Sitting of 1 June 1815

COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF THE LAW RESPECTING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire into the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. The hon. and learned gentleman, said he made this motion in consequence of the fate of a Bill upon this subject which had passed through that House in the most unanimous manner, but the second reading of which was postponed for six months in the House of Lords, the Bill being thereby virtually rejected. The object which he had in view, in introducing the Bill originally, was to correct

567]
certain defects which he conceived to exist in the law respecting writs of Habeas Corpus, as it at present existed. The principal defect to which he alluded was the fact, that this most salutary law was, except during the sittings of the Courts at Westminster, wholly nugatory; persons who might be unjustly held in confinement, at any other period, having no means of redress. Many instances of hardship were upon record, in which individuals had suffered from this circumstance, and it was for the purpose of having these occurrences investigated by Parliament, so that a proper remedy might be suggested, that he submitted his present motion. He conceived that some provision might be made, by which the Judges, during every part of the year, whether in term or not, should have the power of deciding upon cases in which persons complained of undue imprisonment: in all matters in which the liberty of the subject was at all concerned, he thought it was the duty of Parliament to he most jealous. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That Select Committee be appointed to consider of the state of the Law respecting the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, and to, report their opinion thereon to the House."
The question having been put from the Chair,
The Attorney Generalsaid, he should not oppose the motion of his hon. and learned friend; but he could not help expressing a doubt of the practicability of carrying the suggestion which he had thrown out into effect. He conceived that apprehensions would be entertained without doors, if such a plan were adopted, that it was intended to give to the Judges a power of too extended a nature. Indeed, he could not help thinking, that such an inference would not be very far short of the truth; for if the functions of the Judges were so enlarged, it would be giving to one judge the power of trying and deciding upon a cause, unrestrained by any higher authority. It was true, that now and then a case of injustice, or of undue imprisonment, might arise under the law as it was at present constituted; but then the parties aggrieved were not without a remedy. If it were possible to improve the law upon this subject, he should be most happy in landing his assistance to promote such an end. He saw the difficulties, however, which lay in the way; and al-
[568
though he felt no disposition to oppose his hon. and learned friend's motion, he thought it incumbent on him to state, that there were grave grounds of difficulty existing.
Mr. Wynnthought this was a subject which called for the serious attention of Parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last seemed to have insinuated, that no very many instances had occurred, in which the law as it existed had been attended with ill consequences. If, however, no instance of the sort had ever occurred, and the possibility of the liberty of the subject being infringed only existed, he thought that bare possibility would be sufficient to call upon the House of Commons to take such measures as would obviate such a chance. It had been said in another place, with reference to the Bill which had already passed the House upon this subject, that the House of Commons was not entitled to much respect with reference to any act of legislation upon such subjects; and that the Bill could not be considered as a well-digested measure. He would abstain from making any comment upon this language, if it had been used, and would only observe, that it reflected disgrace not on the House of Commons, but on the person who had brought forward an objection of such a nature.
The motion was then agreed to, and a committee appointed accordingly.

BATHING IN THE THAMES.
Mr. Wynn, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for repealing a clause in the Thames Police Act prohibiting persons from bathing in the river Thames, from the East India Docks to Battersea-bridge, after the hour of seven, o'clock in the morning, and before the close of day. He observed that, upon reading over the Bill in question, he was never so much surprised as in meeting this clause, for, from the code of the Bill, it appeared to be an Act "for the more effectual prevention of depredations on the river Thames." There was not one word stated about bathing, nor did he believe the House in general were at all aware that it contained such a clause as that to which he referred. This Bill was introduced to the House on the 21st of July last, at the close of the session; it had never been printed, and, in fact, its contents were little, if at all known. The clause in question, and which he trusted

