The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-18 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 18, 1833.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS. MAY 17.
ROYAL ASSENT.

The Royal Assent was yesterday given by commission
to the following Bills :
Personal Estates Bid—Cotton Duties Bill—Tile Duties
Bill—Exchequer Court (Scotland) Bill—Taunton Im-
provement Bill—Wangford Poor Bill—Mutford and
Lothingland Poor Bill—Walton• upon-Trent Bridge Bill
—Gravesend and Milton Paving Bill—London and
Greenwich Railway Bill—Llanelly Railway and Docks
Bill—Ockley and Warnharn Road Bill—Tunstall and
Great Chen Road Bill—Gloucester, Over, and /liaise-
more Road Bill—West Aueklani Road Bill—lllanchest-r
and Salter's Brook Road Bill—Ledbury Road Bill—Mac-
clesfield Road Bill—Royston Roads Bill—Ross, Aber-
eavenny, and flay Roads Bill—Wortley (York)Enclosure
Bill.

The Commissioners were, the LORD CHANCELLOR, the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE, and the Earl of RIPON.
The Earl of ABERDEEN moved for returns of wine
imported into this countly, and the ditty paid upon it,
for the last five years, ending sth April, 1833.
Lord AUCKLAND had no objection to the motion,
and he was sure that when the returns were laid upon the
table, they would put an end to the false reports which
had gone about as to the evils product d by the present duty.
The Earl of WICKLOW, in moving for returns_ re-
lative to tithes in Ireland, said, by the Bill for the Com-
position of Tithes in Ireland, a power was given to the
Lord-Lieutenant to appoint Commissioners to value the
tithes in parishes where, after a certain time, the inhabi-
tants had not done so. It was well known that that Bill
was merely intended to clear the way for other measures.
The Ministry had promised three Bills on the subject, and
only one had yet been pressed through the Legislature.
—(Hear, hear.) He was surprised, that, when they
had arrived at that late period of the session, no
intimation of the other measures had yet been given.
The Noble Lord moved a return of the number of pa-
rishes in Ireland where compoSition of tithes had been
effected by commissioners appointed by the Lord-
Lieutenant.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said there could be no
objection to the return, but it ought to be borne in mind
that the political state of Ireland, since the Bill passed,
had not been favourable to the operation of the measure.
After a few words from Lord CARBERY, the returns
were ordered.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition against
the Local Courts Jurisdiction Bill.

The Marquis of STAFFORD presented petitions from
Newcastle under Line and other places, against slavery.
Lord SUFFIELD presented 300 petitions to the same
effect, including those from Portsmouth, Winchester,
Loughborough, Market Harborough, Chester-le-street,
Diss, North and South Shields, and Worthing.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know whether
these petitions were in favour of, or apposed to, the plan
of his Majesty's Ministers brought forward in the House
of Commons.

Lord SUFFIELD said that parts of the plan were
totally opposed to the prayer of all the petitions he had
presented, and to the wishes of the people of England. He
was of opinion, however, that the plan might be altered
so as to meet their wishes. It was quite inconsistent with
the prayer of the petitions that the slave should be made
to pay for his own manumission.

The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions from
York, Montrose, and other places, for the gradual aboli-
tion of slavery, and that due consideration should be given
to the rights of property. He agreed with the peti-
tioners, and thought that his opinion was more consistent
with the acts and resolutions of Parliament than
that of the Noble Baron opposite (Suffield).
Many people, not only the slave owners, but those who
had lent their money upon West India slavery, would be
ruined, if this question was prematurely decided, and the
immediate emancipation of the slaves carried into effect.

Lord SUFFIELD said that he wa ready to recognise
the rights of property, but not the right of property in
human beings. 11Ien wot ked for the wages which would be
given them, and it was absurd to suppose that if the slaves
were emancipated they would not work. He could nut tell
how the Noble Duke conceived that the question was
brought on prematurely, when " some " change was ad-
mitted to be necessary by all, by even the West Indian
proprietors themselves. He was cernin that immediate
emancipation would tend to the welfare and prosperity of
the colonies,

The Duke of WELLINGTON said that, having met
with an accident some yerrs since, he had the misfortune
of not being able to hear with both his eafs, as he pre,umed
the Noble Lord could. This sass the reason why he had
not attended the West India Committee or the Tithe
Committee ; but, from all he had learned on the sulf.ject,
he would venture to say that the question had not had
due consideration with a view to the proper security of
property. He had himself, he would take upon him to
say, done as much as any man alive, while in office, for
the abolition of slavery, and had been eng ged in many ne-
gotiations upon it—(Hear, hear)—but he still retained
the opinion that the rights of property ought to be at•
tended to.

