OPPRESSION AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE-PETITION OF JOHN CARNALL. (Hansard, 27 May 1825)

Mr. Hume rose, to present a petition from a person of the name of Carnall, complaining of a series of acts of oppression to which he had been subjected at the Cape of Good Hope. When an Englishman went to any of our colonies, he imagined that he carried with him the rights of a British subject, but in this expectation he was sorry to say that he would, for the most part, find himself entirely deceived. The will and pleasure of the governors of colonies became the law of the land, and if any individual was unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of a governor, he was almost sure to be made the victim of the most arbitrary and tyrannical oppression. Of this truth, the circumstances detailed in this petition, which were supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, afforded a striking illustration. The oppression to which this petitioner had been subjected, was of such a nature as to call loudly upon the legislature to institute an inquiry into the general system of our colonial governments, by which the liberty, the property, and even the lives, of his majesty's subjects were made dependant on the arbitrary will of the governors. It was necessary to state to the House, 904 that the petitioner first became acquainted with a person of the name of Edwards, who practised as a notary at the Cape of Good Hope, in consequence of his having been summoned as a witness in a trial in which Edwards was concerned. On the 17th of September, Mr. Edwards was on his way from the Cape of Good Hope, in order to embark for Botany Bay, to which place he was sentenced to be transported for seven years, for having written a letter to lord Charles Somerset, in which he claimed redress for some alleged grievances at the hands of that governor. He had in his possession all the papers connected with this transaction, and he should be able, in a few days, to lay before the House a full statement of all the circumstances under which this iniquitous sentence was inflicted. Mr. Edwards, attended by the Police officer, stopped at the petitioner's house, to take breakfast, and during the whole of this time the petitioner had no communication whatever with Edwards, except in the presence of the officer. Mr. Edwards, had occasion to retire after breakfast, and some time after, it was ascertained that he had made his escape. The petitioner declared that he was in no way accessary to this escape. At the time Mr. Edwards was about to embark, he was informed that lord Charles Somerset had, in a letter to the governor of the colony, instructed him to put him upon hard labour, and other degrading offices, which his pride and feelings as a gentleman, and a man of education, could not brook; and it was this circumstance, he believed, which had induced him to attempt to make his escape. On the news of Edwards's escape, a party under the orders of his majesty's Fiscal, proceeded to the petitioner's house, and took him into arrest. The petitioner sought in vain to obtain a sight of any legal instrument or warrant by which he was arrested; he was dragged from his home, conveyed to Cape Town, and confined in a cell 10 feet by 12, front the 17th of September to the 24th of December. He would ask, what would be the feelings of any hon. member who should thus be dragged from his home, and conducted to a cell of the dimensions he had described, with no other bedding than the mattress on which the dead were stretched, and that swarming with vermin? Yet, there was no man, whatever might be his property, or station, who was not liable, under the present system of 905 our colonial governments, to be oppressed by the arbitrary will of the governor. The petitioner was subject to fits, and was afflicted with some severe paroxysms during the first ten days of his confinement. Under such circumstances, all assistance was refused to him, and he was not permitted to have the slightest communication with his family. On the second day he was furnished with a pen, but for the first ten days no one was allowed to enter his cell, even for the purpose of shaving him. By the Dutch law it was not in the power of the governor to keep any man in confinement for a longer period than eight days without bringing him to trial. This law was utterly disregarded in the case of the petitioner. He begged to call the attention of the House to what followed. There was no principle in the English law more clearly established, than that an individual who had been tried on a criminal charge and convicted, could not be tried again for the same offence. This principle had been set at defiance in the petitioner's case, for the sole purpose of aggravating the severity of his punishment. He was brought to trial before two Dutch justices, and found guilty of having assisted the escape of Edwards. But, upon what evidence was he found guilty? The House would be astonished to learn, that a man of high respectability, possessing considerable property in the colony, had been found guilty, on the testimony of his own slave girl, who had been compelled to give evidence against her master, under a threat of severe flogging, if she refused to comply. Such was the tyranny of lord Charles Somerset, that if any man ventured to open his mouth to object to his conduct, he was liable to be deprived of his liberty and his property, and to be persecuted even unto death. The petitioner was sentenced to a fine of fifty rix-dollars, and one year's banishment from the colony. It might have been supposed, that this was sufficient to satisfy the rancour of his persecutors; but his majesty's fiscal, not satisfied with this punishment, appealed to another jurisdiction, and again brought the prisoner to trial. On this second trial he was sentenced to five years transportation to Botany Bay. Upon appealing afterwards against this additional punishment, the governor, in his clemency, commuted it to five years banishment from the colony. He was further compelled to deposit a sum of 2,000 rix-dollars, by way of secu- 906 rity for his compliance with the terms of his sentence, and this money had been detained up to the moment of his embarkation for this country. Even supposing the charge against this petitioner to have been true, the punishment was such as could not, by the Dutch law, be legally inflicted. The petitioner declared, that the power of his majesty's fiscal was of such terrific magnitude, that any man who was unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of the governor, was sure to be tormented by the forms of law, deprived of his property, and compelled to leave the colony. The petitioner had returned pennyless to this country; he had applied to the government to obtain copies of the proceedings against him, but all documents had been denied him. He (Mr. H.) called upon the hon. Secretary opposite, to state the grounds on which the colonial department had refused to furnish the petitioner with the means of obtaining redress for the injuries of which he complained. There existed at the Cape a sort of society, under the administration of lord C. Somerset, wholly inconsistent with all good government. He did not blame that noble person so much as the government at home, for allowing him to remain there; and the House of Commons would be much to blame if they tolerated his continuance after this statement. He was ready to prove those facts before a committee; and lord Bathurst, also, had much to answer for, if, as he believed, all these acts were known at the Colonial Department. The case of the petitioner was well worthy of inquiry. He was entitled to the amplest pecuniary compensation for the loss he had sustained; reparation for all the other wrongs and degradation he had endured, it would be impossible to make him. He had simply confined himself to this particular case; but, if an inquiry were instituted, the House would learn the gross oppressions which that colony had suffered, was suffering, and seemed doomed to suffer, under lord C. Somerset's administration.

