§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHrose to call the attention of the House to the case of "Santos v. Illidge and Others," and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he thought that the 5th and 6th clauses of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., c. 98, authorizing the sale of Slaves by British Joint-Stock Companies, should be repealed. He said it was generally presumed that by the operation of the Acts of 1824 and 1833, the question of slavery, as regarded traffic in the sale and purchase of slaves by British subjects, had been completely put an end to. But in 1843 an Act, 6 & 7 Vict., c. 98, entituled "An Act for the more effectual suppression of the Slave Trade," was passed; and, in the course of the passage of that Bill through the House of Commons, two clauses were introduced which had tended in some degree to abrogate the provisions of the great Act of slave emancipation. The sixth section provided that "nothing in the Act contained should be held subject to any penalty, punishment, or forfeiture, any person transferring' or receiving any share in any joint-stock company established before the passing of the Act in respect of any slaves in the possession of such company." A company had been established before the passing of the Act for the working of mines in Brazil. They worked those mines in the usual way, namely, by slave labour, and an order had lately been made for winding up the company. The Lords Justices, before whom the question was brought by way of appeal, decided that their property in slaves, as well as in other matters, might be realized for the benefit of the company, and an order was accordingly issued to that effect. The law officers of the Crown, however, subsequently gave it as their opinion that this decision was not in accordance with the terms of the Act of 1843, and that though the slaves, who 1219 had been in the possession of the company at a period anterior to that date, might be disposed of, the children born of those slaves subsequently, could not he sold. The directors, feeling dissatisfied with these conflicting opinions, referred the matter to a court of law, and the Court of Common Please decided the other day that the case of these slaves did not come within the exceptional clauses of the Act of 1824, and that the possession of these slaves by the company had been illegal ab initio under that Act; and thus, as it were by a side blow, the sale of these slaves had been nullified altogether. The hon. Member contended that when three such totally opposite decisions had been given within a limited period, the case was one that ought legitimately to come under the consideration of Parliament. He did not expect the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department to be prepared to give a positive pledge, at this moment, to deal with the existing law; hut he hoped that it would be one that might attract his attention.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes, whether he thought the 5th and 6th clauses of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., c. 98, authorizing the sale of slaves by British joint-stock companies, should be repealed, stated that there was no intention at present to bring in any measure for the repeal of the law.