The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-30 00:00:00

SUGAR REFINING TRADE.

Mr. CLAY brought forward his motion on this subject, and
concluded by moving the following resolution,—" That it is
expedient that foreign sugar be immediately admitted into this
country for the purpose of being refined for exportation."
Mr. EwAnT seconded the resolution which, after some dis-
cussion, was withdrawn.

SLAVERY ABOLITION BILL.
The order of the day for the house resolving itself into a com-
mittee of the whole house on the Slavery Abolition Bill was
then read. Ou the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. F. BUXTON said that, in common with many other per-
sons, he felt great mortification in finding that this hill was nei-
ther a safe nor a satisfactory measure. Important changes (im-
provements he could not call them) had been made in the bill
since the subject to which it referred had been introduced into
Parliament; but he was sorry to say that those changes were
all for the benefit of the planter and for the detriment of the
slaves. He could not forget the most eloquent speech which
he had heal d the right ho,u. Secretary dellver upon this subject
—a speech of which the main object was to show that it would
be great folly if we left any part of this subject to be taken up
by the colonial legislatures. He would leave it to the j udgment
of the house, how far they relied upon the legislation of the co-
lonial assemblies, he would not say iu this, but in any succeed-
ing generations, for carrying into effect, by their operation, the
wishes and declarations of government and of the country. He
would say with Mr. Canning—" Trust not the masters of the
slaves in what concerns legislation for slavery. However spe-
cious their,laws may appear, depend upQn it they must be in-
effectual in their application. It is the nature of things
that it should be so. Let the British House of Commons
do their part themselves. Let them not delegate their
trust to those who cannot execute that trust fairly." (Hear.)
The hon. gentleman concluded his speech by saying that in the
full conviction that we could do nothing so good as to give full
play to the natural feelings and motives of men with regard to
punishments and rewards, he should move that it be an instruc
Lion to the committee that they shall not, for the sake of the
pecuniary interests of the masters, impose any restraint or ob-
ligation on the negro which shall not be necessary for his own
welfare and for the general peace and order of society; and that
they shall limit the duration of any temporary restrictions which
may be imposed upon the freedom of the negroes to the shortest
period which may be necessary to establish on just principles
the system of free labour for adequate wages. The hon. mem-
ber then sat down amidst loud cheering.
Mr. STANLEY thought that the hon. member might have
spared them another discussion before the house resolved itself
into committee on the principle of apprenticeship. If he had
wished to avoid this discussion, he might have sheltered him-
self under the declaration that the house had already bound
itself to the system of apprenticeship, and that it was inconsis-
tent first to pass resolutions on which a bill was to be founded,
and then to move an instruction compelling the house to strike
out the main principle of those resolutions, and to substitute
another in its stead. The government, in bringing forward this
measure as a government question, had undertaken an awful
responsibility, and could not look at it without considering the
many interests which were involved in it. The compensation
was of two sorts : one was a sum to be paid down now for the
remission of one-fourth of the labour of the slave, and the whole
would be paid by the end of twelve years, when the negro would
be completely free. Now, the sum to be paid to the colonies
was taken with reference to the estimated value of the slave,-
and to the interest of money. Taking that value at £30,000,000,
for 800,000 slaves would give an average of £37 10s. for each,
though indeed it was impossible to see the exact value; but
they must take it from the best data they could. Last year a
commission had been issued to consider of the proper disburse-
, ments of a loan to the colonies, and that commission had a
power to ask questions on oath as to the value of slaves. From
, the answers to these questions, taking the average of 24 estates,
it appeared that in St. Lucia the value of a slave was above
£4O, in Barbadoes about £3B 10s., in Jamaica, as appeared
from a sale of 472 slaves, it was about £35105., and in '1 rmidad
it was about £66. This would show that it was not extravagant
to say that £37 10s. was about the average value. He men-
tioned this to show how far the principle of apprenticeship was
to form part of the compensation to the master. The amend-
ment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Buxton) was, he con-
tended, vague and undefined. It was " that it be an instruc-
tion to the committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill, that they
shall not for the sake of the pecuniary interest of the master
impose any restraint or obligation on the negro which shall not
be necessary for his own welfare and for the general peace
and order of society;" but who was to be the judge of what
was to be for the " welfare" of the negro ? The resolution
went on to say
." that they shall limit the duration of any tem-
porary restrictions which may be imposed on the freedom of
the negroes to the shortest period which may be necessary to
establish it on just principles." What were those principles,
and who were to define them ?—" The system of free labour
for adequate wages." In the name of good fortune, who was to
decide what were to be considered " adequate wages ?" Did
the hon. gentleman mean by " adequate wages" the full value
which the negro might set upon his labour? The master was by
this bill bound to feed, clothe, and nourish—to support in time
of sickness the negroes on his estate, and that for three-fourths
of his labour—that was, for seven hours and a half in the day.
Would the honourable gentleman call that adequate wages ?
He (Mr. Stanley) supposed that by "adequate wages" the
honourable gentleman meant the maximum price of labour,
and that the negroes were to come to the possession of entire
freedom in the shortest possible time. If he meant this,
he meant what, without his intending it, must bring inevitable
ruin on the masters, and what must eventully be most
detrimental to the interests of the slaves themselves. The
honourable gentleman had spoken in a spirit of prophecy as to
what must be the result of refusing what he considered this act
of justice to the negroes. On this he would only observe, that
there were some prophecies which had a tendency to bring
about their own fulfilment. From his heart and soul he fully
acquitted the hon. gentleman of any wish or feeling of that kind.
No man, he was sure, would shrink with more horror from even
the contemplation of any such insurrection as he had spoken of,
or from the shedding of a drop of human blood, than that hon.
gentleman; but let him consider what might be the effect of
having it go out among the negro population of our colonies
that their state of slavery was to end at no very distant time;.
what, he would ask, must be the effect, when it should go out
to them—as go out it would, in words and in print—that it was
the opinion of that great body with whom the hon. gentleman
acted—that this great measure, intended for the present relief
of the slave—for the abolishing of the name of slave or slavery
in our colonies, and for placing the negro at no very distant day
in a state of entire freedom, for which his immediately approach-
ing condition was only a preparation,—what, he repeated, might
be the effect when they were told that all this was only a delusion
and a mockery, which must tend only to the injury of the negro
himself? Might not the consequence be (but God forbid it should,)
the very danger against which the hon. member was so anxious
to guard the house and the country"? He (Mr. Stanley) would
entreat the house to pause before it gave its assent to a motion
which might he productive of consequences so dangerous. He
would entreat of the hon. member himself to recollect what
were his own feelings, and what was his language on this very
question only a very few years ago, and how much he would
have rejoiced at that time if he could have contemplated such
results as were now almost on the eve of accomplishment. He
would beg of him to use his influence over those with whom he
had deservedly so much credit, and to urge them that they by
every means in their power should instil into the negro feelings
of quiet submission, or rather of thankful acceptance, of that
which was intended for their relief—to teach them to prove, by
their industry, by their peace, and good order, that they were
fit to enjoy that boon which the British public, at so great a
pecuniary sacrifice, was now preparing to confer upon them.
(Cheers. )
On a division the numbers were—

