of the Isle of Bourbon, to which. he
-was accompanied by that meritorious officer, Captain WIL
loughby, who had distributed to the inhabitants proclamations,
which promised to them not only the advantages they enjoyed
under 'France, but the pre-eminent advantages of the British
colonies. 'The British
promises held out to them were free trade and
the tidiest protection to the. produce of the island in •the mother
country. But how had those-promises been fulfilled? They
had lost the extensive /rade they.formerly possessed, and their
produce met with no protection. The Order of Council issued:
-in the year 18113, giving to those colonies a free trade, was ac-
companied with so many restrictions, that, coupled with the
prohibitions which were placed on it in' the porbs'of France,
it was a perfect nullity. The fluctuations which followed
therefrom destroyed all the confidence of the merchants,
and the inhabitants, being thus deprived of the benefits
of free trade, naturally became agriculturists ; and, owing
to the hurricanes, which destroyed the other plantations
of the country, cultivators of sugar. Bourbon, being sepa-
rated from the Mauritius, enjoyed all her ancient advan-
tages, and the contrast of such prosperity with the deptes-
:sion of the Mauritius naturally tended to excite discontent
and alienate the'affections of the people of that.country. The
Mauritius now stood in the anomalous situation 'of being 'a
sacrifice to European and Indian policy, whilst, on the ground
of interest, expediency, and justice, it ought to enjoy all the
advantages of the British sugar colonies. He cotended that no
slave trade-existed -at present in -the Mauritius,-'and- that the
slave trade .which had prevailed there some four or five years
ago had been carried:on by some renegadoes, who had lived by
.privateering during thewar, and not by the respectable inhabi-
tants of the colony. He Slimed, by reference to different ab-
stracts of the slave -population,-that it had not increased during
the conquest of the island, and inferred, from all.these reasons,
that there was no ground, save that of sic volo, sic jubco, for op-
posing•the proposition now suggested in .favour of the trade of
the Mauritius;
Mr. B. GORDON would have no objection to vote for the
Bill, if it were postponed till the ,year 1828,- in order that it
might be seen in the interim -how far it would affect West In-
dian interests.
• Mr. PLUMMER moved, as an amendment, that the Bill
be-read this day six months.
Mr. HUM &trusted that the House, -now that it was only
doing an act of justice to the Mauritius, would also take into
its consideration the state of the West India'Colonies.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that his conviction was, that until the
West lushes rendered their population independent of foreign
import for subsistence, they would not be -in that situation in
which they ought to stand. As to the present Bill, he was
rather disposed to- favour it, from adesire to try .the effect of the
encouragement of such-a measure in an island situated like
that which was the object of it.
Mr. TRANI' supported 'the Bill, and. the House divided,
when the numbers were—.
,For the .Bill - -
_Against it -

Majority in favour of it - -23
THE DUCHESS 'OF KENT.

The Duchess of,Kent's Annuity Bill went through the Com
mitre. Report on Monday.
- • NEWSPAPERS. . -

Mr. -.HUME rose, on the Order of the Day for receiving the
tteport of the Columbia Postage Bill, and asked wether it was
the intention of Government to propose any clause to release
newspapers from postage going to British Colonies.
Mr. HERMES said, a measure to allow newspapers to go
to the Colonies with a very light postage was in contemplation.
The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of, the
House adjourned at HALF-PAST ONE O'CLOCK'to-Monday.

The Anniversary Meeting of the NATIONAL
BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION was held yesterday at Freema
sons' Hall, the Marquis of LAstsnowfi in the Chair. The
room was filled with respectable ladies and gentlemen. The
Noble Chairman opened the business of the Meting by stating
tl4e object of the Society; which was one, he said, of pure bene-
volence. For many years it had extended its aid to persons of
the middle clasp of life, who had seen better days, and had be-
come peculiar objects of sympathy. One of its advantages was
to bring to light the character and the misfortunes of that class
of persons, and to administer consolation to those who possessed
a just claim on theircharity. It was limited by neither sect ror
country, whilst evert means were taken to guard against im-
proper persons becoming the objects of it. He was happy to state
that similar institutions had been formed at Bath, Bristol, and
Glocester. After passing a high compliment on Mr. Herve,
the founder of the Society, he concluded- by informing the
Meeting, that they were convened that day to enable it to ex-
tend its blessings. The Committee's Report was then read, and
a series ef resolutions were adopted. The cause of the charity
was zealously advocated by -Lord Clifibrd, Mr. nerve, Mr.
Brandon, and several other Gentlemen; after which a collt.c.
tion took place at tnd doors. ' The Marquis of Lansdown, in
addition- to presiding on the occasion, presented the Society;
with tk donation of 201.