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

(LEFT syrruca.)

LYCEUM THEATRE.
(THIS EVENING.)
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
DEAR SIR,—Mr. Keely has been taken suddenly ill. It is
necessary to close the theatre this evening. May I ask the
favour of your giving notice of this in this evening's paper, if
possib:e.—Your much obliged,

JOHN STURTZ.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, August 13.
POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.

Lord BROUGHAM moved for a return of certain
communications made to the Poor-law Commissioners.
Ho 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 House. 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 against 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.
He then moved that the return be made forthwith. He
then moved, about a fortnight since, that the return he
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 their 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. On the motion of the
Noble Lord, the petition (which was a very long oue)
was read by the Clerk at the Table.
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 King 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.) Ile
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
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, ho 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 How e 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 negroesfrpm
the coast of Africa had not increased. A calculation
had been made of the number of hogsheads increased
n the exports, and showing that the imports of
slaves had diminished. There was no means of
knowing what quantity of sugar was
produced
du ced
~nd exported, nor the nunxber of slaves whichhad
been introduced. Under the present law, it was
known that the sugar could not be produced without
labour, and that labour could not be produced without
slaves. The proposed increase of the production of
sugar could not be eti:cted 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 'ergo introduction of
other articles from the same lands, They received
Carolina cotton, and could they raise any
the introduction of Cuba sugar? The Noblej Marquis
would do him the justice not to include him inthe
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 could not undo one evil that
he was to consent to do another ? Was it
because he could not legalise house breaking that be
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 zonsent to inflict another ? It was also stated
that there was a large importation of copper from Cuba
to this country, and that the consumption of that article
was allowed. He for one was ready to join her Ma-
jesty's Government in forbidding the introduction of
copper into this country from Cuba, and he was sure
that if the Noble Lord brought forward such a proposi-
tion, that he would meet with the most unqualified sup-
port from those around him.—(Hear.) Besides 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
the slave trade. 'The planter in the Brazils did not employ
full-grown slaves in the plantations for they were strong
and he wanted them. It was the labour of women and chil-
dren, and the encouragement of that labour would cause
the planter to have a home-bred race o. 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.
They 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.—(gear,
hear.) Therefore, he said, that the argument that the
measure was required to procure the people a sufficiency
of one of the common necessaries of life was a fallacy.
But there was another argument used in favour of
the measure to which he must allude. It was said
that, in the long run, the free-trade principles
of the country would eventually lead to the abolition of
slavery and the slave trade, because slave labour was
confessedly dearer than free labour. He, however, de •
nied this. It was not true that free labour was cheaper
than slave labour ; but leaving that argument out of the
question, it was said these free-trade principles were
already producing great effects in the country where
slavery existed. Now the wealthy planter might be dis-
posed to rest upon what he had got already, but the ad-
venturous planter, who was needy in his circumstances,
and had his fortune to make, would hav4 recourse to
that labour which he could procure with the least ex-
pense, and over which he could exercise the greatest
amount of control, and this would stimulate the slave
trade which was carried on between Africa and the slave
states. It would be increased in the same degree that
this measure would increase the supply of sugar for this
country. Again it was argued that their present plans
for putting down the slave trade had proved failures,
and therefore an alteration was necessary. It was said
that the slave trade at present was four times as great as
it was in 1807, when they passed the Abolition Bill.
Now he flatly denied that proposition.—(Hear, hear.)
lie denied that at this moment there was a greater num-
ber of slaves exported from Africa than there were
in 1807. It was said that the trade had increased to
the extent of from 15,000 to 20,000 slaves annually ; but
what had occasioned that increase but an extension of
the sugar market ? In spite of all the difficulties they
had raised against the slave trade, the extension of the
sugar market had added to the number of slaves an-
nually exported from Africa—(Hear, hear)—and
yet, even with this statement, which came
from the other side before them, they were asked to pass
a Bill which would extend the market still further. A
Noble and Learned Lord opposite had told them, and
truly, too, that the Brazils were approaching that period
when they would join this country in putting down the
slave trade. They had been almost reduced to do so,
the Noble Lord said, because they were excluded from
the British market; and yet they were about to put an
end to the exclusion, on the ground that it had proved a
failure.—(Hear, hear.) Just let the House remark the
injustice of this. Had the exclusion continued, they
would shortly have been in a position, with the aid of
France, and other nations, so to blockade the African
coast, that it would have been utterly impossible for a
single slaver to elude the vigilance of the guard, while,
on the other hand, a wholesome system of
commerce would be opened up between the
chiefs of that country and different parts of the world.
—(Hear, hear.) Let the in pass that measure, and they