For the original motion . , 158
Against it . . . . . . 151
Majority for the original motion . 7
The house then went into committee, pro forma, and the
Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again to-
morrow.

DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES BILL.

Mr. E. L. But.wEamovedthe thi►d reading of this bill

Mr. Rorcu opposed the bill on the groundthat it took from
the Crown a part of its prerogative, vestieg it in the Lord
Chamberlain. A theatre was a place which brought together
a set of outcasts, who had no other means of securing a repu-
table livelihood, and yet this was the class of persons whom the
legislature were called upon to support. Ile was decidedly op-
posed to the bill, and be therefore moved that it be read a third
time this day six months.
For the original motion 3B
Against it
Majority for the original motion -31
Mr. E. L. BULWER moved a clause to the effect that the
Lord Mayor should have the same authority in granting li-
cences, &c., in the city, as the Lord Chamberlain had elsewhere.
The clause was agreed to, and added to the bill.
Lord W. LENNOX then moved a clause to the effect that,
with the exception of the English Opera-house, no theatre
should be built within a mile and a half 6f Drury-lane and Co-
ment-garden Theatres; but after a short discussion, the noble
lord withdrew it, seeing that the sense of the house was
against it.
The biil then passed.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at three o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, THURSDAY, JULY 25.
Mr. Alderman Woon, Mr. E. L. BULWER, and others from
the Commons. brought up the Blackfriar's-bridge Repairs Bill,
the Dramatic Performances Bill, and several private bills.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the house resolved
itself into a committee on the above bill.
The clauses from 79 to 116 inclusive were agreed to, with a
few verbal amendments.
On the reading of the 117th clause, by which it is provided,—
"That the commissioners under this act may suspend the ap-
pointment of clerks to rectories, &c., in which divine service
shall have been intermitted for three years, next preceding the
Ist of February, 183.3,"
Lord WYNFORD rose to move an amendment. He objected
to the power which the clause gave to the commissioners. The
power with which it clothed them should belong to the bishops
only. His great object was to provide that the government of
the church should be effectually retained in the hands in which
it was at present placed, namely, the hands of the bishops. He
felt strong object►ons to this bill altogether; but to no part of it
did he feel a stronger objection than to that portion of it which
gave to this commission powers so large and extensive, more
large and more extensive, he would say, than were ever before

