Sitting of 25 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord Ox-MANTOWN Copies of Papers relating to the dismissal of two Individuals from the Irish Post Office.
Bill. Read a third time:—Stage Carriages Act Amendment.
Petitions presented by Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, against the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Mr. J. PEEL, from St. Ives, for the Abolition of Slavery By Colonel PERCEVAL, from Foxford, for a Law to secure the Better Observance of the Sabbath; from an Orange Lodge, for the Repeal of the Party Processions Act; from Killeleagh, against the New System of Education.—By Mr. MURRAY, from the Medical Practitioners of Swansea, against the Apothecaries Bill.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Mr. Secretary Stanley moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill.
On the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Ruthvendeclared, that he could not let that opportunity pass of protesting against the further progress of the Bill in its present shape. He did not do so exclusively on his own part, though his feelings were strongly adverse to it; but he did so on the part of multitudes, who had the moral, religious, and physical interests of the negroes at heart. He had intended to move some Amendments, to the effect of providing for the immediate manumission of the negroes, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Fowell Buxton) would, by taking it into his own hands, supersede the necessity for his so doing. He trusted that the period of apprenticeship would be limited to one year; and he would most earnestly recommend to the hon. Gentleman to persevere in fixing it at that term. The opinion of the people of England, as expressed by their delegates in London, was adverse to the apprenticeship being continued to so unconscionable a period as twelve years; and he (Mr. Ruthven) therefore hoped the Government would see reason to change their opinions on the subject, and make the Bill more in accordance with the views of the nation. He also trusted that his Majesty's Ministers and that House would pause before they threw away on the body of West-India planters, at the present season of unexampled distress and discontent in these kingdoms, the enormous sum of 20,000,000 l. He hoped, also, that due care would be taken for securing the free

1235
exercise of whatever religion they chose to adopt, to the slave population of the West-Indies. Hitherto no care had been taken of that matter; but, on the contrary, it was universally known that slaves were punished for attending to the duties of religion at all, and preachers and teachers of certain sects were persecuted with almost unheard-of violence.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that, before the House went into Committee, it was his duty to propose an instruction of which he had given notice—namely, "That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Slavery Abolition Bill, to insert in the said Bill a clause for the immediate emancipation, without restriction, of all slaves who may, at any time previous to the passing of this Bill, have been brought, with the consent of their possessors, or may, at any time after the passing of this Bill, with like consent, be brought into any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." He was the more urged to propose this Resolution by a case which had occurred relative to the delivery of a female slave in this country, and the subsequent enthralment of the child, as a slave, on arrival in the West-Indies. It was Lord Stowell who had decided the legality of such a procedure. He was compelled to admit, on the authority of Lord Stowell, that such was the state of the law, that if a slave, or the offspring of a slave, after enjoying the pride of freedom in Great Britain, should return to the colonies, he or she would again be thrown into slavery. Although, on such high authority, he was obliged to admit that such was the law, he could not but reprobate its abominable injustice. That was the last judgment of any public importance given by that learned Lord; and if there was anything in it which he (Dr. Lushington) could regret, besides the iniquity of the law which it asserted, it was the levity with which the learned Lord contradicted a decision formerly given, in a similar case, by Lord Mansfield. But, whatever was the state of the law, the learned Lord (Lord Stowell) himself was convinced of its injustice; and in the course of that judgment, he not once, but twice or thrice, expressed his wish that the Colonial Legislatures should apply to Parliament to interfere to prevent those outrages upon humanity; and, attached as the noble Lord was to slavery, he could not help reprobating the iniquity of the law in these cases. But no attention had been paid by the Colonial Legislatures to that
1236
humane, and, coming from such high legal authority, impressive recommendation, although it was made as long ago as November, 1827. He now held in his hand that which would prove that the very contrary effect to that intended had been produced upon these Legislatures. It was a copy of the Grenada Free Press of the 8th day of May, in the present year, which detailed, as if from authority, a case in which the best feelings of humanity had been grossly outraged, and the victim of violence incarcerated in a gaol. The person who was so suffering was called John Lawes, and he had emancipated himself in the year 1810, by escaping, as by the laws of God, setting those of man out of the question, he was justly entitled to do. It was by the exercise of an everlasting right, of which no Statute could deprive him. The man had rendered himself free by coming over to this country in the year mentioned. Ten years that person served his Majesty in the navy—he then settled in this country. He had an English wife and two children alive, and resident in England. At the expiration of twenty-two years, impelled by that natural desire implanted in us by Providence for the best of purposes, he returned to Grenada, to visit his aged parents; he was their seized by his former owner, and tried for having run away. The circumstances were fully detailed on his trial, but he was convicted, and the Chief Justice, in passing sentence, said, "That he had no option but to carry the colonial law into effect, and that the prisoner must be remanded to gaol, and undergo the punishment appointed by the Statute, unless, in consideration of the worthy motives which induced his return, and of the number of years which he had spent in the service of his King, and in consideration of his wife and children, his owner would consent to pardon him, which would be a termination of the cause (said the learned Chief Justice) worthy of humanity, and of the liberal opinions of the times in which we live." When such was the state of the law in the colonies, had not he a right to call on the British Parliament no longer to allow such transactions to desecrate a Court of Justice in any part of the earth, under the sway of the British Crown. There was another case even more painful than the one he had just related. A gentleman of property in the West-Indies had two female natural children, born of one of his slaves, and he sent them to England, where they received

1237
an excellent education, after which they returned back to their native island, by which time, owing to circumstances, the estate on which they were born had changed hands, and, unfortunately, they were subject to the laws of the island; consequently those two young women, who had been liberally educated in England, were again consigned to slavery, and they were immediately put to work as common field slaves. He regretted to say, that so far from this being a solitary instance of the kind, he knew of several—but it was unnecessary for him to advert to them all. He would relate another circumstance in which the wife was in England and the husband in Antigua; she was afraid to go to her husband, from the fear of being-put into slavery again as her husband had been. He (Dr. Lushington) when the owner was in England, had offered to pay the price of the slave, in order that the wife might return to her husband, but the owner refused it, and thereby effected the separation of the husband and wife, his excuse being, that if she returned to Antigua she would disturb and annoy him. Those acts were violations of humanity and of the best, feelings of our nature, and he prayed the House to afford a remedy for such evils. It was his purpose to suggest, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that all slaves who had once, by the consent of their owners, come to England, or who might hereafter come to England, by which they obtained their freedom, should never be compelled to return to a state of slavery. The justice of that proposition was evident; because, if the slave owner once temporarily broke the chain of bondage, he had no right again to enforce it.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyhad intended to guard against the recurrence of such cases as his hon. and learned friend had related, by some provision in the Bill, but he had not intended to go so far as the proposed Resolution stated. However, seeing the unanimous feeling of the House, he would offer no opposition to the Motion.
Mr. Bernalalso acceded to the Motion, and related, by way of counterpoise to the statements of the hon. and learned Member (Dr. Lushington) the case of a valuable slave belonging to the late Mr. Beckford; who was sent to this country to be cured, at Mr. Beckford's expense of a chronic disease. Of course, on coming here, he became free, but he was restless, and desired to go back to Jamaica. He was sent back, and upon expressing a wish to carry on his own
1238
business (a mason) as a freeman, Mr. Beck-ford generously liberated him.
Mr. Warreexpressed his entire satisfaction at the general measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers in the Bill before the House, and he was of opinion that, despite of some details to which objection might be taken, it would achieve the great object they all had in view, and give general satisfaction to the country. The proposition of his hon. and learned friend was such as ought to be well received by the House and the public; and he hoped there would be no opposition offered to it. With respect to some of the details of the Bill—the apprenticeship period for instance—he should say, that he did not fully concur in every particular; he thought the period of apprenticeship should be very much abridged, though he did not desire it should be confined within such small limits as those proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth. On that part of the Bill he had expected to have been enlightened as to the final views of the Government by the speech of the hon. member for Leeds last night, but he had to confess, now that the speech was made, he was, in point of information on that subject, just where that speech found him. It was agreed on all hands, that an intermediate or preparatory state was necessary previous to the complete manumission of those at present in slavery; the question, therefore, was, what was to be the term of that preparatory period? But supposing the period of preparation satisfactorily fixed, he wished to know what would become of the aged and infirm slaves during the apprenticeship? He wanted to be satisfied as to who was to maintain them, clothe them, lodge them, all that time, &c. This was a question which had not been put before, and which he much wished, for the sake of humanity, to hear answered now.
The Amendment agreed to, and the instruction to the Committee ordered.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyhoped the Committee would excuse him for adverting to the position in which, after the discussion last night, the Government stood. It was impossible, to look to the opinion then expressed, not to perceive that there was a strong feeling, not, he believed, against the principle of apprenticeship as an intermediate state of probation between slavery and perfect freedom, but against the period

1239
which Government had adopted for that purpose. Undoubtedly it was perfectly competent to the House to limit the twelve years which Government had proposed to a somewhat shorter period; and, looking to the opinion expressed last night, while the Government felt it absolutely essential not only by way of compensation to the master, but also for the welfare of the slave population, that there should be an intermediate state, as a real and effective apprenticeship, he must state, that anxious as he was, consistently with the duties of Government to other parties, to make proper concessions to the wishes of the House, it was deemed expedient, instead of retaining the period for predial apprenticeship twelve years, and non-predial apprenticeship seven years, to confine the former to seven years, and the term of the latter to five years. This substitution he hoped would meet the wishes of the House, while he still thought it would not be inconsistent with the principle of a real and effective intermediate apprenticeship. Indeed, he might say, that the periods would virtually be reduced to six and four years, because, by the new arrangement, the plan would come into operation in 1833 in place of 1834, and the time would end in 1840 in place of 1845.
Lord Howickwas pleased by the concession which Government had made, but at the same time he was not quite satisfied. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to push his concession a little further; and although there were a variety of provisions in the Bill which he decidedly objected to, he would in that case decline entering his opposition. He was anxious that the grant, whatever its amount might be, which the country was to give to the West-India proprietors by way of compensation, should not, as to one-half, become payable in any colony, until complete personal freedom had been obtained by all the slaves—in short, that one-half of the sum should be reserved till the period of apprenticeship had been fulfilled.
Lord Althorpsaid, the sense of the House had already been taken upon that point, when the principle had been rejected. Undoubtedly, although Government were anxious to disarm the opposition and gain the assent of the noble Lord to other parts of the Bill, they could not for that purpose abandon what they considered the only just and right course which the House had already determined on.
Lord Sandoncomplained, that a direct
1240
violation had been committed of the contract which had been made by Government with the West-India body, for the purpose of gaining their co-operation, and without the least communication having been made on the subject. He considered the modification in itself a direct departure from a specific contract; and he thought he had good reason for charging on Government a direct breach of good faith in regard to the West-Indian body.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, the negotiation into which the Government had entered with that body, as to the precise period of twelve and seven years' apprenticeship, was undoubtedly binding on them as members of that House; but it only bound them as Ministers to propose that term to Parliament. It was quite competent for the House to accede to or reject it. He called on his noble friend to say, whether there had not been on the part of the Government every endeavour to maintain their part of the agreement; but, surrounded as they were with difficulties on all sides, notwithstanding their utmost exertions to keep inviolable their portion of the contract, there were circumstances, as was evident from the close division of last night—a division (he did not deny it) in spite of every effort of the Government to secure a large majority—which might render it impossible for them to carry the term of twelve years to its full extent. Certainly, if the noble Lord insisted on it, he felt himself bound to give him his vote; individually, he must personally redeem his pledge as a man, but he should then feel it to be his duty to look to his character as a Minister.
Lord Sandonwished to give his right hon. Friend every assistance in carrying this measure to a safe issue; but complained, that Ministers had yielded to popular clamour, and not to the opinion of the House; for he did not think the division of last night compelled them to make this alteration. He would not hold his right hon. friend bound in the manner stated; but was sorry for the alteration he proposed.
Mr. Patrick Stewartprotested against the alterations which were proposed. He could not but express his regret at those which had already taken place. At the same time he would do his best to help the Ministers out of their difficulties, and get the Bill through the House.
Lord Althorpsaid, the noble Lord seemed to think, that Ministers ought to have

