or the ambiguous argument of the right have seen, had he done so, that for the hon. Gentleman be the cause, I am now year 1849, the proportions were five and a quite at a loss to know what he means to half millions of cwts. of free-labour sugar, do, and on what side he intends to vote. to half a million of ewts. of slave-grown He declared himself, as I understood him, sugar. It is, in fact, not the competition ready to support the Motion of my hon. of slave-grown sugar which is ruining the Friend, that Motion being a permanent West Indian planters, but it is the annudeclaration that it is impolitic and unjust ally-increasing competition of free-labour to expose the free-grown sugar of our co-sugar from other parts of the world; and lonies and possessions abroad to unrestrict- if my hon. Friend is prepared to give to ed competition with the sugar of foreign the West Indies that protection which he slavetrading countries. But the right thinks is essential to restore them to hon. Gentleman has not, as I understand prosperity, it must be done not by him, as yet so entirely thrown off the prin- confining the restriction to the slaveciples of free trade, of which he was once grown sugar of Brazil and Cuba, but by an able advocate, and in support of which extending to them the full protection which he has often rushed into the van at periods they enjoyed in former times against freeof great difficulty, and given his most labour sugar-a proposition which I am honourable support-the right hon. Gen- sure my hon. Friend would not advocate, tleman did not, as I understand him, aban- and a proposition which I am sure this don that doctrine, or accept the doctrine House would never entertain. It has been of protection. All he asks for is a limited often urged that we had only to exclude period of protection, to give time for those the slave-grown sugar from the market of remedial measures for the colonies for this country, and to draw an equal quantity which he is anxious. But if that is his of free-labour sugar from the market of only object, if he does not wish for the the world, in order to afford the protection permanent re-establishment of the princi- desired; but this would be only creating a ples of protection, then I ask on what vacuum which would be at once filled up principle of consistency can he vote for a by the slave-labour sugar of Cuba and the resolution which is permanent in its object, Brazils. The slaveowners in those counand which does not give a limited but a tries would laugh at your precautions, and permanent period for the continuance of would know that there were still markets protection to our colonies? I certainly enough open to them to induce them to go shall not vote for the Motion of my hon. on cultivating sugar and increasing the Friend. I am not either for limited or number of their slaves as before. But if permanent protection. I am convinced any man could doubt that the attempt that protection has done no good to the must be perfectly futile, I think those who West Indies, and will do no good. Now, heard the speech of my hon. Friend the it was under a system of protection that Member for Westbury, and attended to the the West Indies have been in former times manner in which he demonstrated that the in a state of continued distress and ruin; recent changes in our navigation laws have and it is not by recurring to that system added an insurmountable obstacle to the that we can restore them to that prosperity carrying out of any such arrangement, which, I trust, they are all destined to must have every shadow of a doubt removed. attain. It is by those remedial measures It is not measures of this kind for excludwhich the right hon. Gentleman alluded ing sugar of one kind, and laying heavier to-by a better system of cultivation, and duties on the produce of this country or by that stimulus which competition affords, that, by which we can extirpate the slave that we may hope to see them extricated trade, the object of which I know my hon. from the difficulties under which they com- Friend has most at heart. No doubt plain. Now, how my hon. Friend thinks that many hon. Gentlemen have protested this exclusion of slave-grown sugar would against the African squadron, and against put an end to the slave trade, I really can- our maintaining a maritime police as being not for a moment imagine. I cannot see insufficient to effect the suppression of the how such a measure would operate in the slave trade. But I have never maintained way he wishes to put an end to that traffic. that that alone was sufficient to put the Has my hon. Friend entered into the pro- slave trade down, though I have always portion of free-grown sugar introduced into contended that without this maritime police this country for home consumption as com- other measures would be fruitless. The pared with slave-grown sugar? He would House may rest assured that other mea sures for this object are in progress, and barter abound; there is hardly anything therefore, on every ground, both of expediency and principle, I object to the Motion of my hon. Friend. It is insufficient for the purposes of humanity for which he brings it forward, and it would tend to reinstate the principle of protection in our commercial relations—a principle, I maintain, of fatal injury to the country, and inimical to the prosperity of every community to whose affairs it may be applied. SIR E. N. BUXTON, in reply, said, he would not detain the House at that late hour with any lengthened remarks. He felt very grateful to the Government generally for the measures it had adopted to H Plumptre, J. P. Powlett, Lord W. Prime, R. Pugh, D. Reid, Col. Repton, G. W. J. Stanford, J. F. Stanley, E. Stanley, hon. E. H. Stephenson, R. Stuart, H. Taylor, T. E. Thesiger, Sir F. Thompson, Col. Thompson, Ald. Thornhill, G. Tollemache, J. Villiers, hon. F. W. C. Williams, T. P. Wodehouse, E. Worcester, Marq. of Yorke, hon. E. T. TELLERS. Buxton, Sir E. N. List of the NOES. Abdy, Sir T. N. O'Connell, M. J. Morison, Sir W. Morris, D. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. Muntz, G. F. Grosvenor, Lord R. Guest, Sir J. Norreys, Sir D. J. Hall, Sir B. O'Brien, J. Hallyburton, Lord J. F. O'Brien, Sir T. Harris, R. O'Connell, M. Charteris, hon. F. Hastie, A. Ord, W. Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Clifford, H. M. Headlam, T. E. Cobden, R. Heneage, G. H. W. Cockburn, A. J. E. Coke, hon. E. K. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Corbally, M. E. Cowper, hon. W. F. Craig, Sir W. G. Crawford, W. S. Owen, Sir J. Paget, Lord A. Paget, Lord G. Palmer, R. Palmerston, Visct. Parker, J. Pearson, C. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Pechell, Sir G. B. Hollond, R. Howard, hon. C. W. G. Humphery, Ald. Hutchins, E. J. D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T. Hutt, W. Divett, E. Jervis, Sir J. Douglas, Sir C. E. Keating, R. Duff, G. S. Keogh, W. Kershaw, J. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Littleton, hon. E. R. Towneley, J. Townshend, Capt. Traill, G. Trelawny, J. S. Tufnell, H. Turner, G. J. Tynte, Col. C. J. K. Vane, Lord H. Villiers, hon. C. Walmsley, Sir J. Willcox, B. M. Williamson, Sir H. Wilson, M. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. Wrightson, W. B. Wyld, J. Young, Sir J. TELLERS. Hill, Lord M. Bellew, R. M. SUPPLY-GRANT TO MAYNOOTH. Resolutions reported. MR. FORBES objected to the new grant of 18,0931. for the college of Maynooth, and moved the reduction of 1,2411. for the purpose of making the vote 16,8521. Amendment proposed, to leave out "18,0931.," and to insert "16,8521.," instead thereof. Question put," That 18,0931.' stand part of the resolution." MR. PLUMPTRE understood that the 30,000l. which had been voted was likely to be very far exceeded, and would amount to 50,000l., and that the intention was to get the amount of the sum by dribblets year after year. This sum was proposed to be added as one of these dribblets. He did not understand why 30,000l. was not enough for the vote for repairs for the old college. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that an explanation of this vote had been given every year. He had no reason to expect that any question would have arisen on the subject, or he should not have brought it forward at that late hour of the night. The House divided:-Ayes 68; Noes 55; Majority 13. LORD J. CHICHESTER said, that he and several hon. Members who had intended to vote against the grant to Maynooth were prevented from doing so in consequence of the wire of the bell attached to the room in which they were waiting being broken, and their not being aware that the division was about to take place. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentlemen in the chair whether the votes of those hon. Members ought not to be allowed? MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Members ought to have been in the House at the time of the division. Resolutions agreed to. The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, June 3, 1850. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Court of Session (Scotland); Police and Improvement (Scotland); Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Public Houses (Scotland). 2a Process and Practice (Ireland) Act Amendment; Naval Prize Balance; Exchequer Bills. Reported.-Sunday Fairs Prevention. 3a Process and Practice (Ireland) Act Amendment; The Trustee Act, 1850. APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL FROM THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (MATTERS OF DOCTRINE) BILL. Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read. sure. The BISHOP of LONDON:* I rise to move your Lordships to give a second reading to a Bill for amending the law with reference to the administration of justice in Her Majesty's Privy Council in appeal from the Ecclesiastical Courts; and I do so, under an almost overpowering sense of the difficulty of the task which I have undertaken, and of my own inability to perform it in a manner at all adequate to its importance-its importance, my Lords, with reference to the consequences which are likely to follow from your Lordships' reception or rejection of the meaMy Lords, I am not apt to indulge overstrained or extravagant feelings of hope or fear, nor am I accustomed to employ exaggerated language in expressing them; but I do assure your Lordships, in the words of truth and soberness, that I believe it to be impossible to over-rate the momentous consequence of the issues which hang upon that alternative. I will not now describe them more particularly. It is enough to say that they involve not only the peace, but the integrity of the Church of this empire. I allude to them now, only for the purpose of showing to your Lordships why it is that I approach this question with fear and trembling, under a painful apprehension lest the sacred and important interests which it involves, should suffer detriment from the injudicious arguments or feeble reasoning of its advocate. But, my Lords, I feel at the same time that just measure of confidence, which ought to be inspired by a settled convic |