569]
the House would agree with him in repealing, gave to the magistrates appointed to superintend the police of the Thames, a power to issue notices, forbidding persons to bathe within the hours and the district which he had mentioned, and to fine any individuals who should be found offending against such orders. He apprehended, that by the common law of the land, any indecent exposure of a man's person, whether on land or water, was a punishable offence; and consequently it was not necessary, merely for the purpose of preventing such a practice, that any new law should be enacted. He knew not, indeed, upon what principle the House could be called upon to deprive the community at large of a comfort, which he considered bathing to be, so long as it could be enjoyed without inconvenience to the public. The practice was, in fact, in this great metropolis, essential to the preservation of health; and for his own part, he felt more satisfaction in witnessing such amusements than in any other, because the persons who were participating in them, were attaining a knowledge which might operate not alone as a safeguard against danger to themselves, but as a safeguard for the lives of their fellow-citizens, who might not have acquired the same art. He would ask, were the Westminster boys, who had hitherto enjoyed this recreation without comment, and who were to be seen throughout the summer stripping on the banks of the Thames, to be stopped all at once from this source of health? In foreign countries, so important was the art of swimming considered, that schools were established for its encouragement; and its usefulness was so manifest, that any gentleman who for one moment considered the subject, would, he was sure, agree with him in thinking the clause in question, which had nothing in the world to do with the Bill into which it had been introduced, ought to be repealed. It appeared to him that this was one of those melancholy evils which resulted from an itch for legislating which prevailed in the subordinate offices of the State. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Thames Police Act as relates to the Bathing in the Thames."
Mr. Addingtonsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the motion; but he begged leave to say a few words, explaining the reason upon which the clause had
[570
been introduced into the Bill. Several applications had, from time to time, been made to the office in which he had the honour to act, by persons in a most respectable rank in life, complaining of this custom of bathing having lately been carried on in divers parts of the river side to such a height, that it had become an absolute nuisance and annoyance not only to their individual families, but to the public. These applications had induced him to give a sanction to the clause, not to prohibit bathing, as the hon. gentleman had represented, but to give discretionary power to magistrates to punish indecency, carried to the height which had been complained of, by giving notice that in any places where persons were guilty of a nuisance in the act of bathing, they would be punished. He did not, however, object to the motion.
Mr. Wynnsaid the notices were general, and extended from Blackwall to Battersea.
Sir John Newportobjected to arming the magistrates of the city with such a power as the present law gave them. He knew not why persons were to be deprived of the exercise of an amusement so salutary as that which had been alluded to by his hon. friend, and had only to lament that the Bill in question had been introduced into the House at such a period of the session as deprived the members of the opportunity of giving it due consideration.
Mr. Harveysaid, he would not oppose, the motion in its present stage; but as he lived in the neighbourhood of the Thames, he had an opportunity of witnessing the disgraceful scenes which were presented to the public, and which, in his estimation, loudly called for the interference of the Legislature. Some measure was certainly necessary to correct this evil; and he trusted, if the hon. gentleman proposed to repeal one clause, he would suggest another, which would at least secure the public from a repetition of the nuisance to which he had alluded.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

AMERICAN SLAVES.
Mr. Hornersaid, that during the progress of the negociations at Ghent, he had put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of learning from him what information was possessed by Government on the subject of certain allegations made by the Government of the United States, respecting the mode in which the war had been conducted in America. It had been

571]
publicly stated, that we had by proclamation tempted the slaves to run away from their masters; and that after they had sought the protection of the British forces, we had sold them again as slaves. The right hon. gentleman had stated at the time his conviction that there was no foundation whatever for the statement, but that he would immediately set on foot an inquiry into the subject. He was extremely anxious that this matter should be cleared up. It had not only been asserted in a message to Congress, by the American Secretary of State, but it was also said that the documents on which the statement rested had been sent to the commissioners at Ghent, for the purpose of being communicated, if necessary, to the commissioners of this country. He should be happy if ministers could now give a denial to the whole of the charge.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that immediately after this charge was made known to him, he had addressed a note to the American plenipotentiaries, requesting them, as the abolition of the Slave-trade was a point on which they were equally interested with this country, to communicate the evidence of which they were in possession, that it might be in our power to bring our officers, if guilty, to punishment. It did so happen that the American ministers did not think themselves justified in communicating the information with which they were famished. But at the same time, in a conversation with one of the gentlemen, he had expressed his willingness to furnish him (Mr. Goulburn) with the information on which the charge was founded; and he had the satisfaction of learning, that it rested on the affidavit of a single individual, who swore that he knew of a slave having been carried in an English ship of war into the Bahamas, whom he saw afterwards sold to an individual there; and that he had heard that this was a constant practice. As this affidavit contained the name of the individual to whom the slave was alleged to have been sold, and other particulars, it became an easy matter to ascertain the truth of the charge; and instructions had immediately been sent to the governor of the Bahamas, to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. An answer had not yet been received, though they were hi daily expectation of one; but before the House should separate, he expected to have it in his power to satisfy them on this subject.
Mr. Hornerexpressed himself satisfied with the course of conduct which had been pursued. It gave him the sincerest pleasure to learn that a charge of so serious a nature, a fleeting the character of the army and the country, rested on so slight a foundation.