1241
waited for a division against them; but it should be remembered, that Ministers had the means of ascertaining pretty nearly how the question would be decided. And it was more respectful to the House to adopt the course that had been adopted. If Ministers had been moved by any force, it was by the force of opinion in that House.
Mr. Ewart Gladstonethought it hard, that the West-India body should be thrown overboard by a mere inference upon the division of last night. He did not consider, that the Resolutions of last night involved any necessity for the coming to such a conclusion as that adopted by the Government. It was hard to overthrow a definite contract upon an indefinite supposition.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, if it should ever occur to the hon. Member to have a place in the Government, he would come to different conclusions upon such divisions. He believed the Ministers had pursued the soundest and best course for all parties.
Mr. Briscoe, as an independent Member, referred to the Resolutions which had been sent out by the Government to the Colonies. These, he contended, were a matter between the Government and the Colonies. But still they referred to a time to be fixed by Parliament; and it was not fair to charge Government with running from their agreement under such circumstances.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the contract insisted on was a left-handed document, for a large party of the West-Indians themselves did not agree to it, and had exerted themselves to set it aside. He approved of the Ministers conforming to the views of the House of Commons.
Mr. Buxtonwas quite convinced, that the present period, even after the modification which had just been announced, was too long. There was a strong apprehension that they would not have the cordial co-operation of the West-India body, and that was a strong argument against the granting of the whole Compensation Fund before the apprenticeship had terminated.
Lord Sandonreminded the hon. Member, that the sum was only to be granted when the measure became law. If the plan did not take effect, the sum would not be granted.
Lord Althorpsaid, the utmost limit he could go to as a Minister, in limiting the term of apprenticeship, was that then stated by his right hon. friend.
Mr. Poulterwas glad to find, that some concession had been made to public feeling; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman
1242
would not attempt, by merely nominal alterations, to—
"Cloy the hungry edge of appetite,
By bare imagination of a feast."
The Amendment was agreed to. The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to a matter which he considered of very great importance—the manner in which the proceedings of that House were reported in the public prints.
Colonel Perceval rose to order, and moved, that strangers should withdraw. The Gallery, however, was not cleared, and
Mr. O'Connellproceeded. He was aware, that the House was engaged in an important measure, which he was sorry to delay, but he thought it his duty to rescue that House from a most degrading species of slavery. The hon. Member went on to complain of his speeches, and the speeches of other Members, having been imperfectly and incorrectly reported in the newspapers. He therefore thought it his duty, as the reports had been this Session worse than ever they were before, to call the attention of the House to the subject.
Sir Edward Knatchbullrose to order. As the Standing Orders of the House did not recognize any reports of their proceedings, he thought the hon. and learned Member must be out of order in discussing such a subject.
The Speakersaid, that he understood the object of the hon. and learned Member's Motion to be to enforce the Standing Orders of the House, in consequence of the inaccuracy of the reports of their proceedings. If by sufferance such reports were published, it was a double breach of privilege to publish them incorrectly, and it was competent for any hon. Member to move the Standing Order for the exclusion of strangers on that or any other ground which he might think fit.
Mr. O'Connellcontinued. The Speaker had described the purpose of his (Mr. (O'Connell's) Motion in better language than he could have done. He should move, that W. I. Clement be called to the Bar of that House. He had also to complain of the proprietors of The Times, Mrs. Anna Brodie, Mr. J. J. Lawson, & but he gave the priority to The Morning Chronicle, on account of the article which appeared that day, excusing the omissions of a report of a speech of his (Mr. O'Connell's.)

1243
The article in question exhibited evidences of shrinking; but he found, that the very same day a speech of his (Mr. O'Connell's) was treated in the same manner. He ascribed the inferiority of the reports to incapacity in the reporters, as the most charitable view of the subject which he could take, and attributed that incapacity to the falling off in the wages of the reporters; but perhaps that was not the case. He was, therefore, compelled to suppose that there were some other motives. He did not complain of the misreporting of his own speech in particular, for he believed, that hon. Members had in general been very impartially misreported. The hon. Member then proceeded to state, that he had procured from the Stamp Office a list of the Journal Proprietary of the Metropolis, and that he should wage war with them all till he defeated them—that he would move day by day for their appearance at the Bar of the House for breach of privilege. He alluded to The Morning Chronicle, as under the control of an hon. Member of the House, whom he would not then name. He attributed the defects he imputed in the Reports of Parliamentary speeches to the deteriorated character of the reporters. He then denounced the monopoly of the Press, and said, that a capital of 20,000 l. was insufficient to originate a new morning paper. The chief burthen of the hon. Member's complaints was that of his own speeches—those he deemed the best were often not reported at all. Of all the morning papers, The Morning Post was the one in which he had observed the greatest impartiality—a circumstance which probably arose from the reporters being generally Scotchmen. The hon. and learned Gentleman laid on the Table of the House copies of the The Morning Chronicle, and Times of yesterday, with the legal documents from the Stamp Office, which served to show the proprietorship of these Journals, and concluded by moving, "that Mr. W. I. Clement, the proprietor of The Morning Chronicle, be called to the Bar of the House to-morrow for publishing certain reports, purporting to be accounts of their proceedings.
Mr. O'Dwyerseconded the Motion. He stated that he had himself, by his literary labour, been greatly assisted in his progress to the station of independence in which he was at present placed; but he could not allow that, having been engaged in putting down despotism of other kinds, the House should submit to the spurious despotism which it was now attempted to exercise over its Members.
1244
The hon. Gentleman then read an extract from a Report in a morning paper, in which the hon. and learned member for the University of Oxford (than whom no man practised more unvarying courtesy) was made to speak of the hon. and learned member for Dublin and "his tail." This could not be a mistake—it was a wilful falsehood. If the writer meant that he (Mr. O'Dwyer) was a joint of that tail, his answer was, that he had been returned to Parliament independently, by a free constituency. He heartily approved of his hon. and learned friend's Motion, because it would bring the question to a short issue.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin had brought the question of a breach of privilege forward in a very extraordinary form. The technical reason assigned by the hon. and learned Gentleman for his Motion was, that the proceedings of Parliament were reported in the newspapers; but the real reason was, that the proceedings of Parliament were not reported in the newspapers. He (Lord Althorp) was sure that there was no Gentleman in that House who wished to do anything to prevent a fair and impartial report of the proceedings of that House from going into the country. He believed that, generally speaking, the reports of the proceedings in that House were given in a very fair manner. He did not speak from any extensive examination of them for his time would not allow him to do that: but, whenever he had seen any report of their proceedings, he generally found that they were very fairly reported. It certainly appeared to him, that it must be for the interest of those who reported the proceedings, to report them fairly. As it must, of course, be the wish of the public to receive a fair and impartial report, he could not think that the reporters could find it their interest to depart from fairness and impartiality. Upon this subject he could not help observing, that the hon. and learned member for Dublin was experiencing a little of the effect of what he formerly called "passive resistance." With respect to the reports of the debates, no man could wish them to be discontinued; and every man must wish that they should be fairly and impartially given. As to the proposition made by the hon. and learned Member, he (Lord Althorp) did not think that it was one to which it was advisable to accede. He thought that the expression of opinion in that House, that the power exercised by those who reported the proceedings should

