Lords Sitting of 19 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Loan Societies (Ireland); Port of London; Coal Trade; County Treasurers (Ireland); Revenue Departments Securities; Apostate Friends Affirmation; and Insane Persons (England).—Read a second time:—Captured Slave Vessels; Vagrant Act Amendment; Administration of Justice in New South Wales.—Read a third time:—Qualification of Electors; Judges' Jurisdiction Extension.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from a place in his Diocese, by the Bishop of SALISBURY, from Westbury (Wilts), and by the Bishop of GLOCESTER, from Merchants, Bankers, and other Inhabitants of Bristol, from Norwich, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Maiden-hall, in Suffolk, from St. John, Hampstead, from Birkenhead and its neighbourhood, and from the Wesleyan Methodists of Salisbury, against Hindoo Idolatry.—By the same right rev. Prelate, against a continued support to the Romish College of Maynooth; from the Village of Peckham and its vicinity, from the Inhabitants of Derby, from Saffron Walden, in the county of Essex, and from the Protestant Association of London, against a Grant to Maynooth.—By Earl CAWDOR, from the Commissioners of Supply of Nairn, and by the Earl of HADDINGTON, from the Commissioners of Supply of Elgin, against parts of the Prisons (Scotland) Bill, and from the Commissioners of Supply of Dumbarton, to the same effect.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Ossal (Sussex), and by the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from the county of Sutherland, for reduction of Postage.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the third reading of the International Copyright Bill, stated that the object of the measure was to secure to the works of foreign authors in this cofuntry the same protection from piracy which British authors enjoyed, provided the governments of such foreign authors extended a similar privilege to the works of British authors in their respective countries. An arrangement of that nature could not now be made except by a specific treaty, which must be laid before Parliament. But it was provided by this bill, that her Majesty, by an
310
Order in Council, might give effect to any such arrangement. It was impossible to say what the operation of this Bill might finally effect, or how many countries would be willing to accede to such an arrangement as he had adverted to. But he could assure their Lordships that the subject had not been taken up without first ascertaining that there was a disposition on the part of several European Governments to concur in such an arrangement, which would be, he need hardly add, extremely beneficial to the general interests of literature.
Lord Ellenboroughexpressed his approbation of the principle of the measure. He conceived that such an arrangement as was contemplated by the bill was most desirable both for this country and the other nations of Europe. But, in his opinion, the bill, in some points, required amendment. Looking to the first clause, it appeared that the bill applied to those authors only who divulged their names when they published their books. But the noble Marquess must know that some of the most valuable works were those which, in the first instance, were published without the author's name. Thus, in the case of Sir Walter Scott, when he originally published his novels his interests would not have been protected by this bill had it been in existence at the time, because he had not divulged his name to the world. Therefore, it appeared to him to be necessary that an alteration should be made in the bill so as to protect the interests of those who published their works without divulging their names. The noble Lord also suggested that alterations should be made in that part of the bill which related to the regulations connected with the importation of foreign works.
The Marquess of Lansdowneadmitted, that the bill was only intended for the benefit of those authors who avowed their works. He was ready, however, to attend to the suggestion of the noble Lord.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he did not mean to move any amendments, but he suggested the alteration to which he had adverted, as worthy of the consideration of the noble Marquess. The bill he considered to be of great value and importance.
Third Reading postponed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Lord Ellenboroughrose to present a petition which had been placed in his bands a

311
considerable time since. He had not presented it before, because he knew that it was almost impossible to attract the attention of their Lordships to any question connected with the East Indies, however grave and important it might be. The petition which he was about to lay before the House, and which came from the presidency of Bombay, was most respectably and most numerously signed, by Hindoos as well as by Europeans; and its general prayer was, that their Lordships or the Legislature of this country would repeal that part of the last Charter Act which took from the Governments of Bombay and Madras the power of local legislation which those Governments previously possessed. The petitioners complained that certain acts authorized by the Government of Bengal (to which had been transferred the power previously exercised by the Governments of Bombay and Madras), had been most prejudicial to their interests. At the time when the Charter Act was under discussion, he had strongly objected to that part of it which deprived the Bombay and Madras Governments of the power which they, up to that time, exercised, and exercised advantageously. This alteration was made without any reason whatsoever having been assigned for it. For the purpose of carrying a mere speculative theory into effect, the people under the Government of Bombay, who were ten times more numerous than the people of Canada, and the people under the Government of Madras, who were at least thirty times more numerous than the people of Canada, were deprived of the advantages of that legislative rule which the respective Governments had long enjoyed. This alteration could not have been made in consequence of any want of ability, or supposed want of ability, of the individuals who had been placed at the head of those Governments. In fact, Bombay and Madras had for a considerable time been governed by men of much greater eminence than those who had presided in Bengal. There never was, he believed, for instance, a better legislator in India than Sir Thomas Monro. In addition to the reasons assigned by the petitioners for having the old system of Government renewed in these two presidencies, he might also quote the decided opinion of Mr. Elphinstone and Sir Thomas Monro, who were strongly opposed to the alteration that had been introduced.
312
The petitioners were perfectly right in the view which they took of the existing law, which, so far as the interests of Bombay and Madras were concerned, undoubtedly called for repeal. That the existing system worked badly was evident by the case of Hill Coolies, which was lately the subject of a bill introduced by a noble Lord opposite (Lord Glenelg). Early in 1836, the governor of the Mauritius called on the governor-general, in council, at Bengal, to make some provisions and regulations for the protection of the natives of India who might wish to enter into contracts as labourers in the British colonies. Nothing, however, was done until May, 1837; and in November following so ineffective was the law, that the Bengal government was obliged to alter it altogether, and to substitute another regulation. When this latter law was passed, it was found to relate to Calcutta, and not to Madras. The papers which the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had laid on the Table of the House proved what a dreadful mortality had occurred amongst those native labourers who had been sent out to the Mauritius. Every one of those ships carried out British subjects, natives of India, to act as labourers. Many of them had perished. But he was quite convinced, that no such catastrophe would have occurred if the government of Madras had been possessed of those legislative powers of which they had been deprived by the last Charter Act. Efficient steps would, in that case, have been taken to prevent that overcrowding of vessels which had occasioned such fatal consequences.
Lord Glenelgsaid, the provisions of the Act had been fully discussed in the other House of Parliament, on the occasion of its being introduced. He considered its general principle to be a wholesome one, although it was possible, that its advantages might be, to a great extent, defeated by the mode of carrying it into operation, and that injustice might be inflicted in particular cases.
Petition to lie on the table.

LAY TITHE OWNERS.
The Bishop of Chichesterpresented a petition from the churchwardens and inhabitants of the parish of Lindfield, Sussex, which petition had remained in his possession for a year and a half. Thinking, however, that some steps would have been taken to remedy

313
this grievance, he had declined to present it. The case he considered to be one of such great hardship, that he could no longer refrain from pressing it upon their Lordships' attention. The petitioners complained, that the entire business of providing for their parish church, and for all that was connected with their spiritual wants, depended upon the will of a lay rector, who was totally exempt from episcopal jnrisdiction. This lay impropriator had not, for two or three years past, made any provision for the discharge of ministerial duties in the parish; and the sick, if visited at all, were visited by clergy from the adjoining parishes. The entire sum expended during that period for spiritual purposes by the individual to whom he referred was only 30 l., although he was in the receipt of nearly 600 l. a year from tithes. There were several noble Lords present connected with Sussex, who could bear testimony to the accuracy of this statement. He would suggest, that a clause should be introduced into the Benefices and Pluralities Bill to provide for the relief of these petitioners.
The Duke of Richmondfelt it to be his duty, as a magistrate and land-owner in the county of Sussex, to corroborate the statement of the right rev. Prelate. This was a parish in the eastern division of Sussex, containing a population of 1,600 souls; and, in consequence of its having a lay rector, the people were not only deprived, frequently, of the advantage of having any church service, but they had not even the benefit of the attendance of clergy upon them during sickness, unless when some neighbouring clergyman attended from motives of charity. The petitioners, he would observe, were highly respectable. He trusted, that the most rev. Prelate, who had the charge of the Benefices and Pluralities Bill, would put in a strong clause upon this subject.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that there could be no doubt of the great hardship and crying scandal of the case which had been stated by the right rev. Prelate. There could be as little doubt, that the conduct of the impropriator was very much to be condemned. He was quite disposed to favour the very reasonable views which the petitioners entertained.
Petition to lie on the table.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of the prisons (Scotland) bill, nd stated, that it was rendered necessary by the defective and insufficient accommodation in the prisons of that country.
The Duke of Hamiltonlamented, that so little time had been given to their Lordships for the consideration of this measure. It was only introduced into the House on Monday, and now, on the third day, they were called upon to assent to the second reading of the bill. It was for their Lordships to consider how far they would be justified in acting in so prompt and inconsiderate a manner.
The Duke of Richmondhoped that no long delay would be interposed to passing this bill. Bad indeed as were the prisons in this country, with a very few exceptions, those in Scotland were infinitely worse. The prisons in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen were very fair prisons, but there were many prisons in Scotland, in which males and females were confined together; very few of them had airing yards at all, and there was nothing like classification in any of the gaols. He should suggest to his noble Friend, the noble Duke (Hamilton), that if the bill were now read a second time, they might defer going into Committee till that day week, and that would give the House time to look into the details of the measure. He did not think that the sum required was much—only 30,000 l.—when it was considered, that the object was to endeavour to reform the prisoners of Scotland. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would permit the bill to be read a second time now, and then they could consider its details in Committee at a subsequent period.
The Duke of Buccleuchwould not oppose the second reading of the bill, but if it were not for the very late period of the session, he should have requested that it might be postponed for a few days. The bill had been some time in the lower House of Parliament, and he did not understand why it had not reached their Lordships earlier. He was extremely sorry that so important a bill should have come on at the very close of the session. If any person was acquainted with Scotland, he must be perfectly aware that the prisons in that country were in a most inefficient and improper state for the reception of criminals, and especially in cases where confinement was not only intended as a punishment for an offence committed, but

315
also to reclaim criminals from their mode of life. Prisoners in Scotland were often confined for common assaults, or offences against the game laws, or the excise laws, and these persons were mixed with the most hardened offenders. As he had already said, he should not oppose the second reading of the bill, but he hoped that sufficient time would be allowed for their Lordships to look narrowly into it, and consider its provisions.
Bill read a second time.

AFFIRMATIONS IN COURTS OF LAW
Lord Denman, before moving the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Affirmations Bill, had several petitions to present in favour of that measure. The first petition was from certain inhabitants of Manchester and its vicinity, who had formerly belonged to the Society of Friends, but who had now seceded from that body, and attached themselves to the Church of England; they still, however, retained their objections to take oaths, as required by the statute, and therefore could not now be received as witnesses in courts of justice. Under these circumstances, they prayed to be relieved from the situation in which, by their decision, they were now placed. The next petition was from 100 merchants and bankers of Manchester and its neighbourhood, men of great respectability and influence, who stated, that they knew a great number of persons, formerly Quakers, who had seceded from that sect; and the petitioners prayed, that for their security, those individuals might be admitted to make affirmation, instead of being, as now, obliged to take oaths, to make them competent witnesses in courts of justice. The noble and learned Lord observed, that, with reference to this subject, he had received a letter from Mr. Foster, a justice of the peace for the counties of Chester and Lancaster, for many years a police magistrate of Manchester, and now chairman of the Salford quarter sessions—a gentleman who, from his experience, was competent to form an opinion on the subject. The letter was also signed by seventeen other magistrates of the county of Lancaster, including the chairman of the visiting justices, and all these gentlemen stated their conviction, that great inconveniences and evils were now produced, by the exclusion of persons who were ready to make affirmations, but objected to take oaths; and they sug-
316
gested, that the bill which he had laid on the table, gave reasonable and satisfactory security to make it safe to admit those persons to affirm, instead of taking an oath; and they prayed, that for the sake of the public benefit, and the due administration of justice, the evidence of those persons might be received under the arrangements made in the bill. The noble and learned Lord also presented a petition from certain inhabitants of London and the neighbourhood, who stated, that they never had belonged to the Society of Friends, but still they entertained an opinion that oaths were unlawful; that feeling so, and refusing to take the oath when called on to give evidence, they had narrowly escaped being sent to prison, and they urged, that in consequence of their scruples, and the state of the law, persons were deprived of the benefit of their testimony, and that the ends of justice were thus defeated, and though the petitioners felt that some of the provisions of the bill before the House were insufficient, still they prayed that it might be passed into a law.
The Earl of Wicklowhad understood the bill to proceed on the ground of the objections to take oaths made by persons who formerly belonged to the society called Quakers. It appeared, however, from the last petition, that other persons claimed the same exception. To this he (the Earl of Wicklow) could not consent, though he would abstain from voting against this bill, if the noble and learned Lord would consent to confine its operation solely to those who had been Quakers but had now seceded from that persuasion.
Lord Denman, in moving the Order of the Day for the third reading of the bill, said, that he should be sorry to make the exclusion to which the noble Earl adverted, for one of the gentlemen on whose behalf he had moved in this matter, and to whom he had often before referred, never had been a Quaker, and yet had the same objection as was entertained by that body to the taking of oaths. That gentleman had declined a situation of 800 l. per annum, in consequence of his objection even to administer an oath; and yet if that gentleman were called as a witness before him (Lord Denman in the Court of Queen's Bench, to-morrow, he should have no option but to send that gentleman to prison for refusing to give

317
evidence on oath. Sooner, however, than that the bill should not pass, he would consent to take it with the restriction pointed out by the noble Earl opposite.
Lord Hollandsaid, he felt bound to remark, that Mr. Foster, whose recommendation had been alluded to by his noble and learned Friend was one of the most useful magistrates in Manchester, and that on the authority of that gentleman he could state, that the feeling in favour of this measure was not confined to those who sought the exemption for themselves. The matter was of general public importance, for the hardship of the present law was not so much on those who refused now to take oaths, as upon the persons who were thus deprived of the benefit of their evidence. Under this feeling there was in Manchester a very general desire for this bill.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he found that his amendment could not in form be proposed until the bill had been read a third time. Now, he must object to the third reading, unless he had an assurance from the noble and learned Lord, that he would afterwards agree to his (the Earl of Wicklow's) amendment, to confine the bill to those persons who had been Quakers.
Lord Ashburton, was understood to say, that if relief should be given at all, this bill was wholly insufficient. He, however, objected entirely to the measure. He had also received communications on this subject, and he was still of opinion that the general evidence in English Courts of Justice, would be greatly impaired when the great mass of the community found, that evidence was not given under the solemn sanction of an oath. If, however, anything was to be done by legislation on this matter, he should be inclined to confine it, as suggested by the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Wicklow) to persons who had belonged to the society of Quakers; at the same time, he could not help thinking, that by this plan the lives and properties of the people would be less carefully guarded under so loose a mode of admitting evidence, than they were at present. If the House went to a division, he should vote against the third reading of the bill.
The Marquess of Butelooked upon this bill as being a judicial and not a political measure—a measure which, as he
318
understood, was considered necessary by the noble and learned Lord, and his learned brethren, the judges, who from their experience found, that considerable interruption occurred to the ends of justice from the impossibility of obtaining the evidence of many worthy and excellent men who had conscientious objections to take an oath. It must be irksome and abhorrent to the learned judges to be compelled to punish individuals so circumstanced, and feeling, that this was a judicial measure important to the ends of justice, he felt it his duty to vote in favour of the bill of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that he had altered the bill to the form in which it would stand if the amendment of his noble Friend (the Earl of Wicklow) was agreed to, and he found, that in that case it would be necessary to strike out one half of the preamble and the same quantity of the enactments, which was scarcely a tit way to deal with a bill on its third reading. The better course would be, to throw out this bill, and then the noble and learned Lord might bring in a fresh bill embodying the principle contended for by his noble Friend.
Lord Denmansaid, it was true, that the bill was a judicial measure, for the purpose of effecting the admission of the truth in courts of justice, but the noble Marquess had misunderstood him (Lord Denman) in supposing, that he had the authority of the judges to state, that it was generally their opinion that the bill should pass into a law. The bill, however, did rest upon some authority, for one of his most respected brethren, Mr. Baron Alderson, had, at an early period of this Session, drawn up a bill on this subject, which fell through because it had been thought more convenient to annex its provisions to another measure, which had been rendered necessary by a decision of the Irish judges with respect to the admission as witnesses of Presbyterians without an oath. By the existing law evidence was excluded upon which life and limb, and property to a vast extent, might depend. As long as these persons were Quakers they had the protection of the law, but they were deprived of that on becoming members of the Church of England. Should that, in justice, be so? The only objection to the bill was that mentioned by the noble Baron opposite (Lord Ashburton), viz., that the gen-

319
eral effect of evidence in courts of justice would be diminished, because under the bill certain individuals would be permitted to say, "I do not think it lawful to take an oath, and I request to be permitted to make an affirmation." The observation would be quite as good with reference to Quakers, who were examined every day without an oath. Did a Quaker have less respect for the truth because he gave evidence on affirmation? or would a man who made an oath think he was less bound to speak the truth because a Quaker was not sworn? The evil which he had brought under the notice of their Lordships was one of great magnitude; he had suggested a remedy, and had persevered to the last in attempting to get that remedy applied; and though the result might be unfavourable, he felt it his duty to take their Lordships opinion upon the question. If defeated now, he should certainly bring forward the subject again, at an early period of the ensuing session.
Their Lordships divided. Content 16; Not-content 32: Majority 16.
Bill lost.

PRISONS IN THE WEST INDIES.
Lord Glenelgmoved the second reading of the West Indies Prisons Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughhad looked over the bill, and thought it was a very proper one. He would take that opportunity of asking the noble Baron, whether he had received answers to the sixteen questions, which, on the 17th of November last, he put in a circular letter to the governors of the several colonies on important matters? He thought it was highly necessary to make provisions with a view to the coming period of the universal emancipation of the slaves. This bill related only to one point; and he wished to ask the noble Baron what measure he intended with respect to maintaining, or increasing, or diminishing, the present number of special magistrates. He was of opinion that it would not be consistent with the approaching state of things to diminish the number; on the contrary, he thought that immediately on the commencement of the period of universal freedom an additional number of magistrates should be appointed; for the state of things would not be that of absolute safety, far from it perhaps; but at all events it would be a period requiring the greatest watchfulness. There was then another point of no small
320
importance; were there to be any and what reforms or alterations in the administration of justice? There were white jurists, white grand jurists, white magistrates, and white judges, being all persons connected with the system of slavery, and more or less prejudiced in favour of the planters. He believed, among the judges, that there was but one who was not so prejudiced. There must be prejudices between white and black, for, although the distinction between master and slave might be destroyed, the other distinction could not be destroyed, it was inherent in the nature of things; and he feared that great evils might arise from it hereafter. There was another question connected with this subject, and it was one of the greatest importance. What was to be the condition of the colonial legislature hereafter? A short period would make the emancipated negroes electors, and ultimately, unless an alteration was made in the law, they would preponderate, and become also the majority of petty jurors. He did not say, that by legislation this ought to be prevented, but it was a state of things that ought to be looked forward to as one that would require legislation. He was far from thinking that the difficulties of the noble Baron were at an end; he thought they were only commencing. He could not but express his surprise that it was not until the 17th of November last year the noble Baron asked for information on points which were of the greatest importance.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that answers to the questions put in the circular letter alluded to by the noble Baron had been received from several of the colonies. The special magistrates, would, of course, cease to be so on the expiration of the act under which they were appointed, but it was intended to continue them under another name, and some other system which would enable them with the same watchfulness to superintend the state of things. He was not quite clear that the same number of magistrates would be required, but he could give no positive opinion on that point at present. He quite agreed with the noble Baron that the persons, whose position in society would be changed, would require very vigilant watchfulness. He knew also that prejudices arising from the difference of colour would exist, and he feared that it would be some time before they would be eradicated; but he

321
did not think it would be quite fair to conclude that they would be carried to the extremity that the noble Lord suspected they would, or that better principles and feelings would not operate in the new state of society. With respect to the future administration of justice, he acknowledged that it was a very important subject; but it would become a very difficult one, if they laid it down as a problem that there would be no persons in the colonies on whom they could rely for assistance in properly carrying it into effect. He did not deny that the difficulties of the Government might not be decreased by the change in the state of society in the West Indies, but he was of opinion that there were elements of advantage in that change which would counterbalance any new difficulties that might arise.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the noble Baron looked to apprenticeship terminating in 1840; but the time had come earlier, and from all the accounts which had been rece ved, the negroes would within a fortnight be free. There, therefore, could not safely be any delay in taking the necessary legislative steps.
Lord Hollandsaid, this subject was one of great delicacy and of much difficulty, and it was impossible that they could discuss the measures which might be proposed till some communication was made to the House by the Government. It would be time enough to discuss the policy of those measures when they were regularly before the House.
Bill read a second time.