Sitting of 5 July 1815

SLAVE IMPORTATION BILL.
Mr. Wilberforcebrought up a Bill for more effectually preventing the unlawful importation of Slaves, and the holding free persons in Slavery in the British Colonies. On the question that the Bill be read a first time,
Mr. Barhamsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill itself, because he believed it might be a good and useful Bill if it went upon proper principles; but he wished to call the attention of the House to some circumstances which compelled him to object, to the Bill in its present shape and form. He believed it was intended to be the ground-work of another Bill, which would perhaps be the means of producing many benefits to the situation of the slaves in the West India islands; and to any Bill that in his opinion tended to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves themselves, no man in that House or out of it would be found to be more friendly; but he could not bring himself to vote for the present Bill, because it supposed a traffic of a very injurious
[1128
kind, which he did not admit to exist. It supposed that a contraband trade in slaves was now carrying on by merchants and planters in the several islands, and it proceeded to enact penalties against such contraband trade. Now he contended that before such an enactment ought to be permitted to take place, some proof should be adduced that there was actually such a contraband trade carried on. He was persuaded that was not the case, and he thought neither the hon. member who brought forward this Bill, or any other person, could possibly prove, by even primâ facie evidence, that there was any such contraband trade in existence. He had another objection, which was that this Bill would be altogether nugatory and ineffectual. It was a matter of great difficulty, indeed, to prove the identity of negroes. This had been shown in various instances, and the hon. member and all those interested in the Bill would find it to be the fact. The fair and proper course to pursue would be to establish proof that any such practice really existed. This could only be done by inquiry, and to such an inquiry he would gladly afford every assistance in his power; but to make enactments of a penalty against a practice on vague and uncertain supposition, was neither fair nor just. The evils against which the Bill was pretended to be directed had no real existence; and if passed into a law, therefore, it could only be in the spirit of the advice given by Ovid to a lover with respect to the affectation of attention to his mistress; "Et si nullus erit pulvis, tamen excute nullum." While he was on his legs he would observe that it was his intention in the next session of parliament to revive the Bill which, having recently passed through that House, had been rejected elsewhere. In adverting to the coarse language of a passionate individual which had been used in another place towards himself as the framer of the Bill, the House, he was sure, would do him the justice to believe that he treated it with the contempt which it deserved. He could not, however, help lamenting the general apathy which had been manifested on that subject. The Deity of the African Institution appeared to have fallen asleep; or peradventure he was journeying. With respect to the Bill now introduced, he repeated that it was uncalled for, and that the imputations which in its very preamble were thrown on the colonies, were wholly without foundation.
Mr. W. Smithfully approved of the Bill which had just been introduced, convinced as he was, from all that he had heard, of its necessity. He had received information from the best authority, and those intimately acquainted with the West Indian seas, that from the nature of the currents which flowed round some of the islands, it was morally impossible to prevent the illicit importation of slaves, but by some such measure as that now brought in by his hon. friend. He was satisfied, when the hon. gentleman who had last spoken, came to consider the provisions of this Bill, that he would be more disposed to favour it than to throw impediments in its way.
