Lords Sitting of 14 August 1833

MINUTES.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Assessed Taxes Reduction; Church Temporalities (Ireland); Dwelling House Robbery; Privy Council; Hamburgh Marriages; Troopers Fund; Scottish and Irish Vagrants; Burgh Police (Scotland); Law Amendment; Dean Forest; Blackfriars Bridge; Hyde Small Debts; Holyhead Roads; Thellusson's Estate.
Bills. Read a third time:—Sugar Refining; Stage Carriages; Customs' Duties; Customs' Regulation; Customs' Bounties; British Possessions; Smuggling Prevention; Registry of Vessels; Warehousing; Isle of Man Trade; Navigation; Customs' Management.—Read a second time:—Militia.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
On the Motion of the Earl of Ripon, the House went into a Committee on the Abolition of Slavery Bill.
On the first Clause having been read,
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that, on a former occasion, when he had remonstrated against the reduction of the term of apprenticeships from twelve years to six, a noble and learned Lord had told him, that it was in consequence of the increase of compensation to the planters from a loan of 15,000,000 l. to a gift of 20,000,000 l. On all questions of fact, there was nothing like dates. They would show clearly to the noble and learned Lord, that the compensation was first proposed as a loan of 15,000,000 l., then as a gift of 15,000,000 l., then as a gift of 20,000,000 l., in which shape it was agreed to, a considerable time before the curtailment of the term of apprenticeships. About the 25th of February, the proposition of a loan to the West-India planters, of 15,000,000 l., originated. On the 2nd of May, a deputation from the planters waited on the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the 14th of May, the right hon. Gentleman again proposed to the House of Commons the loan of 15,000,000 l., suggesting that, perhaps, it might be made a gift. On the 3rd of June, came the proposition that there should be a gift of 20,000,000 l. On the 10th of June, the right hon. Gentleman
588
made that Motion in the House of Commons; the term of apprenticeship being all this while twelve years. On the 12th of June, the Resolution to that effect passed; and it was not until the 25th of July that the term of apprenticeship was changed from twelve to six years. He had felt it necessary to make this statement, in order to rebut the assertion of the noble and learned Lord, that the gift of 20,000,000 l., and the curtailment of the apprenticeships, had been propositions dependent on one another. He understood that the crops was collected in the West Indies between the months of June and September, at which period it would be most inconvenient to commence any change in the situation of persons performing the labour. Under these circumstances the planters were exceedingly anxious that the commencement of the apprenticeship should not take place till the month of January; on the other hand, they were not desirous that the apprenticeship should continue beyond the month of January, 1840; thus, instead of June, 1834, the apprenticeship would commence January, 1835, and instead of ending June, 1840, it would end January, 1840, being a period of five years instead of six. The noble Duke concluded by proposing an Amendment to that effect.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the dates which had been referred to, proved his statement to be correct—that was, provided their Lordships took his statement as he gave it, and not as the noble Duke represented it. The noble Duke appeared to misunderstand what he said, and considered him as speaking of the Government, when he was merely referring to the House of Commons, and what he said was in explanation of what had taken place there. The original proposition of Government was a loan of 15,000,000 l. and twelve years' apprenticeship. This loan was afterwards changed into a gift, and this gift subsequently extended to 20,000,000 l. When the planters had gained this advantage there were many persons, but not the Government, who thought that it ought to be attended with some proportionate diminution of the period of apprenticeship. A narrow division took place on the proposition for diminishing the apprenticeship; and it was perfectly clear, that if Government persisted in it, they would be beaten. They, therefore, proposed to reduce the term to

