The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-22 00:00:00

SLAVE TRADE ACTS,

Earl BATHURST having moved the third reading of the
Slave Trade Acts Consolidation Bill,
The Earl of WESTMORLAND, though he was as sincere
as his Colleagues in wishing to put down the Slave Trade,
.ob-
jected to two clauses in the present Bill. The one, he con-
tended, subjected merchants who might have lent certain sums
of money to be made responsible for the use of it byothers, and.
to be tried for the mere intention of felony, without any felo-
nious act having been committed. Neither was this all, but
instead of being tried by a British tribunal, and before a Bri-
tish Jury, they were to be tried under the 27th of Henry
the 11th and 12th of King William, or the 46,1 i of his late 31a-
jesty, in any Court of Admiralty. The second clause was that
which allowed slaves to be moved from one, island to the other
only till the 31st of July, 1827, and even then not without send-
ing to England and obtaining the consent of the King in Coun-
cil. Such a clause was highly impolitic, and might prove
cruel, by confining an overgrown population to the island
where it was fixed, and where it might starve, whilst it might
have enjoyed plenty in another place. The Noble Earl then
moved that the bill be recommitted with a view to alter those
clauses.
Earl BATHURST defended the bill, and contended that
persons guilty of offences would be tried by British subjects
resident in the colonies. As to the non-removal of slaves
from colony to colony, the principle had been recognised in
the Act of 1806, abolishing the Slave Trade, and the clause
now objected to only went to follow it up, and to give it effect.
He could not allow slaves to be regarded so entirely in the
light of goods and chattels, as to be removed to other islands,
without any consideration of the social relations which they
had formed, and which it was desirous they should be encou-
raged to form. He could therefore not agree to the amend-
ment proposed by the Noble Earl.
Earl ROSSLYN did not approve that in a Bill brought for-
ward under the pretence of consolidation new matter should
have been introduced. He objected to the clause, preventing
the future removal of slaves, and likely to be highly pernicious
to the slaves themselves, mid wished that the Ministers of the
Crown should retain the power of allowing them to be removed,
on a case of strong necessity being made out. He should there-
fore propose that the words " until the 31st of July, 1827," be
-left out.

The Marquis of LANSDOWN stated, that that was the
very clause which made him anxious that the Bill should pass.
As long as there should be a power, under any regulations
whatever, to transfer slaves from one colony to another (a spe-
cies of Slave Trade worse than the original Slave Trade, as it
operated on more civilized beings), there would exist a posi-
tive bar to their moral improvement. If it be the object of the
Legislature to encourage the contraction of the marriage ties,
and to raise in the mind of the slaves a wish for property by
showing them the possibility of acquiring it, they must feel
secure that they could not be removed from the country where
those ties were to be formed, and that property to be acquired.
Unless they knew that they could no longer be the sport of the
arbitrary will or caprice of individuals, nor even of the power of
the Government itself, it was in vain to expect that their minds,
interest, or affection, should be raised above their present state.
As to the possibility of population growing too numerous, or
labour too scarce, in a particular island, it would afford an
opportunity for the Masters to select. those Slaves most fitted
-for emancipation. Once manumitted, they might be placed in
other quarters where they could dispose of their free labour to
the greatest use. The present measure, as one great step taken
with the consent of Masters towards' the emancipation of
slaves, was entitled to the warmest support of the House.
Lord HOLLAND wished that there had been some modi-
fications and exceptions in the clauses alluded to, but consider-
ing them wholesome upon the whole, gave the measure his
support.
After a few words in defence and approbation of the Bill
from Lord CALTHORPE and Earl GROSVXNOR, the amend-
ments were negatived, and the Bill read a third time and
passed.
Lord HOLLAND presented a Petition from the Pawn-
brokers of Nottingham
,against the Equitable Loan Bill.—
Laid on the table.