The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-09 00:00:00

110 USE OF co mmoNs, August 8.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
IMMIGRATION OF AFRICANS TO THE WEST

On the motion that the Consolidated Fund (Appro.
pritrion) Bill be read a third time,
Mr. BERNAL called the attention of the House to
the evils at present arising to our West Indian Colonies,
particularly to Jitnaica. owing to the state of the law
with regard to the employment of Africans who immi-
grated to those colonies. According to existing arrange-
menus natives of Africa were brought to the colonies
under agreements binding only for one year, and it
generally Kapp ned that their labour was not remunera-
tive to their employers during that period. When they
arrived they were generally covered with sores, and unfit
for work, and it was a long time before they be-
came tractable. The labouring population was in con-
sequence in a very deplorable state, and was every day
more deserving the serious and matornal consideration
not only of the Government of the colony, but also of
this country. What be proposed was that the period
for employing thiise people should not be less than three
years, and in that case he thought their employers
would be induced to devote more attention
to their moral, religious, and mental improvement.
There were important points connected with this ques-
lion, and he hoped that the attention of the Colouial-
office would be turned to it.
Mr. HUME could confirm the melancholy facts which
had been stated by the Honourable Gsutleman. The
remedy was not so far removed as might
seem on the first sight. It was to apply the
same rules to labour there as they did to labour
in this country. He had often said of the importa-
tion of labourers from the coast of Africa, they were
slave,' there and as soon as they landed on any of our
• colonies they became free. He could enter into the pre-
judice which existed against this practice, because of
the similitude which it bore to the slave-trade;
but he did not think that it ought to ope-
rate practically in preventing the colonies from
obtaining free labour. Some suthestep, must be taken or
eke the greater part of the celoni'es would soon become
of use neither to tly4sicanify nor those who remained
these.
Mr. HAWES would be sorry for the House to
suppose that the Colonial-office was indisposed to
listen to any hints which might fall from the
two Honourable Gentlemen who had just spoken.
With ri,apect to the ob,ervations of the Hen. Member
for Itochenter (Mr. Bernal), to the term of duration of
the contract,: entered into by immigrants, neither him-
self nor the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial-
office very much approved of long contracts of this kind,
for it was quite in the power of the itnrnitgrants, if they
were indisposed to work, to Make these contracts a
burden to the employer. There was nothing to en-
force work without resorting t 3 means which would
be jioaly reprobated. The sanction, however, of the
Colonial-office had been given to contracts fur three
yaars in British Guiana, and although the term was
still limited to one year, the alteration rested with the
local Legislature, and not with the Colonial-office. It
was a mistake to suppose that the subject of the
importation of free labour into the colonies was a
subject which had never been taken into consider-
ation by the Colonial-office. Many efforts had been
made, but he considered that it was a thing almost im-

possible, except by means which he was sure the House
and this country would never sanction.
The Bill was then read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do pass:,
Mr. HUME wished to prote,t against the evil policy
of the Colonial-office. He considered that they never
would put an end to slavery in the Brazils and Cuba,
until they made free labour chearer than slave labour,
If they refused that labour, it was they, and none others,
who pervtnated the slave trade.
The Bill was then passed.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE BILL (IRELAND).