1245
be exercised fairly, would be sufficient. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not persevere. As matters stood, they could not, in common sense, call persons to the Bar for publishing their debates, when it was so generally understood that they should be allowed to do so. He repeated his hope, that the notice which had been taken would be sufficient to remedy the evil of which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained.
Mr. Baldwinsaid, that, as far as he had been able to observe of all the Members of that House, his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, had been the best treated in the reports of their proceedings which appeared in the newspapers. His hon. and learned friend had even been better treated, in comparison, than the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He regretted that his hon. and learned friend had made that attack, the consequence of which was, the hostility towards him of the individuals in question. Considering his hon. and learned friend as one of the main props of the interests of Ireland in that House, he should exceedingly regret any circumstance that would diminish his usefulness; and he requested him, in the name of the Irish people, to withdraw his Motion. If his hon. and learned friend should persevere, he would certainly vote against him. It appeared to him that, generally speaking, those who reported the proceedings, reported with great fairness; and he repeated that, if any one had been favoured by them, it was his hon. and learned friend.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, be would so qualify his Motion as to defer the attendance to Monday. Beyond that he would not go. If the noble Lord would consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject, he should not have any objection to the proposition. But he would not consent to be a victim without defending himself.
Lord Stormontwas at a loss to know with what view the hon. and learned member for Dublin wished to call the parties in question to the Bar. It must be either to punish them for the offence of publishing the proceedings of that House—a proposition which could hardly be made; or to dismiss them untouched. That was the situation in which the Motion would place the House. The individuals in question were to be brought up upon a breach of privilege, which breach of privilege was publishing the proceedings in that House and then the charge that was to be made
1246
against them was, not that they published reports of the speeches of other hon. Members, but that they did not publish reports of the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was, no doubt, much to be desired, that the reports of the proceedings of that House should be fairly and impartially reported; and he was certainly of opinion that, during the last two years, the reports had not been given with so much ability and impartiality as formerly. But he did not see how that could be remedied by calling the parties in question to the Bar.
Lord John Russellfelt that great inconvenience would attend the carrying of the hon. and learned Member's Motion. Supposing the proprietors or the editors of these newspapers attended at the Bar of the House, and promised that in future the speeches of hon. Members should be fairly reported, was that House to dismiss them after a declaration made by them, that they would commit a breach of privilege? The course which he had generally taken in matters of privilege was, not to pronounce any decision upon them when they were noticed, for the first time, in the House; because he had always found, that in such cases the House was apt to come to a hasty and passionate judgment. He was therefore inclined on the present occasion to move the previous question. At the same time, without saying that he entirely agreed in what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, he was bound to state, that those who were permitted by the indulgence of the House to report the proceedings, greatly abused the power they possessed if they deprived any individual of that advantage which he might fairly expect from his speeches going forth to the country. He recollected, that his noble and learned friend, the present Lord Chancellor having, when a Member of that House, let fall some expressions not personally agreeable to the reporters, the punishment inflicted on him was, the entire suppression of his speeches on questions of law, and foreign and domestic policy. This was undoubtedly an abuse of the power which the reporters possessed; but he thought, that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member would involve them in difficulties, from which they could not escape without loss of dignity. He should therefore be disposed to move the previous question, if he could do so consistently with the orders of the House; but at all events he could not accede to the proposed Motion.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, that considering the variety of topics discussed in that House, it appeared wonderful to him, not that the speeches were inaccurately reported, but that they were so well reported. If a full report of all the speeches spoken in that House were taken, no newspaper would be large enough to contain it. It was most important that the proceedings of that House should be as soon as possible communicated to the people, in order that they might know the votes which their Representatives had given, and the reasons which guided their conduct; and it was therefore desirable that no party feeling-should influence the reporters in the discharge of their duty. He thought, that that House would place itself in a most painful and disagreeable situation if, in consequence of summoning these parties to the Bar, they refused in future to sanction the publication of Debates. A more advisable course to adopt would be to exert the privilege of the House only when the speeches of hon. Members were misreported; and in such cases the Chair should be called upon to reprimand the parties guilty of the misrepresentation. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press his Motion.
Mr. Tennysonhoped, that his hon. and learned friend would withdraw his Motion. The publishing of any report of the proceedings of that House was undoubtedly a technical breach of the privileges of that House; but to misreport was a grosser and more real breach of privilege. The total omission of any speeches, which was in fact garbling the report, did certainly place that House in a position quite different from that in which it ought to stand. There was but one opinion in the House—that such a practice ought to be discouraged; and that, if persisted in, some steps ought to be taken by the House to stop it. He perceived inconvenience in adopting the course proposed by his hon. and learned friend, and it did not appear to him calculated to correct the evil. He, therefore, hoped his hon. and learned friend would withdraw his Motion, and then the House would have time to consider what measures ought to be taken if the offence complained of should be repeated.
Mr. Spring Riceconfessed, that it appeared to him desirable that the House should follow the advice given by his noble friend, and refrain from pronouncing an opinion on the case which had been brought under its notice; because the House could
1248
not be disposed to take a course which would compromise its privileges, or adopt a Motion which it was admitted by all, not excepting the hon. and learned Member himself, could lead to no practical result. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had not himself stated, nor had any one else suggested, what the House was to do if the Motion was carried. The House was placed in this dilemma—they must either adopt a Motion which would lead to no definite result, or negative it, notwithstanding that its rejection might affect their privileges. He had formerly been placed in the same situation as that in which the hon. and learned Member now found himself; but instead of occupying the attention of the House with anything relating to so humble an individual as himself, he felt, that the most fitting course to pursue was to treat the matter with the most perfect indifference. Could, then, no remedy be obtained in such a case? There was a remedy, and that was, to appeal to the principle of fairness and common sense; but if they did not rely on the good sense and impartiality of the public (he did not speak of the mere instruments by which the debates were reported), he was afraid that they had no remedy at all. Was it possible that any Gentleman could seriously entertain the idea that it could be expedient or proper for the House to employ reporters? If they employed official reporters, he was afraid that they must likewise employ official readers. In that case every word spoken must be taken down and then the Debates would be perfectly valueless and useless as far as regarded any practical purpose. That was not the place to criticise the published reports of the discussions in Parliament. The public required those reports, and if any newspaper published a partial account, the public had the remedy in their own hands; and unless an attempt was made by distortion to give a colour to the Debates, which might create an impression out of doors, either derogatory to the character of the House, or of the individual Members of it, the less they interfered with the reporters the better. On these grounds he would take the liberty of moving the previous question—a course which he found was adopted in 1771. When a paper was read, and a Motion was made that Thomas Wright should be called to the Bar; the previous question was then put and carried. The hon. Gentleman, on referring to the Journals, found that he stated the result incorrectly—the previous question

1249
having been negatived. He contended, however, that the fact of the previous question having been then entertained, proved that he had the power to move it, and he should propose it, in order that the House might not be called upon either to adopt or negative the original Motion.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordthought, that after the declaration which had been made a few days ago by the hon. and learned Member, that his speeches were ludicrously misreported, the reporters could not do otherwise than not report him in future. With respect to the published reports of their proceedings, his (Mr. Sanford's) impression was—and as he seldom spoke, and was but little reported, he might be supposed to speak with impartiality, that they were given with as much accuracy as could fairly be expected, and he did not think that the hon. and learned Member's present complaint, that he was not reported at all, consistent with the statement he had previously made of being misreported. In his opinion the House would do well to imitate the conduct of the other House with regard to reporters, and provide them a convenient place for taking notes.
Sir Robert Inglisassured the hon. Member (Mr. O'Dwyer), that he had not made use of the expression which the hon. Member had complained of; but at the same time, he could not understand why hon. Members from Ireland should be offended at its application. At least there was another part of the empire where no offence was taken at the title. In fact, men as gifted, high-minded, and as honourable as any persons in that House, or in the empire, had gloried in the title. As the attention of the House had been called to the manner in which their proceedings were reported, he begged to say, that he was perfectly astonished at the general accuracy with which the Debates were communicated to the public. Their fidelity might be considered extraordinary, even if time were allowed for their preparation; but when the expedition with which they were published was taken into account, the correctness with which they were given was more than extraordinary—it was almost marvellous. The proceedings of the House appeared to be taken down as it were instinctively, while they were published with a rapidity quite astonishing.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he would vote for the Motion if he thought it would effect the object which the hon. and learned Member had in view—if it would tend to
1250
check that which was admitted to be an abuse—the suppression of speeches by reporters, in consequence of their having taken offence at expressions used in that House. But he did not understand how, with all his ingenuity, the hon. Member would be able to effect this object by the course he proposed to take. The power of that House was so great in such cases, that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would not call upon them to exert it. They might, if they chose, exclude strangers from the gallery altogether, and that step would entirely prevent the publication of reports. The exertion of that authority, however, would be perfectly in opposition to public feeling, and might be of serious injury to the transaction of public business. And yet what other control had they over the reporters unless they called before them such of them as suppressed speeches, and threatened them for their misconduct, though they might not choose to carry their threat into execution; another course was, not to prevent, but to authorize the publication of reports. He thought, however, that the recognition of reporting, for the purpose of obtaining a verbal and perfectly accurate report of all that passed in that House, would be attended with great inconvenience. This he did not hesitate to say, that in his opinion a verbal report of their speeches would not tend to raise the character of any Member of that House. To speak of so humble an individual as himself, he should exceedingly deprecate any verbal report of what might fall from him. Yet, if they recognized reporters at all, they must employ Mr. Gurney, or some other eminent short-hand writer, for the purpose of giving a verbal account of all that passed in the House. Such a plan, however, would not secure a faithful transcript of their proceedings, since so much depended on the manner and on the occasion in which things were said. In the present case, the hon. and learned Member might depend on it the public would of themselves apply a remedy to the evil. The hon. Member was of too much importance in the country to allow of his speeches being suppressed. Supposing the practice of which he complained should be persevered in, other means would assuredly be found than the interposition of that House to put a stop to it. He thought, that if the hon. and learned Member were well advised, he would not persist in his Motion to call Mr. Clement to the Bar, since the House would be unwilling to

1251
exert the power they possessed against that individual. It was his impression that the House, reserving to itself, as in his opinion it should always do, the power of excluding strangers, could do nothing to improve the present system of reporting. He confessed he had read with alarm the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman a few days ago, that the pecuniary allowances made to the reporters had much diminished of late, for he drew from it the melancholy inference that much less anxiety prevailed to hear what the Re-formed Parliament said., than used to be displayed with regard to the proceedings of its predecessors. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the reporters salaries had fallen from six guineas to two guineas a-week, and that only proved to him that the public took only one-third of the interest in what the present Parliament was doing compared with former Parliaments. He believed, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in that statement, and that he had since corrected it. With respect to the reports of the debates in that House, he must say that it appeared to him that they were given with great impartiality and wonderful fidelity. He really thought that, considering the unwillingness which was often manifested by the Members of that House themselves to listen to speeches, the reporters ought to be excused if they did not report every word which was uttered. At times, too, much confusion prevailed in the House, and in the course of that evening, when an hon. Member got up to speak, many Gentlemen rose and quitted their places, causing in consequence so much noise as to render accurate reporting almost impossible. Undoubtedly, not only the hon. and learned Member himself, but the public also, had a right to complain of his being made a victim of the prejudices of the reporters, yet he would advise the hon. and learned Member, after having by his Motion elicited the unanimous opinion of the House, that the grievance of which he complained was an abuse, not to press it. He thought that the hon. and learned Member had better withdraw his Motion, than force the House either to negative it or to carry the previous question. The public, were interested in obtaining fair and impartial reports of the debates in that House, and there need be no apprehension entertained but that this abuse would correct itself. If, however, justice was not done to the hon. and learned Member
1252
in future, he was confident that a fortnight would not pass over without some means of checking the evil, more effectual than the interposition of that House, being adopted. In his opinion, the interposition of the House would not procure the redress which was wanted, for he thought the mutilation of speeches worse than their entire suppression: yet it was perfectly impossible to prevent that mutilation. It was ridiculous to suppose, that the House could sit in judgment on the merits of every report of speeches delivered in that House. The right hon. Baronet concluded by repeating his advice, that the Motion should be withdrawn.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he should postpone his Motion for the present, but renew it on this day week, unless the reporters altered their conduct with respect to him.
Motion and previous question withdrawn.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY
The House resolved into Committee on the Abolition of Slavery Bill.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyproposed to fill up the blank in the first clause, which reduced the compulsory labour of the slaves to ten hours in the day, or sixty hours in the week, with the date, November 1, 1833.
Mr. Marryatthought, that the proposed date was too early a period for the clause to come into operation, and moved as an Amendment, that the "1st of June, 1834," be substituted for the 1st of November, 1833.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to continue to the slave-owner the power he now possessed for twelve months longer. He objected to the Amendment, but if it was persevered in, he thought it would be better to extend the term to the 1st of August, 1834, when the new system of apprenticeships would begin. The right hon. Gentleman also stated, that it was the intention of Government to send out stipendiary Magistrates as soon as possible, and, notwithstanding all that had been said about the difficulty of procuring persons competent to discharge the duty in consequence of the lowness of the salary, the Government had received numerous applications from persons well fitted by their education for the situaion,—he meant officers receiving half-pay in the army and navy.
Mr. Marryatsaid, he would act upon the suggestion of the right hon. Secretary,