Mr. A. Brownewarmly vindicated the West India body from the aspersions of his hon. friend (Mr. Barham), and insisted that this impossibility of proceeding in any inquiry at the advanced period of the session, was their only motive for not pressing for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the general administration of the colonies; but he was persuaded, that the result of that inquiry would show that they were not deserving of that obloquy which had been thrown around them in a publication which had been lately given to the world.—With respect to the Bill before the House, he felt it his duty, in every stage of its discussion, to reprobate it, as a measure uncalled for upon any parliamentary ground, or by any evidence whatever of the existence of the evil which it was intended to prevent: a measure highly objectionable in principle, as assuming a questionable and hazardous interference in the internal conduct of the colonies, and in its oppressive details endangering the whole system of colonial policy, by which the security both of the properties and the lives of the white population was preserved. He admitted, that with the sense which Parliament had expressed of the nature of the African Slave-trade, they might naturally be anxious to prevent any evasion of the Abolition Bill, or any clandestine opportunities for the existence of the evil. Bat before they went on a pursuit of fresh penalties, or fresh enactments to prevent the evil, they ought to be satisfied, by the usual and established course of parliamentary proceeding, that the evil existed, and that the law as it stood was insufficient for the purpose, and that it was necessary to provide other enactments to perfect their object. With-
[1130
out this ground of proceeding, the House would set out on a crusade of legislation derogatory to the character of Parliament, and which, growing out of the ardent zeal and inflamed stale of men's minds in the attainment of a favourite object, might lead to consequences highly injurious to other interests connected with that favourite object. In the present instance, the mode proposed for the prevention of the supposed evil by the establishment of a machinery of internal regulation, was one of a very unusual nature, and founded upon the assumption of a right to interfere in the internal conduct of the colonies, questionable in itself; but which, if it did belong to the Parliament of this country, all must agree, should only be exercised upon the strongest grounds of necessity. If the clandestine importation of slaves did exist in the colonies, which he denied, and of which there was not the slightest proof,—and if a registry of slaves be necessary to prevent that evil,—why is the Parliament of this country, even if they possessed the right of legislating for the colonies, called upon to pass such a law, until they found that the legislatures of the colonies would not of themselves do so? Would it not be wise to see whether the legislatures themselves will not co-operate with the mother country in rendering the abolition perfect, before Parliament resorted to the unusual course of forcing such a measure upon them? There is some reason to believe that this co-operation would be afforded. In Antigua there had been every disposition to promote the abolition, as the hon. gentleman had himself admitted; and that disposition might be felt in the other islands. Why then have recourse to this measure, unless more was aimed at than is avowed? Why could it be necessary, unless this was intended as the commencement of a series of legislation on the part of this country, which, if carried to the length, and directed to the object professed in a work lately given to the public, would put at imminent risk and destroy the whole system of colonial policy, by which the property, the peace, and happiness of individuals, and the security of life itself, are altogether maintained?—The melioration of the state and condition of slaves in the West Indies, was an object that might well enter into the feelings of men, and he would be glad to go every rational and convenient length in the attainment of that object; but he conjured

1131]
the House, while they were employed in that gratifying work, not to overlook and disregard the interests and the security of individuals who were unfortunately possessed of that species of property. He conjured them, while they were endeavouring to benefit the blacks, not to sacrifice the whites. He would not enter at large into the topics to which he had alluded, as the Bill was agreed to be read the first time; but viewing the measure as one that had much of evil in itself, and much of evil in view, he should give it his decided opposition in all stages of its discussion.
Mr. P. Mooreconcurred in this opinion, and trusted the measure would receive no further countenance. At all events, it ought to be preceded by the appointment of a committee up stairs, for the purpose of ascertaining how far the Acts at present in force for the prevention of the Slave-trade were or were not operative. If they proceeded without this inquiry, they would be legislating in the dark, and interfering with those reforms which would, it was presumed, emanate from the legislative bodies in the colonies. The hon. gentleman then referred to the late case of Brodie, Dunbar, and another, to show that a variety of practices existed, which were much more open to reprehension, and much fitter for inquiry, than those to which allusion had been made.
