Lords Sitting of 30 May 1833

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Limitation of Actions.
Petitions presented. By Earls GREY and RADNOR, from two Places in Scotland, for an Alteration of the Existing Law of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By the Earl of MALMESBURY, from Pluckley, for the total Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By Lord CLONCURRY, from Clara and Tullamore, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.—By the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE, and Earls GREY and RODEN, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By a NOBLE LORD, from Bruton, and two other Places, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from a Parish in the City of London, against the Assessed Taxes.—By the Earl of KINNOUL, from the Surgeons, &c., of Perth, for the Amendment of the Apothecaries Act.—By Earls GREY and RODEN, and Lords SUFFIELD, and DUNDAS, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery—By Viscount St. VINCENT, from the County of Ross, for a fair Compensation to the West-India Proprietors and Slave Owners.—By the Earl of VERULAM, and Lords WHARNCLIFFE and WYNFORD, from several Places,—against the Local Jurisdiction Bill.—By the Earl of RODEN, from a Parish in Cork, against the Irish Church Reform Bill.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
Lord Cloncurryon presenting petitions from Clara and Tullamore for the Abolition of Slavery said, he did not admit the right of any person, whatever, to hold any human being in Slavery; but it was desirable that the House should be satisfied, before making any alteration in the present law, whether they were likely to improve the condition of those whom it was the particular object of such measure to benefit. At present, their Lordships were in possession of very little information on the subject. It appeared to him that the means taken to prevent the traffic in slaves had hitherto been defective and, in some instances, productive of acts; of horrible barbarity. It sometimes happened that a ship, with slaves on board, was chased—and the whole of them during the chase were thrown into the sea, and no slaves being actually found on board, no capture could be made; but the vessel and her crew were allowed to proceed to commit new enormities

103
with the prospect of the recurrence of a like horrible and appalling catastrophe. The Abolition Acts, therefore, and the system founded upon them, led to the commission of greater atrocities than those which they were intended to extinguish. There was another point, on which it was necessary their Lordships should be informed, and with respect to which, he was for one, ignorant—namely, the condition of the slaves in our colonies, as compared with their condition before they became slaves;—whether captured in war, or kidnapped on the coasts or up the rivers of Africa. He should like to know whether they were not now in less danger of life and limb, and in a better condition with respect to subsistence, than they were in their native homes? Every consideration ought to be given to the interests of the West-India proprietors, because, with every wish to give emancipation to the negro, it was impossible to overlook the fact that it was most difficult to effect that object without entailing an overwhelming loss upon those who had hitherto held this species of property, under the sanction, the encouragement, and the authority of the Legislature. At the same time, some plan might be adopted for the gradual restoration of the slaves to freedom, similar to that which had been carried into effect in some of the States of America.
Petition laid on the Table.
The Duke of Wellingtonpresented a petition from the merchants, planters, shipowners, and other inhabitants of his Majesty's colony of Dominica. It had been put into his hands, the noble Duke said, in December; but, as an inquiry into the subject was then going on, he had declined to present it. It had now, however, been returned to him for presentation. The petitioners apprehended the greatest evils from the adoption of the measures with respect to the West Indies, proposed by his Majesty's Ministers. They were the descendants of persons who, having been conquered by his Majesty's arms, were, by what was called the Treaty of Paris, confirmed the subjects of this country Many of their ancestors had purchased the estates which they now held of the Crown—a property which had been possessed for fifty or sixty years; and what they desired was, either that they should be protected in the enjoyment of that property, or that they should be allowed to cede it to his Majesty for a valuable consideration. In his opinion this latter request was well
104
worthy the attention of their Lordships, and his Majesty's Government. The petitioners, one and all, offered their estates for a certain sum of money, stated by them. Now, if those estates were purchased by the Crown, his Majesty's Ministers would be enabled to try any experiments with them they thought proper; and if those experiments were found to answer in a colony where the property belonged to his Majesty, they might then, perhaps, be advantageously introduced into the colonies where the property belonged to private individuals.
Lord Suffieldwas not surprised that persons who had purchased stolen property, like a man who had purchased a stolen horse, should be glad to get their money back.
Viscount Beresfordwished to know how the noble Lord could call it stolen property. Who had stolen it?
Lord Suffieldreplied, that the question was not who had stolen it, but in whose possession the stolen property was.
Viscount Beresfordwas at a loss to know how the noble Lord could prove that the property had been stolen.
The Duke of Wellingtonobserved, that many Acts of Parliament had acknowledged the property in question. What he was prepared to contend was, that the planters had as much right to the property adverted to, as their Lordships had to their estates. If the Lord Chancellor were applied to on a question of West-India property to-morrow, he must decide it as such. By the law of the land, no Englishman could be deprived of his property unless by an Act of Parliament granting him compensation.
Lord Suffieldrejoined that no man could be deprived of his natural rights by an Act of Parliament.

PAYMENT OF DEBTS.
The Lord Chancellor, in moving the second reading of the Bill for ensuring the payment of Simple Contract Debts, observed, that its object was, to do away with the anomaly which existed in the law of debtor and creditor in this country, by compelling persons to do what every honest man does without compulsion—namely, to subject his real estates to his just and lawful debts. As the law stood at present, so long as the party lives, there was no distinction between simple contract debts, and other debts; but after the death of the contractor of simple contract debts, at present

105
his estates were no longer liable. The consequence of this was, that persons might do what had not unfrequently been done—might obtain possession of considerable funds upon note of hand, as a simple contract debt only, and having invested those very funds in the purchase of real property, if the party who had obtained those funds died before judgment had been obtained against him, and left the real estate, the fruit of this fraudulent transaction, to an heir or devisee, the creditor was not, according to the present state of the law, able to recover one farthing. Many thousands of pounds had been obtained in this way, and, in his opinion, the opprobrium which such a state of things was calculated to bring upon the whole system of our jurisprudence, must far outweigh any advantages which might be supposed likely to arise from it. Nor was the inconvenience entirely confined to those who actually had a fraudulent intention in contracting such debts, but it frequently happened that parties who really intended to satisfy their creditors to the utmost, from inadvertence neglected to make such a provision in their wills as would suffice to carry their intention into effect; in which case also the simple contract creditors would have no right to make any claim upon the owners of estates purchased with their funds. The subject having been at various times fully discussed, he thought it unnecessary further to enlarge upon the subject at present. He should move the second reading of the Bill, but with the intention, in consequence of the absence of his noble and learned friend, the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, of confining it for the present to this country, though he rather thought the Bill formerly brought in was not confined to this part of the kingdom. As to Scotland, where no law exonerating real estates as in England existed, there was no occasion for including it in the provisions of the Bill. This course with respect to Ireland was rendered more necessary, because it had been thought advisable to include lands held by copyhold, by customary and other tenures, as well as freeholds under the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he would not oppose the Bill, but announced his intention of moving, as an Amendment, in the Committee to limit the enactments of the Bill to such debts as were acknowledged by a note in writing.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that his noble and learned friend had privately
106
communicated to him the substance of his Amendment. Much, however, would depend upon the manner in which his noble and learned friend should frame the clause; for, according to his present explanations, it would have the effect of taking a great many cases of breach of trust out of the operation of the Act. In the case of an infant, for instance, difficulties might occur. For his own part, he was more inclined to extend than to contract the operation of the Statute of Frauds.
The Earl of Wicklowstated his surprise at the objections to extending the Act to Ireland, considering the ample discussion which it was admitted had already taken place on the subject. He regretted that, in the case of a law intended for the benefit of society, it should be thought necessary to make an exclusion in the case of Ireland.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had explained why he thought it advisable to postpone the consideration of the question as it regarded Ireland. It was advisable to consult his noble and learned friend the Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, whether that country was not placed in a different situation from England with respect to copyholders. He had much rather, if it were possible, that it should be extended to Ireland at once.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the whole Bill might be postponed for one week. He had understood that there were few or no copyholders in Ireland.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the Bill was now general, and the leaving out of Ireland could be done in the Committee upon the Bill, or on bringing up of the Report. The Committee might be deferred till the time desired by the noble Lord.
Bill read a second time.

INHERITANCE BILL.
On the Motion for the Second Heading of this Bill,
The Duke of Wellingtonmust take that opportunity to complain of the manner in which this and other Bills relating to real property had been carried through both Houses up to the present stage. There had been no discussion of the principle of any one of them, and he for one person had no knowledge whatever concerning them.
The Lard Chancellorsaid, the reason of the little attention which had been paid to the Bill in the lower House was, that the two latter of the three Bills which had just been brought before their Lordships

107
had been introduced by his learned friend the late Sir Samuel Romilly, and had repeatedly obtained the concurrence of the House. They had now been introduced by the son of that eminent Gentleman and had passed in silence. Other Bills on similar subjects had been introduced last Session by the present Solicitor General, but not in his official capacity, but as the Chief Commissioner for the inquiry into Real Property; and several of the Bills then underwent great discussion. On that occasion there had been one or two divisions on the Inheritance Bill. Five Bills in all had emanated from the Real Property Commission; the three which had just been brought before their Lordships, the Fines and Recoveries' Bill, and the Dower Bill.
Bill read a second time.