The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-15 00:00:00

Tfl P. StTN,LONDON, SATPRDAY, MAY, 15, 1A4.1.

IMPERIAL BRAZILIAN MINING
COMPANY.

The general meeting of the Sliareholders,of the Im-
perial Brazilian Mining Company was held on Thunday,
being made special in consequence of a requisition dated
the 4th ult., for the purpose of taking into consideration
the 'propriety of emancipating the slaves held by the
Company, and securing their future freedom. A circu-
lar had in the meanwhile been sent to the Shareholders
by the signers of the requisition, greatly deprecating
the system of slavery as carried .on at present. The
feeling of the Directors was, however, opposed to the
emancipation ; and in their circular letter calling the
meeting, they stated as their opinion, that the adoption
of the measure proposed would involve a winding-up of
the concern, and be injurious even to the negroes them-
selves. This opinion was advanced to show the neces-

sity of attending the meeting, which was indeed most
numerous. Far from the object of the requisition being
carried into effect, no more than six voices were in sup-
port of the emancipation, while all the rest were
against it. _

This circumstance, together with the attention drawn
to the slave question pending the debates on the sugar
duties, will justify a reference to the last file of New
York papers, which show much of the present feeling of
the United States on the subject. A point that is con-
sidered with the utmost interest is, whether Congress
possesses authority under the Constitution to prohibit the
sale of slakes from one State to another, and some of the
papers of the last arrival are employed in sifting the opi-
nions of Mr. Daniel Webster on this point, conceiving
that the sentiments 'of one so high in office are well worth
ascertaining. Mr. Cuthbert, the Senator for Georgia, ad-
dressed a letter to Mr. Webster last March, with the view of
learning from that Senator himself what his views really
were, but receiving no more than a denial to correspond
on the subject, has published extracts from a debate in
the Senate in the year 1837, and also from the report
and resolutions of the Massachusetts Legislature of the
same year. These resolutions were to the effect, that
Congress has, by the Constitution, power to abolish the
traffic in slaves between the different States, and that
humanity and justice demanded the exercise of this
power, and seem to have been founded on the argument
contained in a memorial presented to Congress as far
back as the year 1819, and signed by Daniel Webster,
and others. In these arguments reference is made to the
9th section of the Ist article of the Constitution, clause I,
which provides that " the migration or importation
of such persons as any of the States now existing
:hall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited
by the Congress prior to the year 1808," and the infe-
rence drawn from this limiting clause is, that it neces-
sarily assumes the power of prohibition to be vested in
Congress, which, though limited for a certain definite
time (that is, till the year 1808) has since that time
come into full effect. Another clause in the Constitution
(Art. 1, sec. 8, clause 3) empowering Congress " to regu-
late commerce with foreign nations, and among the se-
veral States," is interpreted in the same memorial as like-
wise giving Congress power over the slave trade in ques-
tion, for that clause has been considered ever since 1808,
as giving power over the foreign slave trade, and it may
be applied with equal force to a slave trade between the
States. As this memorial, signed by Mr. Webster,
was in 1838 cited by the Massachusetts Legislature
in promulgating the doctrine, and be made no attempt to re-
tract the opinions it contained, it is argued that it is perfectly
fair to assume that his opinion of the power of Conere•s in this
matter remained unaitered in 18:38. Aware, however, how
unpopular such a doctrine would be in the SoutLern States. the
advocates of Mr. Webster say that during the Presidential
canvas last autumn he manifested a change of opinion, but to
this it is objected, 'hat such manifestations are but general,
while 'he interpretation of the Constitution in the memorial
was most specific, and can only be removed by a specific re-
traction. In the Senate of the United States, in 1837, Mr.
Webster gave it as his opinion, that as Congress had the right,
to regulate trade and commerce between the States, it
hsd necessaray a right to regulate a trade in slaves, which are
one of the articles of commerce, while, at the same time he de-
nied that Congress had any power to interfere with slavery in
the States, two statements which his opponents find very diffi-
cult to r, concile.