Mr. Gordonthought such a measure as this was not fairly introduced, by being coupled with a tissue of general allegations against particular bodies. The hon. gentleman here look occasion to eulogise his hon. friend near him (Mr. Barham), whose management of his West India property was productive of infinite service. If the abuses proceeded from any improper act on the part of the local assemblies, then let the facts be proved, and let those assemblies be altogether abolished, and the government vested in the hands of the colonial governor; this would be the proper course to adopt. He concurred in the opinion, that no facts were made out to justify this motion, and thought the moment inopportune, at a time when the colonial governments were themselves employed in ameliorating the condition of their slaves. The inquiry which was the foundation of this Bill, seemed to have emanated from a long string of complaints, which had been in one sense unanimously transmitted to the African Association, and then formed into
[1132
a sort of criminatory shape, for the purpose of bringing forward a measure of this kind.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that nothing could be a stronger proof of the necessity of some bill of the nature of the present, than the universal admission, not only of the planters, but of the historian of the West Indies, that all attempts to prevent the importation of slaves into the islands would prove vain. He had been accused of dealing in general charges against the people of the West Indies. When speaking against the system of the West Indies, he was always happy to bear testimony to exceptions to it; but he would contend, that the general system was, in the highest degree, vicious. Seriously and soberly standing in his place, he would say, that the general condition of slaves in the West Indies, was worse than that of any description of slaves in ancient times. It was admitted by the opponents of the present Bill, that evasion of the abolition laws was but too easy, and they might be said to be friendly to the object of it. He had heard enough of the West-Indian legislature, not to have any very sanguine expectations from that quarter. It was melancholy to reflect, that notwithstanding all the admonitions which they had received on the subject of mitigating the state of slavery, so little had been done by them, that the unhappy beings were liable to be torn away from their little domiciles, when they had at length, perhaps, forgot their native home, and found a second home in the West Indies, on account of their masters' debts—husbands torn from their wives, parents from their children, the most sacred ties of human nature dissolved. Not in one single island had a law to make slaves astricti glebæ been passed, notwithstanding the recommendations of the duke of Portland, the West-Indian committee, sir William Young, and many others. It was a complete misapplication of language to compare these legislatures to that of Great Britain. What sort of British constitution was it in which nine-tenths of the people were not even virtually represented? The evidence of a slave could not even be taken. With respect to the charges against the African Institution, brought forward by an hon. member (Mr. Marryatt) some time ago, they were altogether groundless. On inquiry into the subject of the letter stated to have been suppressed by them, he found that the African Insti-

1133]
tution, at the period alluded to, was not in existence—that was only one specimen. All the charges were entirely groundless. With respect to the sums stated to have been paid by Government in consequence of the interference of the African Institution with the slave ships of Portugal, and a similar claim set op by Spain on that account, the fact was, that they had never interfered with Spain, and the transaction with regard to Portugal was altogether mis-stated. It was acknowledged by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Barham), that there was no such thing as marriage among the West-India slaves. In Africa these people married—in St. Domingo, marriage was as prevalent as in any other community on earth. He believed that the Bill would be productive of the most extensive reform.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time, and printed.

BREAD ASSIZE REPEAL BILL.
Mr. F. Lewismoved the third reading of the Bread Assize Repeal Bill.
General Thorntonwished the hon. mover of the Bill to consent to lower the penalty against the use of alum.
Mr. F. Lewissaid, his object had been to incorporate, as nearly as possible, into his Bill, all the different provisions of the several Assize acts respecting false weight and adulteration. A person well informed on the subject had told him, that there was not one baker in London who did not make use of alum. In all cases this was a dangerous mixture—but to children, in particular, it was extremely prejudicial. The penalty could not exceed 20 l., but it was in the power of the magistrate to lower it.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman C. Smith and sir G. Noel, the Bill was read a third time, and passed.

VACCINATION BILL.
Earl Stanhopeobserved upon the Vaccination Bill, which he conceived peculiarly exceptionable, proposing as it did to levy half a million upon the means of the public, with a view to profit the inoculation of the Cow-pock. The noble earl animadverted upon the comparative merits of the inoculation for the Cow-pock and the Small-pox, stating, that of 1730 persons inoculated at the Small-pox hospital, at Pancras, only one died, and of 10,000 inoculated out of doors only ten died, while of those inoculated for the Cow-pock one of six died. Yet it was proposed to secure such, extraordinary advantages to the latter as this Bill had in contemplation, although the very advocates of the Cow-pock admitted that the matter used in inoculation, was often such that it could not afford any security against the Small-pox. The noble earl remarked upon the several expedients resorted to with a view to force this system, of Vaccination. A noble lord (Boringdon) some time since proposed, that any house in which the small-pox appeared should be surrounded with flags to warn pas

1121]
sengers, and that Bill was scouted; yet the present measure, which was equally ridiculous, was obtruded upon their lordships from the Other House. He concluded with moving that the Bill should be read a second time, in order to follow up that with a motion that the Bill should be rejected.
