Lords Sitting of 19 August 1833

Preamble
MINUTES. Bills. Read a second time:—Assizes Removalp Land Revenue (Scotland); Factories' Regulation; China Trade; Spirit and Wine Licences (Ireland).—Read a thir; time:—Lunacy Commission; Fines and Recoveries.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from the Prisoners confined for Debt in the King's Bench Prison, to be allowed to reside within the Rides; from Pennselwood, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By the Duke of CUM-BERLAND, from Bowling, and five other Places, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill,—By Lord SUFFIELD, from King's County, and by the Karl of GOSFORD, from Maryborough, in favour of the Separatists Affirmation Bill.—By Lord WYNFORD, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the Notaries Public Bill.—By Lord MELBOURNE, from Christ Church, Surrey, for au Alteration in the Parish Vestries Act Amendment.

SEPARATISTS' AFFIRMATION BILL.
The Earl of Gosford The Earl of Gosford moved the third reading of the Separatists' Affirmation Bill.
The Bishop of Herefordwould merely Say, that he was neither satisfied with the Bill itself, nor convinced of the necessity of its introduction. The objection of the complainants was not to the words "So help me God," but to "swear not at all;" and their affirmation, according to this Bill, was as completely an oath as that which the law at present required them to take. If there were to be any alteration at all, it ought to be in the shape of a general Bill, and not confined to one—and that not a numerous class—and he should, therefore, move, that the third reading be deferred until that day three months.
The Bishop of Chichesterdid not see any grounds for refusing that relief to the Separatists which had been granted to the Quakers. What constituted the validity of an oath but a conscientious feeling? The Separatists declared, they could not conscientiously take an oath, and where then was its validity? He should support the measure, although he would prefer a more general one.
Lord Suffieldsaid, the Separatists did not, like the Quakers, object to an oath,

751
but only to that which called down upon themselves, under any circumstances, a curse from Heaven. He should like to see a false affirmation in Courts of Justice visited with the same punishment as perjury.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that this difficulty occurred to him—whether the words in which the Bill was couched would really effect the relief which was sought for by the parties? He suggested the expediency of not pressing the third reading until that point should be ascertained.
Earl Grey, although he was opposed to a general law on the subject, thought the parties in the present case were entitled to relief; not so much for their own sake, as for that of the public, whose interests, especially in Courts of Justice, might otherwise suffer.
Their Lordships divided on the Amendment—Contents 16; Not-contents 35: Majority 16.
The Bill read a third time, and passed.

CHINA TRADE. PETITION.
Lord Ellenboroughpresented a Petition of considerable importance, from a number of merchants in the city of London, interested in the trade to China, which it was the object of the Bill under their Lordships' consideration to open. The Petition might fairly be taken, not merely as the petition of those by whom it was signed—a most respectable body of persons—but the petitioners might be considered as the representatives of all persons connected with the mercantile and shipping interests in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cork, and elsewhere, whose intention it was to engage in the trade in question, as well as those who were engaged in the country trade in India. The petitioners prayed to be heard by Counsel at the Bar, against a provision which had been, most unexpectedly to them, introduced into the Bill. Instead of the establishments in China for the protection and regulation of the trade, being placed on the same footing as our consular establishments all over the world, the petitioners found, to their great disappointment and surprise, that the trade itself was to be burthened with the expense of those establishments. It was their understanding (although of course they were in error) that his Majesty's Ministers had acquiesced in the omission of the clause by
752
which the trade was to be so burthened. He (Lord Ellenborough) shared their feelings, and could not recollect any provision in any Act of Parliament more deserving of reprobation than the provision of which the petitioners complained. From a reformed House of Commons, and one in which the member for Leeds was the Secretary of the Board of Control, and the member for Manchester Vice President of the Board of Trade, such a proposition was not to have been expected. He had no doubt, however, that their Lordships would relieve the petitioners from the grievance in question. The provision in the Bill was contrary to constitutional principles, and contrary to the practice of the House of Commons. To their Lordships, as their last resort, the petitioners applied for redress; and he was sure, that there was not one noble Lord who would not agree with him, that they were entitled to it. Not only had the petitioners to complain of any charge being levied upon them, but they had also a right to complain of the amount of the charge: 27,000 l. or 30,000 l. a year was an excessive charge. It was out of all proportion to any other charge for a consular establishment. If, instead of salaries, the superintendents were allowed to act as agents, he was convinced that the charge might be reduced to 5,000 l. Of all the individuals whom he had described as identified with the petitioners in interest, none had so great reason to complain as those who were engaged in the country trade in India. Hitherto they had been subject to no charge whatever; and now this heavy burthen was to be imposed upon them. Of this he was persuaded, that neither the trade from this country to China, nor from India to China, would, under any circumstances, be for some years attended with much advantage to those engaged in it; so that the proposed burthen would be exceedingly injurious.
Lord Aucklandhad listened to the noble Lord's speech with surprise. The Committee was the proper place in which to go into such details as those on which the noble Lord had entered; and in the Committee, and not till then, he (Lord Auckland) would meet the noble Lord's statements and arguments. All he would say on the present occasion was, that he regretted that those who were about to

