Lords Sitting of 7 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Warrants of Attorney; Bishops Relief (Ireland); Mandamus Appeals; Highway Rates Act Continuance; Admiralty Lands; Theatres Regulation.
2a. Intercourse with China.
Reported.—Commissions for taking Affidavits in Scotland and Ireland; Stamps; Slave Trade (Austria); Slave Trade (Portugal); Slave Trade (Chile); Slave Trade (Mexican Republic).
3a. and passed:—Excise.
Private.—1a. Anderston Improvement and Police; Gibson's Estate.
2a. Glasgow Police; North Esk Reservoir. Reported.—Liverpool Docks.

GENERAL ESPARTERO.
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to put a question to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and which he trusted his noble Friend would answer. It was quite impossible that the House and the country should not feel deeply interested in the course of events which recently had taken place in Spain. He wished to know whether his noble Friend had received any account of Espartero's having deserted the government of Spain and the position which he held, and taken refuge on board of an English ship of war at Cadiz? He knew of no previous instance of treachery equal to this, exceeding as it did, all bounds, and deserting, as this person did, the means of exertion at his disposal, and closing his career by inflicting the ruinous calamity of bombardment on one of the principal cities of Andalusia. That such a man, the deserter of his duty, would be received on the part of the Government of this country he could not conceive; he therefore, hoped, it would go forth to he therefore, hoped, it would go forth to the public that such a proceeding was impossible. What would be the nature of the new government in Spain no one could possibly tell, but he gave the Government full credit for having pursued a course of non-interference.
The Earl of Aberdeen, when his noble Friend had told him that he intended to put a question to him respecting Spanish affairs, and to ask him to give him any information as to the reception of the Regent of Spain on board of an English ship of war, did not expect that his noble Friend would have adopted such a tone of observation. Her Majesty's Government had no other intelligence on this subject than was open to all their Lord-ships; but he had no doubt, from the situation in which the Regent of Spain had been left, and from the recent operations in the south of Spain, as to the correctness of the accounts. So far, also, from refusing to receive the Regent on board of a British ship, he had no hesitation in saying that that eminent person ought to be received with every honour and distinction.

CORONERS.
Lord Broughammoved the second reading of the Coroners' Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburyobjected to the imposition of any new charge upon the county rates. He thought that coroners were already sufficiently well paid, and that this fact was proved by the anxiety to secure the place which was always exhibited on the occurrence of a vacancy. In Middlesex, he was informed that the coroner had received no less than 1,118 l. during one year, a sum which he thought ample. He objected to the bill and moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Beaumontthought that there was no reason for increasing the remuneration of coroners, at a time when the establishment of railroads afforded them increased facilities for travelling. It would be injudicious he must also say, to increase the charges on the county rates when the impositions on land were already so ruinous.
Lord Wharncliffethought that the bill could only be supported on the ground that coroners were not sufficiently paid. If such were not the case, why was the bill introduced? Gentlemen of the greatest respectability were always anxious to obtain the office, and he thought that no reason existed for any increased payment to them. He agreed that there were parts of this bill, that especially which prevented inquisitions from being quashed on points of form, to which he was prepared to give his assent; but as that portion was tacked to those clauses which gave the coroners increased payments, he must oppose the whole bill.
Lord Campbellthought, that the mere fact of an increased charge being imposed upon the county rate by this bill afforded no argument against it, provided the bill itself appeared to be useful, and coroners were inadequately paid. He confessed that the instance referred to by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Sailisbury) proved, in his opinion, how inadequate the remuneration of coroners was. The coroner for Middlesex had received only 1,118 l., which included mileage. That surely was not sufficient remuneration to a gentleman who devoted the whole of his time to the duties of so responsible an office. He hoped that their Lordships would not sanction a system by which they put up judicial offices to a sort of Dutch auction, but would look rather to obtain competent men, than to secure a low rate of salary.
Lord Broughamreplied. The case of the coroner for Middlesex made out the case, and showed the necessity for this bill. Of the 1,118 l. paid to that officer, 200 l. were for mileage, and taking this at 4½d. per mile (for that was the rate of payment, 9d. per mile being allowed only one way on his journeys), it showed that be must have travelled from 12,000 to 13,000 miles in the course of the year. The effect of this bill would only be to replace the law as it stood antecedently to 1818. Before that time it was always understood that the coroner was paid 9d. per mile out and home, but then a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had altered the interpretation of the law. He called upon the Mouse to give their assent to the bill.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the word "now," stand part of the question. Contents 7; Not Contents 31: Majority 24.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor

Viscount Duncannon

Maq. of Clanricarde

Lord Brougham

The Earl of Auckland

Lord Campbell

The Earl Fortescue

Bill read a second time.