The Bill was then read a second time, after which, on the motion of earl Stanhope, it was rejected.

LICENSED VICTUALLERS.
Earl Greypresented a Petition from the Licensed Victuallers against the additional tax imposed on them during the present session. He stated, that having withdrawn the Petition on a former night, to give time for a consideration of the point of form objected against it, he should present it now, in the hope that alt obstacles to its reception were removed.
The Lard Chancellorsaid, he found, on looking into the subject, that in the year 1786, a committee was appointed to search for precedents, in a case of the same nature, where the prayer was directed against a Tax Bill, in its progress through parliament. The first of these was from the Lord Mayor and Common Council of London, respecting the tax on tobacco, which was received. The second was from the persons concerned in the trade, and was also received. But the Petition from the merchants, which related to another subject, and on which the investigation took place, was rejected. Such was the state of the authorities on the point.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the precedents stated by the noble lord on the woolsack were conclusive in favour of the reception of the petition. As to whether they would hear evidence, it was quite another question; but if they were to decide against receiving petitions on the subject of Tax Bills in progress, how were they to know the merits of what they were enacting? He had himself presented a petition against a whole description of Taxes, some of which were then passing through Parliament; and as their lordships had such a precedent in favour of the rights of the people, he trusted they would not depart from it in the present instance.
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table.

PILLORY ABOLITION BILL.
The Earl of Landerdalerose to move the committal
[1122
of the Pillory Abolition Bill. He expressed his regret at being under the necessity of proposing this subject for their lordships consideration at so late a period of the session; but that was not his fault, and far less was it the fault of his learned and excellent friend (Mr. M. A. Taylor), who had originated this Bill in the other House. He had postponed it from time to time, in order, if possible, to have the advantage which, with respect to a subject, of this nature, must result from the attendance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack. He was aware that before proposing any material alteration in the criminal taw of this country, he ought to have given a great deal of attention to the subject: but the criminal law in this particular point was so very different from every other part of it, that he had no hesitation in pressing this Bill upon their lordships attention, even with the limited examination which it had been in his power on the present occasion to apply to the subject matter of the question. The punishment of the pillory had been condemned by almost all those who had studied and written upon the philosophy of criminal law, almost by all the politicians who had attended to its nature and effects, and even by some of the judges who had to apply it. No principle in criminal law was better established than this, that the punishment ought to be commensurate to the offence. In this respect the punishment of the pillory was extremely objectionable. In one of the older statutes, it was pot in the alternative, that a man should pay a fine of 29 s. or be put in the pillory, so that the same punishment was to be inflicted on one who could not pay 20 s. as on one who had attempted to commit an unnatural and abominable, crime. Such a state of the law was a disgrace to the age and country in which it existed. Another remarkable feature in this punishment was its gross inequality and uncertainty. The punishment was not that which was consonant to the nature of the offence or to the intention of the Court which awarded it, but depended on the humour of the mob. The case of Dr. Shebbeare was a remarkable one. He had been sentenced to the pillory; but though this was intended as a disgrace, if turned out a sort of triumph. He was put upon, but not in the pillory; the sheriff held an umbrella over his head to shelter him from the rain or the sun; and a servant stood by to attend upon and hand

1123]
