The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-23 00:00:00

Upon clause 3 being proposed, which ran thus :

" And he it further enacted—That the said four Bishops,
and the said three other Commissioners to be appointed by the
said Lord Lieutenant or other Chief Governor or Governors of
Ireland, shall be at all times removeable at his or their plea-
sure; and that whenever by death, resignation, removal, or
otherwise, any such Bishop or person shall cease to be a Com-
missioner under this Act, then and in every such case it shall
and may be lawful for the said Lord Lieutenant or other Chief
Governor or Governors, by warrant as aforesaid, to appoint one
other Bishop or person in the place and stead of any such
Bishop or person so ceasing to be such Commissioner respec-
tively, and any such Bishop or person so to be appointed, shall
accordingly be and become, to all intents and purposes, one of
the Commissioners for the purposes of this Act."

The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested, that in all
cases of death, removal, or resignation of a Commissioner,
a proper successor should be appointed by the Lord Pri-
mate of Ireland, and by the other Commissioners. He
also wished to have the words " at his or their pleasure"
struck out, and the words " by warrant under the sign
manual," inserted in their room.
Earl GREY had no objection to meet the wishes of
the Noble Duke, as the objection appeared so strong
relative to the number of lay Commissioners appointed by
the Crown.

The amendments were then agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON then moved that the
words " or person,•+ after the word Bishop, be left out.—
Agreed to.

Clause 3 was then agreed to, as amended.
Clauses 4,5, and 6, Were then agreed to, with some
verbal amendments.

Clause 7, which ran as follows, was then proposed :
" Provided always, and be it hereby enacted, that no pro-
ceeding which requires to be ratified and confirmed by the
Common Seal of the Corporation shall be finally concluded, nor
the said Seal affixed to any deed or instrument, save at a eet-
ing, whereof notice shall have been in like manner given, and
whereat one at least of the said Episcopal Commissioners shall
be personally present."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH objected that such a power
ought not to be conferred upon one Commissioner, for at
times he would have to suspend even a see.
The Bishop of LONDON :novo' an amendment to the
effect that, in all cases where only one Episcopal Commis-
sioner was present, the affixing of the Seal should not take
place until the next meeting of the Commissioners, of
hich due notice should be given.

The amendmeo was agreed tt and tile clause as thus
amended passed. Clauses 8 and 9 were altwil,a,gree(l to.
Clause 10 was then proposed. It ran t s:—
" And be it further enacted, that the said Commissioners
shall once in every year within fourteen days after the Ist day
of August make a report to the Lord Lieutenant, or other
chief Governor or Governors of Ireland for the time being,
under the hands and seal of the said Commissioners, of their
proceedings under this Act for the year preceding, ending on
such Ist day of August, and shall also return with said report
an account of all their receipts and disbursements during the
like period, and such account and report shall be laid before
both Houses of Parliament; and the said Commissioners shall
also at all other times when and as thereunto required by the
Lord-Lieutenant, or other chief Governor or Governors for the
time being, deliver to him or them a report of their proceed-
ings, and return an account of their receipts and disburse-
ments under this Act for and during such period as they may
be so required." .

Lord WHARNCLIFFE, though he did not object to
taxing the clergy, yet did object to taxing them en
nomine to get rid of church cess. He did not object to
taxing the clgrgy for the purpose of increasing small
livings, and if it was to be so appled, he would not op-
pose it. Any man who looked at the state of feeling
throughout the country must see that the church rates in
this kingdom could not be much longer levied.--(Hear,
hear.) In many large towns they had already refused to
pay them. He would ask if they introduced the principle
of taxing the clergy for the purpose of doing away with
church cess in Ireland, how could they meet the argu-
ment that the same should he done for England 1--
(Cheers.) He did not know why separate accounts should
not be kept of the proceeds from the tax on the
clergy, and of those from the sale of perpetuities, in
which case they might apply the proceeds of the tax on
the clergy to increasing small livings, and apply a portion
of the other fund to the purposes to which the Church
cess was at present applicable. He did not mean to
move any amendment to this effect, but when the proper
time came he should seek to p'ace it on its proper footing,
that of being paid out of the other portion of the funds
derivable under the Bill.

