The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-08-16 00:00:00

SLAVERY ABOLITION BILL.

The Earl of RIPON moved the order of the day for the second
reading of the above bill.
The Earl of BELMORE inquired whether it was his intention
to move the second reading of this impoitant bill without any
observation—without entering into its details ?
The Earl of RIPON said he saw no necessity for opening up
the discussion on this subject, because, when the resolutions on
which the measure was founded were brought before the house,
the question was amply discussed. He should, however, be
prepared to meet any objections that noble lords might advance
against it. In this instance he had merely taken the same
course which had been adopted with respect to the East India
Bill, relative to which no complaint had been made.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was customary, on the
second reading of an important bill, that the details of that bill
should be stated to their lordships by the minister who had the
care of it. If ministers refused in die outset to state the gene-
ral outlines of the measure, why then they must go on with the
discussion in the best way they could ; but, in his opinion, such
a proceeding was not very respectful to their lordships. Such
an exposition as he alluded to was necessary, because many
alterations had been made in the bill since the resolutions were
agreed. to.
Earl GREY said that, in his opinion, sufficient time had been
given for the consideration of this subject. The details, also, it
appeared to him, were so well known as not to require the ex-
planation which noble lords called for. The resolutions were,
in the first iustances brought nri from the House of Commons,
and a day was fixed tor their discussion. When that day came
the whole of the provisions of the intended measure, or at least
the general outline of them, received an ample discussion. He
knew that, on the second reading of a bill, it was usual to enter
into a detail of the general principles on which it was founded ;
but when, prior to the introduction of a bill, there had been such
a general discussion of its principles as had taken place in this
instance,—when the views of government had on the occasion
been clearly expounded,—he thought no mark of disrespect was
shown to the house if the second reading was moved without
observation. As to the alterations which had been made in this
measure, they were alterations, not of principle, but of detail,
and the proper place for considering them was in committee.
The Duke of WE,,LINGToN said he held in his hand the bill,
and it appeared that, in two or three places, complete alterations
had been made in its provisions, as compared with what appear-
ed in the resolutions, and what had been stated by ministers in
the debate. In the first place apprenticeships were to be for six
years or four years, instead of twelve years. Then the period at
which the power of the master to punish the slave was to termi-
nate was altered from November, 1833, to June. 1834. Again,
by a new classification, there were to be three descriptions of
apprentices instead of one. The definition of slavery, too, was,
in the hill different from that laid down in the courts of law.—
In two pages all these alterations were to be found, and vet the
noble earl declined to say one word ou the subject. This the
noble earl called not acting disrespectfully to the house. For
his own part, he did not care a pin whether the noble earl made
a speech or not, but certainly the course he was pursuing was
not a customary one.
Lord Cor.yiLLE was sorry that they were called on to consider
this important question in so very thin a house. He did not
consider himself pledged to the principle or to the details of the
bill, in consequence of the resolutions having been agreed to by
their lordships. He believed that many of those who had agreed
to the resolutions never expected that a bill like the present
would be founded on them. The measure now introduced de-
viated from the resolutions in many respects. He might be
considered a bold man when he said that he objected in toto to
the principle of the bill. It was a measure that was not called
for by necessity, but was introduced in compliance with a delu-
sion which had been practised ou the government and on the
country. (Hear, hear.) That delusion he, for one, feared the
country would hereafter deeply lament. (Hear, hear.) He
regretted much that the second reading, of the bill was proposed
in the absence of a noble. friend of his (Lord St. Vincent), who
could have given much information on the subject.
The Earl of RIPON observed, that the alterations which had
been made in the bill involved no question of principle. It was
true, that in stating the nature of the propositions brought for-
ward by government, it was said that the bill would contain a
clause for a twelve years' apprenticeship. That proposal was
mady by government in the other house of Parliament; but the
feeling there was, that the period of twelve years was too great.
So far, therefore, as that was the case, the bill was not in con-
formity with the originally-expressed intentions of government.
Now, though he thought that the period of twelve years was
preferable to that adopted, still it was obvious that the alteration
did not affect the principle of the bill.
After some further discussion the bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Wednesday, as we understood.
—Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MONDAY, AuG. 12.

The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour.
On our admission into the gallery, the house was engaged in a
discussion relative to the presentation of petitions, but it was
finally agreed to proceed with the
FACTORIES' REGULATION BILL.

The house, nn the motion of Lord Althorp, resolved int)
committee further to consider the Factories' Regulation Bill,
Mr. Bernal in the chair.

The sth clause was put and agreed to.
On clause 6 being put, which provides that one hour and a
half be allowed for meals to persons working 12 hours,
Mr. GORING proposed that the one hour and a half be de-
ducted from the 12 hours.

Mr. P. TnomsoNOlVeCted to this alteration of the clause; it
was sought to make this part of the bill correspond with Sir
John Ifobhouse's. The effect of the amendment would be to
restrict the labour of persons above the age of thirteen to ten
hours' and a half per day, and that, he was sure, was not the in-
tention of the house. (Hear.) He should therefore oppose
the amendment, and declared his intention to introduce the
words " exclusive of the twelve hours " after the words "hour
and a half," as explanatory of the meaning of the clause.
After some discussion this amendment was negatived by a
majority of 30, and the clause was agreed to without any eler-
ation.

The 7th and Bth clauses were also agreed to, after which the
chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.—
Adjourned at three o'clock.
The Speaker resumed the chair at 5 o'clock.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from C. H. Molyneux,
a magistrate for the counties of Stafford and Worcester, and a
banker in the town of Dudley. The petition, he said, alluded
to a handbill which had been circulated very largely through-
out that town, purporting to be an extract f;om a speech of his
Majesty's Solicitor-General, in which, speaking of the magis-
trates of Dudley, he said, " They are not such as I should like
to describe, justice is not administered by them to the satisfac-
tion of the inhabitants, and the greatest discontent in conse-
quence prevails there.
The SPEAKER took it for granted that this petition referred to
a speech delivered by the Solicitor-General in some other place,
and not in that house.

Mr. LITTLETON said that the petition merely alluded to a
handbill, which did not say that the Solicitor-General's speech
was delivered in that house or not; the handbill did not even
say that the speech was copied from any newspaper.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was not his intention
to oppose the prayer of this petition, on the contrary, he said,
" let there be investigation, andithe result will then show that
the magistracy of that part of England is in an unsatisfactory
condition." (Hear.) lie had not imputed misconduct to the
magistracy of Dudley in his former speech—he did not impute
misconduct to them now ; but what he had said formerly, and
what he said now, was, that a change in the administration of
the law in a great part of England by the magistracy was ab-
solutely necessary.