Town, and attended chiefly by free negroes who had experienced the benefits of our wise and humane conduct in regard to slavery. The petition, he had been informed on the most reliable authority, had been adopted at a very numerous meeting chiefly of free negroes and mulattoes. It was signed in good and legible handwriting, by upwards of 800 persons, principally people of colour, and it was a circumstance worthy of notice that out of that number only two or three had been obliged to resort to the expedient of using a mark for the purpose of signature. That was a circumstance which he thought proved that the coloured people had considerably improved in education. One of the grounds of complaint set forth by the petitioners was the introduction of slavegrown sugar into their markets; and, while adverting to that point, he might take the opportunity to state that, although he and his right rev. Friend opposite (the Bishop of Oxford) had been held up by some of the West Indian body as their adversaries, yet his noble Friend behind him (Earl Grey), who had presided over the Colonial Department, would bear him out in saying that, in company with the late Lord Ashburton, the late Lord Denman, and the late Duke of Wellingtonthat illustrious man, whose loss they lamented daily and hourly, whether the subject of their deliberations related to home or to foreign affairs, to peace or to warhe (Lord Brougham) had with them maintained the policy and the justice of excluding slave-grown produce, and giving this protection to sugar produced by free labour, a boon in comparison with which all the other favours West Indians now asked were trifling indeed. The want of a protection from the competition of slave labour was one of the grounds of complaint in the present petition. The petitioners also entered at length into an enumeration of the other evils connected with the existence of the slave trade in Cuba and Porto Rico; dwelt upon the sufferings which it entailed, and concluded by beseeching their Lordships to use every means in their power to put an end to the nefarious traffic. Justice and the faith of treaties had been scandalously violated. The first of these treaties was as far back as 1820; and in it the Spanish Government contracted with us to use their best efforts in putting down the trade, and they received the sum of £400,000 to remunerate them for any losses they might sustain by the cessation of the traffic. Time went on, but as nothing was done fresh negotiations took place in 1835, when a second treaty, more general than the first, was entered into, containing a direct obligation upon the Spanish Government to aid us in putting an end to the traffic. It was not until ten years after, namely, in 1845, that they began to act a little. The Spanish Government had, in 1845, given its assent to a law-not, indeed, making the traffic piracy-but declaring it to be unlawful, and making those who engaged in it liable to punishment. The manner, however, in which the Government of Spain not merely connived at, but, he might almost say, encouraged the evasion of that law was somewhat remarkable. The observance or nonobservance of its provisions depended almost entirely upon the character and disposition. of the particular person who happened to be chosen to fill the office of Captain General of Cuba for the time being. One of them, Valdez, whose conduct was upon the whole entitled to great approbation, commenced his administration by allowing the law to which he (Lord Brougham) had just referred to remain in abeyance for six months, declaring that at the end of that time it should be enforced. The consequence of this long notice had been that the slave trade had become greatly augmented, during that interval. But, be that as it might, General Valdez had, at its expiration, redeemed his pledge, and had succeeded in putting down the traffic, so far as by enforcing the legal enactment that desirable result could be accomplished. The very year after the law had for the first time been vigorously put into operation, the slavers trading with Cuba had been reduced from fifty-three, which was the former annual average number, to three; while the number of negroes imported into the colony had dwindled down from 14,000 or 15,000 to between 2,000 and 3,000 per annum. Such was the change which a single man acting honestly was able to effect, and he had no doubt that if General Valdez had continued Governor of Cuba for some time longer the slave trade in that quarter would have been entirely suppressed. This, however, had not been the case, and it was abundantly proved by official documents that the Governors by whom he was succeeded, and who were for the most part men in ruined circumstances, had been selected for the office by the Spanish Government, with a view that they might repair their anything be more indelicate, nay more intolerable, than the man who had served you flinging the kindness in your face. In some sort, but by no means altogether, the same rule applied to the conduct of States; but there was another reason against our reminding Spain of her obligations: she would probably deny them, as it was her habit, her delusion, to pretend she had worked out her own deliverance without our aid. This was the hallucination of the Spaniards; and they might as well forget the event of which this day, the 15th of February, was the anniversary, and pretend that they had not, with their French Allies, or rather masters, been defeated in the great fight off St. Vincent, as pretend that they owed their independence of France to any other source than the arms of England in the Peninsular war. However, he would have the appeal made to gratitude of another