Although the object of the allegation that Mr. Webster
really believes in the doctrine mentioned above is only to place
him in an unpopular position, there is e'-ough in them' to show
that the slave-holding states are beginning to feel
,serious ap-
prehension respecting the con, inuance of their traffic. The
question at isqie is one of the many so frequently hroUght for-
ward as to the amount of power given by the Constitution to
Congress ; but so-much importance could scarcely be attached
to the assertion of a mere power posse,sed by Congre.s, with-
out reference to the expediency of employing that power ( for
on this Mr. Webster gives no opinion), were it not felt that
there is a strong party who might use their legislative influence
to destroy the slave trade in every form.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE. OF LORDS, May 14.
The CIIANCELLOR having taken his seat on the Wool-

sack,
The Exchequer Bills Bill was read a second time.
Lord SONDES, presented a petition from Kent and
Norfeld, praying for Church Extension ; also praying
for the exclusion of. Catholics from Parliament ; and
against any grant to the College of Maynooth. Also
one praying for the nbulition of Tolls on Bridges.over
the. Thames, •-
A Message:- from the Commous brought up several
Private Bills.
Lord SALTOIIN presented a petition from Black-
friars-road praying for the removal of the Tolls on Wa-
terloo and the other Bridges.
The Duke of ARGYLL and the Marquis of DOWN-
SHIRE -presented numerous petitions against lay, pa-.
tronage in the Church of Scotland.
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition
against railway travelling on, and for the better observ-
ance of, Sunday.
The Frivolous Suits Prevention Bill went Ca...igh
Cominittee with amendments.
The Bankruptcy Partnership Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The Dublin Wide Streets Bill, the Arms (Ireland), and
the Slave Compensation Bill, were severally read a third
tine and passed.
Lord DUNCAN NON laid the Minutes of the Com-
mittee of the Privy Council on Education for •1840 and
1841 on the table of the House.
Earl RADNOR presented numerous petitions from
congregations of Protestant Dissenters in various parts
of the country against Church-rates. The Noble Earl
then moved for a return of all wheat and wheat flour
imported from Ireland from 1820 to 1840.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that as several
important returns relative to wheat and other grains
were made to the House last year, it would be most im-
portant to have them all continued up to the present time.
The motion was agreed to, as were several other re-
turns relative to the importation of foreign grain.
The School Sites Conveyance Bill was read a third
time, several verbal amendments were made, and the Bill
passed.
The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition
from a parish in Oxford in favour of the Corn-laws.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition from the
bankers, merchants, and manufacturers of Edinburgh
praying for free trade in the necessaries of life.—
(Hear.) One to the same effect from Forfar ;
twenty from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The
Noble Earl said as some Noble Lords objected to inci-
dental discussions on this question, he would give notice,
without subscribing to the doctrine, that probably
he would present a petition from the Corporation
of Manchester; on which occasion he would take the li-
berty of discussing the question upon some points, more
particularly respecting its relation with its foreign trade.
LAW OF MARRIAGE.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from
bankers.. merchants, and others, of Leeds, complaining
of that portion of the new marriage laws which prohibits
the marriage of a sister-in-law. The laws of the land on
this subject, thay thought ought not to go further than
the law of God • also from Manchester, Birmingham,
Bath,• Bristol, ieicester, Macclesfield, Hereford, and
numerous other places ; also from the Dissenting
Clergy of Leicester and Macclesfield, to the same effect.
He also presented petitions from the solicitors of all the
before-named places. He had given notice of his inten-
tion to bring the question under their Lordship's atten-
tion in the hope of inducing them to modify the ex-
isting law, and upon his success depended the happiness
of many of their countrymen and countrywomen, so that
he deeply felt all the responsibility he had undertaken.
The Noble Lord went at considerable length into the
history of the marriage laws, as instituted in the time of
Henry the Eighth, which he said bore internal evidence
of having been passed for his own unworthy purposes,
and to suit his owu ease at various times.
All the petitioners wanted was, that where there was no
consanguinity marriage should not be prohibited—where
the relationship was by marriage they thought that no
prohibition. If he could only remove the prejudice
against the marriage to a deceased wife's sister, then the
Noble Lord would have no difficulty in conceding all the
rest that was asked. Who, he asked their Lord, hips,
who was the most likely to make a good friend of chil-
dren left without the most tender parent, than the sister
of their own mother. In his opinion, the state of society
would be maintained in a more pure state by allowing a
man to marry she who is most likely to reside in his house,
and take care of his children after his wife's death. The
Act of 1835 made marriages absolutely void which were
contracted within the prohibited degrees. But even now
such marriages did take place, for the parties had only to
go abroad to some place where the marriage was legal,
and he believed it- would stand good in England. He
would not disturb the present laws unless the cases to be
