The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-11 00:00:00

had received it had been ruined, and estate after estate
had been been thrown out of cultivation. Wow, although
they had received a partial compensation for their la-
bourers, they had received none for the loss of their
estates. But, 'setting aside the justice 'of the' question—
looking at it merely as a question of sugar—nothing
could be more impolitic than to sacrifice ,the West India
colonies. The supply of sugar from the West Indies
amounted to one-sixth of the whole supply of Europe.
What a rise then would take place in the price of sugar
f. these coloniei were destroyed. The true, policy of
this country, having this fine national estate on the other
side of the Atlantic, was, even at a temporary sacrifice, to
nurse it and carry it through its difficulties, to aid it,
if necessary, with funds and credit, and, above all, to as-
sist with labour. If they:wished for colonial prosperity—
if they Wished for an -increased productioii of sugar—if
they wished to extinguish slavery and the slave-trade,
they should assist the colonies with free labour. A great
experiment had been tried in those colonies—that ex-
periment had succeeded, as ..far as the export of the
labourers were concerned ; but if they looked beyond
the Colonies—if they looked to the negroes in other parts
of the world—unless they could satisfy the inhabitants
of slave countries that the colonial proprietors themselves
were in a prosperous:state—they would not convince them
that the experiment had succeeded. He hoped the Go-
vernment was prepared to take a bold and decisive step
to supply the colonies with free labour. They must take
the question boldly by the hand, and look it in the face.
—(A laugh.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
attempted to throw the whole blame of the slave trade
on the colonies, and attempted to take it off the shoulders
of the mother country. It was, however, the mother
country which had forced the slave trade on the colonies,
even at the time that the colonies had been desirous to
discontinue it. The Honourable Gentleman had talked
loudly of the nefariousness of this traffic ; let the
House beware of taking any step to give that
nefarious traffic increased activity.—(Loud cheers.)
If the House agreed to the resolution proposed by his
Hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, they must in-
evitably give increased activity to the slave trade. There
was evidence to prove that the refusal of England to
take slave-grown sugar had materially ass6ted our
cruizers in putting down the slave trade—the trade had
stagnated in consequence ; but if they acceded to this
proposition, although it might double the number of the
cruizers, the slave-trade would_be. doubled. With re-
gard to the proposition of the Government, he feared that
unless they took early steps to -PrOmote the cultivating
sugar in our colonies, they would by exhausting the
supply of free-labour sugar give pro Canto an impetus to
the slave trade. Before he sat down he would take the
liberty of recommending to the Government to give to
the West India colonists the same advantages as they
had given to the Canadians—to confer upon them the
credit and confidence of the mother country, and to ad-
vance them, if requisite, pecuniary assistance. Not only
were the West Indies an integral portion of the empire,
but a most important and essential portion of it, and by
timely assistance of this nature they would not only
materially assist the." West Indian growers, bnt conciliate
the sympathy and confidence of all the colonists. This
step would likewise enable them to supply sugar at a
very mederate rate of duty. He threw out these sug-
gestions fer the consideration of the Government, and
hoped they would not be entirely disregarded.

Mr. WARBURTON would not have risen but for the
last" observations of the Noble Lord. He was entirely
opposed to making any advance to the West Indians in
the shape of a loan, and hoped some member of the
Government would at once express the opinion of the
Ministry to the same effect. It was urged that the West
Indians were, under the existing rate of duty, in a most
destitute condition. Then, as no case could be made out
for them—as they were as bad as they could be—where
was the use of continuing to sacrifice the interests of the
people of this country to their pretended advantage? The
returns which had been laid on the table of that House
clearly showed the trifling increase of consumption as
compared with tea and coffee, and how injurious the high
rate of duty had been. A vast extent of the commerce
of the country was sacrificed to keep up this monopoly.
Sugar should be admitted at a very moderate rate of duty.
Mr. MACLEAN contended that the Parliament
of this country had sanctioned the slave trade, and even
maintained it at a time when the inhabitants of Jamaica
had actually petitioned against it. The Hon. and Learned
Member (Mr. Roebuck) was not, therefore, justified in
saying that the West Indian colonists had fostered and
encouraged the slave trade. The Vice-President of the
Board of Trade had used some ambiguous expressions
concerning the slave trade, which be would wish to hear
explained. He thought that the protection which was
to be given to the West Indies came under the same
catagory as the protection of corn at home. On the
same principle that he was favourable to the one he was
favourable to the other.—(Hear, hear.) But he hoped
that his Right Hon. Friend did not intend to degrade
the cultivatars of both parts of the empire.—(Hear.)
He thanked the House for the attention with which it
had heard him.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
gallery was cleared. The House then divided, when the
numbers were—
For the motion
Against it .. • 259
Majority
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.