1253
and move the insertion of the words 1st of August, 1834, instead of the Amendment he had at first proposed.
Lord Howicksaid, that though an enemy to slavery, and though much disgusted by the horrors of flogging, he could not for the sake of the slaves themselves, and for the sake of their masters, give his consent to take away that on which slavery alone could stand, before preparations were made for a new state of things. The right hon. Secretary's proposition was to continue slavery in a modified form, and yet to deprive the planters of that by which alone they could retain the slaves in subjection—namely, the whip. He was afraid that the abolition of the power of punishment would lead to much mischief. He contended, that the slaves being secured against the infliction of flogging, and not excited by any other motive, would neglect their work. To substantiate this argument, the noble Lord read an extract from the evidence of Captain Elliott given by a gentleman before the Committee of last year, to the effect that the labour done by the negroes in Demerara had decreased one-fifth, in consequence of the banishment of the whip from the field. When the House considered the extent of Jamaica, and the distance at which some of the plantations were from the Magistrates, he thought it would conclude that great danger would be likely to result from taking away the power of the master. To make the stimulus of the whip effective, it must be more severe and cruel than at present, and he could not contemplate such an increase of severity without horror. He would recommend the House to omit the clause.
Mr. Patrick Stewarthoped, that the stipendiary Magistrates who were to be appointed would be ready to take their situations when the transfer of the powers of the Magistracy was to be made. It would be essential to the security of the colonies that it should be so. If the success of this measure depended on anything, it depended on the two first clauses. If the House persisted in retaining the 1st of November, 1833, as the day on which the new system, putting an end to the domestic authority of the owners, was to come into operation, he had considerable fear that the greatest confusion would ensue; for what was there between that day and the 1st of August, 1834, when the system of apprenticed labourers was to begin, that could be used to restrain them? The new Magistrates
1254
could not by that time have commenced the exercise of their functions. He urged the House not to put to hazard the whole plan by persevering in a part of it by which they could obtain nothing.
Mr. O'Connelltrusted, that every effort would be made by the Ministers to carry the clause in order that the next crop might be obtained under a mitigated system of slavery, to enable the emancipation to begin from the 1st of November.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonthought there was nothing that could compensate the use of the whip for a longer period than that at which it was determined it should cease. The West Indians, however, now proposed to retain it for six months longer. However, it was probably necessary that some sacrifices should be made. If the power of the whip was taken away, and the power of wages not brought into operation, there would no doubt be a diminution of industry, so that he should refuse a concession of the continuance of the domestic authority till May, provided a corresponding concession was granted in the shortening of the term of apprenticeship, which was but a system of half slavery and half freedom.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonthought it was not worth while, for the sake of a few months, to try any new experiment. He did not think the negroes were naturally cruel. On the contrary, he believed them to be docile; but at the same time he wished the officers to be ready to act when the change took place, and therefore he hoped that the changes now proposed to be effected on the 1st of November, 1833, should be postponed to August, 1834.
Mr. Secretary Stanleywas pleased with the mode in which the clauses of this Bill were now discussed. He thought it was impossible to retain the two dates of November and August, and to fix any middle period for the date of the commencement of the apprenticeship, but he thought he had something to propose which might satisfy all parties. When he went into office, he found that it had been for twenty-five years a matter of dispute with the colony of Jamaica whether their House of Assembly there had or had not a right to send bills over to this country without the suspending clause. The difficulty could be met by instructing the Governors not to assent to Bills, except under particular restrictions; but he was prepared on this particular occasion to waive the suspending clause, and then the colonial Acts passed to carry this Bill into effect might

1255
come into operation as they were passed. The object now was to effect the emancipation under circumstances the most beneficial possible to all parties. He thought it might be a question whether they might not anticipate the 1st of August, 1834, now fixed for the commencement of the apprenticeship, and fix, instead of it, the 1st of June, and suspend till that time the operation of the first stage of the Bill. He did not propose that without some apprehension; but it seemed to him the easiest and least objectionable mode of getting out of the difficulty, He hoped, therefore, that he should not be blamed, under such circumstances, for adopting it. The term of apprenticeship, which was now fixed to terminate on the 1st of November, 1840, would then terminate on the 1st of June in that year. By this change they would obtain the advantage of having Magistrates on the spot; and as an additional inducement to agree to it, he might say, that they should have the acquiescence of gentlemen of opposing interests and parties who would unite to carry the system into operation, and by that means they should double the effect of the authority of Parliament, and add to the safety of the measure itself.
Dr. Lushingtonassented to the proposition of his right hon. friend, and assured the Committee that his only wish was to see this measure carried into full effect in the best manner possible. It was quite true, that in the interval between the end of the domestic authority of the master, and the commencement of the apprenticeship, it was probable that the negro would not work, partly from excitement at the anticipated change of his condition, partly from the absence of the old terror, and partly from the fact that the new and modified terror had not come into operation. Against that danger it was proposed to provide, by leaving in the hands of persons on the spot, the power of inflicting punishment. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman was good, as it would give further time to the Local Legislatures to make new regulations. He hoped there would not be a single dissentient voice on the subject, in order that the plan might have the greater effect in the colonies.
Mr. Robinsonwas pleased with these mutual concessions of the two extremes of opinion. He approved of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that in the meantime the power of punishment would be used with severity.
Mr. Youngexpressed his gratification at the modification of the plan, and at the spirit in which it had been received. He wished, however, that the period fixed had been the 1st of August, instead of the 1st of June. On a balance of the loss and gain of time by the change, the planters would certainly be the losers.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonwould consent to the plan now proposed, in the hope of shortening the term of apprenticeship.
Mr. Stanleytrusted there would be unanimity on this subject, and that the Committee would not be divided about quibbles as to comparative loss or gain of time.
Lord Howickpreferred the original Motion to the Amendment, and objected to the compromise now proposed. He had a great objection to flogging, but as long as slavery existed, it could not be dispensed with.
Lord Althorpthought there would be no great difference as to the time between the two periods, but the fixing the two changes on the 1st of June would be more likely to lead to an accommodation of opinion. Besides that, by the 1st of June the instructions could be sent out to the Governors so as to enable them to notify fully the intentions of the Government.
Mr. Baldwinshould have no objection to give his consent to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, if the effect was likely to be what was anticipated, but he objected to it because he thought the change would not induce the Colonial Legislatures to give their assent to the measure, but they would look upon it as showing a vacillation of purpose. The sooner the House took away the power of punishment the better. The intermediate state would prepare both master and negro for the change, and enable the negro to become accustomed to the habit of working without punishment. The power of punishment should be in the hands of Magistrates, and not in the hands of planters.
The Amendment proposed by Mr. Secretary Stanley was agreed to, and the clause was agreed to.
On the 6th clause being read, enacting that the apprenticeship of predial slaves should terminate,
Mr. Bernalsaid, that it was now proposed to fill up those blanks with the words "1st of June, 1840"
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, that he was sorry to be under the necessity of addressing the House once more upon this subject.

1257
He had hoped that the Government in consequence of the division of last night would have consented to make such an alteration in this clause as would have given general satisfaction. No man could be more convinced than he was that the catastrophe to which the noble Lord had alluded—namely, that the Ministry would be compelled to resign, if further essential alterations were made in the Bill—would be a great calamity. It was only justice to the members of the present Administration to say, that he had received from them support a thousand times stronger than any which he had ever received from their predecessors in office; and the very fact of their having come forward to propose a grant of 20,000,000 l., knowing the obloquy to which such a proposal was certain to expose them, was the best proof of their sincerity in this cause. He was satisfied that, if they determined upon having a protracted period of apprenticeship—and seven years was, in his opinion, a very protracted period—they would have all those melancholy results produced which he had described on a former night. This proposition of apprenticeship was founded on delusion. Supposing that negroes were different from the rest of mankind, some people complained that they would not work without wages. Now, he thought that no man would work long without wages. But, he would ask, had it ever been tried whether the negro would work with wages? To explain the apathy with which it was said, that negroes worked in the fields in Jamaica, he would quote an extract from the evidence given before the Committee by a Mr. Simpson, who had been for twenty-four years the manager of considerable estates in that country. He was asked, "Did you ever try the system of reward for laborious exertion among the negroes on your estate?" His answer was, "No." He was then asked, "Do you know what would be the effect of offering them 6d. a day as wages?" He replied, "I never tried it." He was then asked, "Did you ever know it tried in Jamaica?" And his reply was, "No, never to my knowledge." And this gentleman was acknowledged to be one of the best-informed and most intelligent of the witnesses who had been examined. Now he must say, that it was not fair to pronounce such a summary sentence upon the disposition of the negroes without having any proof of the fact before them, and yet here was a broad declaration from a practical man that the system of reward for
1258
labour had never been tried upon the negro character, and this alone was the stimulus which would induce man to work in a state of freedom. The real question was, "will the negro work for wages?" And it was no answer to tell him that the negro would not work when he had no wages. Now, if it were really to be put to the test, he would answer for it that it would be found to be all idle talk to say that the negro would not work for wages. He had one fact to prove the contrary, and it was valuable. A gentleman in one of the colonies had occasion to make a real on his estate, and he offered to pay for the making of it, to the owner of a gang of negro labourers, the sum of 30 l. This sum was refused, and the next offer was to pay for them at so much a day, which was accepted. The gentleman who had the road to make, then called the negroes together, and offered them 5d. a day extra if they would work heartily. Their answer was, "Oh yes, massa, 5d. a day will make de stone break easy;" and they worked with such will that the road was finished in a very few days, and at an expense of 13 l. He did not mean to underrate the apathy which prevailed among the negroes in the West Indies; but he thought that the following definition of the effects of slavery, which was given by a person who had lived long in a slave country, might perhaps explain it. This person said that "the slaves appeared lost to reason and to feeling; that their spirit was broken,' and that their faculties were sunk in a stupor, which he could not describe. Every spring of hope was destroyed in their breasts; they appeared indifferent to all around them—abject, servile, brutish." This, he was aware, might be turned against him, and it might be said, that such men were unfit for freedom; but he would beg to say, that the statement applied not to negroes, but to men with British blood in their veins, to men who were Christians, and the account was given by the British Consul at Mogadore. The effects of long slavery were nearly the same in all men, whether Europeans or negroes. The case of Adams, who was a long time detained captive in Africa, was a strong illustration of this; in fact, Europeans as well as Africans, placed under similar circumstances, would soon appear as abject, as brutish, and as servile, as those parties whom they had been describing. Nearly the same thing might, have been said of the Christian slaves who were long in captivity at Algiers. "Thief and liar" were almost