him refreshment, while he was at the same time applauded by the spectators: so that the punishment, instead of being disgraceful to him, was an insult upon the law. Another case applicable to the point was that of Daniel Isaac Eaton. He had been put in the pillory for a very serious offence, that of endeavouring to throw contempt and ridicule on the fundamental principles of the Christian religion; and as an example to the prisoners, he presumed, he was pilloried opposite to Newgate gaol: but the crowd, probably from some mistake as to the nature of his offence, applauded him. In this case, too, the punishment was far more lenient than the judges intended. In other cases it Was more severe; for instance, when the punishment of the pillory was inflicted for offences which had a tendency to exasperate the feelings of the populace, such as the attempting to commit an unnatural and horrible crime. Neither the law nor the judge intended that this crime, abominable as it was, should be punished with death, and yet such was frequently the result. The death, too, which such criminals sometimes met with was more severe than the punishment of death when inflicted in the ordinary way. He himself had witnessed an instance of this in 1780. A person was pilloried in South-wark for an unnatural crime, and the criminal was so treated by the mob that he actually died the moment he was taken from the machine. Judge Eyre, in a case where one had by perjury attempted to swear away another person's life, had refrained from inflicting the punishment of the pillory, on the very ground that the punishment might in reality be different from what the Court intended. It might be said, however, that it was too late in the session to go into the subject, because no other punishment was proposed by this Bill to be substituted in those cases where that of the pillory was to be abolished. But he saw no great inconvenience in abolishing the punishment of the pillory at present, and leaving the offences in which it had been usually inflicted to the punishment by fine and imprisonment, till some additional regulations should be framed in a subsequent session. He therefore submitted that the Bill ought to proceed even in this session, and moved that it be now committed.
Lord Ellenboroughfelt some pain in addressing their lordships on this subject, differing as he did, in some particulars,
[1124
from the noble earl who had just sat down. As for himself, he certainly had no particular attachment to this method of punishment; but, for the sake of the public, he was bound openly and plainly to state his opinion to their lordships. He had lived in habits of friendship with the very worthy person who had introduced this Bill, and had no doubt it was introduced from the best and purest motives; but the Bill was certainly defective even in his own view of the subject; for if the punishment were to be abolished, it would be requisite at the same time to substitute some other punishment in its place. This the Bill had not done. He could not admit, however, that the punishment ought to be altogether abolished, because there were several offences to which it was more applicable than any other that could be found. With respect to the inequality and uncertainty of which the noble earl had spoken, the objection might be in some degree applied to all other punishments, unless the officers of the law entrusted with the execution did their duty. In the case, of Dr. Shebbeare, the sheriffs had not done their duty. They had held an umbrella over his head, as staled by the noble earl, and he believed that a servant stood near, and supplied him with refreshments; and, indeed, the sheriffs had so far betrayed their trust, that he was not properly put into the pillory at all. But then the sheriff was afterwards punished by fine and imprisonment. Daniel Isaac Eaton, who had before been known as an offender, was pilloried opposite to Newgate for a vile and blasphemous attempt to ridicule the nativity of our Saviour, of which, as well as other fundamental doctrines of our religion, he spoke in a manner shocking to every pious and well-disposed mind. The reason, however, for ordering him to be pilloried opposite Newgate, was not exactly that stated by the noble earl. The Court thought that this was an offence which would excite the popular indignation, and they ordered him to be pilloried, in that place, that in case life should be, endangered, he might be hurried into Newgate and protected. It was true, that during his exposure some of the spectators were said to have applauded; but was it difficult in such a case to surround the, pillory with persons of the same description, in order to alleviate the sense of his disgrace? Even if a person were so totally degraded as not to feel the disgrace of this exposure in his own person, the ex-

1125]
ample would be salutary in its effect on others. Then, as to the punishment being more severe than was intended, the officer was empowered to see to the proper execution of the sentence, and arm himself with the whole force of the posse comitatus for that purpose, if necessary; but it was no good argument against the punishment, to say that it was not properly executed; if not, that was the fault of the officers who had the charge of the execution; and such officers might, by possibility, betray their trust with respect to other punishments as well as this. This punishment was as old as 1209. The old historians spoke of it, and of the care which was necessary in the officer to prevent its exceeding the just measure. The criminal was to be punished by disgrace and exposure, 'salvis tamen membris et vita.' The punishment was not confined to this country. Du Cange spoke of