On the first clause being proposed,
Mr. P. MILES moved that the Chairman should
report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow.
Mr. WARD objected to the motion, unless some day
was given him for brinking forward his motion that
stood in the paper for to-morrow.

After some short discussion,
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained leave
o sit again.
VESTRIES IN CHURCHES BILL.

The House went into Committee upon this Bill.
Sir R. INGLIS said that in parochial and religious
niatters scenes had latterly occurred of contention and
bitterness of a very discreditable character, amounting
at times almost to personal violence. These scenes had
occurred in large parishes—in country parishes, happily
they had heard nothing of them. The Bill might want
consideration, and could in its details be amended; but he
thought it called for, and therefore trusted the House
'mould at once proceed to consider it clause by clause.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN said, as the author of the
Bill, he had only to state that from Churchmen and
Dissenters—opponents of church-rates—he had received
strong expressions of opinion in favour of the Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK could not comprehend why things
subject to ecclesiastical cognizance should be now so
shddenly separated from their ancient jurisdiction. One
of the subjects usually arranged under ecclesiastical
cognizance was church-rates. In the parish church that
matter was discussed ; but now a sort of prudery was to
be introduced, and by this Bill no matter was therein to
be brought forward, unless, to quote the very words,
" approved by the Bishop." It used to be a favourite
topic with Hon. Members opposite, especially the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis), to talk of the wisdom of
our ancestors, and to express a wish, and to use their
efforts, to fashion everything in accordance with that
sentiment. Why did they not act on it now ?—why
take from under Church cognizance that which the wis-
dom of our ancestors had entrusted to it ? Was it that
they now preferred to act in accordance with the notions
of "Young England," or "Little Britain," as they had
now come down to 7—(Loud laughter.) Tbis Bill
required that matters to be. discussed could not be
so discussed " unless approved of by the Bishop."
It was introducing a totally distinct rule into the Church
of England, by a Bill too net sanctioned by Government,
for no member of the Government had introduced it. Wail
it right that matters of such importance, which trenched
on rights of the people of this kingdom, should be brought
on by a private Member of that House, on some fanciful
ideas of decorum? What was fit to- be levied on the

people for Church purposes might, he thought, be dis-
cussed in-church without any indecorum. Was it to be
supposed that the stone walls could be injured by some
persons saying some foolish things therein? If that were
so, how often ought the stone walls to be offended.—
(Laughter) Yet one Hon. Gentleman stated that something
h ad occurred in London, but let him bring forward his facts,
and state the grounds on which he undertook the
measure. He objected to Bishops having this power.
They ought not to increase the power of Bishops. He,
for one, would be rather inclined to curtail it. He
called on the Hon. Gentleman to state distinctly, not in
this soft way—(Laughter)—what were the charges in
the indictment on which he had founded this Bill.—
(Mr. Stafford. O'Brien—" I will do so.") They would
then hear the staten ent of the offences with which the
Honourable Gentleman had to charge the people of
England, and which was to rob them of the privileges
they had enjoyed from time immemorial. They would
see how much of those acts were conglomerated to in-
duce him to rob the people of this power, and place it in
the hands of the Bishop, and give him the power, by the
third clause, of directing that the meeting should be held
where they might please, and not in that common house
of the parish in which those meetings were accustomed
to be held.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. R. YOItKE said he wished to submit whether it
was Parliamentary to allow this discussion, and whether.
there was not a resolution ordering that all Church
matters and matters relating to the Church, should be
preceded by a resolution in a Committee of the whole
House.

Mr. GREENE did not think that resolution applied
to the present Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that the resolution should
be read.

The resolution was then read, which stated that, in
religious matters, or matters concerning religion, no Bill
should- be discussed without a previous resolution in
Committee of the whole House.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought it was clear, from the pre-
amble of this Bill, that it related to religious subjects.
He thought it was more fit for the Speaker to decide the
question than the Chairman. He should, therefore,
move that the Chairman do leave the chair.

After a few words from Mr. S. O'BRIEN, referring
to a Bill which had been introduced in 1838,
Mr. ROEBUCK said he recollected, on one occasion,
when Lord Althorp, who was then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, had been speaking half-an-hour, a motion
was made that the Chairman should leave the chair, and
he was obliged to begin his speech anew ; and, there-
fore, the authority, in the instance of 1838, did not apply.
Mr. HUTT suggested to his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Bath that it was not competent
for the Chairman to leave the chair. •

Mr. ROEBUCK said he might be wrong, and he
should, therefore, ask the Chairman, as being more con-
versant with the rules of the House, to enlighten him
how to proceed.

Mr. GREENE said it was competent to the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman to move that he now leave
the Chair and report progress ; but he did not think
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman need have recourse to
that mode.—(The Speaker, in the meantime, had come
into the House.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he understood what the Chair-
man meant ; and he should, therefore, at once put the
question to the Speaker. The Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman then read the preamble of the Bill, and asked