1259
proverbial epithets, as applied to the christian dogs, as the captives in Algiers were called. The Mussulmans looked upon them as a set of brutish and sottish men, who would not work without strong coercion, and some of them went so far as to express their surprise that Providence should have created such a set of drones. The only solution of the difficulty which they could make was, that the Christian dogs had been created solely for the purpose of serving the Mussulmans. It was not a little curious to find that the Africans entertained nearly the same opinions of Europeans who got into captivity amongst them as some of the Europeans of the present day entertained of the Africans. In the account given of the wreck of the Oswego, there was a statement of the opinions entertained by Africans of the Europeans, or white men; they considered them a set of wretched, abject beings, too lazy to work, so that they were obliged to send to Africa for slaves to help them to cultivate their soil, which they were too idle and too ignorant to do themselves. Now, it so happened that Mr. Shand, in his address to some Scotch farmers on the subject of the negro population, and the very words which he applied to the Africans, had been applied by the Africans, in the case he had mentioned, to the Europeans. In both cases the colour of the skin was taken as a test of the capacity of the individual, and in each case that colour was considered a sufficient reason why the party should remain perpetually a slave. The hon. Member then contended against the principle of compulsory labour, and expressed a hope that Ministers would consent under all the circumstances, greatly to reduce the period of apprenticeship. He should feel disposed to suggest that it should be limited to two years from June last; but out of deference to the opinions of others, he would consent to a longer period, and would therefore move, as an amendment, that the apprenticeship should expire in the year 1836, instead of 1840, as now proposed by Government.
Mr. Hardy, in seconding the Motion, said, that he considered the period proposed by the hon. Member to be sufficiently liberal. It was a gross anomaly to say, that a boy of six years old should become free at thirteen, while a man who had spent sixty years of his life in captivity, should have seven years more of that dreadful state to undergo before he could be declared free. The only way to get rid of the anomaly
1260
would be to emancipate both in the shortest possible period. He saw nothing but continued confusion, continued anxiety, and irritation, in a protracted period of apprenticeship, in a state which was neither freedom nor slavery—in a state where a slave would have one-fourth of his time each day, but in such a way as could render it of very little use to him. Looking at the circumstances under which the slave became a captive, and considering that he never received any part of the price which had been paid for him, he thought it extremely unjust that the slave should be called on to repay to the master any portion of that price, or that his slavery should be protracted one day for that purpose. The hon. Member entered into a series of calculations to show that the planters under the arrangement proposed by the hon. member for Weymouth, would get more than the value of their slaves. He therefore considered the proposition of the hon. member for Weymouth to be extremely liberal, and gave it his most cordial support.
Lord Allhorprepeated what he had said in the early sitting of the House, that Ministers, in reducing the term of apprenticeship to seven years, or rather in fact to six years, for it would be only six from the time the measure was to take effect, had gone quite as far as they were prepared lo go. In point of fact, saying that the apprenticeship should be limited to two years (for in effect his hon. friend's amendment would make it two years only) from the commencement of the Act, would be nearly equivalent to no apprenticeship at all. His hon. friend would therefore do much better to reject all apprenticeship. He did not dispute the fact for which his hon. friend had contended, that slaves would work if inducement were given to them; and one object of this Bill was to hold out such inducement. He was glad to hear from his hon. friend the admission that Ministers were disposed to do some good lo the negroes. After the language which had been used that evening, comparing them to freebooters, it was satisfactory to hear from such good authority as his hon. friend, that the great object of this Bill was to benefit the negro. Looking at his hon friend's Amendment as totally destructive of one great principle of the Bill (for they might as well have no apprenticeship at all as the short interval which he had proposed), he would give it his decided opposition.
Dr. Lushingtonexpressed the great pain

1261
and the deep regret he felt at being obliged to differ from the arguments urged by his noble friend, and from the conclusions to which he had come. He deeply regretted to see his noble friend departing from that straightforward course, and falling into miserable inconsistencies, and into a violation of the eternal principles of justice, He looked upon this anomaly of apprenticeship as the most unjust und impracticable which could be conceived. The principle was defensible only on two grounds; either as compensation to the planters, or as an act of justice to the negroes themselves, to put them into a slate preparatory to freedom. Ministers had yesterday insisted that a duration of apprenticeship for twelve years was necessary for the purpose; to-day they reduced that period by five years. Now he would ask would his noble or his right hon. friend, in the face of the British public, repeat the preamble of the Bill, declaring it to be just and expedient that all persons holden in slavery should be manumitted and set free, and that reasonable compensation should be made to the persons hitherto entitled to the services of such slaves—would they, he repeated, admit this, and at the same time assert that these slaves should be continued for a still longer period in captivity? A long course of injustice to the slaves was already admitted; but what was there, he would ask, that had been urged by his noble friend or the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies which could be dignified with the name of an argument, that could justify this principle of heaping injustice upon injustice? What argument was there to show the right of one man to take from another that freedom which God bad given him? It might be said, that he was ungrateful in not acknowledging the good which Ministers had done, and in not giving up abstract theories in order to promote the great object in view. He was grateful to Ministers for what they had done, for the great risk they ran in promoting a measure which, he fully admitted, was intended to benefit the slave he was willing to admit the pecuniary terms, and to consent that 20,000,000 l. should he given from a distressed people for this great object, but he would not consent to a violation of the principles of justice. Calling upon him to give up theoretic views, was only asking him to go a certain length in the path of injustice, for the sake of expediency. After an eulogy on the general conduct of Government, and an expression of confidence in their general measures, the
1262
hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he was really to concur with them in most of those measures; but he would not go with them in what he considered a violation of the principles of right. Though he thought that there ought to be no apprenticeship, he would consent to a small term, as he could not get a better arrangement. The slave, he observed, was ready and willing to work and support himself if he obtained his freedom. In conclusion, he expressed his hope, that Ministers finding themselves unable to carry this measure for seven years, the question of apprenticeship might be given up as impracticable. This was his hope: he wished he could say it was his expectation. He should regret, if anything he had said was calculated to give pain to his hon. friends below him, which he assured them would be greatly painful to himself, as it must be painful to differ from those for whom he had so much respect.
Mr. Wardsaid, that some of the expressions which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down, who had called himself the friend of the noble Lord, and the right hon. Gentleman near him, showed at least that Ministers were very unfortunate in their friends. With all the hon. and learned Gentleman's friendly feelings towards them, he had applied to them the terms of miserable inconsistency, and a violation of the principles of justice. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have admitted the necessity of apprenticeship when he assented to the resolutions to which the House had agreed, he (Mr. Ward) admitted that the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was wise and prudent in reducing the term of apprenticeship to seven years, but he hoped that there would be no further reduction, for he considered it necessary for the slaves themselves, preparatory to their entering into a state of freedom.
Lord Morpethwished to make a single remark. He voted last night for the Resolution of the hon. member for Weymouth, because, although he had voted for the Resolutions proposed by his right hon. friend, and it was superfluous for him therefore to say that he considered himself bound by that vote, yet he was unwilling to doom a creature to what was in fact a long life of servitude. Iris right hon. friend, however, having that morning discreetly and fairly proposed a considerable diminution of the term of apprenticeship, he was not prepared, for a comparatively small period of time, to risk the entire loss

1263
of the measure in the present Session. To curry the best measure which it was possible to curry—to obtain the greatest amount, of good within his reach—that was his understanding of the doctrine of expediency. All great measures, on which differences of opinion existed, could be carried into effect only by some compromise between the contending parties; and it was on that ground that he should vote for the reduced term of apprenticeship proposed by his Majesty's Ministers.
Colonel Torrens, though he did not yield either to the hon. member for Weymouth, or to the hon. and learned civilian, the member for the Tower Hamlets, in a sincere and ardent desire for the total and immediate abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies, yet he could not, on the question now before the House, come to the conclusion at which they had arrived. In a densely peopled island like Barbadoes, where all the land was already occupied, and where, in consequence, the means of supplying subsistence were deficient, there could be no doubt but that labour could be obtained for hire. There the pressure of necessity, the absolute want of food, would compel the negro to work for wages; and therefore, in the old colonies circumstanced like Barbadoes, instantaneous emancipation, without intermediate apprenticeship or preparation, might take place. But the case was widely different with respect to the colonies of Trinidad, Berbice, and Demerara. In these there were immense tracts of the most fertile land still unoccupied; and, as every individual could with little labour raise abundance of subsistence for himself as an independent cultivator, labour could not be procured for wages. The error of the hon. member for Weymouth, therefore, amounted to this. He adopted general principles, and applied them to practice without regard to the varying circumstances by which, in different cases, the operation of general principles was modified and controlled. It was a general principle, that men were willing to work for wages, because, in general, men could not obtain a living unless they worked for wages. But this general principle was not applicable to those particular circumstances in which men could obtain sufficient subsistence by "working for themselves and not for another." The principle so forcibly contended for by the hon. member for Weymouth was true with respect to the old and thickly peopled colonies, but was not true with respect to the
1264
new and thinly peopled colonies. It was true with respect to Barbadoes, but was not true with respect to Trinidad. The hon. member for Weymouth said, and said most truly, that the negro partook of the same common nature with ourselves, and that the African and European races were alike actuated by human feelings and human motives. He would entreat that hon. Member to deal with this question, not by abstractions and hasty generalizations, but by careful inductions from experience and from fact. He would entreat him to consider, what was the actual conduct of the men of the British race when placed in circumstances similar to those in which, as he contends, the African would work for wages:—when Englishmen go out to new colonies, where fertile land can be obtained for nothing, they almost immediately cease to work for wages, and cultivate small patches of soil on their own account. It was a well established fact, which could not be confuted, that, in our new colonies, and in the back settlements of the United States, a sufficient supply of labour could not be obtained for hire; and that the independent cultivation of land, which could be procured for little or nothing, was preferred to working for wages. Upon what principle, and for what motive, then, could it be supposed, that emancipated slaves in Jamaica, Trinidad, Berbice, and Demerara, would work for wages? When we knew from ample experience that, under similar circumstances, a civilized and Christian people fall back to the semi-barbarism of squatters and woodsmen, was it rational to suppose that the negro would advance to civilization? That instantaneous emancipation without a previous preparatory state, which might be attended by the happiest effects in the old and densely-peopled colonies, might perpetuate barbarism in the new and thinly peopled colonies. To apply the same general rule to these different cases, would be pernicious and absurd. But the hon. and learned civilian, the member for the Tower Hamlets, went far beyond the hon. member for Weymouth in the vehement and unmitigated assertion of general principles. The learned civilian affirmed, that he would not give up one iota of principle for any living man. He (Colonel Torrens) would venture to ask the hon. Member to explain what he meant by a principle? Was not a principle a general rule, the application of which prod need good to living man? General principles, considered as naked abstractions, went for nothing—their value