given to any commission. (Hear, hear.) Such powers, he
contended, could not be executed without throwing suspicion
on the purity of the hierarchy of Ireland, and such suspicion
never had been cast on them before. 'lle therefore should move,
as an amendment, that the powers granted by this clause should
be transferred to the bishop or ordinary, subject to an appeal to
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in Council.
.The Earl of LIMERICK opposed the clause, and expressed his
hostility to the entire bill, which, in his conscience, tie believed
was calculated to effect the subvei sion of the Protestant religion
in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) They talked of divine service ac-
cording to the Protestant faith not having been performed in
certain parishes for three years. But why was that? He had
seen the Protestants driven from their residences. He had, in
the county of Wexford, in a circuit of twenty miles, met with
but one Protestant; but the reason was that they. had been
obliged to depart. It seemed that in sixty-six parishes divine
service had not been performed, according to the Protestant
service, for the last. three years; but if they looked at the re-
turn, they would find that this occurred in the most wild and
uncivilised part of the country. The fact was that the clergy
were from fear, from reasonable apprehension, driven from their
residences. A noble lord near him—and no man was more
likely than was that noble lord to be acquainted with the fact—
said that such had been the case. He reiterated the noble lord's
sentiment, and declared that he was confident of its perfect truth.
Let this bill be passed, and he would undertake to say that no
Protestant clergyman would dare hereafter to call for his tithes.
Lord PLUNKETT was willing to allow that if the clause would
prevent church service it would be a most mischievous one ;
but it did no such thing. It was entirely retrospective, not
prospective, merely enacting, that in case service had not been
performed in any benefice for three years previous to the Ist of
February, 1833, that then the commissioners shall be empow-
ered to direct the suspension of the appointment.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND observed that he was afraid the
clause would be laying a precedent for future suspensions.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he should vote against it,
because he considered the commissioners likely to be the best
judges as to the appropriation of the funds, and he thought it
important that their lands should be left as free as possible.
The house divided—
Content Bl
Not-content
• Majority for the amendment —2
Earl GREY moved that their lordships do resume, in order to
allow time for considering what alterations consequent upon
that just made might be necessary in the bill.
Lord KENYON objected to this course; he thought it better to
proceed and finish the clause before the committee.
The Earl of Wicx.Low said that when a minister of the Crown
made a motion of that kind, it was not usual to offer any objec-
tion to it. The noble earl was charged with the management of
the bill, and could fairly move the discontinuance of the pro-
ceeding when he saw occasion.
The Loan CHANCELLOR observed that his noble friend was
responsible for the conduct of the bill, and it rested with him
to decide in what way he would proceed. His noble friend had
properly stated that time should be given to consider what
alterations consequential on the amendment just made might
be required. If, however, the noble baron would undertake to
conduct the measure further, as far as this clause was concerned,
probably his noble friend would surrender it into his hands.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it better that the consi-
deration of the clause should be postponed.
The house resumed.—Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Adjourned.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JULY 25.
The Speaker took the chair at a quarter past twelve o'clock.

ABOLITION OF NEGRO SLAVERY.

