The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-14 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PART. LAMEN T.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 13.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given to-day, at a quarter past
'five o'clock, by commission, to the following nineteen
Mills :
The Consolidated Fund (4,000,0001.) Bill.
The Art-Unions Bill.
.Airdrie and BathgatP Junction Railway Bill.
Eastern Counties Railway and Thames Junction Branches

Bill.
Rugby, Leamington, and Warwick, Railway Bill,
West London Railway Improvement and Extension Bill.
London and South-Western (Basingstoke and Salisbury

_
Extension) Bill.
Monmouthshire Railway (No. 2) Bill.
Glasgow, Dumfries' and Carlisle Railway Bill.
Andover Canal and Navigation Bill
Tramore Embankment Bill.
British Guarantee Association Bill.
The Bishop of Norwich's (North Lynn Rectory) Estate
Bill.
Borthwick's Estate Bill.

Lowestoft Charity Estate Bill.
Pemberton's (or Gervis's) Estate Bill.
Clark's Divorce Bill.
Matthyssens' Divorce Bill.
The Bishop of Jerusalem's Naturalisation Bill.
The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, Earl
Eortescue, and the Earl of Shaftesbury.
The LOUD CHANCELLOR retired, and in a few minutes
afterwards took his seat on the Woolsack.
DEODANDS ABOLITION BILL.

Lord CAMPBELL moved the second reading of
this Bill, which was agreed to. _ _ _

Lord DENMAN presented re;itions against the
Si, pr "Vales Bill.
LAW OF ARREST.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a Mr.
Ouverard, complaining of a false arrest. He thought the
law that led to abuses of this nature should be altered
It was a great pity , that judges were not
agreed, and some would not allow a man to
swear to whatever sum he had until they
had inquired into the circumstances of the debt.
Now, what would be the case, for instance, if the Noble
Lord who was going to Paris in an official capacity,
shold be arrested for any alleged debt.
Lord CAMPBELL said that, without doubting the
statement of the petitioner, he, nevertheless, thought
the law was in a very satisfactory state at present. It
would be impossible to make a law which would be free
from such circumstances.
Lord BROUGHAM said what he complained of was,
that the judge should:have endorsed for the whole sum,
and their Lordships should remember that, it was not
a contract which was alleged in the affidavit, but a sum,
of money was swornto by the person making the affidavit
as the amount which he considered that his services were
worth.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that no law could
be made which would be just and equitable which would
not be open to the same abuses. The judge had nothing
to rely upon but the affidavit of the complainant.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several
Bills, which were read a first time.
POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.

Lord BROUGHAM moved for a return of certain
communicatiors made to the Poor-law Commissioners.
Ile stated that one of the Commissioners had
taken upon himself to desire the secretary
to the Commission not to make the return
'moved for in that'llouse. The Commissioners ought to
feel that they were bound to comply with the orders of
their Lordships. They had neglected their duty in set-
ting themselves agginst the House by refusing to make
the required return. It had been suggested to him that
he was very wrong to move for the third time. The
first time he moved, the motion was not complied with.
Re then moved that the return be made forthwith. He
then moved, about a fortnight since, that the return I,e
made forthwith. This was the fourth motion ; and he
should move to-morrow, if the return was not made by
five of the clock, that the Poor-law Commissioners be
called before thei:. Lordships.

WEST INDIA. COLONIES.
Lord ABINGER presented a petition from the island
of St. Vincent, in favour of the admission of free labour
into the West India colonies. Oa the motion of .the
Noble Lord, the petition (which was a very long one)
was read by the Clerk at the Table.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition to the
same effect, and a petition from the inhabitants of the
town of Winstanley against the proposed Government
measure for an alteration of the sugar duties.
TREATY WITH DENMARK.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid upon the table
of the House a copy of the treaty lately concluded be-
tween her Majesty and the Ring of Denmark upon the
subject of the transmission of letters by post.
POOR REMOVAL BILL.
A NOBLE LORD presented a petition from a place
the name of which we could not catch, against the fur-
ther progress of the Poor-law Removal Bill.
The Poor Removal Bill then went through Committee.
THE SUGAR DUTIES.