The Earl of WICKLOW said that as this clause was,
in his opinion, most important, he would throw out a
suggestion to the Noble Earl. He thought the clergy
ought to have the control over, and payment of, any
funds for the repair of churches, and he thought them
little able to bear being taxed for that purpose. The
Noble Lord concluded by suggesting that, if the clergy
were still allowed to commute their tithes with the land-
owners tor a fixed sum, these landowners should only be
allowed to deduct ten per cent., and not 15 per cent., as
before.

The E irl of HADDINGTON feared this would be in-
urious to the landed interest without benefiting the clergy.
Clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to.
On the 12th clause being put,
Viscount GAGE rose to move an amendment to the
eff et that the tithes of the whole country, whether lay
or ecclesiastical, should be made subject to the tax pro-
posed by this clause upon Church property alone.
The LORD CHANCELLOR regretted the necessity of
being obliged to oppose the amendment moved by the
Noble Lord. He was sure that nothing could be more
fair than the feeling that prompted the Noble Lord's ob-
servations, but he (the Lord Chancellor) must object to
the terms be had made use of. It was but just to suppose
that many lay impropriators had given a full and valuable
consideration for the tithes which they held.—(Hear,
hear.) Unless, therefore, they wished to commit the
grossest injustice towards those who had fairly come by
this property, it would be necessary to appoint a Commis-
sion to inquire into the manner in which the ancestors of
all lay tithe impropriatora bad become possessed of the
property of this description which they held. He need
not explain to their Lordships that such a proceeding would
be productive of the greatest hardship and inconvenience,
and he might, perhaps, add injustice.—(Hear, hear.) And
on this account, he felt bound to oppose the amendment.
Ile must also object to the terms applied by the Noble
Lord to persons holding property of this description—
namely, that they were fattening on the property which of
rijht belonged to the Church. Unless it was shown that
those lay impropriators had become unfairly possessed of
this property, they had as much right to it as any Noble
Lord there had to that freehold property which he or his
ancestors had obtained by fair purchase.
The Bishop of EXETER rejoiced that his Noble
Friend had brought forward this amendment, and he
thought it would be plain injustice if their Lordships did
not agree to it. It was most unfair to make such a par-
tial distinction as this clause did between lay and eerie-
siastical impropri itors, especially when their Lordships
considered the very great distress under which a great
portion of the Irish clergy were at present labouring. lie
knew several instances, especially in Ireland, where a lay
impropriator possessed the tithes of a whole parish, out of
which he did not contribute a penny to the support of
that religion, to support which those tithes bad been ori-
ginally appropriated. It was most unjust to secure the
payment of the whole of those tithes to the lay impro-
priator, while so great a deduction was made from the
property of those which were really appropriated to the
service of the Church. He felt grateful to the Noble
Lord for bringing forward this amendment ; he hoped
their Lordships would not lose sight of the principle it
contained, as if they did they would be losing sight of
justice.—( Hear, hear.)
Alter a few words from Earl GREY, which were not
!Talc' in the gallery, the amendment was put and nega-
tived without a division, and the clause, as it originally
stood, was agreed to.
The 13th and 14th clauses were also agreed to without
any alteration.
Clauses from 15 to 19 were agreed to, when
Lord ELLENBOROUGH suggested that their Lord-
ships should not proceed further.
This was assented to by Earl GREY, and the House
resumed.