it as existing on the Continent, the offender being exposed ludibrio omnium. Considering that the punishment had existed so long, and that no regulation was made for the substitution of another punishment, he could not agree to the passing this Bill. He was adverse, at any rate, to this sweeping abolition, though he admitted, that in the instance mentioned by the noble earl, where it might be inflicted on a person because he was not able to pay 20 s., and in some other instances, it might be abolished: but in cases or perjury and fraud, and in some others, the punishment was particularly suited to the offence, and ought to be preserved. The subject could not, however, be sufficiently considered this session. He himself had never inflicted the punishment when alone on the circuit, except in one instance, where he had ordered two persons to be put in the pillory, for having taken a bribe for assisting in the escape of French prisoners; an offence which the Legislature soon after made felony, punishable by transportation. In former times—he did not allude to times of peculiar severity, but even since the reign of George the First—the punishment had been inflicted in three cases for one in which it was now inflicted. It had been usual, too, to send the offenders round the courts with labels on their foreheads, specifying their offence, and then to pillory them two or three times. The practice was milder at present, from an attention to some peculiarities in the times, which judges applied in the exercise of a
[1126
sound discretion. He moved, that the Bill be committed this day two months.
The Lord Chancellorwas of opinion that there were offences with respect to which it would be unwise to abolish the punishment of the pillory; for instance, cases of perjury and fraud, or cheating, and especially in cases of mixed fraud and perjury. Cases might arise where persons might attempt to defend themselves against a conviction for fraud of which they had been guilty, by perjury or subornation of perjury. In such a case he himself would have concurred in the infliction of the punishment of the pillory, even where he might be disposed not to inflict it where the ingredient of perjury or subornation of perjury might be wanting. But the best mode of proceeding would be, to desire the Judges in another session to prepare a Bill on this subject, pointing out the cases where, according to their experience, the punishment of the pillory was proper, and the cases to which, though at present applicable, it was not suited. This plan had been pursued with regard to the Revenue laws, where those which inflicted the punishment of death were distinguished from those which did not.
The Earl of Liverpoolhighly approved of the suggestion of his noble and learned friend upon the woolsack, to refer the subject to the Judges, who could draw up a Bill, and state also their opinions as to the cases in which the punishment in question might be abolished, and the cases in which it could beneficially be retained. And then, though the House would not be bound by the opinion of the Judges, it would be the better able to decide as to the punishment itself, inasmuch as it might practically be rendered a severer, or a more lenient one than was intended. He thought it an objectionable one; but when he found it so long established by law, he was bound to consider the inconveniences that might result from its sudden abolition. There were some cases, perjury for instance, for which he thought the punishment the most proper of any yet suggested; and they should be cautious how they did away a necessary punishment for certain offences, until others equally proper or more adequate were found; and one of the most efficacious ways of proving this, he thought would be the expedient of referring the subject to the consideration of the learned Judges.
Earl Stanhopeobjected to the pillory, because it was a punishment so likely to be unequal in its operation: for instance, if the noble Secretary and himself were sentenced to the pillory for libels, especially on the discussion of the Corn Bill, his apprehension was that the noble Secretary would have been confoundedly pelted, while he (lord S.) would have escaped any ill treatment from the public.
The Marquis of Douglasexpressed his surprise, as noble lords seemed generally agreed as to the principle of the Bill, that they should vary when they came to the application of that principle.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that it was a great satisfaction to him to see the calm and dispassionate mode in which the subject had been discussed; and he was sure the amiable mind of his learned friend (Mr. M. A. Taylor) would be highly gratified to find that there was such a disposition to improve the criminal law in this particular at a future period, though it was not thought proper to pass this Bill in the present session. It would be in vain for him, therefore, to press it any further at present.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed that day two months.