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. MOORE wished to ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department what course the Government
meant to take with reference to the Landlord and Tenant
Bill of the Hon. and Learned Member for the University
of Dublin?
Sir G. GREY bad already stated that as the Bill came
down from the Lords he could not support it. Many
of the clauses of the Bill had been struck out in Com-
mittee, and now no doubt it was a very different Bill to
that'which came down from the Lords; but the Lords
bad restored some of those clauses, and he therefore did
not think the House would be instifiea in adopting the
Bill iu its present shape. At this periol of the session
he thought the Bill ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. A. STAFFORD believed it was the intention of
the Hon. Member for the University of Dublin, whO had
charge of the Bill, to adopt a suggestion which had been
thrown out, of assimilating the law of England to that
of Ireland; but whether the Hun. Gentlemen would
proceed with the Bill after the determination of the
Government he could not say.
Mr. M. FOX was very much mistaken indeed if the
Bill had been committed.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said it was committed pro
forma, when it was understood on both sides of the House
that the clauses would be so altered as to make the law
of Ireland similar to the law of Ene,lend.—(No, no.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD then rose to move that this
Bill be read a second time this day three months. The
provisions were highly unconstitutional, oppressive, anti
u, just. There were two systems of government—one
had recourse to just and humane laws, while the other
pursued a policy of coercion. Now, ever since Ireland
had been connected with this country, she had
been governed by the latter system ; but
the time had come when a change must be
made in the government if the Legislature wished to
secure the tranquillity of Ireland. Too long had injus-
tice and oppression been the lot of Ireland, and asking
for such a Bill as this was nothing less than a delara ion
that the laws of Ireland were unjust. The time,
however, had gone by for governing Ireland by
large armies and bodies of police, and holding this mea-
sure to be conceived in that spirit, he hoped it would be
thrown out.
Mr. FOX seconded the amendment, though he was
not indisposed to entrust the powers of the Bill in the
hands of Lord Clarendon; but the measure was not only
unjust, but unconstitutional, and he was therefore bound
to oppose it.
Mr. ANSTEY also opposed it, on ae ground that the
powers which it conferred upon the Government were
both uncalled fur and unconstitutionel. He called
upon the House to refuse everything in the
shape of coercion till the Government had tried
the influence of remedial measures. No case had been
made out for this Bill, and he protested against its arbi-
trary and unjust powers being entrusted to any man.
He considered this Bill most objectionable and uncon-
stitutional; and he objected to it because the present
law was quite sufficient to meet all the exigencies of the
case. He would never give his consent to the enact-
ment of laws which, like this, were unfit for the meridian
of Great Britain.
Sir GEORGE GREY reminded the House
that considerable discussion had taken place
already, on asking for leave to introduce this Bill, which,
in the ordinary course of things, would have been had on
the second reading. Believing that the Act which the
Bill proposed to continue for a limited period had done
infinite service in the prevention of outrage to life and
property in Ireland, he would give it his support.
Mr. REYNOLDS supported the amendment of the
Honourable Member for Rochdale. This Bill, though
containing only one clause, referred to and continued an
Act which contained 23 clauses: The Bill was only fit
to be applied to man in a savage and uncivilized state;
and, believing that the people of Ireland were not in
that state, he would strenuously oppose the re-enactment
of the Crime and Outrages Act. He believed
that Ireland was at present in as perfect
a state of quietude as England or Scotland.
Why, then, did the House not extend this Algerine Act
to England or Scotland? " What was sauce for the
goose was sauce for the gander." He contended that in
passing this Bill the House were branding the people of
Ireland with a bad name, which they were far from de-
serving. He would do all he could to strangle the
Bill, because he considered it a want in outrage upon
the people of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) Why inflict
such au Act, at all events, on Ireland for
more than one year ? He could not conclude without
thanking the Hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Craw-
ford) for the manly course he had taken on bilis occasion,
and deeply regretted that that Hon. Member did not re-
present an Irish county or boroegh.
THE NEW MEMBER FOR LA7vIBETH.

The debate was here iaterrunted fur a few minutes by

the ceremony of swearing in Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAM,
the new Member for Lambeth. The Hon. Member
was introduced to the House by Sir Joshua Walmsley
and Mr. Home, and having taken the oaths, be advanced
towards the Speaker, who shook hands with him. The
Hon. Memeer then took a sea: on the MiniArill side
of the House, on the bench immediately behind the
mf-mbers of the Government, side by side w.th Mr.
Hume. Mr. Williams is the first Member who has
bean sworn in the new Chamber.
Tee deb,ite was then resumed.
Mr. HUME said he was prepared to r3sist the passing

of the Bill to the last ; but as he understood au a;ranze:

meet had been made with Irish Members not to off..r
any further opposition, he would of course have to give
way to necessity. The Hon. Member alluded to the de-
plorable condition of Ireland, which he said was a dis-
grace to this country, and urged the Government, for the
sake of their own character, to introduce some measures
f amelioration early next session.
Mr. E. B. ROCHE denied that he had entered into
any compromise with regard to the Bill, which he con-
sidared most obnoxious and injurious, and wholly un-
necessary.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 26
Against it ... 89
Majority
The amendment was consequently lost.
The Bill was then read a.second time.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.

After a few observations from Mr. fIAMff,TOS,

The order of the day for the adjourned debate on this
Bill was discharged on the motion of Mr. REYNOLDS.