Lords Sitting of 15 August 1833

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Separatists' Affirmation; Woolwich Lands; Infirmaries (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Inclosure Award Titles.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of BUTE, from several Places, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By Lord TEYNHAM, from Swinford, in favour of the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill; from Grange-Moor-Toome, for the Amendment of the Criminal Law.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne, moved the Second Reading of the Grand Juries' (Ireland) Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowadmitted the necessity of some alteration in the law, but contended that great exaggeration bad taken place with respect to the evils of the existing system. He regretted that, at so late a period of the Session, so important a Bill should be persevered in, especially as the measure was opposed to the general wish of the Irish Magistracy; they doubting that it would work well; although, he confessed, that in that doubt he did not coincide. He was apprehensive, however that though the principles of the measure were good, they had not been sufficiently matured. He was prepared to state several objections to the clauses, which he hoped would be amended in the Committee.
The Marquess of Westmeath, although he thought that there were some parts of the Bill which would require Amendment, was of opinion that there were many good features in the measure, and that it ought to be persevered in. As had been candidly admitted by the supporters of the Bill in the other House, experience would suggest the inconveniences which it would be necessary to remedy.
Lord Plunkett, while he coincided with the noble Earl that the evils of the Grand Jury system had been greatly exaggerated, yet maintained that some measure like the present was necessary to remedy those which really existed.
Bill read a second time.

TITHE MODUSSES.
The Bishop of Chichesterrose to call the attention of their Lordships to a statement made elsewhere, that a large number of actions for tithes had been brought by clergymen, in anticipation of the limitation set to their claims by Lord Tenterden's Act. He had reason to believe that several of the statements made on this subject were much exaggerated. No such actions had fallen under his own personal knowledge. He had lately gone through a great part of his diocess, and he had not heard of a single instance in which such an action was brought; at the same time, he thought it very natural, when the period of limitation was approaching, and the time after which such actions could not be brought was close at hand, that those clergymen who believed their rights withheld from them should adopt this mode of preventing their claims from being precluded. As to the rumour which had prevailed that these actions

627
were brought at the recommendation of a meeting of Bishops, he look this opportunity of contradicting it. Since he had the honour of being on the Bench, he had attended every meeting of the Bishops which had taken place, and he had never at any such meeting heard any allusion to the subject. In fact, he had never attended any meeting at which all that passed might not have been proclaimed to the world.
The Bishop of Londontrusted their Lordships would excuse him if he added a few words to what had fallen from his right reverend brother. He thought there was great reason to complain of the clamour which had been raised against the clergy on this occasion. He certainly was surprised at the number of suits which were said to have been brought, amounting to many thousand; but it probably might be accounted for, if correct, that it was necessary in some parishes, in order to avoid technical objections, to raise suits against every tithe payer. It was owing to the interference of the Legislature that this had taken place. A Bill had been brought in to do away with the principle of nullum tempus occurrit ecclesiœ, the consequence of which was, that if a modus were set and proved for sixty years, the clergyman could not traverse it beyond that time, and was not allowed to impeach its validity. It was contended that it would be exceedingly unfair if such a provision were brought into operation immediately on the passing of the Act, and that a certain and more distant period ought to be fixed for that purpose. This was agreed to; and thus, in consequence of this Act of the Legislature, it was that the clergy had been all but driven into bringing these actions for establishing their own rights, or, in many instances, those of their successors or patrons. He thought it hard, therefore, that there should be such a clamour because so many actions had been brought. Had there been only fifty or sixty actions, the House would have heard nothing about it, and yet the principle was precisely the same whether few or many. As to the other and most important point referred to by the right reverend Prelate, the rumour that the clergy had been recommended to adopt this course at a meeting of the Bishops, he had no hesitation in saying it was totally groundless. Nay, he would go further, and say, the
628
subject had never even been introduced at any such meeting. There had not been a meeting of the Bishops since Lord Tenterden's Bill, at which he had not been present. They met and discussed that measure with good faith, and agreed not to oppose the Bill further than seeking an extension of time beyond that fixed by that noble and lamented Lord. Since then the subject had not been stirred. Whether individual Bishops had recommended any clergymen in their dioceses to commence these actions, he could not presume to say; but he did not hesitate to say, that if any clergyman had applied to him for advice in a case where the rights of the Church had lain dormant, where a modus had been set up, and the tithes foregone for a time on account of poverty or other temporary circumstances—in a case, for instance, where there was a very large parish, and where the clergyman had a very inadequate income—in such cases, he should have felt it his duty to advise the applicant not to suffer the opportunity granted by the Act to pass away. No doubt the majority of these actions arose from a desire to maintain the interests of the Church, or at the recommendation of patrons, for the purpose of preserving the rights and interests vested in them.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The House resolved itself into a Committee upon the Abolition of Slavery Bill.
On the 33rd clause being read,
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the different value of slaves and of land in the different islands was so great, that the marketable value of the slaves in each island would not be an accurate criterion for apportioning the losses of the planters. He objected, therefore, to the principle of the mode proposed by the Bill for determining the compensation to be given to the planters, and to the machinery to be employed to make the distribution of that sum. He objected to the compensation being made according to the value of the slaves, and proposed, that it should be merely according to their number, without any reference to their value. He objected, also, to the Commission proposed to distribute the money, and proposed that the sum, when it was determined by the register of the slaves what was due to each colony, should be handed over to the