The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again tomorrow.
Their Lordships thee adjourned at a

On the Second Reaft
Bill, and of till

. DUKES.
H R. H. the Duke

of Sussex
Cleveland
Grafton
Norfolk
Richmond
St. A lban's
Somerset

MARQUISES.
Ailsa
Lansdowne
Westminster

EARLS.
A lbernar le
Cadogan
Caledon
Camperdown
Cawdor
Charlemont
Clarendon
Craven
Denbigh
Gosford
Granville
Grey
Hai rowbv
Huntingdon
llchester
Lichfield
Manvcrs
Morley
Oxford
Ripen
Suffolk
Thanct
Wicklow
Bolingbroke
Hood

DUKES.
Bedford
Brandon
Devonshire
Portland
Sutherland

MARQUISES,
A nglesea
Winchester

EARLS.
Amherst
Buckinghamshire
Burlington
Carlisle
Chichester
Cowper
Durham
Essex
Ferrers
Fitzwilliam
Hillsborough (Mar-
quis of Downshirc)
Radnor

BISH
PRESENT.
Canterbury
Carlisle
13angor
Gloucester

DUKE.
Wellington
Buccleuch

WENT

MAJORITY
ing of the Church of
Bishops who voted L
PRESENT.
EARLS.
Hutchinson
St. Vincent

BARONS.
Alvanley
Auckland
Audley
Barham
Belhaven
'Boyle (Earl of Cork)
Brougham
yron
Chaworth (Earl of

ivarter past twelve.

Ireland Temporalities
the Minority.

BA RON S.
[Alford
Lynedoch
Melbourne (Viscount
Minster (Conyng-
ham)
Montfort
Monteagle (Sligo)
Paget (Uxbridge)
Panmure
iPlunket
Poltimore
Rosebery
Rossie (Kinnaird)
Say and Sele
Sefton
Segrave
Solway (Marquis of
Queensberry)
ISomerhill (Marquis
of Clanricardc)
Staffbrd
Stourton
Suffield
Sundridge (Duke of
Argyll)
Templemore
IVellesley
Wenlock
I Western
Willoughby d'Eresby
Wharncliffe
Yarborough

. Meath)
Clements (Earl of
Leitrim)
Dacre
Dinorben
Dorchester
Ducic
I)unally
Dundas
Elphinstone
Fife
Foley
Gardner
Glenlyon
Godohpin
Gower
Granard
Hawke
Hill
Holland
Howard ofEtfinghart SBCHBISHOP.
Dublin
11111aennd (•lavistock) BISHOP.
iiimsden London
Kenlis Bath and Wells
Kilmarnock (Earl of Hereford
Erroll) Winchester

PROXIES,

EARLS.
Shrewsbury
Spencer
Stradbroke
Tankery Hie

MARQUIS.
Salisbury

BARONS.
Lyttleton
Mendip (Viscount
Clifden)
Mostyn
Petro
Ponsonby (Earl of
Besborough)
Ranfurly (Earl of)
Sherborne
Sondes
Stanley
Stewart (Earl of Mo-

1 ISCOUNT.

ray)
Vernon

AocHorstior.
York

BISHOPS.
Lichfield
Chester
Llandaff
,Norwich
Chichester

St. David
Bristol
Clonfert
St. Abaph
'ialisbury

EARLS.

Roslyn

BARONS.
DutTerin
(Stuart de Rothsay

Select Committee on the state of the Borough of War-
wick, which was ordered to be printed. The Hon. Baro-
net postponed the issue of the new writ till the 19th of
Auguet.

Mr. J. OSWALD brought up the 3tith Report of the
Committee on Public Petitions, which was ordered to he
printed.

Mr. GODSON gave notice that he would, on Wed-
nesday next, present a petition from the merchants End
planters of Jamaica, praying to be heard by counsel at the
bar of that House against certain parts of the Slavery
Abolition Bill.

Mr. EWART presented a petition from the Anti-
slavery Society of Liverpool against the compensation
clause in the Bill for the emancipation of the slaves.
Colonel EVANS moved for a return of the number of
houses in the different parishes of the city of Westminster
untenanted during the last rating.
Major BEAUCLERK wished to ask if the Noble
Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not ob-
tain from the Noble Duke at the head of the Post-
office department, some modification of the existing
regulations as regarded the delivery of the twopenny
post. At present, whilst persons within the limits of
ten miles received their letters through that medium,
those who live only two or three yards beyond that limit,
although in the same street, had to pay a postage of
sixpence.