NEW POST-OFFICE BILL.
Sir James Shawappeared at the bar with the report of the Post-office Bill, which he was proceeding to bring up, when the Speaker informed him that the question was not yet put.
Mr. Atkins Wrightsaid, he should object to this report being received at all. He could not consent to impose any additional burthens on the public, unless there was an absolute necessity for such a proceeding; and as he was not satisfied that the erection of a new Post-office was indispensable, he should oppose the appropriation of the public money to such an object. The business of the Post-office was at present carried on with the greatest degree of celerity; and for his own part, he saw no necessity for alteration. It was possible, that advantageous alterations might be made, but those ought to be postponed to a convenient season.
Mr. W. Smithobjected to the situation in which it was proposed to place the new Post-office, as it would be in the way of the greatest improvement that could be made in the metropolis, that of making a street strait from Blackfriars-bridge (by removing Fleet-market) to the northern road. He could not approve of expending 200,000 l. on a new Post-office, while Somerset-house remained in an unfinished state. If the works there were completed, he thought it possible room might be found for the Post-office. Some alteration in the Post-office, he admitted, ought to be made.
Mr. Barclayopposed the bringing up the Report, from an unwillingness to vote away the public money, on works of mere ornament or magnificence, whilst the country was burthened with such heavy impositions. To erect such a building as that proposed in the centre of a suffering population, would carry, in his opinion, the appearance of an insult on the difficult circumstances to which an unavoidable war had reduced them. He had heard of the liberality of the City, but he confessed he could see very little of it in this affair.
Mr. Alderman Atkinsdefended the pro-

573]
posed improvement, and the manner in which part of the expense was to be met by the city of London.
Mr. Gordonsaid, the sum offered by the city of London was a delusion. In point of fact, the city would not pay more than 12,000 l. towards the undertaking, while they threw a considerable burthen on the neighbouring counties.
Mr. Protheroethought the improvement contemplated the most economical plan that could be acted upon.
Mr. Bankeslamented that it had been deemed necessary to introduce this Bill at the present moment, when the nation was so heavily burthened. At any rate be thought the House was not yet sufficiently informed upon the subject, and that it ought to be postponed until next year. He believed that a trifling addition to the present Post-office would be quite adequate for the present purposes. He adverted to several unnecessary expenses in public buildings, particularly at the Transport-office in Cannon-row, which was ornamented by a colonade of Ionic pillars and a basement story of Portland stone. The Mint, also, after 300,000 l. had been expended on it, and eighteen private houses erected within its walls, it appeared, wanted a still further sum to increase its public offices. From thus considering the expenditure of the country, he felt a decided objection to the adoption of a measure like the present, which at all events he thought it would be well to postpone. With this view he would propose as an amendment, "That the Report be received that day three months."
Mr. Lockhartsupported the amendment, on the grounds, that the pressure of the times required a strict attention to public economy. Besides, if means were necessary for a purpose of great local improvement, why not draw them from some of those great city funds, the application of which had been, from a variety of causes, diverted from the original intention of the donors? For instance, large sums were appropriated for the redemption of Christian captives in Algiers, and he had not of late years heard that any such persons had been so released. If a liberal contribution were called for, why not afford it from some part of this local purse, which would be particularly augmented by the adoption of the measure, instead of drawing it from the public, under the present state of the country?
Mr. Holme Sumnerwas of opinion, that
[574
if a new post-office must be erected, there could be no better spot chosen than Somerset-house, in which case that building could be put in a state of architectural completion. Much had been said of the unwholesome nature of the situations in which the present office was compelled to transact its business; and yet when Mr. Freeling was examined upon this point, he admitted that no argument in favour of the alteration could be drawn from the existing state of health of those who were employed in the various departments. The hon. member then took a review of the proceedings of the city of London, when they caused the London-bridge toll to be taken from their own backs, and placed on those of their neighbours, and maintained, that at a moment when five million of subsidy was about to be transmitted for the common defence of the country, such a principle of local taxation as that which the present measure imposed, ought not to be admitted. Nearly 1,000,000 l. had already been drawn from the public for such purposes; there was 500,000 l. for new streets 3 or 400,000 l. for this post-office, 35,000 l. for a penitentiary-house, and 30,000 l. for the colonade in Cannon-row. The aggregate of these sums would be sufficient for a two-months subsidy at least, and there were moments when the ready payment of such a sum would probably terminate a campaign, which otherwise would be incomplete. He was therefore decidedly hostile to the measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if he had thought it possible to save the money that would be expended in the erection of a new post-office, in his responsible situation he should have been most anxious to do so; but after the fullest inquiry, and the most patient examination of witnesses, he had been reluctantly compelled to decide in favour of the measure. The sum expended on this post-office would repay itself in a very short time, and there seemed a great probability, that by the arrangements which the new building would facilitate, an increase in the revenue of 50,000 l. would, at no great distance of time, take place. On the ground of public economy, therefore, the measure was justified. As to the application of the local fund at the disposal of the city of London, it was but fair that the local improvement should be paid for out of the local fund. The public, who would receive the greatest benefit, would contribute the largest share, and