On the question that the hous3 resolve itself into committee
upon the Slavery Abolition Bill,
Mr. RUTHVEN protested against the bill in its present shape.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said he had given notice of a motion upon
which he felt assured that he should carry with him the • judg-
ment of the house, and which it stias necessary for him to propose
before the house went into committee. It was That it be an
instruction to the committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill, to
insert in the said bill a clause for the immediate emancipation,
without restriction, of all slaves who may at any time, previous
to the passing of this bill, have been brought, with the consent
of their possessors, or may at any time after the passing of this
bill, with like consent, be brought into any part of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." He was the more
urged to propose this resolution by a case which had occurred
relative to the delivery of a female slave in this country, and
the subsequent enthralment of the child, as a slave, on arrival
in the West Indies. It was Lord Stowell who had decided the
legality of such a procedure ' • but although sanctioned by his
high legal authority, he (Dr. Lushington) could not admit the
legality of the doctrine. In the last judgment which had been
declared on this subject, and which was also pronounced by
Lord Stowell, he (Dr. Lushingtou) was engaged as King's
counsel, and the case was given up in consequence of same flaw
in the proceedings. Although, as the law stood, Lord Stowell
had so decided, yet the iniquity of the case was not the less.
It was his purpose to suggest that it be an instruction to the
committee that all slaves who had once by the consent of their
owners come to England, or who might hereafter come to
'England, by which they obtained their freedom, should never
be compelled to return to a state of slavery. (Cheers.) The
justice of that proposition was evident (cheers,) because if the
slave-owner once temporarily broke the chain of bondage, he
had no right again to enforce it. The hon. and learned mewher
concluded by moving his resolution.
Mr.. STANLEY had intended to guard against the recurrence
of such cases as his hon. and learned friend had related, by some
provision in the bill, but he had not intended to go so tar as the
proposed resolution stated. However, seeing the unanimous
feeling of the house, he would offer no opposition to the motion.
(Cheers.)
Mr. BERNAL also acceded to the motion, and related, by
way of counterpoise_ to the statements of the hon. and learned
member (Dr. Lushington), the case of a slave belonging to the
late Mr. Beckford : the slave was taken ill, and sent to this
country to be cured at Mr. Beckford's expense; on return to
Jamaica, upon expressing a wish to carry on his own business
(a mason) as a freeman, Mi. Beckford generously liberated
him.
Mr. STANLEY said the instructions referred to were founded
on the peculiar circumstances in which the island of Mauritius
was placed. There were many slaves illegally detained in the
Mauritius, but as there were no registers of slaves before 1815,
it would be almost impossible (and quite so in many cases) to
prove a legal title between 1810 and 1815, on account of the
many changes of ownership. But admitting the hon. and
learned gentleman's principle, he (Mr. Stanley) would move
as an instruction to the committee, "That from the sums to be
appropriated as compensation to the proprietors of any colony,
be deducted such sums as shall correspond with the estimated
value of persons in slavery, if any, who may be registered, or
holden in slavery, contrary to law, and that for the purpose
of ascertaining in what cases such deduction shall be made, an
inquiry shall be made by the commissioners appointed under
the act, according to such rules of legal presumption and of
evidence as shall he established according to any law now in
force, or which shall be in force, in any of the colonies in which
such question shall arise."
The resolution was then put and carried.
After a few words from Mr. Holcomb,
The Speaker left the chair and the house resolved itself into
a committee on the bill.
Mr. STANLEY then rose, and said he hoped the committee
would excuse him for adverting to the position in which, after
the discussion last night the government stood. (Hear, hear.)
It was impossible to look to the opinion then expressed. and not
to perceive that there was a strong feeling, not, he believed,
against the principle of apprenticeship as an intermediate state
of probation between slavery and perfect freedom, but to the
period which government had adopted for that purpose. (Hear,
hear.) Undoubtedly it was perfectly competent to the house to
limit the 12 years which government had proposed to a some-
what shorter period; and, looking to the opinion expressed last
night, while the government felt it absolutely essential, not only
by way of compensation to the master, but also. for the welfare
of the slave population, that there should be an intermediate
state, as a real and effective apprenticeship, he must state, that
anxious as he was consistently with the claims of government
on other parties to make proper concessions to the wishes of the
house, it was deemed expedient, instead of retaining the period
for predial apprenticeship twelve years, and non-predial appren'
ticeship seven years, to confine the former to seven years and
the term of the latter to five years. (Cheers.) This substitution
he hoped would meet the wishes of the house, while he still
thought it would not be inconsistent with the principle of a real
and effective intermediate apprenticeship. Indeed, he might
say that the periods would virtually be reduced to six and tour
years, because, by the new arrangement, the plan would come
into operation in 1833 in place of 1834, and the time would cud
in 1840 in place of 1845. He made this explanation before going
into committee, being very desirous the bill should be passed
with the consent of all parties as far as it was practicable.
Lord SANDON complained that a direct violation had been
committed of the contract which had been made bygovernment
with the West India body, for the purpose of gaining their co-
operation, and without the least communication having been
made on the subject. (Hear, hear.) He considered the modi-
fication in itself a direct departure from a specific contract;
and he thought he had good reason for charging on government
a direct breach of good faith in regard to the West India body.
Mr. STANLEY said the negotiation into which government
had entered with that body, as to the precise period of 12 or 7
years' apprenticeship, was undoubtedly. binding on them as
members of that house, but it only bound them as ministers to
propose that term to parliament. (Hear, hear.) It was quite
competent for the house to accede to or reject it. He called on
his noble friend to say whether there had not been on the part
of government every endeavour to maintain their part of the
agreement; but, surrounded as they were with difficulties on
all sides, notwithstanding their utmost exertions to hoop in-
violable their portion of the contract, there were circumstances,
as was evident from the close division of last night, which
might render it impossible for them to carry the term of 12
years to its full extent. If the noble lord called upon him to
give him his vote, as a man he felt bound to redeem his pledge,
but he should then look to his character as a minister. (Loud
cheers.)
Mr. GLADSTONE thought it hard that the West India body
should be thrown overboard by a mere inference upon the di-
vision of last night. He did not consider that the resolutions of
last night involved any necessity for the coming to such a con-
clusion as that come to by the government. It was hard to
overthrow wdefinite contract by an indefinite supposition.
After a few words from Mr. Poulter, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Glad-
stone, Mr. Holcomb, and Mr. Hardy, time Chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again this evening.
Adjourned at three o'clock.