Lord ALTHORP said there must be some limit fixed
to the twopenny post delivery, and whenever it was fixed
those who resided on the verge of the limit would be in
the same situation as others were at that moment. He
would not, therefore, give any pledge on the matter.
Mr. FOWELL BUXTON begged to inquire of the
Right Hon. the Secretary for the Colonies, whether it
was his intention to lay before the House a copy of the
Order in Council, by which the details of the Bill now
about to be read a second time were to be carried
into effect by the Colonial Legislatures? He cou!d
with the greatest sincerity say that he could not un-
derstand what was meant by the system of apprenticeship.
He knew it was not absolute slavery—but he knew also
it was not freedom, and he should therefore like to have
some definition a, to the amount of slavery and freedom
it would afford. This Act s lid, that its system of labour
should extend to ten hours, which was placing the slaves
in a worse situation than they were by the present law,
which confined their labour to nine hours in the day; and
this Act also took from the slaves the forty days of free-
dom in the course of the year to which they were at
present entitled ; so that in fact they would be worse off
by forty days in the year, and one hour in all the remain•
ing days, than they were at present.
Mr. STANLEY could not see . how it could
be expected that he should produce the copy of
an Order in Council, which must be founded on an Act
of Parliament not yet passed. He had no idea of
framing such an order before the Act was passed. With
respect to the definition applied by the Hon. Gentleman to
apprenticeships, it was equally applicable to all other ap-
prenticeships, under whatever circumstances, for in no
case could they be said to comprehend actual freedom,
or actual slavery. The details of the Act would have to
be filled up by the Colonial Legislatures.
After a few words from Lord HOWICK, pressing the
production of the draft of the Order in Council,
Mr. STANLEY declined producing it.

Mr.F.BUXTON, on the motion for going into the second
reading, intimated his intention, on going into Cimmittee,
to move two instructions—the first to limit the period of
apprenticeship to the shortest period, consistent with the
introduction of the necessary regulations ; and the other,
that no money should be paid to the planters till slavery
has entirely ceased.

Dr. LUSHINGTON also intimated his intention, on
going into Committee, of moving that all persons having
been slaves in any of the West Indian Islands, and who
had been in any part of Great Britain and Ireland,
and had returned, should, ipso facto, be declared free.
Lord HOWICK said they were pledged to introduce
some preparatory interval between slavery and emancipa-
tion; but they were not pledged as to the time that the
probationary period should last. He perfectly agreed with
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who bad just spoken,
that the confidence which his Noble Friend now said he
was disposed to place in the Colonial Legislatures, was a
feeling opposite to that which his Noble Friend had for-
merly expressed. For himself, he (Lord Howick) was
quite of opinion with Mr. Canning, in the passage which
his Noble Friend had, on a former occasion, quoted :
" We cannot trust the toasters of slaves to legislate on
colonial slavery." Yet that was what they were now
about to do. In agreeing to the second reading of the
Bill, he protested against being hound by the principle of
sacrificing the interests of the slave to the interests of the
planter.
Mr. DENISON contended that the House was pledged
by their resolutions to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. EVANS denied that he was pledged by the reso-
lutions. He did hope that the Right lion. Gentleman
would have been induced greatly to shorten the terms of
the apprenticeships.
. . . .
- -

Mr. BARING wished to know whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman had formally communicated the resolu-
tions of the House to the Governors of the colonies, and
to the Colonial Legislatures ? Much depended upon that.
To have passed resolutions in a Committee, by no means
precluded a subsequent discussion of those resolutions.
Mr. Secretary STANLEY stated, in answer to the
Hon. Gentleman, that as the Colonial Assemblies did not
meet until November, there was at present no opportunity
of laying the resolutions before them ; but be had thought
it right formally to communicate them to the Governors
of the colonies, with instructions to submit them to the
Legislatures, at the earliest possible period. It had been
notified, also, not only that the resolutions had passed
both Houses of I'arlisment, but that the House of
Commons was employed in considering the details of a
Bill, the object of which was to carry those resolutions
into effect.