would be re-opening the slave trade just at the very
moment when there was a most reasonable expectation
of their getting repaid for all the life, energy, and prin-
ciple they had sacrificed in the cause of justice and
humanity. But what were they doing ? Why they
were doing that which would render it impossible for
them to ask other nations to assist them in suppressing
a detestable traffic, and publishing to the whole of
Europe the fact, that they were sacrificing a great prin-
ciple for the sake of expediency. Their passed plans
he would contend, then, had been no failure, and he pro-
tested against that measure because it was averse to
the feelings of the great body of the people of this
country. Wren slavery was abolished in their own
West India Islands, they were told that it would
be useless to do so, because the Dutch
would take advantage of their Act, but it
was urged then, and he urged it now, that this
was no reason why this country should either directly
or indirectly be a party to a great political crime. It
was not fair that, because they wanted cheaper sugar,
they should do an act which had a direct ten,lency to
encourage slavery and the slave trade ; and, believing
this would be the effect of the present measure, he w, ,old
conclude with moving, as an amendment, that the Bill
be read a second time that day three months.—(Hear.)
The Bishop of LONDON said he was not aware that
the discussion upon this Bill would have been taken
upon the first reading, but he was glad it was so, be-
cause it had given him an opportunity of carefully con-
sidering the opinions of those who supported the mea-
sure. The conclusion he had come to, after carefully
reading the debate of Monday night was, that if he
sanctioned this measure, he thould be encouraging the
slave-trade, the abolition of which was, in his opinion,
the highest feature in the history of the country, and
one which he considered might well be brought against
the offences which th's country had some time ago, for
a long period of years, committed against the cause of
humanity.—(Hear, hear.) If they must have a large
supply of sugar they must clearly encourage an increase
in the traffic. Into Brazil and Cuba there were no less
than 150,000 slaves imported annually, and if they
wished to have an increased supply of sugar of 30,000
or 40,000 tons, they must also have an increase of 30,000
or 40,000 slaves imported to enable this quantity to be
produced. If, then, it was true, and it could not be
doubted, that for every one slave brought across the
Atlantic two perished, let them look to the immense loss
of life which the measure before the House would
necessarily cause. He did not look at the question in
the light of protection, but as a question of mortality,
and believing that it would have the effect of inflicting
such incalculable evils on those unfortunate creatures,
he would, however unwillingly, enter his protest against
the measure. That great statesman, Mr. Pitt, called it
the greatest practical evil that was ever inflicted on man-
kind, and fully concurring in that opinion, and feeling
that any thing said more would weaken the effect made
upon their Lordships by the speech of his Right
Rev. Friend, he would conclude by supporting his
amendment.
The Marquis of LANSD3WNE considered that one
of the Right Rev. Prelates who had just addressed
them, had peculiar claims on their attention with
regard to this question, inasmuch as he bore
the name of one whose name was imperish-
able with regard to the accursed slave-traffic.—
(Hear, hear.) Great, however, as had been his eloquence,
he thought that if they did not adopt the question before
the House they would be guilty of a piece of incon-
sistency which no language could adequately describe.
If the Right Rev. Prelate had heard an opinion ex-
pressed that the great question of the abolition of the
slave-trade was a failure, it was not from
him, nor any of his Noble Friends, such an opinion
ever came. When his Right Rev. Friend made use
of the name of a Noble Friend of his, to the effect
that every energy would be taxed to put down the
slave-trade, he trusted that he would also give weight to
the opinion of that Noble Friend, who also stated that
to open a free trade with Brazil was one of the most
effectual means for the suppression of the slave-
trade. He, therefore, again indulged the hope
that by the adoption of this more generous and
liberal policy—by the medium of commerce—
this measure would lead to the propagation and esta-
blishment of greater moral and religious principles; and
knowing the moral and religious feelings, and the noble
principles of the people of this country, he could under-
take to state they considered this a measure which met
their approval, as the presentation of only six
against it amply proved, for had it been otherwise,ith enun-
Lordships' table would have been covered petitions
against
ciations against it. Considering how mucthwthe subject
detain_. their
had been discussed already, he Would no
Lordships at greater length, but conclude by calling upon
them to support the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the amend-
ment, and no Noble Lord having risen to address the
House, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and their
Lordships divided, when the numbers were—.
Content
10
Not content
•os 28
Majority in favour of the Bill .
The Bill was then read a second time, ... nd ordered to
be committed to-morrow.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, this
Bill was read a second time.
TITHE AMENDMENT BILL.
This Bill was reported with the amendments, aid or-
dered to be engrossed.
The Citation (Scotland) Bill was also reported with
amendments, and ordered to be read a third time to-
morrow.
The Stock in Trade Bill, the Highway Bates Mil, the
Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill, and the C )pyhold
Commission Bill, went severally through Committee.
The Militia Pay Bill was read a second time.
The Prisons (Ireland) Bill was read a third time
and passed, as were also the Grand Jury Cess Bill, and
the Books and Engravings Bill.
Several other Bills were forwarded a stage, and the
House adjourned.

HOUSE OF CONIMONS, August 13.
FLOGGING IN THE AIISIY.

Mr. WAKLEY said that, after having examined,
his opinion was unchanged. Their motion was not
refused without a motive, for he believed it would be
very inconvenient to produce these returns, as
they would give facts to show that the brutal
and disgusting practice of punishment by flogging