Commons Sitting of 22 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILL. Public.—3°. and passed:—Slave Trade Suppression.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Traders of London, for Inquiry into the Management of Railroads.—By the Lord Mayor, from the Master Mariners Benevolent Society, for a Commission.—From several places in Ireland, against the Grant for Educational Purposes.—From the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, for Encouragement to the Produce of Free Labour.—From five places, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—From the Clergy of Ireland, for Relief—From Tessara, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Act.

FATHER MATHEW.
Colonel Sibthorpbegged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he were aware of the proceedings that were going on connected with the importation of an individual into this country under the name of Father Mathew. It appeared to him singular, when there was so great a cry made against Orange processions in Ireland, that this individual should be allowed, in a Protestant country, to carry on his plans through the instrumentality of Popish priests. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware of what was going on in this respect, and hoped he would prevent the individual in question from being the precursor of any future steps on the part of those who were disturbing the peace of Ireland.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he certainly was aware that Father Mathew had visited this part of the United Kingdom, and that in several large cities the pledge of temperance had been taken by large numbers of the working classes. This did not in the slightest degree excite his jealousy, as he felt the greatest desire for the observance of such a pledge by every class of society, and nothing had particularly excited his attention except a report of the interchange of a salute in public between Father Mathew and Lord Stanhope.

SLAVE TRADE SUPPRESSION.
On the motion that the Slave-trade Suppression Bill be read a third time,
Mr. Hawesdid not intend to divide against the bill, but could not allow it to pass without again entering his protest against it. At this late period of the Session it was impossible for the House fully to estimate its details or to consider the probable operation of its clauses. As far as he could form an opinion he believed

1003
its effect would be to increase the Slave-trade by removing those restrictions which the 5th of George 4th had imposed. It was said that in no case could slaves be held under this bill except where they could now be legally held under the existing law, and that no mortgages or other transactions in reference to property in slaves could take place except in the case of such legal holdings; but legal holdings were not defined in the bill, and he very much feared that in this respect an encouragement would be given to the Slave-trade. At all events, he looked upon the operation of the bill as doubtful, and could not on the part of the great Anti-slavery body accept it as a measure tending to the suppression of that trade. The Government had now made the bill their own, and it must rest on their responsibility. As it now stood, it was entirely distinct from the measure which was introduced into the other House, and having passed that House was brought down to this. Very material alterations and modifications had been introduced by the Government during its progress through the House of Commons; and apprehensive as he was of the effect of those alterations, he was bound to believe, after the explanations which had been given, that those apprehensions were without foundation. He must, however, protest against the bill, and leave it in the hands of the Government, as a measure for which they were entirely responsible.
Mr. Mildmaywas surprised, after the reasons which had been urged against the bill by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that he should decline to divide the House against it. He felt convinced that if passed in its present shape it would be most injurious to the trading interests of this country, while it would be beneficial to their competitors, by throwing into the hands of the foreign trader a branch of commerce which peculiarly belonged to this country. He would, therefore, move that the bill be read a third time that day three months.
Sir J. Rae Reidsaid, he should second the amendment with all his heart, and hoped the Government would take time, and reconsider the subject.
Sir Thomas Wildecontended that sufficient notice had been given of this bill, and therefore it could not be affirmed that the House had been taken by surprise. He did not, he confessed, understand the
1004
Opposition that was given by those who professed themselves opposed to the Slave-trade. The object of the bill was to give effect to the second section of the 5th of George the 4th, and to extend the operation of the section to British subjects residing in foreign dominions. The main object was not to encourage the Slave-trade, and not to injure British commerce. The main clause would throw impediments in the way of the Slave-trade; the other clauses would not affect prejudicially the trade of the country. The bill did not meddle with the property or interests which which were not now legal.
The Attorney-General, in supporting the bill, observed that the bill recognised the great principle that this country would make every sacrifice that it fairly could to put down slavery. The bill, he begged to observe, was not a Government bill. It had been introduced into the House of Lords by no Member of the Government, and having come down there the Government had endeavoured to give it every fair consideration.
Mr. Hindleyobserved that the Government ought not to shrink from supporting this bill. He supported the bill, because it was calculated to put down slavery.
Captain Bernalwould wish a more perfect measure than the present. As to the author of it, he thought he had been rather unfairly treated because, however hon. Gentlemen might differ on other points, yet they could not forget that for many years of his life the noble Lord had devoted himself to the suppression of slavery.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill read a third time and passed.

PARISHES(SCOTLAND)—LOCAL RATES.
Sir J. Grahamwished to say a few words respecting two measures, on the subject of which he had made a promise to the House. With respect to the first, which was one to facilitate the subdivision of parishes in Scotland, he meant to lay that measure on the Table on Thursday next. The second, which was one having for its object the regulation of the law of settlement, he did not think it expedient to introduce during the present Session. Subsequently to the promise he had made to the House relative to that measure, a very important report had been laid on the Table by the Poor-law commissioners, in which the whole subject was fully dis-

1005
cussed, and which would be well worthy of the attention of hon. Members during the recess. That report contained not only the skeleton of a bill, but an ample account of the annual local taxes, to the amount of eleven millions, levied on the rate-payers of this country. He was anxious that the Government should not be pledged to any specific measure until that valuable report should have been fully considered, and therefore he did not mean to introduce any measure on the subject of the law of settlement until next Session.
Mr. H. Hindehoped that Government did not pledge itself to adopt all the suggestions contained in the report of the commissioners.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that what he had said was, that Government meant to introduce a bill relative to the law of settlement, and in the meantime he recommended the general perusal of the commissioners' report.
The House adjourned at half past six o'clock.