Bill put off.

INTERCOURSE WITH CHINA.
The Earl of Aberdeenmoved the second reading of the Intercourse with China Bill. Her Majesty had been pleased, by her royal prerogative, to establish a Governor and Legislative Council at Hongkong, in China, and it was proposed by this bill to give to the Governor and Council—the governor being the superintendant of the trade—the power of making laws and ordinances for the British territory and for British subjects in China. It was not intended to establish courts in the Chinese towns, but offenders of a serious nature would be brought to Hongkong.
Lord Campbellwas sorry to be obliged to object to this bill. With regard to the island of Hongkong, the Crown had an absolute right to legislate for it, as for a conquered territory; but the difficulty was in respect to the independent territory of the Chinese empire. What this bill proposed to do was wholly unprecedented It was proposed that the governor of Hongkong, with a Legislative Assembly, appointed by the Crown, should have an absolute power of legislating beyond the territory of Hongkong. There was no instance of such a power. The Governor of Hongkong would have an uncontrolled and a despotic power of legislating, criminally as

317
well as civilly, for all British subjects in China, and in ships within 100 miles of the coast, given in the very terms of the Canada Act, the 30th of George 3rd., "for the peace, order, and good Government of her Majesty's subjects." He might repeal any law, enact any law, affix any penalty or punishment, and there was not even the usual condition that the ordinances should "not be repugnant to the laws of England." Hitherto there had been no instance of a British dependency having a power to legislate beyond its own territory. The power given to alter acts was most unconstitutional. The Queen, on the advice of the noble Earl, might appoint a Governor of Hongkong who would legislate for British subjects all over China and for 100 miles from its coast.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, this bill gave no new despotic power to the Crown beyond what it possessed at this moment. Every conquered colony was governed precisely as Hongkong would be governed. The Legislative Council of Hongkong would have the power of providing for the government of British subjects in other parts of China; but there would be no more despotism exercised over them than at Hongkong itself. True, it was unusual to extend the jurisdiction of the island beyond that territory, and to persons inhabiting foreign places; but, though unusual, it was not without precedent, and there was a very recent precedent. By the 6th and 7th of William 4th, the Governor and Legislature of the Cape of Good Hope were authorised to make laws for British subjects inhabiting the territories of independent chiefs in Africa, which was a decisive precedent for the present case—precisely in point. [The Duke of Wellington: The same power is given to the Governor-general and Legislative Council of India.] The necessity of the case required this power to be given, and as to its being despotic, it was not more so at Canton than at Hongkong. Her Majesty had power to disallow ordinances.

SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.
Lord Campbellmoved the second reading of the Scotch Universities Bill. The Universities were now subject to great peril, and would be much injured if this bill were not passed. By an act of 1690, repeated in the act of union, all professors and office-bearers in these Universities, were
318
obliged to subscribe the Confession of Faith, and to be subject to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Those acts, like the Test Acts, had not been strictly enforced, and the prosperity of the Universities was mainly owing to that relaxation. In 1830, a report of Commissioners, among whom were the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Haddington, Sir W. Rae, and others, was presented as to these Universities, and the commissioners were unanimous in saying that these were not ecclesiastical institutions, but were intended for the general education of the people. In practice, the statutes to which he had referred had not been rigidly acted on. In the University of Edinburgh the subscription of laymen had not been required, and in Glasgow there had even been, and was now, an English episcopal clergyman holding a professorship. The law applied not only to professors, but to chancellors. rectors, and deans of faculty. What had been the practice with respect to them? In the case of chancellors, many noble Lords, not Members of the Church of Scotland, had been elected. The Dukes of Chandos and Cambridge had been chancellors in Edinburgh; in Glasgow, Sir James Graham, before him, Lord Stanley, and before him, for two years, Sir R. Peel had been rectors: but Sir R. Peel never signed the Confession of Faith, or agreed to become subject to the doctrine and discipline of the Scotch Church, and might have been proceeded against, as might also his two successors. The present rector was Mr. Fox Maule, lately a member of that Church, and though he had now separated, yet there was no reason why he should give up the rectorship. In every college there were learned men who had joined the free church; among them were Sir D. Brewster and Dr. Fleming. The Presbytery of St. Andrew's had unanimously come to the conclusion of taking steps to turn out Sir D. Brewster, although he had subscribed to the Confession of Faith, because he held particular doctrines as to non-intrusion; and if he should be so removed, it would be a great reproach to this country in the eyes of foreigners. In another place it was thought that the Professor of Greek in Glasgow formed an exception to the general rule, but this was a mistake; there was no difference in any of the professorships or offices. It was impossible hereafter that such men as Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and Lord