Lord SUFFIELI) presented a petition from the Me-
thodist chapel of Lincoln, praying for the abolition of
negro sl,very.
Lord WYNFORD had been informed that persecution
had taken place in the colonies, but he had no direct
means of knowing the fact. Of this he was, however,
aware, that the slave owners bad from the outset courted
inquiry, and offered to prove, even at the beginning of the
session, that the immediate abolition of slavery, according
to our interpretation of the word immediate—

Lord SUFFIELD said " No," across the table.
Lord WYNFORD proceeded. The Noble Lord said
" No"—he (Lord Wy nford) said " Yes." It appeared to
him that they were becoming better Christians than the
Apostles, because one of these advocated the right of man
in man. While he said this, it was not to be supposed
that he was an advocate of slavery ; but knowing that such
property had existed from time immemorial, he thought
it right to have the nature of that property considered.
Lord SUFFIELD knew the Archbishop of Canterbury
well enough to know that he was incapable of stating
that which he did not strictly believe to be true ; but still
he would assert that the assertions of the Rev. Prelate
were in themselves false when he stated the number of
converts made amongst the negroes by the clergy of the
Established Church. The fact way, that the converts
were made by the Dissenting clergy, and by them alone.
The Church of England was certainly popular in our
Weht India colonies, because they did less than the Dis-
senters. If this were otherwise, how would the Noble
Lot (1 attempt to account for the rtcent destruction of the
Methodist chapels in Jamaica?
Lord WYNFORD explained.

The Marquis of BUTE could not sit quietly by and
hear such an attack made upon the Established Church of
this country. He thought it a most uncalled for attack
or, the part of the Noble Lord ; an attack, indeed, which
never would have been made if the Noble Earl had heard
the report of the religious society on education and the
ii nprovement of the condition of the negroes, which was
altogether supported by members of t!, Chinch of Eng-
'tand.—(Loui cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Earl of HADDINGTON said his Noble Friend
opposite had not only attacked the Established Church,
but assumed the fact that its members were valued because
they did nothing.
Lord SUFFlFididenied that ne had cast s.uy general
imputation ~eon the Church, but he would. refer to the
easeßev. Mr. thydges, Chaplain to the Governor,
whr tad been convicted of having improperly flogged his
.kmale slaves.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented a petition from
the Wesleyan Methodists of North Shields, praying fur the
abolition of slavery.
Lord SEGRAVE presented a petition from Dursley,
Gloucestershire, against the Beer Bill.
Lord DARNLEY presented a petition from a place in
Kent against slavery.
The Earl of ANICKLOW, in presenting several peti-
tions, regretted the absence of his Majesty's Ministers on a
discussion of a question so important as that of petitions
connect-d with negro slavery. He thought it would have
been at least coot-ikons that Ministers should be present
when the Noble Duke delivered his opinions on this ques-
tion. The Noble Lord then presented several petitions,
amounting in all to twenty, from different districts, pray-
ing for the abolition of slavery. The Noble Lord also pre-
sented a petition praying for a better observance of the
Lord's Day.

Lord RADNOR brought up the report of the Stafford
Bribery Bill.

Oo the question that the report be received,

The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that, under all
the circumstances, the House of Commons had acted
fairly; and, though he was originally opposed to the NW
he felt that it had bee❑ so altered in Committee, that be
could no longer oppose it. The main improvement to
which he alluded, was that which deprived the Members,
who aced en that occasion, of the indemnity which wa%
extended to other parties.

The report was agreed to, and,
On the motion of Lord RADNOR, the Bill was or.
dered to be read a third time to-morrow (this day).
Adjourned at ten minutes past seven.