1265
could not be separated from their utility. In legislation, to adopt general principles for their own sake, and to enforce them when their application would occasion evil and not good, was fanaticism and quackery. But whence arose the new-born and vehement zeal of the learned civilian in the assertion of general principles? Where were his principles when Ministers first propounded their plan of emancipation to the House? For a long period the learned civilian and the hon. member for Weymouth gave no opposition to the ministerial plan—nay, they appeared to acquiesce in it, if not to approve of it. On the first division, the hon. member for Weymouth left the House without voting, and thus disappointed and misled those who were pledged to follow him on this important question. Why was not the ministerial project of emancipation opposed in the first instance? and wherefore was the unmitigated assertion of abstract justice delayed until after the Government was committed and Parliament pledged, and the glad tidings conveyed to the colonies? Why was the ministerial project acquiesced in on its first announcement, while there was yet time and opportunity to frame a better measure? and wherefore was the vehement denunciation of the learned civilian delayed until the eleventh hour, until the Government had become so committed that they could not consistently recede, and until the throwing out of this measure might lead to the resignation of Ministers, might throw all into confusion, and postpone emancipation to an indefinite period? Was this done because the learned civilian would not give up one iota of principle for any living man? He was somewhat surprised when he heard that assertion. Did the memory of the hon. and learned civilian furnish him with no instance in which an advocate, in the discharge of his professional duties, found it expedient to yield up some small iota of principle in defending a weak and doubtful cause? There was no principle more binding than that men should adhere to truth; and yet it would not be denied by the learned civilian, that in the actual business of life an eminent lawyer might feel himself justified in employing long and vehement pleadings to make the worse appear the better reason. He was not one of those who objected to legislate upon general principles. He had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with general principles. But he felt bound to say, that he believed the confusion and mischief, which resulted
1266
from legislating in absolute ignorance of general principles, was scarcely less extreme than the confusion and mischief produced by that half knowledge which applied general principles indiscriminately, and without regard to the varying circumstances which modified their operation. He repeated, that he did not yield to the hon. member for Weymouth, or to the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, in a sincere and ardent desire for the total and immediate abolition of negro slavery. Instantaneous emancipation might be effected without danger in Barbadoes, because there the negro population would become free labourers compelled to earn subsistence by working for wages, and would be concentrated within the limits of civilization and moral and religious instruction. But emancipation without a due period of preparation could not be accomplished in Trinidad, and the other new colonies, without producing the most injurious consequences; because we know, from the conduct even of Europeans when placed in similar circumstances, that if the negroes in these colonics were at once let loose, they would not work for wages, but would become dispersed throughout the fertile forests, withdrawn from communication, from cooperation, and from all the means of intellectual improvement and religious instruction. Why did an enlightened and religious people demand the abolition of slavery in the colonies? Was it for the sake of an abstract principle? No. It was, that in these colonies the negro race might be formed into civilized and Christian communities, and not into tribes of squatters and bushmen relapsing into their original heathen barbarism. For these reasons he believed that, in all the new colonies, a sufficient period of probation should precede complete freedom from the master's control; and, accordingly, he must vote against the Amendment, which went to apply the same general rule to the old and to the new colonies.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, he had listened with great attention to all the arguments that had been adduced in favour of the protracted servitude of the slaves; but the progress of the whole discussion had only proved to him how inextricable were the embarrassments that were sure to surround those who set out on a wrong principle. It was in this way alone that he could account for the fallacies, absurdities, and self-contradictions, by which the plans of the Ministers were characterized. He was

1267
glad, however, to find, that as they proceeded, gleams of light were occasionally breaking in on the darkness in which the great question was sought to be enshrouded; and that every step they advanced, the injustice of slavery became more and more apparent. Of all the plans that he had yet heard proposed by any one on the Ministerial side, that of the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Bernal) appeared to him the simplest and the wisest—namely, that the House should merely pass two resolutions—the one declaring that slavery should be immediately and entirely abolished throughout all parts of the British dominions; the other, that compensation should be granted to the full extent of loss proved to have arisen from such abolition; and that, in the event of the Colonial Government, completing the first, the British Government would guarantee the second. He had no doubt whatever, that had the whole question been put on this simple footing, slavery would have been entirely abolished within a single year; and all parties would have been satisfied. Now, however, the question was so complicated and confused, and such perpetual changes were demanded by both parties, in the shape of reciprocal concession, that many years must elapse before the abolition could be effected, unless, indeed, which was extremely probable, the slaves should take the matter into their own hands, and speedily emancipate themselves. As to the immediate question before the House, it was merely this, whether any further time of servitude beyond the short period requisite for organizing the change, was either necessary or desirable; and if both, what was the exact space of time that should be fixed. The House had already pledged itself, by a preceding clause, that there should be some term of apprenticeship; and it was now called upon to determine its best limits. He must say, for himself, that he thought the decision of this question would depend entirely on the view taken by Members as to the reason for enacting any period of apprenticeship at all. If the restraint were intended to prepare the slave for freedom, then he should say that a single year for the agricultural labourers would be quite sufficient; particularly if, during that period the slaves were carefully made acquainted with the obligations that would be imposed on them by their new condition, and should have explained to them, by daily teachers, the great advantages which would result
1268
to themselves from sobriety, industry, prudence, and subordination. But for the artisans and artificers, who in large numbers maintained themselves by their own labour, and paid over weekly a surplus as tribute to their respective owners, not a single hour of apprenticeship would be necessary—they were already fit for freedom; they needed no probation; and therefore they could be safely emancipated without a moment's delay. If, however, the apprenticeship were intended as a part of the compensation to be paid to the planters, by prolonging to them the profits of the servitude of their slaves, he would say, that it would be far better to let the whole compensation be paid in money, and set the unhappy slaves free. He would rather, if he were compelled to choose, have the twenty millions made thirty, and the emancipation pronounced at once, than pay twenty millions for emancipation now, and have to wait seven years for its completion after all. He was one of those who contended that no compensation should be paid till loss could be proved; and the only cases in which it was certain that loss would accrue, was in that of the artizans and artificers, whose release from their bondage would occasion to their masters the loss of the weekly tribute which they received from their labour. But for the cultivators, he believed no compensation would ever be required, as it had been proved, by evidence the most unimpeachable, that free labour was in the end more profitable than slave labour; and, therefore, the proprietors of estates would be rather gainers than losers by the transition from one to the other. Let the House but once acknowledge the true principle, of the right of the slaves to their freedom, without delay and without price, and then all those difficulties would vanish. They would then find that some might be emancipated immediately, others in six months, others in a year, and the whole in two or three years at the furthest, with benefit to themselves, and safety to all concerned. He regretted that he had heard of no provision being made, during this state of probation or apprenticeship, for the education or religious instruction of any class of the slaves; and yet it must be evident to all, that if no steps were taken to ensure these blessings to the negroes, they would be just as unfit for the enjoyment of freedom at the end of the seven years as at the present moment; and as far as preparation was concerned, it would

1269
then, instead of being completed, be to be begun. He contended, then, that as no further period of slavery could be justified on the ground of further compensation, and as no probation could be useful without the aid of that moral and religious instruction for which provision was made, he was an advocate for the immediate emancipation of the negroes; and would not, if he were free to choose, vote for any delay whatever. As, however, the House had decided on some period of apprenticeship, and two terms were now submitted to their choice, he should prefer the shortest; and on these grounds he would give the Motion of Mr. Buxton his cordial and hearty support.
Mr. Peasecontended that wages were the only proper stimulus of labour; and though he was sorry to vote against his Majesty's Government, he would support the shorter term of apprenticeship.
Admiral Flemingwould not vote for the proposition of the hon. member for Weymouth, because he felt that its adoption would be injurious to the negroes themselves; for care must be taken that they and their families were not driven from the estate on which they were born and bred. When they became free the planters would pick out the best to employ and drive away all the old and infirm.
Mr. Stricklandfelt bound, in consistency with the opinion which he had expressed on a former occasion, to vote for the shorter period of apprenticeship. The sum of twenty millions given to the planters was a large one; and his Majesty's Government ought, in return, to meet the voice of the people, and make the term of apprenticeship as short as possible.
Mr. Rigby Wasonrecommended that they should combine apprenticeship with adequate wages. From the closest calculations, taken from the average price of negroes, he found that 20,000,000 l. would buy the fee-simple of all the estates in the West Indies; but the value of the slaves at 25 l. a-head might be 22,000,000 l. For 20,000,000 l. therefore, he thought the planters might at once give up all property in their slaves. He should say seven years in preference to a larger-period, provided wages could be combined with apprenticeship, but as that was not to be the case he would vote though in opposition to Ministers for the Amendment.
The House divided on the Original Motion, Ayes 206; Noes 89—Majority
The Clause was agreed to.

Lid of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Lister, C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, Dr.

Attwood, T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Martin, J.

Barnett, C. J.

Methuen, P.

Beauclerk, Major

Parrott, J.

Bish, T.

Pease, J.

Blake, Sir F.

Plumtre, J. P.

Brigstock, W. P.

Richards, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Russell, C. J. F.

Brocklehurst, J

Strickland, G.

Buckingham J. S.

Tayleur, W.

Buller, C.

Tennyson, Rt. Un. C.

Calley, T.

Tooke, W.

Cayley, E. S.

Thicknesse, R.

Chandos, Marquess of

Thompson, Alderman

Chichester, J. P. B.

Trelawny, W. L. S.

Darlington, Earl of

Turner, W.

Dashwood, G. H.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Etwall, R.

Wason, R.

Ewart, W.

Wigney, J. R.

Evans, W.

Wilks, f.

Faithfull, G.

Winington, Captain

Fancourt, Major

Yelverton, Hon. W. H.

Fielden, J.

SCOTLAND.

Gaskell, D.

Agnew, Sir A.

Gisborne, T.

Gillon, W. D.

Gore, M.

Johnston, A.

Gully, J.

Sinclair, G.

Halcomb, J.

IRELAND.

Handley, H.

Baldwin, Dr.

Handley, W. F.

Blake, M.

Hardy, J.

Finn, W. F.

Harland, W. C.

Grattan, J.

Hawes, B.

Lynch, A. H.

Howick, Lord

O'Connell, D.

Hudson, T.

O'Connell, M.

Humphery, J.

O'Connell, J.

Hutt, W.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Ruthven, E.

Kemp, T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sheil, R. L.

Lennox, Lord W.

Sullivan, R.

Lament, M.

Vigors, N. A.

Langdale, C.

Wallace, T.

Langton, G.

TELLER.

Leech, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Lowther, Colonel

Paired off.

Beauclerk, Major

Guest, J. J.

Lennox, Lord W.

Handley, Major

On Clause 6 being proposed,
Mr. Halcomberose to move an Amendment, which, he said, had for its object the enabling the negro to shorten the term of his apprenticeship, and to be the arbiter of his future fortunes. He thought it would be advisable, however, not to free all the slaves at once; and this object would be attained by making some difference in the length of notice which slaves