Mr. Wilmot Horton

said, it was not his intention to enter into the merits of the particular complaint which had just been stated by the hon. member; but the hon. member had inculpated the colonial department, and to that part of the case he begged to address himself. The hon. member complained, that the petitioner had been subjected to certain punishment, having been convicted in a court of justice 907 for having contributed to effect the escape of a prisoner under sentence of transportation. This was the complaint. Now, he would ask, was this the act of the governor? By no means. The petitioner was regularly convicted in a court of justice, and sentenced to transportation; and how the governor must necessarily be mixed up in the case, he was quite at a loss to conceive. The petitioner had applied to the colonial department for redress; but, he would ask the House whether it was the duty of those at the head of that branch of the government, to take the single testimony of persons like the petitioner, and upon his evidence alone to order the remission of the sentence? If Such a course were to be pursued, it would be quite impossible that the government of any colony could be carried on. All that they could or ought to do was, to investigate into any allegation of practical injustice, and afford redress; and, upon this part of the subject he prayed the attention of the House. They all knew very well the extent to which accusations against the government at the Cape had been promulgated. If the hon. member supposed that the colonial department were ignorant of those charges, he was much mistaken; for since the 1st January, 1824, there appeared in one newspaper, no less than twenty-four inculpatory articles, and surely this was warning enough. But, what were the facts of the case? In the year 1823, commissioners were sent out to the Cape of Good Hope. Did the hon. member propose to cast any aspersions on their character, or for one moment doubt their integrity? Did he say they were improper persons to be in-trusted with such a charge? If they should prove to be so, which he could not believe, then was the government greatly deceived. They had received certain instructions upon which they were to act, and they were to report the result of their inquiries to the government; but if, in the pursuit of those inquiries, any accidental delay had taken place, in consequence of sickness, or death, or in any other manner, the government was not to be blamed. They were sent to the Cape for the purpose of introducing a change in the Dutch law, with a view to assimilate it to the law of England. And, could such an important change as this be effected in a moment? He begged to remind the house, that they had to investigate the nature of the Dutch law 908 and its administration, and to report to the executive government, the necessary information, with a view to remedy the abuses. At the very moment when this act was alleged to have been committed, there were commissioners actually in the colony investigating the law in question. He was very far from deprecating inquiry. On the contrary, as soon as the report of the commissioners should be received, he would lay it on the table. The House would be surprised at the mode in which these applications were made; and, indeed, the hon. member for Aberdeen was in some degree responsible; but it was impossible to credit the numbers of insulting applications made to the colonial office. All he asked the House was, to suspend their judgment until the report was received. The report, in one case, had been already received —he meant in that of Edwards; and if any gentleman wished to move for its production, he was ready to lay it on the table. In the particular case before the House he begged to state all he knew of it. The petitioner first laid his case and diary before lord Bathurst, and he himself (Mr. W. Horton) told him, if he had a specific complaint to make, to draw it up. The petitioner then wrote a letter to lord Bathurst, in which he complained, that "the injustice he had suffered had no parallel, and that nothing short of a remission of the sentence and a full pecuniary compensation would satisfy him." To this application an answer was given him, "That lord Bathurst had received no information respecting the judicial proceeding but from his own statement." The commissioners would include this case in the general report of the administration of justice; and of course, if a defect were found in the system, it would be remedied.