At five o'clock the house resumed.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. O'CONNELL laid on the table of the house the Morning
Chronicle and the Times of Tuesday, and the legal evidence of
proprietorship,
and moved that W. T. Clement, the proprietor
of the Morning Chronicle, be brought to their bar to answer for
a breach of privilege in publishing the debates of that house.
The learned gentleman stated that he would follow up the mo-
tion by moving that the proprietors of the Times be also brought
to thelar to answer for the same breach of privilege. He was
determined not to submit to the despotism of newspapers, and
that if not reported himself, he would not permit others to be
reported, by bringing the matter to a decisive issue. The hon.
member then proceeded in a strain of violent abuse, sometimes
of individuals by name, quite unfit for publieation, whether con-
sidered in reference to the assembly in which it was delivered,
or to the public under whose eyes it would come. He admitted,
however, that what he had stated on a former occasion about
the reduction of reporters' salaries from six to two guineas a
week was untrue.
Mr. O'DWYER would not be deterred by the spurious despo-
tism of the reporters from seconding the motion.
Mr. TENNYSON hoped that his hon. and learned friend would
withdraw his motion. The publishing of any report of the pro-
ceedings of that house was, undoubtedly, a technical breach of
the privileges of that house; but to misi eport was a grosser and
more real breach of privilege. The total omission of any
speeches, which was in fact garbling the report, did certainly
place that house in a position quite different from that in which
it ought to stand. There was but one opinion in the house--
that such a practice ought to be discouraged ; and that, if per-
sisted in, some steps ought to be taken by the house to stop it.
He perceived inconvenience in adopting the course proposed
by his hon. and learned friend, and it did not appear to him
calculated to correct the evil. He, therefore, hoped his hon.
and learned friend would withdraw his motion, and then the
house would have time to consider what measures ought to be
taken if the offence complained of should be repeated.

Sir R. PEEL said he would vote for the motion if he thoUght
it would effect the object which the hon. and learned member
had in view,—if it would tend to check that which was admitted
to be an abuse,--the suppression of speeches by reporters, in
consequence of their having taken offence at expressions used
iii that house. But he did not understand how, with all his in-
genuity, the hon. member would be able to effect this object by
the course he proposed to take. The power of that house was so
great in such cases, that the hon. and learned gentleman himself
would not call upon them to exert it. They might, if they chose,
exclude strangers from the gallery altogether, and that step would
entirely pre ventthe publication of reports. The exertion of that
authority, however,would be perfectly in opposition to public feel-
ing,and might infiicta serious injury on the transaction of public
business. He thought that the hon. and learned member had better
withdraw his motion, than to force the house either to negative it
or to carry the previous question. The public were interested in
obtaining fair and impartial reports of the debates in that house,
and there need be no apprehension entertained but that this
abuse would correct itself. If, however, justice was not done to
the hon. and learned member in future, he was confident that a
fortnight would not pass over without some means of checking
the evil, more effectual than the interposition of that house, being
adopted. In his opinion, the interposition of that house would
not procure the redress which was wanted, for he thought the
mutilation of speeches worse than their entire suppression • vet
how perfectly impossible it was to prevent that mutilation taking
place. It was ridiculous to suppose that the house could sit in
judgment on the merits of every report of speeches delivered in
that house. The right hon. baronet concluded by repeating his
advice that the Motion should be withdrawn. (Loud Cries of
" Withdraw.")
Mr. O'CONNELL said he should postpone his motion for the
present, but renew it on this day week, unless the reporters
altered their conduct with respect to him.
All the notices of motions on the paper were postponed in
order to make way for the