753
receive so vast a boon as the opening of the trade to China should shrink from bearing their proportion of the burthen which the due protection of that trade required to be imposed.
Petition laid on the Table.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The Report of the West-India Slavery Abolition Bill was brought up.
The Duke of Wellington moved an Amendment, for the purpose of enabling the planters to move slaves from one estate to another in the same island.
Earl Greythought the Amendment was deserving of attention, and that its adoption would be an improvement. He would, therefore, not oppose it, with this proviso, that no such removal should take place without the consent of two Magistrates.
Amendment agreed to.
Lord Suffieldproposed a clause to prevent flogging females. His Lordship read a statement of several cases in which this punishment had been recently inflicted, and contended, that if their Lordships did not then forbid the practice of flogging, they would in fact sanction it. The noble Lord concluded, by moving a clause totally and peremptorily forbidding the flogging of females, under the penalty of being guilty of a misdemeanor. The House, the noble Lord said, would do credit to itself, and justice to the negroes, by adopting the clause.
The Earl of Belmorewas not an advocate for whipping females, but he did not know, nor did the planters know, nor had the noble Baron relieved them from the difficulty of not knowing, what other punishment could be adopted. It could not be said that the female slaves ought to go wholly unpunished.
The Earl of Riponregretted that his noble friend had brought forward this clause, as he was unwilling to oppose it. It should, however, be considered that this Bill actually abolished slavery. It contained, it was true, no clause prohibiting flogging, but their Lordships might rest assured, that such a clause was not omitted by negligence. They ought not to rip up old stories, or do anything to prevent the colonists from cordially concurring with the Legislature in carrying the Bill into effect. There was good ground to believe that such revolting instances as
754
his noble friend had quoted, would never again be heard of. Already in the Crown Colonies, and in some of the Legislative Colonies, the whipping of females was forbidden. Considering, therefore, that the punishment would not be inflicted again frequently, he hoped his noble friend would not press his Amendment.
Lord Suffieldsaid, he must take the sense of the House upon the question in the usual way. As to other punishments, the stocks was a sufficient punishment, and might be had recourse to.
The Duke of Wellington, though unwilling to oppose the clause, must do so, on the ground that it was most unwise to interfere with the internal regulations of the colonies. So delicate had the Parliament been on this subject, that it had never even passed a Resolution on it. There was some doubt whether the Colonial Legislatures would act, in carrying into effect this Bill, and yet the noble Lord came forward to propose a clause which would infallibly affront every Colonial Legislature, and prevent them all from co-operating to carry the Bill into effect.
Viscount St. Vincentagreed with the noble Duke, that the clause would only add to the difficulties in the way of the Bill. He saw no means of enforcing the penalty proposed by the noble Lord. The whole Bill proceeded on a principle of mistrust in the Colonial Legislatures, and he could on no account consent to do that, by agreeing to the present clause.
The Clause negatived.
On arriving at the 61st Clause,
The Duke of Wellington, for reasons which he had on two previous occasions given, and, therefore, would not then repeat, moved that it be omitted.
The House divided on the Amendment.—Contents 20; Not-contents 31: Majority 11.
Lord Wynfordproposed to add a Clause, that no sugar, coffee, or rum, the produce of any place where slavery existed, should be admitted into this country.
The Earl of Riponopposed the clause, as quite unnecessary. With the present high duty on sugar, it was impossible that it could be brought into this country, except from our own colonies.
Viscount St. Vincentsupported the clause. It would give security to our own planters, and therefore confer upon them an essential benefit. He believed, moreover, that unless the clause were

755
adopted our merchants and capitalit would vest their capital in countries where the slave-trade was yet carried on.
The Lord Chancellor, though anxious to abolish slavery throughout the whole world, objected to the Amendment, because it was in fact a substantive Motion, and extended beyond the objects of the present Bill. Such an addition to the Bill, would, he was sure, be rejected by the House of Commons. Besides, the operation of the clause as it was drawn would be much more extensive than was professed by his noble and learned friend. He would strenuously oppose the Motion.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not look upon the proposition as a substantive one, but intimately connected with the Bill itself. The object of that Bill was to do away with slavery in our West-India colonies, and the object of this Amendment was to hold out every inducement to the Local Legislature to co-operate in attaining it. The Bill altered the whole state of the trade. As it would have the effect of making sugar dearer, they ought, at least, to give the planter security that the property in which his capital was invested should not be interfered with. He was convinced that such a pledge would do more to conciliate the colonies than the grant of 20,000,000 l
Earl Greysaid, that it might be fit that the proposition of the noble and learned Lord should pass into law; but was it fit that it should pass in that manner? It was absolutely certain, that if the proposed clause were introduced into the Bill, it would be rejected in the House of Commons. He would even appeal to the noble Earl who presided so advantageously over their Committees, if he knew of any example of the introduction of such an Amendment into a Bill under such circumstances?
The Duke of Wellingtonwould support the Amendment of his noble and learned friend, which in his opinion was a measure of encouragement and hope to the West-India Planters. It was the assertion of a great principle to be carried into execution by future measures; and a pledge which would soothe the feelings of those for whose benefit it was intended.
The Earl of Shaftesbury, in reply to the appeal of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, said that, in his opinion, it was quite competent to their Lordships to introduce the proposed
756
clause; for it should be recollected that it was not their own Bill, but sent up to them from the other House.
The House divided on the Motion: Contents 17; Not-contents 38—Majority 21.
Report agreed to with verbal Amendments.