description fortunes, by means of gain acquired from conniving at the slave trade, it being confidently asserted that one of them had amassed in this way no less a sum than £90,000 or £100,000 in the four or five years during which he held the position of Captain General. It was such persons, therefore, and a small portion of the planters, who had the greatest interest in keeping up the traffic, for so far as the great body of the planters of Cuba were concerned, they were opposed, inasmuch as slaves being introduced into the island, for the purpose of cultivating the new lands, of proverbial fertility when first broken up, were the cause of having a large additional supply of sugar brought into the market; and, as a consequence, tended by their labour to diminish the profits of the old planter. He might also observe, that the Spanish Government, independently of their having connived at the slave trade, had been guilty of fraud in falsifying the that which Sir R. Walpole had defined returns of the number of negroes who had as a lively sense of favours to come-let been imported into Cuba. Nor was this Spain be made to feel a lively sense all. It appeared that the crews of slavers of prudence in coming events; let her which happened to be seized by the cus- be told that if the slave trade of Cuba tom-house officers, under the provisions of is not suppressed, the slave grown sugar the Act of 1845, instead of being liberated of Cuba will not be permitted in compeat once upon their capture, were compelled tition with the free grown-sugar of our own by that law to serve an indentured appren- colonies. He conceived that a warning of ticeship of five years. Of this we perhaps that sort would not be without its weight had the less right to complain, because our with the Spanish people, and he hoped that own emancipation was followed by years ere long some such course would be adopted. of apprenticeship. He (Lord Brougham) As to the question of the immigration of had the great satisfaction of contributing labourers into the colonies, he hoped steps to reduce the time from 1840 to 1838, would speedily be taken to place it on a when complete emancipation was given on proper basis. There were some who mainthe 1st of August, the anniversary also of tained that there was no want whatever of the Brunswick accession to the Throne of free labourers in these colonies, while there these realms. But at the end of the five were others who said that there was a years for which this apprenticeship in great deficiency of them. Some persons Cuba was to continue, the negroes, instead of high authority, governors included, deof being set free, were taken to plan- nied the want of labour. The matter is tations up the country and were kept in controversy. But how this deficiency was slavery, notwithstanding the period for to be supplied was another question. He which they were bound had expired, in might think that the means adopted at defiance of the law. How were we present for the purposes of this immigrathen to make Spain keep faith, and tion were not sufficiently guarded, and that perform the obligations of treaty by which it was possible they might give occasion for she had not only been bound, but had a recurrence to slavery; but all these matlargely profited in the actual receipt of ters were proper subjects of inquiry, for so money, nearly half a million ? He did far as information they were at present not recommend the calling to her recollec- possessed of went, there certainly were not tion the other and larger debt which she sufficient data to form an opinion upon owed us, for having saved her from the them. He thought, therefore, it might be domination of France. It was oftentimes expedient to have a committee to inquire said that they who conferred benefits shonld into the whole matter. Whether such a have short memories, and they who re- committee should be appointed by their ceived them, long memories; nor could Lordships or not, he had no doubt but that The petition was ordered to lie on the table. House adjourned at a quarter one having a similar object in view would | posed partly on the ground that this sum be appointed by the other House of Par- was chargeable upon the nine parishes liament, and he thought their Lordships only with which Manini was connected and should take the initiative, and do the best not upon the whole union. But the fact to get this most important question placed was that, whilst Manini was the officer of on a proper basis, it being quite manifest the nine parishes in question, the guilty that such an inquiry could be conducted party, through whom he was enabled to more advantageously to the cause of truth carry out his design, was an officer of the in this than in the other House of Parlia- union. The whole of the ninety-eight pament, in consequence of their Lordships' rishes were represented by the poor law better mode of procedure. authorities, and the accounts had been regularly passed, and a most remarkable feature of the case was that these fraudulent accounts, extending over a number of years, purported to have been duly audited by an individual representing the poorlaw authorities. The deficiency comprised £11,000 due to various parishes, for payments on account of rates in advance, £1,500 owing for butcher's meat, £1,500 for bread, £3,000 due to the contractor for maintaining the pauper lunatics of the union, besides other considerable sums. Judgments had already been entered up against the union by some of the creditors, and the effects of an execution upon the property of the union would be very injurious. The guardians had therefore met, and had decided by a majority of forty-six to three to introduce this measure. He thought sufficient reason had been shown to justify the interference of the House, and he called upon them to give this Bill a second reading, with a view to strict inquiry into the facts before the Select Committee on the Bill. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Tuesday, February 15, 1859. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-1° Piers and Harbours. CITY OF LONDON UNION BILL. SECOND READING NEGATIVED. MR. CRAWFORD said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, which was intended to obviate a great public scandal. The City of London Union consisted of ninety-eight parishes, in most of which the rates were collected by the overseers, while in others they were collected by individuals employed for that purpose. Amongst those persons a Mr. Manini had been engaged to collect the rates in nine parishes of the union. In December, 1857 Manini absconded, having with the aid and connivance of one Paul, a clerk in the office of the Guardians, embezzled a sum of £26,000, and a rate had been made with the consent of a large majority of the guardians, distributing the loss over all the parishes of the union. One of the parishes, that of St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, objected to the rate, and a case was laid before the Court of Queen's Bench. The four Judges of that court were unanimous in favour of the legality of the rate; but upon appeal to the Court of Error, it was held by the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber that the rate was illegal and invalid. The law being in this doubtful state, the guardians had introduced this Bill, which would have the effect of authorising a rate being made for the purpose in question, and throwing the charge for making good the delinquencies of Manini upon the union in general. He understood that the Bill was op Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." MR. COX seconded the Motion. MR. ALDERMAN COPELAND said, he rose to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He could well understand that the guardians by whose neglect these frauds had been facilitated, were willing parties to the Bill, but if such a principle as was involved in it were admitted at all, a Bill must be brought in, not for the City of London Union only, but for the country in general. He could name a great number of parishes in which collectors had absconded, and in which the rate-payers of the particular parishes had been compelled to contribute over again. He held that no public scandal would be avoided by the Bill. He had no sympathy with the creditors who from 1843 to 1856, instead of receiving the cheques of the Board of Guardians were content to take Paul's cheque on account, when if any one had named such a transaction to one of the Guardians, the whole mischief would have been prevented, and £26,000 saved. It must be recollected, further, that a Court of Error had decided against the validity of the charge upon the whole union. On the part of the poor-rate payers of the parishes of the city of London, many of whom could ill afford to pay the rates to which they were now liable, he must protest against a Bill which would materially enhance the weight of their local burdens, and he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. MR. THOMSON HANKEY seconded the Amendment. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months.' MR. SALISBURY contended that the Bill was a breach of faith, there having been a distinct understanding entered into that the works on the south side of the river, namely, the Birkenhead Docks, should be completed by the Mersey Board of Commissioners before any further works on the north side were commenced. He should therefore object to the second reading of the Bill. MR. J. EWART said, the Money required under the Bill was not for carrying on new works, but to further those in progress. It was necessary that this sum should be raised, both for the interests of Liverpool and of the port of the Mersey. MR. CHEETHAM said, he thought that the sum of £300,000 asked for might be fairly allowed. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill. MR. HORSFALL said, he must repudiate the supposition that there had been Question put, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question. The House divided: Ayes 57; Noes any breach on the part of the Liverpool 89: Majority 32. Words added. Dock Board. It was absolutely necessary that the sum asked for should be spent at Main Question, as amended, put, and once. In five years the steam traffic of agreed to. Bill put off for six months. MR. TOLLEMACHE complained that the Bill would impose an additional tax of £300,000 on the trade of the port of Liverpool without any corresponding advantage. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool to consent to the postponement of the second reading for a week, in order to admit of an arrangement being carried out between the Mersey Dock and certain railway companies. Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "on Tuesday next. MR. W. BROWN said, that there was an identity of interests which should render Liverpool aud Birkenhead anxious to orward each other's interests; for the prosperity of one was the prosperity of both. the port had doubled, and the timber trade had trebled. The question was, whether there was sufficient to justify the House in going to a second reading at once, and he hoped there was no room for hesitation. MR. LOWE said, several Committees had reported and the House had repeatedly decided, that it would not permit any fresh works to be begun on the north shore of the Mersey till the works at Birkenhead were completed. The House had well considered the question through the Committees which sat in 1855, when the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) was Chairman, in 1857 when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) presided, and subsequently when the right hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall) was at the head of the inquiry. The matter had occupied much of the attention of the Board of Trade when Lord Stanley of Alderley and himself were in that department, and remained so up to within three days of the accession of the present Government. It had been intimated by a gentleman whom he could name, that the works at Liverpool should be pushed on, but that Birkenhead might wait-that there was no occasion to care for it. He trusted that the House would not retrace its steps, but that it would stand by the weaker party, and not allow Birkenhead to be over-ridden by Liverpool. MR. HENLEY said, he considered that it was of the highest importance that good faith should be observed respecting the decision arrived at as to the accommodation for shipping on the banks of the Mersey. There was no doubt that the opinion of the Legislature had been expressed that the docks at Birkenhead should be completed; but he did not find anything to justify the assertion that a public engagement had been entered into, that nothing was to be done at Liverpool till the works at Birkenhead were completed. He had examined the Report which had been laid upon the table of the House, but he did not find anything to bear out the allegation to which he had alluded. After the Bills were in the ordinary course printed and sent up to the Houses of Parliament in the usual way, an intimation was given by the Board of Trade that they would be opposed unless some arrangement were come to. In consequence of such intimation the parties met, and an arrangement was entered into. But that arrangement went no further than this -that no more money would be sought for by the Bills of 1858 for works at Liverpool than to carry out the works specified in the Bill, or until the works at Birkenhead had been fairly commenced and carried on. He found, however, that all this had been done by agreement between the parties interested and the Government Department without any notice having been given to the people at Liverpool. He thought it his duty, when he came into office, therefore, to call the attention of the Committee to those facts by stating them in the general report upon railway Bills. He received the report of those who were most competent to decide, in which it was stated that those arrangements went not beyond that of last year, and nothing was said of any future arrangements. The Committee, on the contrary, expressly recognized the right of the new Mersey board, if they should be of opinion that the increased trade required the docks to be extended either on the north or south side, to prepare a scheme for that purpose, with an estimate of the expenditure, and submit it to Parliament. He held this language both to the promoters and opponents of the Bill. He asked them whether they were really acting in good faith in carrying out the works at Birkenhead as far as they reasonably thought they ought to be carried out? He had not heard that they were not; and he did not know whether they were acting in that way or not. The next question he put to them was, whether they had obtained all the money necessary for the Birkenhead scheme? and the last was, did Liverpool actually want the increase demanded? Those were three questions which the House had to consider. He was not one of those who thought that the trade of Liverpool should be compelled to go upon one side of the river or the other. He did not think that any direct pressure should be put on either side. Considering the way in which Liverpool was improving, he could not concur in any course that would have the effect of depriving it of any further accommodation. He should not have troubled the House with any observations upon the questions, but for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who, he (Mr. Henley) thought, had rather overstated the case. SIR BENJAMIN HALL said, that as Chairman of the Committee which sat last year, he felt called upon to say a word or two. There was no doubt that a strong feeling existed in regard to this subject among the inhabitants of the counties of Lancaster and Chester, each of whom were anxious for the docks in their respective counties to be carried on as fast as possible, and of course not in a way which they considered to be prejudicial to the interests of the port. In the course of last year the persons connected with the docks on the Liverpool side of the Mersey desired to raise £500,000 for the purpose of expending it on works on that side of the river; but a distinct understanding was subsequently entered into that that sum should be reduced to £266,000; and even before the money guaranteed as necessary for the Liverpool Docks trusts was raised, a statement was to be drawn up as to the nature of the particular works which were to be carried out by that expenditure. came before the Committee having agreed to that arrangement, and with the sanction of the Committee, it was determined that certain works should be carried out with that expenditure of money. The Committee were certainly under the conviction that that was the only sum of money that was to be expended upon the Liverpool side of the river, until the Birkenhead works had been advanced, and were in a shape verging towards completion. sooner had the parties obtained their Bill under this agreement entered into at the Board of Trade, and confirmed by their conduct before the Committee, than they The parties No |