affected were numerous. Their Lordships would be as-
tonished to find that in Manchester alone there had been
91, and had more time been given, his informant said he
would have been able to add at least 500 more.
Earl FITZWILLIAM—Since when ?
Lord WHARNCLIFFE could not say, but a consider-
able number were since 1839, and that was only one place.
Many persons had gone abroad and got married who
were within the prohibited degree ; they returned, and
were received in society in the same manner as if they
had done nothing wrong, or against the usages of society.
That proved they had not carried the feeling of the
people along with them. This country was the only one
in which the law was so stringent. On the Continent,
and in America, the prohibited degrees were not near so
close as ours. In America the state of society was very
healthy, yet second marriages with a deceased wife
sister was very common, and they had the authority of
some of the most eminent men in that country, that it
worked well, and its tendeiAy was towards morality: All
they asked for was inquiry upon the subject, and he
would then pledge himself to prove that there were. not
only hundreds but thousands of such cases. He was
prepared with a Bill on the subject, but would not offer it
to their notice until he saw how the proposition was
received.
The Bishop of LONDON said he fully believed that
if the laws of the Church were overturned it would
prove a heavey blow to morality. He said the parties
who had married illegally, or were prepared to do so,
had engaged solicitors to make inquiries, and collect
evidence upon the point. That accounted for the
number of petitions. The marriage of a deceased wife's
sister was prohibited by the canon law, almost from the
time of the apostles. He was quite sure that a very
large majority of the clergy held that these prohibitions
were necessary and supportable on scriptural grounds,
He called upon their Lordships, before they took another
downward step, too many of which had been taken
during the last two years with respect to marriage,
steps which had materially affected the morals of the
country. He was not about to enter into a discussion
of the New Marriage Act, but he wonld say, that upon
an inquiry it would be found, that the greater portion
of the marriages within the prohibited degree had taken
place under that Act. He was persuaded that the pro-
hibitory system had' been the safeguard of domestic
society in this country. If they were to alter the pro-
hibition it would be impossible for a deceased wife's
sister to give her maternal care to her sister's orphan
children without at the same time obtaining a promise
of marriage. Besides, he feared that this was sought as
merely the first step for the removal of prohibition. He
did not think the people of this country would look coolly
upon any meddling with the law which would make it
legal for an uncle to marry his neice. The evils of it
would be too great, for then it would be impossible for
any uncle t ► adopt his neice and treat her as a daughter.
For all these reasons he was disposed to say that the mar-
riage laws should remain as they now stood. He
trusted, therefore, their Lordships would not consent to
repeal that which had been the law of the Church
almost from its formation.
The question then dropped.
Several petitions were presented which were lost in
the noise of Members leaving the House.—Adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 14.
The SPEAKER took his seat at the usual time.
GLASGOW AND DLTNI)YVAN RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. PRAED brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on the Glasgow and Dundyvan Railway Bill.
They reported that the preamble had not been proved to
their satisfaction.
Mr. CR ISTOPHER said the Hon. Member for Glasgow
had a motion to make for the recommittal of the Bill.
Before the motion waa made, he begged leave to present
a petition from Sir John Maxwell, of Polloc, against
the motion ; he also prayed, if the House should re-
commit the Bill, he might be heard by his counsel and
agents against certain clauses.
Mr. DENNISTOUN, in pursuance of the notice
he had given, moved that the Bill be recommit-
ted, and that the Committee have leave to pro-
ceed on Monday next. The Committee had been
unanimously of opinion that the railway would
prove of vast benefit to the inhabitants of GlasgoW,
—merely a majority were of opinion that certain clauses
ought to be introduced ; and being on the preamble,
which would have settled the whole question, they were
of opinion that they could not postpone it for the purpose
of introducing them. It turned out that they had
been in error in that opinion. (Hear.) They
had the power
of postponing the preamble, and that
being the case, he believed a large majority of the Com-
mittee would now proceed with the Bill, if his motion
were agreed to.
Mr. PRAED said he had never given any opinion on
the Bill, nor did he intend to do so.
Mr. WALLACE said the Parliamentary rule was
strict that in no case should Bills be recommitted unless
some special reasons were given to constitute an excep-
tion, The fullest opportunity was afforded to the pro-
moters in Committee to establish their case.
Mr. OSWALD said, havingvoted against the preamble,
and seeing no reason for altering his opinion, he should
vote against the recommittal.
Mr. ESTCOURT said that four days were given to the
Council in favour of the preamble of the Bill, and the
Committee were unanimous in the decision to which they
canoe, It was'perfeetly true that there were two or three
instances
iirscrn the Journal in which the rule had been de-
parted from, but them had, in this case, been no reasons
stated why the House should depart from the ordinary
course.