629
colonial authorities, to be apportioned according to the laws of the colonies. He would propose, as an Amendment, to leave out all the clauses from 33 up to 40, to retain 41 and 42, and leave out 43 and 4 and, instead of 45, he would insert two clauses. His Grace, accordingly, read two clauses, to the following purport:—"Be it enacted, that the number of slaves in each of the nineteen colonies, which were then enumerated, shall be ascertained according to the number of slaves registered under the 59th Geo. 3rd; and that the number of slaves being ascertained from the register, the said sum of twenty millions shall be divided into nineteen different shares; and when it has been ascertained what is the proportionate number of slaves in each colony, and what is the proportional share of the twenty millions for each colony—that share shall be assigned to each colony in the books of the Bank of England, to be paid to each colony, or a colony order." There would then follow another clause, providing that the share of the twenty millions which went to each colony should be left to be disposed of by the local assemblies, according to the number of slaves possessed by each owner, and according to the laws in force in the colony. The noble Duke concluded by stating that he mentioned to their Lordships the plan he proposed, and he should then only move that the 33rd clause be omitted.
The Earl of Riponsaid, if of the 800,000 slaves there was no difference in their value, the plan of his noble friend would be very simple and easy; but as there was a great difference in the value of the slaves, to adopt that plan would be a great injustice. There was, for example, a great difference in the value of slaves in Jamaica and in Demerara; and he could see no reason why the actual value of the slave in possession should not be the criterion for determining the indemnity to the planter. To say that the indemnity to the planters in Demerara should be settled by the value of a slave in Jamaica would be manifestly unjust. He would take the case of the Bahamas, where the average value of a slave was about 18 l., while, in Demerara, the average value of a slave was 80 l.; and if, according to the plan of his noble friend, the planter in the Bahamas should get as much for his slave as the planter in Demerara, he should
630
say they would commit a great injustice. Moreover, he was convinced that the plan of his noble friend would create confusion, and lead to many lawsuits, and in practice give rise to many delays.
Lord Wynfordsupported the Amendment. It was far more simple and equitable than the plan proposed in the Bill. In particular, he approved of allowing the Local Courts to settle disputed or doubtful points, which, he considered a great deal better than the proposed scheme of a commission.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there were two points at issue; the first was as to the principle on which the distribution was to be made, and the second was as to the machinery by which the distribution, on whatever principle made, was to be carried into effect. The Bill went upon the plan of proposing, that as there was a difference in the value of the slaves, the compensation should not only be according to their numbers, but according to their value; the noble Duke's plan—and this was the difference between the two—went upon the principle of granting the compensation according to the numerical results of the last census, without any reference to the value of the slaves. He had before stated the grounds of the preference he gave to the plan proposed by the Bill. It should be remembered that the money was given as an indemnity for something taken away; and surely it ought to be in proportion to the value of the thing taken away. It seemed as if the suggestion came from Jamaica; for if it were carried into effect, half the compensation would go to that island. He would suppose, that they took away according to the value of the slaves 2,000,000 l. from Demerara, and 3,000,000 l. from Jamaica; according to the Bill, the people of Demerara would get 2,000,000 l., and Jamaica 3,000,000 l; but, according to the noble Duke's plan, Demerara would get only 1,000,000 l., and Jamaica 4,000,000 l. It might happen also that the land, as he believed was the case, was more valuable where the slaves were most valuable, than in the colony where the slaves were less valuable; and in that case there would arise a twofold claim for an indemnity, separate from the mere number of slaves. He, therefore, should oppose the principle of the noble Duke's plan. As to the machinery for carrying the plan into effect,

631
he preferred the Commission by far to the Local tribunals, which would only give rise to endless confusion and delay. The Commission was certainly not so long known to the law as those other Courts, but it was not unknown to the law, and certainly the Commission was much better than the Court of Chancery, even of England, and infinitely better than the Courts of Chancery of the colonies.
Viscount St. Vincentthought, the ages of the slaves were overlooked in this estimation. If it were true, as he believed it was, that the number of the aged and of the very young was comparatively small in Demerara, and comparatively large in Jamaica, that might account for the difference in the average value. He believed, that the proportion of old and young to the middle age, was in Jamaica, as compared to other colonies, as seven to three. It was taking a very partial view not to consider this circumstance. If the estimation of the average value of the slave referred only to those which were fit for labour; and if allowance were made for these circumstances, he believed that there would be little or no difference in the value of slaves in Jamaica, and the other colonies. Justice required that this should be considered, otherwise it would turn out that the colony which took most care of the worn-out slaves, which provided for them, and also took care of the offspring of slaves, would be worse treated than the colonies where these duties were comparatively neglected.
Lord Ellenboroughalso supported the Amendment, considering Local Courts the only proper medium for distributing the money. If they were not fit for this, they were not fit for anything, and ought to be revised. They alone had the documents, papers, and local knowledge, which were essential to a just and impartial distribution of the money. He would ask whether, in this distribution, aged, infirm, or very young slaves, were to be considered able-bodied persons? And he would also wish to know what the meaning was of the double rule of distribution laid down, there being one for average distribution to each colony, and another rule for sub-distribution?
The Earl of Riponsaid, that it must be obvious to the noble Baron, in consideration that it would be impossible to pursue the same rule in the internal distribution
632
of the money as in distribution of the compensation to each colony, that the fairest general rule would be that adopted by Government, which was to take the average value of slaves for a given period; but, in the sub-distribution, it would be necessary to adopt a different rule; for instance, some proprietors had healthy and effective slaves, while the negroes belonging to another proprietor might be unhealthy, aged, infirm, or otherwise ineffective.
Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to.
On reading Clause 61, extending to the colonies the provisions of the 52nd George 3rd, relative to religious Worship and Assemblies, and giving to the Special Justices the same power in the colonies as Justices enjoy under that Act,
The Duke of Wellingtonprotested against the clause, as an improper interference with the internal legislation of the colonies. He said, it was called a clause of toleration, but, in his opinion, it was one of intolerance, and eminently calculated to set the colonists, and especially the colonial Legislatures, at variance with this country. He therefore recommended their Lordships to strike out the clause.
Their Lordships divided on the clause—Contents 31; Not Contents 15:—Majority 16.
The remainder of the Clauses were agreed to.
The House resumed; and the Bill was reported.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Clifford

Somerset

Dinorben

Richmond

Howden

MARQUESSES.

Auckland

Stafford

Glenlyon

Westminster

Howard of Effingham

Westmeath

Clanricarde

Brougham

EARLS.

Western

Fife

Solway

Leitrim

Holland

Ripon

Segrave

Grey

Dundas

Sefton

Ducie

Huntingdon

Lilford

VISCOUNT.

Suffield

Melbourne

BISHOP.

BARONS.

Chichester

Plunkett

NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

Cumberland

Bute

Wellington

Salisbury

633

EARLS

St. Vincent

Belmore

BRONS.

Rosslyn

Ellenborough

Handington

Wynford

Shaftesbury

Colville

Jersey

BISHOP.

VISCOUNT

Hereford

Strangford