imposed any restrictions upon the labour of the West Indies; but he had opposed, and he would again oppose the exportation of human beings to the colony of the Mauritius, unless perfect security were given for their freedom. What he contended for was, that his hon. Friend's motion would have no such effect, and would produce no such consequences as the increase of slave labour. He believed, too, that there would be no reduction of sugar grown in Jamaica or the West Indies, but, at the same time, he did not wish to encourage the free labour sugar of the West Indies by any improper restrictions on other sugar. Mr. Gladstone explained that he had imputed no motive to the hon. Member but what he had contended for was, that the clear effect of the present motion would be to encourage slave labour and the slave trade. close agreement on the point of slavery, had described as a torrent of lava which was likely to overwhelm him. The dread of the slave trade made the right hon. Gentleman fear what was really not to be feared. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin took the same view as the right hon. Gentleman, but for another reason, the hon. Gentleman had mistaken his (Mr. Ewart's) views, and no wonder that he had taken a wrong impression, because while he (Mr. Ewart) was making his statement, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was securely and soundly asleep. There had been that night professed a great deal of humanity on the side of real monopoly; they had just seen certain prejudices agree wonderfully with certain false principles. These united to oppose a motion, which was brought forward only because the people could not procure their sugar at a reasonable price; the frequenters of clubs might not know and might not care about the price of sugar, but it was the poor man who felt all the ill effects of the price and who was the chief sufferer, and it was the pour man who was to be sacrificed on the altar of a supposed humanity. The alteration which he proposed would really promote true humanity, it would greatly extend commerce, and even Mr. Buxton was coming to the opinion that the extension of commerce was the best means of putting down slavery. But he should not pertinaciously adhere to his opinion (however conscientiously he had adopted it), if it were the sense of the House and his hon. Friend's that he should not divide the House upon it. If it accorded with their views, that he should proceed to the issue of a division, he at once would do so. Mr. Ewart, in reply, said that Mr. Gladstone had used the term in no very courteous manner, of 66 sensibility on slavery." He would remind the hon. Member that there were those whose sensibilities were only of recent growth, and conveniently matured in accordance with their own interest and with the maintenance of monopoly. He had rested his motion on two positions; first, that the poor (not the rich who slumbered at their clubs) were the sufferers by the present rate of duty upon sugar; secondly, that free-labour sugar could compete, and successfully compete with, and beat the slave-labour sugar out of the markets of the world. On these two grounds alone be based the motion. It would be found that the sugar, the produce of the freelabour of Java, Siam, and Manilla, had increased more than the produce of slave labour, and he had the best authority for stating that the quality of the sugar produced by free labour had greatly improved, and that although these places were more distant than Cuba or the Brazils, yet the cultivators in Siam and Manilla could afford to take less profits and so compensate for the greater distance. On these facts he was convinced that free labour would triumph over slave labour in the markets of the world. The right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets in opposing this motion, seemed to have been borne away by that impetuous Hume, J. torrent which his hon. Friend the Member Humphery, J. The House divided on the question that the words be added: Ayes 27; Noes 122; Majority 95. List of the AYES. Chalmers, P. Scholefield, J. Talfourd,Mr.Sergeant Turner, W. Vigors, N. A. TELIERS. Thornley, T. Ewart, T. Lennox, Lord A. Palmer, R. Palmer, G. Parker, J. Parker, M, Patten, J. W. Pechell, Captain Rawdon, Col. J. D. Rice, E. R. Roche, W. Rundle, J. Russell, Lord J. Rutherfurd, rt. hon.A. Sandon, Viscount Scarlett, hon. J. Y. Slaney, R. A. Smith, R. V. Somerset, Lord G. Stanley, hon. E. J. Stanley, Lord Stuart, W. V. Strickland, Sir G. Strutt, E. Tancred, H. W. Teignmouth, Lord Thomas, Colonel II. Thompson, Mr. Ald. Tollemache, F. J. Turner, E. Vere, Sir C. B. Vivian, J. E. Ward, H. G. White, A. Williams, W. A. Winnington, Sir T. E. Wood, C. Wood, Colonel Wynn, rt. hon. C. W. Yates, J. A. Young, J. Tufnell, II. TELLERS. Wallace, R. Williams, W. Wood, B. List of the NOES. Acland, Sir T. D. Adam, Admiral Ainsworth, P. Baillie, Colonel Alston, R. Baillie, H. J. Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Blake, W. J. Broadley, H. Bolling, W. Bridgeman, H. Brodie, W. B. Brotherton, J. Buller, Sir J. Y. Busfeild, W. Chapman, A., Clay, W. Codrington, C, W. Collier, J. Craig, W. G. Dalmeny, Lord Darby, G. Davies, Colonel Denison, W. J. Dottin, A. R. Dundas, D. Evans, W. Dalrymple, Sir A. Dowdeswell, W. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Heathcote, Sir W. Heneage, G. W. Hill, Lord A. M. C. Hindley, C. Hodges, T. L. Hodgson, R. Holmes, W. Hope, hon. C. Hope, G. W. Hoskins, K. Howick, Viscount Ingham, R. Inglis, Sir R. H. Irving, J. Jones, J. Kemble, H. The clause of the bill was agreed to' and the House resumed. COUNTY CONSTABULARY BILL.] House in Committee on the County Constabulary Bill, Several amendments were made and proviso added. On clause 24, disqualifying certain justices of Kent, Essex, Herts, and Surrey, from acting in the execution of the Constabulary Act, 2 and 3 Vic., c. 93. Mr. Ludlow Bruges moved the omission of the clause. ment. Mr. Fox Maule opposed the amendHe thought the clause was necessary to avoid giving magistrates residing without the district of the metropolitan police, undue privileges and influence, within that district. Mr. J. Jervis agreed with the principle of the clause. Sir James Graham begged to point out the invidious position in which those counties which were specified were placed. He thought that the provision should be made general. Mr. Fox Maule said, that the object of the clause was this. Certain rate-payers in one part of a county might agree to adopt the county constabulary force for their own protection, and he thought that it would be unfair to permit the magistrates of another part of the county to come down, and, by their votes, to swamp the rate paying magistrates of the district, in the appointment of the officers under the system. He had introduced the clause for the purpose of protecting the magistracy in the rural parts of the country As, however, Members coming from those districts had objected to it, he was content to withdraw the clause. But if the rural magistracy found themselves swamped by the magistracy in the district of the Metropolitan Police Act, it would be their fault not his. Clause expunged. Other clauses agreed to. House resumed, the report was received; bill to be reconsidered. CLIMBING BOYs.] House in Committee on the Chimney Sweepers' Bill. On clause 2 being proposed, Mr. Williams wished to know what was to be done with old houses. He, for one, would not like to pull down his house. Seymour, Lord Strutt, E. Williams, W. A. TELLERS. Handley, II. Elliot, hon. J. E. List of the NOES. convenience and expense would be the effect of the bill, but he thought that would be as nothing, compared with the humanity of the bill. Sir R. Inglis believed that of old chimneys, not one in 2,000 but could be by machines. swept Mr. Goulburn happened to be one of the unfortunate individuals who possessed the one chimney out of 2,000, but still he was not prepared to oppose the motion. Mr. Heathcote said, he should be a sufferer by this bill, but he thought it so desirable the cruelties now practised should be abolished, that he felt it his duty to support it. They were in the habit of seeking for cruelties practised abroad, while it not unfrequently happened that cruelties as great were practised in their own houses. He begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this bill, and he thought, considering his numerous official occupations, the having done so was very much to his honour. Lord Ashley said, he had no notion cruelties so barbarous could be perpetrated in any civilized country as had been recently brought under his notice as perpetrated in relation to the subject of this bill. It was a fact within his own personal knowledge, that at the present moment child of 4 years, another at 6, and others of a similar tender age, were employed in sweeping chimneys. The fact, also, that twenty-three climbing boys were now confined for various offences in Newgate, was sufficient to prove the bad moral effects of the system. Clause agreed to. On clause 5, Mr. Handley moved, that the word "re-built" be left out. Mr. F. Maule thought the bill would be very much deteriorated by the omission of the word. The Attorney-General suggested, that the words "shall, if practicable, be" should be added after the words " rebuilt." The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed by the Attorneygeneral be added: Ayes 11; Noes 74: Majority 63. List of the AYES. Berkeley, hon. H. Dundas, C. W. D. Irton, S. Acland, Sir T. D. Heathcote, G. J. Howard, hon. E.G.G. Wood, B. TELLERS. Maule, hon. F. Grey, Sir G. Remaining clauses agreed to. The House resumed; Report to be received. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, June 26, 1840. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Timber Ships; Clerkenwell Improvement. Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from the Universal Religionists, for Enquiry into their Principle. A THE O'REILLYS' COMPROMISING PROSECUTION.] The Marquess of Westmeath, in reference to a question which he had put last night to the noble Secretary for the Home Department, said that, in his mind, the refusing, by the Government, the payment of a sum of money from a Roman Catholic priest, in the case to compromising a prosecution, was an illegal act. Nay, he would go so far as to say that it was an indictable offence. He therefore gave notice, that on Thursday, July 2, he would move for a return of the party or parties to whom the sum of 50l., stated to have been paid by the Rev. Philip O'Reilley, parish priest of Ballymacue, in the county of Cavan was given, on account of the compromise of a prosecution; a return of the person or persons through whom the compromise was effected, and a copy of the receipt given for the money. Viscount Melbourne said, the noble Marquess assumed that a compromise of a prosecution had taken place, which he had no authority for doing. The Marquess of Westmeath stated that he proceeded on the admission of the noble Marquess (Normanby) himself. The noble Marquess had admitted that the informations were not returned to a court of justice, as they ought to have been; and he also stated that 507. had been paid by the priest. Notice given. DRAINAGE OF SETTLED ESTATES.] The Duke of Richmond moved the second reading of the Settled Estates Drainage Bill. The measure, he observed, would do a great deal of good, by enabling persons to borrow money chargeable on the estate, and payable at considerably distant periods, for the purposes of draining. This would be beneficial to the person in possession, to the heirs, to the farmers, and to the labourers. The Marquess of Westmeath: Was the measure meant for Ireland as well as this country? [The Duke of Richmond: Yes He was glad of it. A great deal of the advantage which Ireland might derive from drainage was prevented by the want of means to sink the beds of rivers so as that a proper flow might be allowed to the estuaries. Lord Portman would not oppose the second reading of the bill; but there were parts of its machinery to which he objected, and he did not think that it ought to pass in its present shape. Lord Ellenborough suggested to the noble Duke, whether it would not be expedient to extend the provisions of the bill to corporations sole and corporations aggregate. Lord Ashburton said, that by the provisions of this bill, it would not be com WEAVER CHURCHES.] Sir C. Lemon brought up the report of the Weaver Churches Bill. On the motion that the amendments be read a second time, Mr. E. J. Stanley moved that they be read a second time that day six months. Mr. J. Jervis said it was quite certain that if the public had been aware of the object of the bill, or if the investigation before the committee had been publicly reported and circulated, great opposition would have been made to the measure. This was not a mere private bill; the principle involved in it was most important. The question was whether that which had for years contributed 1,500l. a-year to the county-rates of Chester, and relieved the rate-payer of that county to that amount, of whatever religion such rate-payers might be, should now be devoted to the erection of churches exclusively for the use of members of the Establishment. This was the first instance in which it had been attempted to endow churches out of the county rates. Hon. Members on the other side might be anxious to adopt that principle to a man, and might perhaps engage others to assist them in this instance who would not like to have the same principle applied to their own counties which it was now sought to apply to the county of Chester. In the committee this had been treated entirely as a party question. The majority of that committee was com posed of Conservative Members-to a man they had all