Mr. GILLON said the preamble had been rejected,
upon the ground that there had not been sufficient notice. 1
Ile believed the Committee had no right, in fact, to take
that subject into consideration. But besides this the
the preanif4l_, or
Committee iv. Jed
- -PP to suppose that they could not post-
poneotherwise they would Wye gone into the con-
sideration
- of the , clauses, He wo►tld~ state, on be-
half of the promoters of the Bill, that iti.:7 i
the Bill, which was not the fact ;
duce all the
were prepared to insert. clauses, which would in,
Bill.. He thpug.ht it would be a . very great hardship to
the promoters, if upon these grounds the house .should
members of 'the Committee to vote for the
refuse to roeommit-the:BilL
Mr• GI EN said, after. listening four days, during
. -Which 411. the portiea had i been heard, to the arguments '

in favour of the Bill, it appeared to him to be a very
strong act on the part of the House to recommit it.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that mistake should not
be visited upon the promoters. The Committee were
told by the Clerk that they had no power to postpone
the :preamble. To prevent the Bill from being recom-
. 'ratted, that they might rectify the mistake, he did
think would be a very great hardship. •
Mr. LOCKHART said the House would act with its
usual discretion it it refused to yecommit the. Bill upon
the. opinions which had been urged against the motion.
Nearlyevery Member on
.the Committee hactrisen in his
place
.and stated that he had acted under a misconcep-
tion of their powers, and he believed would now support
the Bill.
Lord J. STUART understood that several- clauses,
without the introduction of which he would
_mit support
the Bill, could not be introduced because of tbe want of
notice. He, therefore, could not support the present
motion.
Colonel SALWEY must, as one of the selected Mem-
bers, set the Hon. Member for Salford right upon the
subject. The Committee had sat most patiently
listen-
ing to evidence for four days, and they divided five to
two against the preamble. They had the assistance of
able Counsel both for and against the Bill, they there-
fore did not act under any misconception at all. Se-
lected Members would be put in a most awkward posi-
tion if their judgment were to be appealed from to that
House.
• Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it 7O
Majority against the motion —3o
On the.motion of Lord SANDON, the Lords' amend-
ments to the Liverpool Docks Bill were considered and
agreed to.
Mr. BROTHERTON presented several petitions from
Lancashire and Cheshire, praying for a repeal of the
Corn-laws ; and petitions from Baptist congregations,
praying that they might be allowed to make affirmations
instead of taking oaths.
Mr. BAINES presented a number of petitions in fa-
vour of the plan of her Majesty's Ministers for relieving
the public burthens of the people. One of the petitions
complained that in consequence of the high price of food,
and the difficulty of providing proper clothing for their
children, they were unable to send them to school, to ob-
tain the necessary education, and they prayed that the
Corn laws might be repealed.
Mr. TURNER presented petitions from Blackburn,
signed by 6,700 inhabitanta ; from Chorley, signed by
3,000 ; and from several other places, praying a repeal of
the Corn-laws.
Lord WOESLEY presented petitions from places in
Lincolnshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. BAILEY presented a petition from Inverness, to
the same effect.
Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition to the same
effect, from a place in Sussex.
Sir G. STRICKLAND " presented twenty petitions
from Bradford, and other places in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, for the abolition of the Corn-laws, and a re-
duction of the import duties.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Denbigh in the
West Riding of Yorkshire, and a petition from Kidder-
minster, to the same effect.
Major AGLIONBY presented, two petitions from
places in Cumberland, and twelve petitions from the
metropolis to the same effect.
Mr. LABOUCHERE presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, in favour of the
abolition of the Corn-laws, and for the alteration in the
tariff.
Similar petitions were also presented by Mr. Oswald,
from Glasgow ; Mr. M. Philips, from Lancashire :
Sir Matthew Wood, from a parish in London ; Mr.
B. Wood, from Southwark ; and Mr. Ainsworth, from
Bolton.