On the motion for the second reading of the Sugar
Duties Bill,
The Bishop of OXFORD said that he could assure
their Lordships that it was with feelings of the greatest
diffidence that he addressed himself, even for a
few moments, to that which, in his eye, was
of a character peculiarly sacred.—(Hear, hear.) He
felt particular pain in opposing her Majesty's
Government on any question, but particularly on this,
because the name of the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne)
and of the Noble Earl next to him, the second who had
borne that title, first became known to him in 1807 as
the very advocates of that measure which had given
freedom to the slave, and the advantages of which they
were now ready to abrogate. Had this been merely a
matter of finance, he would have been one of the last
to moot it, but looking upon it, as he did, as one deeply
affecting the moral character of the country, he felt
compelled to waive all private considerations, and act
as he trusted he should have credit for acting,
simply from the dictates of duty; and he considered
that no man would allow but this was a sufficient in-
ducement for any one to overcome the repugnance of
private feelings to oppose those whom he chiefly de-
sired to support. If he understood right, the matter as
it now stood was thus put—first, that there was a ne-
cessity for increasing the supply of an article which,
if not actually necessary, was of great consequence to
the people, at least in the way of comfort; secondly,
that the passing of this measure would facilitate the ex-
port of our manufactures. Sir James Hogg had said in
the Lower House that there was not enough of sugar in
the sugar producing countries to fill the market as it
ought to be filled. In order to obtain the increased
supply from Cuba and other places, they did
not propose to introduce machinery. They must
obtain it by downright manual labour they
must obtain it by -an increased amount of labour of
the slaves. The lash had already done its work; as
much sugar was at present produced as could be pro-
duced, and death already trod hard upon the heels of
the unfortunate negro employed in producing sugar.
For every additional nineteen hogsheads of sugar they
imported into this country an additional negro must be
removed from Africa to labour; and this was not all, for
it was the long train of cruelty and evil which arose
from the iniquitous practice of transferring men by
violence from their own shores to work as slaves in the
countries of strangers. An argument had lately been
used in that House against his proposition. It had been
stated by the Noble Earl, that with all the increased'
production of sugar, the importation of negroes from
the coast of Africa had not increased. A calculation
had been made of the number of hogsheads increased
in the exports, and showing that the imports of
slaves had diminished. There was no means of
knowing what quantity of sugar was produced
end exported,. nor the number of slaves which had
been introduced. Under the present law, it was
known that the sugar could not be produced without
labour, and that labour could not he produced without
slaves. The proposed increase of the production of
sugar could not be effected without great alterations in
the growing lands and alterations in the houses
and manufactories for the preparation of sugar.
It did appear to him, as far as the objection
went, and on which very great weight was laid
by the Noble Lord—as far as that objection went, the
original position stood unshaken. Another argument
was adduced—the greatest argument of all—and that
was that it was not possible for them to object to the
measure, because they allowed a large introduction of
other articles from the same lands. They received
Carolina cotton, and could they raise any objection to
the introduction of Cuba sugar? The Noble Marquis
would do him the justice not to include him in the
number which he classed as disguised protectionists,
for he was ready to proclaim himself a free trader as
much as the Noble Marquis, himself.% With. regard to
the moral view of the case, of using these articles, was
it not wrong to use such an argument before a great
assembly of men as had been introduced on that point?
Was it because he mail I not undo one evil that
he, was to consent to do another ? Was it
because he could not legalise house breaking that he
was to tolerate murder ? Because he could not prevent
his people from trading with America in slave grown
cotton, that he was to encourage the slave production of
other articles in other countries ? Was he to be accused
of hypocrisy because, knowing that one evil existed, he
did not consent to anotherinflict ? It was also stated
that there was a large importation copper from Cuba
to this country, and that the of
n of that article
was allowed. He for one was ready to join her Ma-
anindtrhoduction of
Ma-
jesty's Government in forbidding
copper into this country from Cuba,
that if the Noble Lord brought forward suche was
epsure
- tion, that he would meet with the most un malifitrA7sup.osi.
port from those around him.--(Hear.) qßesides this
country was itself a copper exporting country, and the
copper said to be brought from Cuba was only smelted
by English manufacturers and again sent out. As to
the coffee question, he thought that the encouragement of
the importation of coffee into England did not encourage
Vie slave trade. The planter in the Brazils did not employ
Ind-grown slaves in the plantations for they were strong
and he wanted them. It was the labour of women andchil-
tiren, and the encouragement of that labour would cause
the planter to have a homebred race of negroes, and not
to tear them away from the coast of Africa. With regard
to the third argument which had been adduced, namely,
that this country required an increased supply of sugar.
They sought to effect that object in the most objection-
able way. The English people had no right to have
any want supplied by injustice, cruelty, and rapine.
Tney should facilitate their obtaining from every part of
the earth that which they need, if it could be done
through the lawful channel of commerce, but not even
any of their wants ought to be supplied at the expense
of the blood and lives of their fellow- beings.—(liear,
bear ) h' • - t that the argurn.2. that the
WS
m.) as required to procure the people a sufficiency
mit
• •,.,441 • e common necessaries of life was a fallacy.