advocated the building of these churches, and had on all occasions committee was not so much a discussion of Mr. Hobhouse said, that the question in the question as the carrying out of the the present case was whether the funds will of the majority. Owing, however, intended for the Weaver Churches were to the accidental absence of two of these to be devoted to an entirely different purMembers he had succeeded in introducing pose. He would venture to say, if the a clause which it was now sought to strike present bill passed that the worst conseout, and hon. Members opposite relied on quences would result; he, therefore, called the earlier and more regular attendance of upon the House to meet the bill with the those Members who were desirous of most determined opposition. He recollected building churches out of the county-rates that a bill was introduced into the House to enable them to carry this into effect. for a purpose somewhat analogous to the He trusted that all those who objected to present. 'The fund was left for the buildsuch a principle would vote in favour of ing of a bridge over the river Dee. That the postponement. fund produced an enormous surplus; and Mr. Wilbraham opposed the amend it was not known in what manner the suments, and he did so because he did not perfluous money should be applied. Under think that money should be raised on a these circumstances the trustees came to whole county for the purpose of giving Parliament, and applied for power to apadditional church accommodation to a par- propriate the funds to the establishment ticular district. He looked upon such a of schools, for the object of building the principle as a dangerous one, and as inter- bridge over the river Dee was to promote fering with the rights of property. civilization of the Highlands. That was Mr. Thornely was not only opposed to a most excellent purpose, and strictly anthe measure, but had a strong feeling alogous to the intention of the original against the whole system of taxation fol- donor. But Parliament did not allow that lowed by the trustees; and he hoped the bill to pass. The trusts were held so county would soon be released from it. sacred, that it was thought they ought not Mr. Hume asked, whether those Gentle- to be violated, and although every one men who were favourable to the measure confessed the purpose was excellent, yet would support the principle that county- that bill was rejected upon the principle rates formed a proper fund for the building on which he hoped the House would reject of churches? That was the real principle the present bill. The rate-payers of Chester then at issue. had a right to the whole of the surplus funds Mr. Tatlon Egerton said, that the money if there were any. They ought to be apin question could not be considered as a plied by the magistrates in quarter sessions county-rate. The hon. Member for Kil- to certain specified purposes, and to no kenny was therefore mistaken on that other purpose whatever. He objected to point. the application of the fund for the purposes Mr. Warburton said, that if this bill of church building. The fund ought to be were carried into a law, every dock, rail. devoted, in the first place, to the purposes way, and other public company might be of navigation ; and in the second place, to called upon to contribute to similar pur- the relief of the rate-payers of Chester. poses out of its surplus income. It was proved that there were eighteen Viscount Sandon said, that the principle churches along the line of the river, a had already been admitted by the Legisla distance of only twenty-three miles, and ture, in the case of a Mining Company, that the population was fluctuating, and that where a large population was collected contained a great many Dissenters. For in one district, by means of such a com- the sake of the great principle, he trusted pany, the latter was bound to provide for they would give their determined opposithe religious instruction of that population tion to the bill in all its stages. out of its surplus income. The House divided, on the original Sir C. Grey hoped the Church of Eng- question : Ayes 227; Noes 157; Majoland would not continue to proceed upon rity 70. the engrossing principle supported by the List of the AYES. promoters of this bill. If so, the Church itself would be most seriously damaged. Acland, Sir T. D. Ashley, Lord Mr. Ewart objected to the measure, A'Court, Captain Acland, T. D. Attwood, W. because it was injurious to the Church Ainsworth, P. Attwood, M. itself, and would set against it a large body Alsager, Captain Bagge, W. Bagot, hon. W |