Colonel SALWEY presented petitions for the total
and entire abolition of the Corn-laws from 1,632 me-
chanics, miners, and workmen employed in the iron and
coal works at olebrook-dale, Horsehay, Dawley, Light-
moor, Salop ; and from the inhabitants of Mabley, in the
same county.
Mr. BLACKETT presented a petition in favour of
the three propositions of Ministers for the reduction of
Sugar, Timber, and Corn Duties ; but the names of the
petitioners were not heard in the gallery.
Mr. MACAULAY presented petitions from the Town
Council and the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh, in
favour of the proposed alteration of the differential and
prohibition duties.
Mr. GILLON presented similar petitions from places
in Lancashire.'
General SHARP moved for returns connected with
General and Field-officers, promoted, and on half-pay.
Mr. LABOUCHERE gave notice, that on the 27th of
May he would move for leave to bring in a Bill for im-
proving the navigation of harbours in the County Kerry.
Mr. FOX MAULE moved the first reading of the
Rill brought clown from the Lords—a Bill for removing
doubts as to the liability of Peers in Parliament to pu-
nishment in cases of felony.
The Bill was read a first time.
The Woodside and Hoy-lake Road Bill was read a se-
cond time.
The Vaccination Bill was read a second time.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

On the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned
Debate being read,
Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE said that it was with great
reluctance he felt it necessary to request the attention of
the House for a few moments on their return to the impor-
tant business which stood for this evening, in order that he
might call their notice to a matter of personal interest.
The personal discussion to which he referred related not
to himself but to his father, whom he was bound most.
dearly to love, and with whom he considered it the
highest honour to be connected. In the debate of the
preceding evening, the Noble Lord the Member for
Northumberland had thought fit, in the discharge
of his Parliamentary duty, to throw out some
imputations, and make an attack upon his father.
--(Hear, hear.) Before he proceeded further, he
could say, although it was difficult to answer for
one's feelings on such an occasion, he trusted that while
he would fairly state the ground of complaint, which he
thought the House would consider a fair subject of com-
plaint against the Noble Lord, he should endeavour to
do so without saying anything offensive. The Noble
Lord said he would not follow the example of the lion.
Member for Newark, by imputing low and degrading
motives to individuals. The House would (rive him
credit for never having unnecessarily wearied' it with
personal explanations, which appeared to him to be a great
waste of public time, and he would rather trust to the
good sense of the House and the country, to vindicate
him from such imputations. He denied that he had
imputed low and degrading motives to the promoters of
the measure. The Noble Lord observed that it was im-
possible to forget the part which the Hon. Member for
Newark had undertaken in the debates of 1833, on the sub-
ject of the abolition of slavery.—(Hear.) He challenged
the Noble Lord to state to what he referred. Did the Noble
Lord mean to impute to him, that he had said any-
thing opposed to the great measure of emancipation ?
The Noble Lord could state no such thing. The most
material portion of the Noble Lord's speech was what
follows : —"lt was impossible, 'also, to forget who
was, before that time, the owner of the Bran-
den-hoop estate in Demerara. It was clearly
shown," the Noble Lord proceeds, " that the
rate of over-working and mortality on that estate
was remarkably high even for Demerara, where,
unfortunately, both those evils prevailed in an eminent
degree. In three or four years an enormous quantity of