Mr. BARING collected, from the answer of the Right
lion. Gentleman, that the resolutions were not absolutely
binding on Parliament, es no correspondent measure had
hitherto been formally required from the colonial legisla-
tures. On the while, he was certainly disposed to vote
against a Bill which did not seem to give satisfaction to
any of the parties interested in it. Not being satislactory,
he really could not consent to so enormous a sacrifice of
public money as the Bill involved.
Mr. O'CONNELL especially objected to the large corn-
pensation. It had been asserted that the West India
proprietors had been harshly treated. Harshly treated ! in.
stead of a loan of 15 millions, to of tain a gift of twenty !
It was the people of England who ought to complain of
being harshly treated. He denied that the House was
bound by the resolutions. No bargain had been made.
lie objected strongly to the apprenticeships. If any Hon.
Member called for a division on this second reading, he
should I ave his support.
Mr. BERNAL declared, that in his opinion, the ne-
groes were at the present moment morally emancipated.
The moment that the resolutions went forth to the
West Indies, the work of emancipation was done. All
that remained was for Parliament and the colonial legis-
latures to adopt such measures fur carrying the resolutions
into effect, as were best calculated to insure a safe and
salutary rrsult.

Sir R. PEEL observed, that the question, at the pre-
sent day, was totally different from what it WAS when they
entered on the Committee. When it was in the Com-
mittee they had given no pledge, and every man was at
liberty to express his opinion ; but in the interval between
that period and the present, they had affirmed resolutions in
favour of immediate emancipation. He had thought the
proposition unwise. He bad done all he could to modify
it. He had moved to omit the words " immediate eman-
cipation," and substitute the words " ultimate emancipa-
tion." He had allowed that they were right to terminate
slavery; but that having agreed to that, and also to a re-
solution for compensating the West India proprietors, he
had contended that they ought to pause, and to consider,
in conjunction with the inferior legislatures, the best
means of proceeding. That opinion of his was overruled
by the Committee ; and the Houses of Lords and Com-
mons had solemnly determined in favour of immediate
emancipation. What construction must be put upon
those resolutions by the slaves themselves ? He was con-
vinced that in order to maintain the tranquillity of the
colonies, the magistrates must punish with greater severity
than was at present necessary. He certainly had thought
' it possible, by the adoption of a large and comprehensive
principle, analogous to the principle of the Spanish law, by
enabling the slaves to purchase their emancipation gradually
by their labour, to frame a measure which would have been
more beneficial to the slaves—more beneficial to the
planters—,and, above all, more beneficial to the millions
of slaves who were held in bondage by other countries.
He confessed that he still thought such a measure woul d
have been better than the present; for, if the present
great experiment should be unsuccessful, its failure
might be attended with consequences to humanity which
he would not venture to describe. Parliament, however,
had determined on making the experiment; and he there-
fore felt it the duty of a good and loyal subject to do every
thing in his power to insure the success of that experi-
ment.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. GODSON stated his strong ohjections to several of
the provisions of the measure, especially that which limited
the number of hours of labour—that.whiHcela reetlraetnedoyto trhee
.
distribution of the compensation—and that which esta-
blished the system of appreoticestope

commended the appointment of a Commission, the attention
of which might advantagcously be occupied for ten years
in carrying the desired object into effect ; and that, in
addition to the twenty millions, there should he a loan of
en millions. He trusted that in the Committee some of
the obnoxious clauses of the Bill would be withdrawn.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM had seriously considered all the
grounds on which the measure ought to be placed, and
was at a loss to discover how the provisions of the Bill
could be sati.fictory to the slave, the master, the colonial
proprietor, or the people of this country.
Mr. A. JOHNSTONE was entirely opposed to the long
period of the apprenticeships, and had hoped, when the
Right Hon. Gentleman changed the loan of fifteen millions
to the proprietors into a gift of twenty millions, that he
would hive taken the opportunity of curtailing the terms
of the apprenticeships. He hoped that this part of the
Bill would be re considered. The Bill was then read a
second time.

On the motion of Mr. Secretary STANLEY, it was
ordered that the Bill should be committed on Wednesday ;
it being understood, that if the East India Charter Bill
had not gone through the House by that time, the Com-
mittee should be postponed.