1271
should be called upon to give their masters of their wish to cease their apprenticeship. The hon. Gentleman then read his Amendment; which was, that it should be added as a proviso to the Clause, that it should be lawful for any apprentice to cease his apprenticeship any time before 1840, by giving, if above the age of eighteen, and under thirty, two years' notice to his master: if above thirty and under forty, eighteen months' notice: and if above forty, one year's notice only.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, the Committee having decided that the apprenticeship should be terminated at a given period it could not be left to either party to alter that period.
Amendment withdrawn, and the clause agreed to.
Clause 7 being proposed,
Lord Howick Lord Howick moved, as an Amendment, that, "The term of apprenticeship should be reduced from June, 1838, to August, 1834.' The object was, of course, to do away with the apprenticeship altogether of non-predial labourers. He did not expect the Amendment would be carried, from
1272
the recent result of another Amendment, but he wished to have his opinions recorded.
Mr. Patrick Stewartdid not see why this distinction should be made in favour of the non-predial labourers. For his part, he thought it best to amalgamate all the three clauses, and Fix one term for all sorts of slaves, and that term six years.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonagreed with the hon. Member that such an amalgamation would be a good method, and he would heartily support the hon. Member if he would propose the same term for predial slaves which the Bill fixed for household slaves.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, the Committee should recollect that they had already decided that a distinction should be drawn, and he thought very fair grounds had been shown for such distinction.
The Amendment was negatived, and the Clause agreed to.—The 8th Clause was passed.
The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.
END OF VOL. XIX.—THIRD SERIES, AND OF FIFTH VOL. OF SESS. 1833.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Court of Bankruptey.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of GLOUCESTER, from the University of Cambridge, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By the Earl of HADDINGTON, from a Society in Scotland, for the Extension of the Elective Franchise in the Burgh Reform Bill to all those who pay 5l. yearly Rent.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
The House resolved itself in to a Committee, on the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.
On reading the 117th Clause,
Lord Plunkett proposed several verbal Amendments.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that he also had an Amendment, which would begin with the very first line. He was aware that, not in Ireland, but in England, there were many Churches continually vacant, and he was anxious to get rid of sinecures, wherever they were found. He, therefore, should have no objection to the proceeds of parishes, where there was no service performed, being vested in the persons who were to have the disposal of such property under the Bill. But his objection to the clause was, the Commissioners would exercise a judgment in matters purely ecclesiastical, in proposing the suspension of worship in any parish. The Amendment which he should propose, would go to give that power to the Ordinary. It was purely an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and ought, undoubtedly, to be left in the hands of the Bishop. What he wished was, that, instead of the discretion being vested in the Commissioners, it should be vested in the Bishop. He objected to the unprecedented extent of power given to the Commissioners; who could not, in most points, exercise their duties without casting a slur upon the Hierarchy. What he would propose was, that wherever a church in any place should be proved to have been a complete sinecure for several years, such church should be declared vacant, and that the declaration of its being a sinecure should be left to the discretion of the Archbishop or Bishop of the Province or See, subject to an appeal to the Lord lieutenant in Council.
The Earl of Riponsaid, the objection of the noble and learned Lord to this clause, was not so much to the object which it was framed to carry into effect, as to the instruments by which it was to operate. The noble and learned Lord was willing that some competent authority should act as the provisions of the clause prescribed; but he objected to the authority pointed out by the clause. The noble and learned Lord wished that, instead of the decision, in the cases indicated by the clause, being left to the Commissioners, it should be left to the Ordinary or the Bishop, with a power of appeal on the part of the Commissioners, or of somebody else, to the Lord-lieutenant and Privy Council. Now, the same objection which the noble and learned Lord had made to the authority
1222
being given to the Commissioners, applied with even greater strength to the appeal to the Lord-lieutenant and the Privy Council, and the decision consequent thereupon. The noble and learned Lord objected to a decision by any body not ecclesiastical; therefore, so far as principle went, a decision by the Privy-Council was just as objectionable as that recognized by the original proposition, which declared, that the right of decision should be vested in the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord had overlooked the nature and composition of that Commission. It would be chiefly composed of dignitaries of the Church, and he could not conceive any body of persons more competent to perform the duties which would devolve on them than those who were pointed out by the clause. They could not be actuated by any feeling against the interests of the Church; they could not be influenced by any prejudice against the Protestant establishment, because they were all intimately connected with it. He did not suppose that the Commissioners were likely to be called on for many decisions. The clause related to all livings where divine service had not been performed for three years before the 1st of February, 1833; and it appeared from the returns, that out of 1,453 livings there were only sixty-six to which this clause could apply.
Lord Wynfordsaid, what he objected to was, that the persons to whom this discretion was given were not all clergymen. He thought that the Church of Ireland was sufficiently degraded, by the general provisions of the Bill, and he only wished by his amendment to prevent that additional degradation which must follow from the adoption of his clause.
The Earl of Limerickopposed the clause, and expressed his hostility to the entire Bill; which, in his conscience, he believed was calculated to effect the subversion of the Protestant religion in Ireland. They talked of divine service according to the Protestant faith not having been performed in certain parishes for three years. But why was that? He had seen the Protestants driven from their residences. He had in the county of Wexford, in a circuit of twenty miles, met with but one, Protestant; but the reason was, that they had been obliged to depart. It seemed that, in sixty-six parishes, divine service had not been performed, according to the

1223
Protestant service, for the last three years; but, if they looked at the return, they would find that this occurred in the most wild and uncivilized part of the country. The fact was, that the clergy were, from fear, from reasonable apprehension, driven from their residences. A noble Lord near him—and no man was more likely than was that noble Lord to be acquainted with the fact—said, that such had been the case. He reiterated the noble Lord's sentiment, and declared that he was confident of its perfect truth. Let this Bill be passed, and he would undertake to say, that no Protestant clergyman would dare hereafter to call for his tithes.
Lord Plunkettdid not think the Amendment at all necessary. In cases where intimidation had been the cause of a clergyman's absence, this would be taken into consideration by the Commissioners. This part of the measure was retrospective, inasmuch as the period of three years was made to terminate on the 1st of February, 1833. In those livings where divine service had not been performed for three years up to that period, such living would be declared vacant after the death of the present incumbent; but while he lived, the incumbent would have full liberty to return to his living. It was said, that the measure was calculated to prevent the propagation of the Protestant religion; but, on the contrary, its object was to diffuse it. It provided, that where circumstances had prevented the clergyman from attending his duties, the Commissioners should have the power of remedying it. The noble Lord objected to the constitution of the Commission, as being unecclesiastical. The meaning of the noble Lord's Amendment appeared to be—for though he was under some difficulty in making out the meaning, he knew that the noble Lord always had some meaning in what he said—that the Bishops should have the discretionary power of declaring a place vacant. [Lord Wynford: What he wished was, that the recommendation should proceed from the ordinary.] That was precisely what he had said; or, at least, the distinction was so fine, so metaphysical—if it might be so called—that, though he had applied his most comprehensive faculties, he could see no difference. The fact was, that the Bishops already had this power. As the law now stood, it was competent in the ordinary, whenever a parish had been neglected
1224
for three years, to enforce the performance of divine service there, and to punish the offender by spiritual censure. The object of the clause was to provide that this should be done where the ordinary had failed, from any cause, to interfere. It was not, however, intended to deprive the Bishops of any of this discretionary power; on the contrary, the Commissioners were prevented from interfering. If any Bishop directed the attention of the Commissioners to any satisfactory reasons why a parish should not be declared vacant, the Commissioners could have no object in, refusing attention to such recommendation. Then, as to saying the Commission was not ecclesiastical, surely the noble Earl had forgotten that the majority were ecclesiastics, and all might be so; for, out of the nine Commissioners, there were two Archbishops, and four Bishops, and one of the other three would be appointed by the Primate.
The Marquess of Salisburyopposed the clause, and contended that, if the Commissioners had the power to discontinue the appointment of a Protestant incumbent in every parish in which there had not been service for three years, it would amount to a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the whole of the Irish clergy. He hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw the clause, or, at all events, allow it to be amended, so as to suit the views of all parties.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that there would be no use in having Bishops established at all in Ireland, if matters of this kind were not intrusted to their care. The Bishops were, besides, the best calculated for the office, as the local circumstances of every parish would be better known to them, from annually becoming acquainted with the different parishes in their dioceses, in the course of their visitations. Having always felt a strong objection to the principles on which the Bill was founded—a feeling which he still had—he, nevertheless, had come down to the House with the wish to improve the Bill, and he had no intention of giving it any unnecessary or vexatious opposition; and he opposed this clause only because he thought it most important to the Irish Church that it should not be adopted. The main point was, who was to decide whether it was or was not fitting, that, in a parish where there had not been service for three years, a clerk should not

1225
be appointed, or, that the appointment of the clerk should be suspended for an indefinite period? He thought this strictly a part of episcopal duty, and he did not see why it should be placed in any other hands than those of the Bishops. In Ireland there was the strongest feeling among the Protestant inhabitants against this clause, and he believed, that nothing could soothe that feeling more than the voluntary abandonment of it by the Ministers. He objected also to this clause, because it gave a legislative sanction to pluralities. He found that by it, it was provided, that the clergyman of the neighbouring parish should do duty for the parish to which an incumbent was not appointed. Thus they were creating pluralities by an Act of Parliament, which professed to be a Bill of Reform. Did any one seriously suppose, if an incumbent was so grossly neglectful of his duty as not to perform divine service for three years, that the Bishop would be so forgetful of his duty as not to visit the incumbent, and lay him under spiritual censure? He believed that the omission of divine service had not occurred in one single instance owing to the misconduct of the incumbent. It had only occurred in parishes where there were no churches; and he would ask, if parishes should be visited with such a penalty as was inflicted on them by this clause, merely because they had not had a church? But his great objection to this clause was, that by it the Commissioners were to choose whether or not there should be an incumbent chosen hereafter. If this Bill had been in operation at the period of the Union, what would have been the effect? Since the Union, the parishes had been increased, in which divine service was performed by a number equal to all the parishes in which divine service was performed previous to that period. It had been contended, that this clause was drawn in the spirit of the Act of Union. But, did their Lordships believe, if this Bill had passed at that time, that Parliament would have granted such funds as would have enabled them to build seven hundred new churches, which was the number built since that period? He had in his hand a Return of the number of churches built in the diocese of Cork and Ross, from which he found, that the number of new churches built in situations where there were none before, and where there had formerly been no divine service, was no
1226
fewer than sixteen; and that the number of communicants, on an average, was thirty-three; besides which, there were seventeen parishes in which the service was performed in barns and other places, in which there were thirty-two communicants on an average from this he drew the inference, that every encouragement ought to be given to the extension of the Protestant divine service, and every care taken, that that exertion of the Protestant clergy should not be discouraged. He had been told that, on a late occasion, the Protestant inhabitants of the parish of Ballinamona had resolved to build a moderate plain place of worship, for the accommodation of 350 persons. The funds were to be raised by subscription, and several neighbouring noblemen and gentlemen had subscribed to it. Among others to whom application was made, was a great agitator in the neighbourhood; and his answer was, that he did not grudge the money, but that he objected to the building of a Protestant church at all. This showed that intimidation was used to put down the Protestant religion in that part of the country. The right reverend Prelate concluded, by saying he would oppose the clause.
Viscount Melbournewas glad to find that the noble and learned Lord opposite approved of the principle of the clause. [Lord Wynford had not expressed any approbation of the principle of the clause.] He had understood the noble and learned Lord to admit the principle of the clause, which was to do away with such incumbences as were complete sinecures. He did not see how the clause could be taken as an insult upon the Bishops. He thought the discussion proved, that the duty would be much better in the Board of Commissioners than if it were placed in the hands of the Bishops, and that the performance of it would give more satisfaction when emanating from a Board, formed as this would be, than if it emanated from a single individual. It ought to be recollected, that the appointment to the benefice might perhaps be in the Bishop's own gift; in which case, it would not be proper that he should be the judge whether it should be suppressed or not. Another reason for the adoption of the clause was, that the business ought to be done on a regular plan, so as to take from it all possibility of being directed against individuals, which was provided by the

