The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-20 00:00:00

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER BILL.

On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, the
Bill for the renewal of the East India Company'. Charter
was read a third time and passed.
GRAND JURY (IRELAND) BILL.

The report upon the Grand Jury (Ireland) Bill was
brought up, and the Bill, after a few verbal amendments,
at the suggestion of the Earl of WICKLOW, was ordered
to be read a third time to.morrow.
THE WEST INDIA SLAVERY BILL.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY brought up the report upon
the West India Slavery Bill.

The Duke of WELLINGTON contended that the Bill
was defective in not permitting owners to remove appren.
ticed slaves from one estate to another.

Earl GREY said he had always desired that this ques.
tion should be viewed with the utmost moderation and
temper; and although he had come down intending to
maintain the continuance of the words in the clause, yet
he must admit that the arguments used on the other side
were such as to have induced him to think that they would
be hettet left out. He should therefore be ready to admit
that masters having two estates should be allowed to move
his slaves from one to the other during their apprentice-
ship, with the consent of two magistrates.
The Duke of WELLINGTON acknowledged the can-
dour of the Noble Earl, and moved an amendment accord.
ing with the suggestion, which was agreed to.
Lord SUFFIELD moved a clause declaring that, after
the promulgation of this Act, the whipping, beating, or
indecent exposure of the person of any female slave above
twelve years old shall be a misdemeanor punishable by
a month's imprisonment.

Earl BELMORE said he was not the advocate of
the practice of flogging females; on the contrary, he had
done every thing, during his Government of Jamaica, to
prevent it. But the Noble Lord in abolishing the punish-
went of female slaves had offered no substitute as a means
by which the master should be able to control the slave.
The Earl of RIPON said that it was painful to him to
oppose such a proposition, but under the circumstances of
the Bill having come up without the clause he thought it
better that it should not be introduced. They were now
in the situation of having adopted means by which slavery
was essentially abolished, and therefore they need not have
the same anxiety upon the treatment of the slaves which
could not again be open to the same abuse. He disap-
proved more especially of the penalty imposed by the
clause.

Lord SUFFIELD said that when he proposed the
clause before without the 'penalty it was objected to on
that, account, so that he found it impossible to please the
House. He felt it his duty to persist in the other part of
the clause, and he should certainly do so.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that no interference
had yet taken place with the internal regulation of the
colonies upon this subject, and be wanted to know why
they were so to interfere now. The measure had come
up without this provision from the House of Commons,
and be bad no desire to obtain a little popularity at the
expense of that House by carrying such a provision there.
He should therefore certainly oppose the motion.
Lord ST. VINCENT concurred with his Noble Friend
in thinking that such a proviso as this being appended to
the Bill at this late stage would add greatly to the diffi-
culty of carrying the measure into effect in concert with
the Colonial Legislatures. Little had been done at any
time to conciliate the co-operation of those bodies. Their
just complaints had been treated with neglect, and nothing
had been done to induce them to believe that their feelings
or their interests would have any consideration at the
hands of the Mother Country. Such a proviso as that
proposed by the Noble Lord would greatly aggravate their
feelings, and do very great mischief. He therefore hoped
their Lordships would not adopt it.
Lord SUFFIELD said he should not persist in that
part of the proviso which imposed the penalty; and the
clause, with that portion of it expunged, was then put and
negatived.
Several clauses were left out, and slight verbal amend-
ments were made in others.

On arriving at the 61st clause,
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved for the omission
of the clause, on the ground that it was altogether objec-
tionable. He had on two previous occasions stated the
reasons why he thought it ought to be rejected, and should
not now trouble their Lordships with a repetition of his
arguments.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Contents •
Non-contents 3l

Majority for the clause
On the re-admission of strangers we found
Lord WYNFORD moving the insertion of a clause,
declaring that from and after the 28th of August, 1834,
no coffee, sugar, rum, or other produce raised in foreign
colonies, excepting only cotton, indigo, and tobacco,
where slavery existed, should be admitted into any part
of Great Britain and Ireland, or the possessions of Great
Britain. He thought that such a provision was bbso•
jutely necessary for the protection of our West India Colo-
nies where slavery was to he abolished by this Bill.
The Earl of RIPON did not think the adoption of such
a clause at all called for. The quantity of produce im-
ported into this country from the South American Colo.
nies was very inconsiderable, and never could prejudice
the West India planter.
Lord WYNFORD said that the amonnt paid for
South American sugar in 1830 was as much as 40,0001.
The Earl of RIPON said that the Noble and Learned
Lord was in et ror. No such sum was paid in that year.
Lord ST. VINCENT supported the clause, and he
'
did so because he felt that some such enactment was in-
dispensably necessary for the protection of our own colo-
nies, where an end was put to slave labour.
The LORD CHANCELLOR was as anxious al any
man to see slavery abolished not only in the British do-
minions, but throughout the world. This was not,
however, the proper time to propose such an amendment,
and on that ground be should resist it, for it was a aule-

stantive motion, and would go beyond the objects of the
present Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH contended that the object of
the clause was perfectly in unison with the provisions of
the Bill. The object of the measure was to put an end
to slavery, and that was also the intention of the clause
proposed by his Noble and Learned Friend. The adoption
of this clause would have one most desirable effect, and
that was, to induce the Colonial Legislatures to accept
this Bill with something like satisfaction. Their Lord..
ships must recollect that the West India planters would
have in future to employ a more expensive system to raise
their produce, and that it was therefore only reasonable to
adopt this clause for their protection. _

Earl GREY resisted the clause. The House of Com-
mons never would, he was convinced, agree to such an
amendment, for which no precedent could be found in the
annals of Parliament

The Duke of WELLINGTON supported the clause.
It was the assertion of a great principle, and, if adopted,
would go a great way to soothe the feelings of the colo-
nies and the C3lonia' Legislatures. No protection was
asked for cotton, indigo, or tobacco, as these articles were
not produced in our colonies.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY observed that it was
quite competent for their Lordships to add any clause they
might think fit to the Bill, for they should recollect that
this was not their own Bill, hut the Bill of the other
branch of the Legislature, which had been sent up to their
Lordships' House for amendment.
Lord WYNFORD, in reply, said that if Ministers
were sincere in their desire to effect the abolition of sla-
very they could not resist the clause which he had in view.
Lord CLIFFORD (as we understood) expressed him-
self hostile to the clause.

Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—

Contents
Not Contents
Majority against the clause
The Report was then received, and the Bill ordered to
be read a third time to-morrow (this day).