589
seven years. The Bill having been thus settled, it became his duty to take their Lordships' opinion on the clause; in supporting which he was not supporting his own opinion so much as that of the House of Commons and his noble colleagues; for if the term had been reduced to three years, it would not have broken his heart. There was, however, this objection to the proposition of the noble Duke, which he did not think could be got over, viz., that although his Amendment would diminish the period of apprenticeship, yet it would extend that of absolute slavery six months longer than the time fixed by the other House of Parliament. From what he heard, however, he believed, that, at the time fixed by the Bill, the greater portion of the crops would be got in.
Viscount St. Vincentsaid, that the crops were later than the noble Lord imagined. It would be productive of very great inconvenience if the commencement of the apprenticeship were not postponed at least till the 1st of August. He hoped the noble Lord would make this concession to the convenience of the planters. No doubt that, in many parts, however, the crops were got in by June.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the observations of the noble Viscount confirmed generally what he understood of the crops, that they ended in June—in certain portions of the island, however, they might be later. When the Bill was originally prepared, he proposed to commence on the 1st of January. But in consequence of the representation of the planters, that this would be in the midst of the excitement of the Christmas holidays, and on the eve of the crops, he altered it to the 1st of June. The proposition of the noble Viscount would not, however, be liable to the objection to which he had referred; and if their Lordships thought it desirable, he would not object to it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that although the Amendment of the noble Duke would prolong the period of slavery six months, it would shorten that of apprenticeship twelve. It was true, that the crops in the northern parts of Jamaica were got in before the 1st of August, but that was not the case in the south of the island. If it was an objection that the Christmas festivities did not end by the 1st of January, the date might be postponed a few weeks.
Lord Suffieldprotested against any alteration which would have the effect of prolonging slavery. If the time of the year were inconvenient to the planters, why not commence earlier instead of later He would have no objection to the apprenticeship ending in November, 1839, but could not consent to extend the period of slavery.
The Duke of Wellington withdrew his Amendment in favour of the proposition of Viscount St. Vincent, which was adopted; and the clause, with Amendments, agreed to.
On reading Clause 3,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that, as the clause stood, he feared it might have a retrospective effect; he, therefore, moved an Amendment, providing that the clause should apply to such persons only as were in England, or the free British dominions, with consent of their owners at the time of, or after the passing of the Act.
The Lord Chancelloropposed the Amendment as unnecessary, and said, that the consequences anticipated by the noble Duke could not arise; for, as the clause now stood, a slave leaving Jamaica for England after the passing of the Act, would, on arriving in England, become free; but his children would still remain subject to the law—nay, the child of a slave born after the parent left Jamaica, but before the passing of this Act, would still not be free. The noble and learned Lord then adverted at some length to the decision of a learned Judge, which condemned a slave who had been in England, and who, consequently, became free, to slavery again on returning to Jamaica, and spoke of the decision as one which had given great dissatisfaction, not only to the public, but to the Bar generally. Such a man being a natural born subject of his Majesty, would have as good a right to sit in the other House of Parliament, or in that House, as the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) who was illustrious by his actions, or the illustrious Duke near him, who was illustrious by the courtesy of that House.
The Duke of Cumberlandrose to order. He had not said one word to call for such an attack.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the illustrious Duke was out of order, and in calling him to order was most disorderly. The illustrious Duke said, he had not alluded to him (the Lord Chancellor), but he was alluding to the illustrious Duke.
The Duke of Cumberlandagain rose. He had not said one word, not one single word on the subject; he had not alluded to the subject; and the noble and learned Lord had no cause whatever to address him.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the illustrious Duke was most disorderly in calling him to order, on the score of having addressed the illustrious Duke. He had a right to address any one of their Lordships. He had exercised the right of addressing the Members of the other House for twenty years, and, please God, he would continue to exercise that right as regarded their Lordships. He was contending, that the negro, if a free subject of his Majesty, had a right to sit in Parliament—as good a right to sit there as any one of the noble Lords opposite—as good a right as any of the right reverend Bishops, or as the illustrious Duke—or as the other noble Duke, who was illustrious by his conduct—to sit in that House, if it pleased his Majesty to confer on him the honours of the Peerage—and as much right to sit in the other House as any man there, if any body of electors sent him to Parliament. Every one acquainted with the history of Parliament knew, in fact, that this was a circumstance which was likely be tried. A noble Lord, in the days of Schedule A, who was responsible to nobody but himself, talked of sending his black servant into Parliament; whether it was with the intention of trying the right of the negroes, or of bringing into Parliament men of that colour, he did not know; but certainly such an intention was professed. How did that bear upon the argument? Why, it showed, that the man having been in England, was a proof that he was fit for freedom; and he should have considered the clause most imperfect, if it had omitted to provide for the case which had come under consideration. He denied that the clause would be retrospective.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that as he proposed to amend the clause, it would give permanent freedom to such slaves as might in future come to England, while it would be likely to prevent the lawsuits which must arise from the clause having a retrospective operation.
Lord Wynford, with reference to the observation of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor), must express a doubt whether the noble and
592
learned Lord had a right to address any noble Lord he pleased. With respect to the question before the Committee, he was of opinion, that Lord Stowell's judgment was a most correct one, and he supported the Amendment.
The Earl of Riponsupported the clause, and said its justice was evident. He knew a case of a slave who had been twenty years absent from the colonies, and had been working in this country as a carpenter, enjoying all that time his freedom, who, when he went back to the colony, was again made a slave of. He must say, to the credit of the owner, when he was informed of the circumstance, he ordered the man to be restored to freedom, and settled a pension for life on him. The clause embodied the just principle on which this gentleman acted.
Viscount St. Vincentremarked, that, after the passing of the Act, all the slaves who had ever been in England would instantly be free, and the owners of them would even lose all compensation.
Earl Greysaid, that all those who were now slaves, whatever might have been their previous condition, would be slaves up to the passing of this Act; and all the children born of them till that time, would remain in that condition. From the passing of this Act certainly they would become free.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the words proposed by the Duke of Wellington be left out, in order to insert the words, "now are in England, or may be hereafter," stand part of the clause—Contents 23; Not-Contents 12: Majority 11.
The Clause agreed to.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