1227
clause. By the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, however, the business would be done by twelve persons, acting separately, and each guided by different reasons, and coming to different conclusions. The object of the whole Bill was to remove that which was a reproach to the Church; and in doing away with sinecures, they did something to improve the Church of Ireland. The question was, whether they were to suspend the appointment in parishes where there was no congregation; for he was sure that the Commissioners would never suspend the appointment where there was a congregation. He was willing to conciliate, but he could not sacrifice the usefulness of the measure. He thought it short-sighted policy to oppose the clause, and he hoped that the Protestants of Ireland would feel that the Bill was intended for their advantage.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that the clause before the Committee was a very proper subject to be inquired into. He would not believe that benefices could be called sinecures, because divine service had not been performed in certain parish churches within the period of three years. He held in his hand an account of all the benefices in Ireland, and he found that there were only sixty-six in which divine service had not been performed for the last three years. It certainly was a melancholy thing, that in so many parishes divine service should not have been performed. But yet he would contend, that the non-performance of divine service, under the peculiar circumstances which had been alluded to in the course of this discussion, did not prove that such benefices were sinecures. There was a prejudice felt against this clause, which, as it was now framed, he did not think well founded. He admitted, that every Protestant should have access to a pastor, but he did not think the Protestant inhabitants would suffer by this clause. With some change the clause would be less objectionable. Protestants could not complain if inquiries were made into the circumstances of the benefice, which inquiries would probably be made through the Bishop, or with the assistance of a Bishop; and he thought he could venture to answer for every Bishop on the Irish Bench, that he would most willingly concur in promoting such inquiry, if it were considered necessary by the Commissioners, and that they lent their
1228
power to the Bishop to enable him to do what he otherwise could not do. Further, it would be but fair to the parish, if it appeared from accidental circumstances that there had been omission of divine service before a Protestant congregation, that the funds of the parish should be suffered to accumulate during the suspension of divine service, for the building of a church and glebe house in that particular parish. He thought the concurrence of the Bishop should be required for every purpose, and the amendments to that effect might be be beneficially introduced.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the more he thought of the clause, the less cause he thought there was for alarm. Could there be a more episcopal body, not being altogether episcopal, than the one constituted by the clause? There were seven out of the eleven members of the Board, either strictly episcopal or appointed by the Bishops. The other four were, the two Archbishops, the Chancellor, and the Chief Justice, with two paid Commissioners, who might be either laymen or ecclesiastics. There need be no jealousy as to Episcopal Commissioners being in a minority, for it seemed to him beyond all doubt and exception that there would be a great majority of Bishops, or their nominees. He thought that it would be difficult to find a Board better constituted, or one more likely to remove all obstacles. The noble and learned Lord, had contended, that it would be more advisable to invest in the Bishop or Archbishop of the diocese, the power of dealing with the parishes in which no service had been performed for three years, previous to February, 1833. But it should be considered that giving such power would place the Bishops in a very invidious situation with the public, and the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would be giving the Bishops a temptation to suspend or not suspend in the parishes of their dioceses. In there decisions they might be perfectly blameless, but he doubted whether the amendment would place them above suspicion. It would be far better to leave the power in the hands of men who could be suspected of no sinister motive in their exercise of it; the consequence of which must be, that the measure would be more satisfactory to the people. It was his opinion, that some such provisions as those contained in the clause were necessary for Ireland.
The Bishop of Londonhad extreme difficulty in making up his mind as to what could be done with the clause. He certainly objected to it, as it would not provide for the residence of the parochial clergy—an object he considered of the most vital importance. He agreed with the suggestions of his right reverend friend, that a restraint should be placed on the power of the Commissioners as to suspending the livings referred to in the clause.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the object of the clause was not to do away with sinecures, for wherever there was a church, there could be no sinecure—but its object was, to prevent non-cures, and, as three right reverend Prelates had pointed out, the clause would not accomplish the object for which it was intended. There was no provision in it, (and such a provision he should like to see) to appoint persons to perform religious duties in parishes where they ought to be performed, and to enable them to perform those duties. Instead of taking, as the clause did, the livings in which no duty had been performed for three years previous to February, 1833, it would be better that the period should be three years from the first vacancy. He should like to see power given to the Commissioners to apply the revenues of such livings to proper purposes, so long as they remained sequestrated in their hands. If the noble Earl agreed to take the non-residence from the period he mentioned, and assured them that the revenues of the suspended livings should be applied to the building of churches and glebe-houses in places where they were wanted, he felt confident that their Lordships would support the clause, as there was not a noble Peer in that House who did not wish to give every support to the Church in Ireland.
The Earl of Suffolk, in supporting the clause, contended that a sinecure really meant where there was no church, and a non-cure where there were no souls; and it was for places where there were no souls that the clause especially provided.
The Earl of Wicklowcame down to that House wishing that the whole clause should be expunged, as he at first did not see how it could be remedied. It would not apply a cure to the evils complained of, because it would not provide with churches and with religious instruction
1230
those parishes which were without them. It would be very difficult to ascertain what parishes would come under the operation of the clause, and those which would not. As he said, he thought that the clause could not be amended, but he was inclined to alter that opinion, since it appeared from what fell from the most reverend Prelate opposite, that the clause, if his suggestions were adopted, might be altered for the better. The returns showed that there were only sixty-six cases in which they would be warranted in suspending the benefices, and of these sixty-six there was a large majority in which the non-performance of the Protestant service was occasioned by circumstances over which the clergymen had no control. He objected, therefore, to the choice of those three years in which there had been the greatest agitation in the country, and the greatest obstacles to the residence of the clergy, and to the performance of the Church service. At the same time he did not think it well to leave, the suppression of benefices altogether to the discretion of the Bishop of the diocess; and bethought that if the clause were properly amended, so as to make any other three years than those of agitation the criterion of suspension, and to give the Bishop of the diocess a share of the discretion, but not the whole responsibility of the suspension, there would be very little of further opposition to the progress of the Bill through their Lordships' House.
Earl Greysaid, that all they proposed by the clause was, to take the revenues from those parishes in which divine service could not be performed, and to transfer the amount to that general fund which it was thought expedient to create for the maintenance of the Church Establishment and the promotion of religion. With respect to the causes which had been mentioned as producing that suspension of divine service, which was then the subject of their consideration, he had but to observe that the suspension in question arose sometimes from the want of a congregation, though not always; sometimes from there being no building lit for a place of worship; and occasionally from terror and intimidation; but all these matters would, of course, form subjects for inquiry with the Board, and to the hands of the Commissioners he felt assured that such subjects of inquiry could be most safely confided. As to the proposed record

1231
of places where Divine service had been suspended for three years, and an explanation of the causes which led to that suspension, it was a record to which there could, probably, be no objection, nor should he urge any. All such details might safely be intrusted to the Board. For, constituted as it would be, he felt assured that it could have no object in view but the good of the Church and the advancement of religion. To the Commissioners he was clear, the discretionary power must be given, of deciding when and where the erection of a new church was required. The noble Earl quoted the case of Bishop Boulton's Charity, as a precedent in favour of the operation of the particular provisions of the Bill, where the performance of divine service had been suspended in a parish for three years. In his judgment no arrangement could be more beneficial than that which the Bill provided. The clause in question was one of great importance, and he earnestly hoped that the House would agree to it.
The Archbishop of Canterburyfelt the same confidence in the Commission as that expressed by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) and the noble and learned Lord. He had no doubt that, with a Commission so constituted, the interests of the Church of Ireland would be in no danger. There was one point on which he differed from the noble Earl, but it was not one of great importance. He saw no reason why, in the case of a benefice to be suspended, the Bishop of the diocess should not interfere. It was most desirable that this respect should be shown to his authority, What he desired, therefore, was, that his consent should be necessary to the suspension of any benefices within his diocess. If it should appear that his assent was refused from any interested motives, then the matter might be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. He did not apprehend any difference of opinion between the Commission and the Bishop, unless the Commissioners should be in error When a benefice was suspended, ht thought it desirable that the funds of the benefice should be allowed to accumulate for the purpose of building in it a church and a glebe-house, in place of going to the general fund. If there was no Protestant inhabitant, then the income of the benefice might be handed over to the general fund. He wished it also to be
1232
left at the discretion of the Bishop whether a curate should be appointed, with a reasonable stipend, to perform the duties in a suspended parish, or whether they were to be performed by the clergyman of the neighbouring parish.
Lord Wynfordwould withdraw his Amendment to make way for that of the most reverend Prelate.
Earl Greyobjected to the proposition, as leading to the creation of conflicting authorities in ecclesiastical affairs. It would place the individual Bishop in collision with the Board. He would readily agree, however, that whenever a case of suspension of the celebration of divine service came under the consideration of the Board, they should call to aid in their deliberations the Bishop in whose diocess the benefice in question was situate. He would say, that the Bishop of the diocess in which the benefice to be suspended was situated should, on that account, be a member of the Board.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that such a modification would answer most of the purposes which he had in view. He regretted, however, as their Lordships had so nearly come to an agreement, that he could not withdraw that part of his Amendment which went to prescribe that the sequestered funds of any benefice should accumulate in the hands of the Commissioners for the purpose of building churches, and providing a glebe-house in that benefice.
Several alterations and verbal Amendments were made in the clause: after which the Archbishop of Canterbury's Amendment was put, which went to prescribe that the funds accruing from any suspended benefice should be applied to building a church and providing a glebe-house in that benefice before any part of it should be paid into the general fund.
Their Lordships divided on this Amendment—Contents 84; Not-Contents 82: Majority 2.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Ailesbury

Buckingham

Bristol

Cumberland

Bute

Dorset

Camden

Gloucester

Salisbury

Newcastle

EARLS.

Wellington

Abingdon

MARQUESSES.

Airlie

Abercorn

Aylesford

1233

Bathurst

St. John

Beauchamp

ARCHBISHOP.

Belmore

Canterbury

Beverley

BISHOPS.

Brownlow

Bath and Wells

Carnarvon

Clonfert

Charleville

Exeter

Chesterfield

Gloucester

Dartmouth

Hereford

De Grey

Lincoln

Digby

London

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Oxford

Rochester

Eldon

LORDS.

Falmouth

Bayning

Home

Bexley

Howe

Calthorpe

Jersey

Carbery

Limerick

Colchester

Mansfield

Colville

Orford

Dufferin

Orkney

Dynevor

Rosse

Ellenborough

Rosslyn

Forester

Sandwich

Hay

Selkirk

Kenyon

Shaftesbury

Lyndhurst

Vane (Marquess of Londonderry)

Maryborough

Meldrum

Verulam

Melross

Westmoreland

Montagu

Wicklow

Ravensworth

VISCOUNTS.

Rolle

Beresford

Saltersford

Gordon (Earl of Aberdeen)

Southampton

Stuart De Rothesay

Hereford

Wharncliffe

Strathallan

Wynford

Paired off

Marquess of Cholmondeley

Earl Grey moved, that the House should resume.
Lord Kenyoncomplained of that course of proceeding. He had heard no satisfactory reason assigned why their Lordships should then not proceed with the Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it was quite unusual to resist a motion similar to that made by the noble Earl who had the charge of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that his noble friend who had the conduct of the measure desired to have time to consider what other alterations might be necessary to make in the measure in consequence of the alteration which their Lordships had just made. If the noble Baron desired to take the conduct of the measure into his hands, he had no doubt that his noble friend would readily agree to place it in the hands of the noble Baron. But if that were not the case, it was necessary that the alteration should be considered.
The House resumed. The Committee to sit again.