sugar was produced on the estate, and the number of
slaves who died was no less than eighty-one, being one-
seventh of the whole number. Now, he asked the House
whether so grave a charge as that should be made, unless
the Noble Lord was prepared to substantiate it. The
charge was that the great mortality was produced
on the estate by the over-production of sugar,
and this the Noble said was clearly shown. He
(Mr. Gladstone) denied that it was ever shown
at all. The Noble Lord, after he had made
an allegation to this effect, gave notice of a motion in
1833 for a return, which would exhibit a return of the
mortality on the estate. He (Mr. Gladstone) in his
place, said he should object to the production of such a
return as that, because there was a great deal
of other evidence which was absolutely necessary
to set the matter in its true light. Upon that the Noble
Lord then at the head of the Government rose in his
place and recommended the Noble Lord to withdraw his
motion. He did withdraw it, and thereby abandoned
the investigation. Now, undoubtedly there had been a
great mortality on the estate. But at that period
there was a great mortality through the whole colony
of Demerara. Nor could anything be more natural. It
was not the course of the slave trade to introduce entire
families into the colonies, but adults only who were fit
for labour. The consequence was, that twenty years
after there was a great mortality. During the short
time that lie (Mr. Gladstone) was in the Colonial-office,
a document was prepared, by the protector of slaves in
Demerara, stating that looking to the state of the popu-
lation, and considering the circumstances under which it
was imported, it was evident that there must be a conside-
rable mortality in the population for many years to come.
But the whole force of the Noble Lord's accusation
rested upon this, that he connected the fact of the popu-
lation with the production of an enormous quantity of
sugar. He (Mr. Gladstone) met this by a simple and
unequivocal denial. He denied that there was any pro-
duction of sugar that could by the Noble Lord or any
other person properly be called enormous. He could
show by returns from other estates that it was a common
ozcurrence that 40 or 50 per cent. more sugar was pro-
duced from them than on that estate. This matter depended
upon the Noble Lord's own imagination. At this dis-
tance of time he could not recur to the facts, but he be-
lieved that there were 560 persons in the first instance,
and that the quantity produced was about 680 hogs-
heads a year. He said, that taking into consideration
what the Noble Lord would seem to have forgotten.
considering the means and facilities it possessed,
the production of sugar on the estate was below
that which might have been expected. Unless the Noble
Lord could prove to the contrary, the House
would believe the accusation made was not made on good
grounds. But if these things were true, he asked how did
the Noble Lord show the connection between the mortality
of the population and the production, which was not enorm-
op, but under all the circumstances of the case a mode-
rate production comidered with respect to the capacity
of the estate ? He did not know what the Noble Lord
said, having nothing but the record before him, but he
did complain of the Noble Lord making any such accu•
sation in the first place, on grounds on which he
did not rely much. This was not the first time
this statement had been made ; it was made in the year
1933. He (Mr. Gladstone) then complained of the Noble
1-4;.1'414.144ing an attack on the feelings of Members•
of that House, Wi4llAut ally intimation that he
was about to make such an attack ; and th,
Noble Lord replied that he 'could assure the Hoil.
Member, meaning himself (Mr. Gladstone), that if
could have conceived that the statement he (Lord
Howiek) had .made would have been considered by him

'r'h6. ~'. ~~