LORDS.

Richmond

Auckland

Brougham

MARQUESSES.

Clifford

Stafford

Howden

Lansdown

Howard of Effingham

Westminster

Glenlyon

Clanricarde

Plunkett

Holland

EARLS.

Melbourne

Grey

Charlemont

Ripon

Suffield

Albemarle

BISHOPS.

Cadogan

Chichester

Fife

Hereford

593

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

JERSEY.

Cumberland

Wellington

VISCOUNT.

Beaufort

St. Vincent

MARQUESSES.

LORDS.

Bute

Wynford

Salisbury

Colville

EARLS.

Belmore

Wicklow

Rosslyn

Clause 4, defining the classes of apprentices, was proposed.
The Duke of Wellingtonobjected to the clause altogether, as not only useless, but as eminently calculated to produce the most fatal mischiefs.
The Earl of Riponsaid, it would be quite impossible to carry the Bill into due effect without the distinction of præ dial and non-prædial labourers; and as the labour of the latter, being domestic servants, would be indefinite, it was but just to emancipate them at an earlier period than the prædial labourers, whose labour was definite and less.
Lord Wynfordobjected to the clause. Nothing could be more absurd, or more mischievous, than the proposed distinction. It was out of the question to suppose, that while one portion, and that by far the most numerous, of the slaves, were emancipated at the end of four years, that the other portion would remain in servitude two years longer. The attempt to enforce such a tyrannical absurdity would inevitably lead to general dissatisfaction and insurrection.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 9—"Apprenticed Labourers not to be removed from the colonies"—being proposed,
The Duke of Wellingtonobjected to it, and wished that proprietors, having two estates on one colony, might be enabled to transfer their slaves from the one to the other.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that it was well known that slaves had an excessive repugnance to being removed from one place to another—many cases had occurred in which slaves, to whom the option had been made, refused even to be transferred from an unhealthy place to a healthy one. In point of fact, as it was, slaves were not compelled to go from one estate to another, and surely apprenticed negroes ought not to be put in a worse position than the slaves.
Lord Wynfordopposed the clause. If
594
enforced, proprietors with two separate estates would be obliged to keep two sets of slaves, to the manifest disadvantage of both parties, instead of being permitted to avail themselves of that concentration of negro services which was so essential both for their own advantage and the convenience of the slaves themselves.
Clause, with an Amendment, to stand part of the Bill.
On the 22nd Clause—" Apprenticed Labourers to be exempted from military service "—being read.
The Earl of Ripon proposed a proviso to the clause, that the apprentices should not be allowed to have arms, or serve in the militia, &c.
The Duke of Wellingtonobjected to the clause altogether, as likely to be eminently mischievous. It was telling the slaves, that, at the end of that period, they would be liable to enjoy all civil rights. It would frighten every white from the colonies who could leave them. He wished the whole clause to be omitted.
Viscounty. St. Vincentopposed the clause as likely to cause a great deal of mischief.
The Earl of Riponexplained, that it was necessary to have the clause and the proviso, otherwise the apprentices would be liable to serve, according to the law at present, in the militia.
Lord Wynfordobjected to the clause as tying up the bands of the Local Legislatures, and compelling them at the end of the apprenticeship to enrol the negroes in the militia, so that, at the end of that time, there would be 70,000 blacks in the militia of Jamaica alone. He thought the clause ought to be omitted.
The Duke of Wellingtonmust again protest against the whole clause. It was calculated to strike terror into all the inhabitants of the colonies. The British Parliament ought not to make such a declaration as was contained in this clause.
The Duke of Richmondproposed, that the words "no longer," should be omitted, which would prevent the apprentice from being enrolled at present, and would not tell them they were to be enrolled at the end of their apprenticeship.
The Committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill, when there appeared—Contents 31; Not-Contents 11: Majority 20.
The Clause was agreed to.
House resumed; Committee to sit again.