The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1846-08-18 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MONDAY• Several petitions were presented against the Poor Re moval Bill. The Earl of Sr. GERMANS laid upon the table a report of a select committee appointed to inquire into the facts alleged by the Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston Railway  Company  SUGAR DUTIES CONTINUANCE BILL (NO  LorcieTARENMON moved the first reading of this bill, and hoped that their lordships would, in accordance with the usual practice, permit the bill to be read a first time. The principles of the present bill had been sanctioned by the policy of the government and legislature during the last four years. Parliament had ceased to legislate for particular interests, and the system of protection, or rather non-protection, might be looked upon as for ever abolished. He would, therefore, content himself by expressing‘his confidence, that as their lordships had declared ultimately to withdraw protection from British agriculture, they should not refuse to adopt the same policy towards the colonies, and consequently not reject the principle of the corn•law measure which a few weeks ago received the sanction of their lordships. He then entered at length into an explanation of the grounds which had induced the government to bring forward the present measure. There was still an advantage preserved to the colonists ; and the slave-trade could not be made worse than it was at present, and might be made much better.  Lord STANLEY protested against both the principle and details of the bill, and denied that they ought to pass it to preserve their consistency because they had repealed the corn-law, in imitation of the House of Commons, which would go down to posterity as the " rapid conversion parliament". He admitted the importance of a settlement of the question ; but such a settlement should bear upon the face of it evidence of having been calmly and deliberately arrived at, which this measure did not. His lordship then recapitulated the proceedings of the legislatur,e upon this question during the past five years, and entered at length into arguments against the measure as being oppressive and unjust to the colonists, and tending to add to the horrors and the activity of the slave trade. He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day two months; but should not divide the house.  Lard DENMAN, still cherishing a strong abhorrence of the slave 'trade, was averse to any measure which sought to obtain economical and fiscal advantages at the expense of the negro, and the risk of ensuring the permanent degradatiomuf Africa. He thought they were now about to interfere with a great experiment, the object of which was the elevation of the human race, by extinguishing the greatest curse which ever afflicted humanity. It was to be dreaded that, under the operation of this bill, slave labour would, for many years, drive free labour out of the market. Before they adopted this great innovation, they were bound to look at all its consequences. Free trade in corn did not necessarily involve free trade in sugar, for the occupation of the foreign farmer was an innocent one, while the produce of sugar by slave labour involved a murderous traffic, much human misery, and a great sacrifice of human life.  - The Marquis of LANSDOWNE urged that our great sacrifices of men and money on the coast of Africa, in order to suppress the slave trade, had proved an utter failure, arid defended the measure on the ground that it was absuro to saddle ourselves with burthens, by refusing foreign stave-labour sugar, when we imported largely slave-labour cotton, copper, tobacco, &c. Lord ASHBURTON opposed the bill as tending to promote slavery, and as uncalled-for and ruinous to the colonial proprietor.  Lord Ikin.NTEAdLE replied ; and, after a song address from Lord BROUGHAM against the measure, which was replied to: by Lord GREY, the bill was read a first time without a division, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday.