Lords Sitting of 12 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Marine Mutiny; Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Lords Colborne, and Ellenborough, from several places, against Altering the Duties

1151
on West India Produce.—By the Marquess of Bute, and the Earl of Rosebery, from the Presbytery of Dalkeith, and other places, in favour of Non-Intrusion—By Lord Dacre, from Hetching, against the Rating of Small Tenements.

EAST AND WEST INDIA PRODUCE.
Lord Seafordstated that he had an important petition to present from the body of West India proprietors residing in London, on the subject of the relaxation of the present duties on East India produce, respecting which petitions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, and committees had been appointed to inquire into the subject. The petitioners deprecated any measure which was likely to interfere with the productions or to injure the West India colonies at the present crisis, not merely from regard to their own interests, but to the population of those colonies which had been so recently manumitted, and who now were so utterly dependent on this country as the great market for the produce of their labour. They strongly deprecate any alteration of the relative duties of East and West India produce at the present moment, and pray that they maybe heard by counsel against it. On presenting this petition, he could not help calling the attention of the House to the great experiment which had recently been tried in the West India colonies, which in some respects had hitherto succeeded to a degree that those most interested in the subject had not anticipated; but, at the same time, it must be admitted that some inconveniences had arisen, and that, in the extent of cultivation, and in the amount of produce, there had been a great diminution in the staple produce of those colonies, as compared with what it formerly was. The price of West India produce had risen in the market, and if the Legislature resorted to the system that had been urged upon it, of admitting East India produce at greatly reduced duties, while the expense of cultivation had increased in the West Indies, the effect would be most detrimental, and would materially interfere with the cultivation of those colonies. The difficulties now felt chiefly arose from the high rate of wages in our colonies since the Emancipation Act, and they were now in a condition which required all the protection which the mother country could afford to them. They, therefore, entreated the House to weigh with caution any measure which involved an experiment with matters
1152
in which the first principles of humanity were involved, as well as the highest commercial and mercantile interests. The noble Lord concluded with moving that the petition be referred to the committee then sitting, to inquire respecting the duties on East India produce.
Ordered.

VACCINATION.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that in the conversation that took place a few nights ago on the subject of vaccination, he had suggested that the noble Marquess should bring in a bill, giving powers to the board of guardians to appoint persons to perform this duty; but as he did not wish to thrust a duty on others which he would not perform himself, he had prepared a bill on the subject, which he would place on the table. This bill, at present, would only apply to England, but he had prepared clauses which could be added to it, so as to extend it to Ireland by the same machinery, namely, the Poor-law unions. If the noble Marquess had no objection, he should be glad to have the bill read a second time tomorrow, and the discussion, if any was thought necessary, could be taken on Monday. It was desirable to pass the bill at once, as the guardians on the 25th of March made their new contracts with medical men for the several unions.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no objection to the principle of the bill; he should, therefore, not object to the course proposed by the noble Lord; at the same time, he should be glad to learn the opinion of those more conversant with the subject. Did the bill make no reference to Scotland?
Lord Ellenboroughhad found that it was extremely difficult to apply this bill to Scotland. He believed that the only local bodies under which they could place the control of the vaccination were the Kirk Sessions, and he did not think that it would be advisable to do so.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that if the bill should be found to work well, machinery could be devised for Scotland to carry it out, independent of the Kirk Sessions. He thought that his noble Friend had done wisely in the first place in not entrusting the power to those bodies.
Bill read a first time.

REPRIEVE OF LYNAM.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in consequence of the question put to him on a former night, he had made inquiries, and found that (he statement made by the noble Marquess (Westmeath), as to the commutation of the sentence of death passed upon a man named Lynam, convicted for murder recently in Dublin, was correct. He had received a communication from his noble Friend, the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in which he was informed that the sentence had been commuted into transportation for life. His noble Friend also stated, that there had already been executed for that crime four of that man's accomplices, and another afterwards, convicted during the viceroyalty of the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Haddington) had received a commutation of the sentence of death to transportation for life. Under these circumstances, and considering the length of time that had elapsed since the murder, as well as for other reasons, the man had beet, reprieved in the way which he had described. To discuss the grounds of this commutation, or of the exercise of the prerogative, would be very inconvenient.
The Marquess of Westmeathasked whether sentence had been commuted after communication with the judges who tried the prisoner; for he thought their Lordships must, in some degree, refer to the evidence which came before the committee which had sat last year, when it was proved by a most respectable witness, that in that unfortunate country there was a sympathy with murderers among certain classes. A very respectable witness, who had been examined, alluded very pointedly to this sympathy, and stated the instance of a man who was taken near Roscrea. He was a person who had been employed by some of the police to look out for some persons who had been guilty of grievous offences, against whom warrants had been issued. The witness stated, that he had asked him where he slept, and he replied at a farmer's house, and he could always get entertainment and lodging, by saying that he was on his keeping for murder; that was, that it was sufficient that he had committed murder and was flying from justice, to insure him the hospitality and protection of the neighbourhood. It was a matter of pain to him, as an Irishman, to dwell on what he believed to be a most disgraceful characteristic of certain classes of his countrymen, but he felt bound to do so. Under these circumstances, the
1154
government of that country could not be too cautious how they interposed between the verdicts of the jury and the conviction and condemnation of persons who had been engaged in so atrocious a murder as this; and it would be more satisfactory to him to hear that the noble Viscount (the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland) had taken for his guide the practice which obtained in this country, of laying all the circumstances of the case before the judges who had tried the prisoners, before the prerogative of the Crown was exercised. He, therefore, begged to ask again, whether the sentence had been commuted upon the opinion of the judge who tried the offence?
The Marquess of Normanbycould not answer the question without entering into a discussion on the subject; therefore he declined doing so.
House adjourned.