319
Stanley should do honour and credit a Scottish university; and what a misfortune and disgrace it would be, if the noble Duke, the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, could not at any future period be elected to the same dignity in Scotland, merely because he must decline to subscribe the Confession of Faith. To obviate so great an evil he had brought in this bill, but he did not propose permanently to alter the law, which was of lone standing, and indeed, a part of the Act en Union. [Hear.] By that cheer he supposed his noble and learned Friend to mean that it was on that account improper to make any change. [Lord Lyndhurst.—It is rather a strong inference.] The Act of Union with Scotland had been altered as regarded heritable jurisdictions and the Court of Admiralty, so that the bill before the House was not in that respect without precedent. The object of it was to suspend the existing law for twelve months, and in that interval he hoped that reason common sense, and mutual forbearance would resume their sway. Tempos inane peto, requiem, spatiumque furori. If time were thus afforded, he had sanguine hopes that his purpose would be accomplished. He declared upon his honour that he had not had the slightest communication with Sir David Brewster upon the subject. Some Friends of his would be glad to see Sir David ejected, but for his part, he should most sincerely grieve to see a man of such deserved eminence removed from the chair he so admirably filled, Neither had he introduced the measure as a boon to the non-intrusion party, because he had repeatedly shown by his votes and speeches that he was decidedly opposed to them. His love for the Church had alone induced him to step forward; and he fervently trusted that their Lordships would allow the bill to be read a second time. Ministers ought to greet it with a hearty welcome, since it would enable them to escape from their present difficulties. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that when the noble and learned Lord introduced the bill, he told him he could not pledge himself as to the course he would pursue, and now, under all the circumstances, he thought it quite impossible for their Lordships to assent to it. The noble and learned Lord said, it would relieve them from great difficulty, but for himself he
320
did not know what the law was, though he knew the Secretary of State for the Home Department had referred the matter to the law advisers of the Crown in Scotland, but had not yet received their opinion. It had been communicated to Sir D. Brewster, that everything he had to say on the subject would be attended to, and that the whole matter would be conducted according to law. He did not see how this bill would enable them to escape from the difficulties they were threatened with, and at all events it would be only for one year, because he feared there was little prospect of the return to peace and charity within that period which the noble and learned Lord anticipated. If it were otherwise, a great portion of his objection to the bill would be removed; but how was it possible to imagine that Sir D. Brewster, or the other Gentlemen, at the end of the year, would come back and desire to be re-admitted to their situations, on their signing the confession of faith, and their adhesion to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Scotland? He apprehended, if it were possible, they would lose caste by doing so, and certainly could not claim credit for disinterested motives. But he objected to this bill, as being a direct and complete breach of the Act of Union, and without, as it appeared to him, any adequate necessity, He admitted that no act could be maintained in perpetuity in all respects, and therefore the equitable jurisdiction and the Court of Admiralty had been obolished; but what great national or public object was there for the alteration now proposed? There was another class also, not mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, the schoolmasters of Scotland, who would be exceedingly ill-used if they were not included in his bill. Why did not the noble and learned Lord extend it to the schoolmasters as well as to Sir D. Brewster and Professor Fleming? The Church of Scotland having now placed herself in harmony with the law required the support of Parliament, and he did not think they would give it the support and countenance it deserved if they consented to a measure to retain these parties in their situations. Let them be dealt with as the law of the land required. The Church of Scotland had long enjoyed this power over the universities, and it would be most unjust to take it away. To have it, however, and to exercise it,

321
were different things. He thought this interference was uncalled for, and would therefore move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Campbellmost deeply lamented decision to which Ministers had come upon this question, and he warned them that the time was not far distant when they would themselves regret it. The mischief would not end with the rejection of Sir D. Brewster and Dr. Fleming; that would only be the beginning of the evil, for every Episcopalian professor would instantly be put under the ban of the law: in all time to come it would be impossible for any Episcopalian to be chancellor or rector of a Scotch university. As to the statement that this bill was unprecedented, the noble Lord must be aware that for more than a hundred years an annual indemnity bill had been passed to prevent the incurring of penalties under an act of Charles the 2nd. He had done his duty; he had done his best to avert the evil, and to avoid the peril which hung over his country, and over the Scotch universities in particular; but if their Lordships thought fit to reject the bill, he could not resist their decision.
Bill put off for six months.