575]
the city of London would contribute that proportion which was a fair compensation for the benefit it would receive from the improvement in point of convenience and appearance, from opening an avenue in that part of the town where the office was to be built. A further delay would much enhance the expense of purchasing the site, and the public would pay at a most ruinous rate of interest for the saving which might be occasioned by that delay. An objection had been made lo the application of money from the Orphans' Fund; but that fund, whatever was its origin, was at present to be regarded in no other light than any other local fund; many of the same nature existed in the ports of the kingdom: the duty by which it was supplied, sixpence on the chaldron of coals brought into the port of London, was scarcely felt: a proof of which was, that no one had experienced any benefit from the repeal of the war-duty to a much larger amount, viz. 3s. a chaldron. As the post-office must be rebuilt, and as no equally good situation could be found, he thought the House had strong reasons for agreeing to the Report.
Mr. Rosesaid, that in the opinion which be gave, he was entirely guided by the previous recommendation of the committees which had sat on the subject. If the present post-office was decided to be inadequate for its uses, the balance of expense between its enlargement and the erection of a new one, was, in his opinion, in favour of the latter, from the many advantages which it embraced.
Mr. Brownedefended the decision of both committees, which had fully entered upon every consideration relative to this question, although they had heard every thing which was pertinaciously urged in opposition by the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Sumner), and also by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), who he supposed had altered his opinion on the subject, as he no longer persevered in his opposition.
The House divided, when the numbers were:—For receiving the Report, 56; Against it, 16:—Majority 40. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Report was ordered to be received on Monday next. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee of supply. In the committee, the right hon. gentleman moved, "That a sum, not exceeding 240,000 l. be
[576
advanced from time to time out of the revenue of the Post-office of Great Britain, for defraying the expense of providing a site for a new Post-office, and making proper avenues thereto; one third, part whereof shall be repaid to the said revenue from the Orphans' Fund."
Mr. Gordonobserved, that some delusion must have been practised on the House, as it was understood that the whole expense to the public, both for the purchase of the ground and the erection of the building, was to be 240,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that there was a deduction made in the estimate on account of the value of the present Post-office materials, and the ground on which it stood.
Mr. H. Sumnerthought it should be distinctly understood, before the House voted a large sum for clearing the ground, what was to be the building to be erected on it. No plan had been before the committee of the upper stories of the building; and he much suspected that those parts would be occupied with apartments for the officers, which, besides being an indirect increase of their salaries, would by augmenting the number of residents increase the danger of fire.
Mr. Grenfellread a part of the Report, which distinctly stated that the whole expense to the public would be only 240,000 l. both for the site and building of the new Post-office.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that such would be the amount (it was true) of the ultimate expense; but in the mean time the purchase-money must be provided, which would be reduced by the re-sale of part of the ground, by the contribution from the Orphans' Fund, and the value of the old Post-office.
Mr. Gordonurged the propriety of building the Post-office at Somerset-house, where there was sufficient ground already in the hands of Government.
Mr. Wrottesleythought the space vacant at Somerset-house would be quite inadequate to the extent of the building required.
Mr. H. Sumner, on the ground that the sum of 240,000 l. would not be required till the exact extent of the building to be erected was determined on, proposed an amendment, that the sum of 100,000 l. be voted for the purpose above mentioned.
Mr. Butterworthobserved, that the sum of 240,000 l. would be paid, not all at once, but by instalments.

577]
After a few words from Mr. Pole Carew, Mr. H. Sumner, and Mr. P. Grenfell, the amendment was negatived, and the original grant was carried.
The Chancellor of the Exchequernext proposed, that the parish in which the new Post-office is to be erected shall be compensated out of the revenue of the Post-office, for the diminution of parochial and ether rates, for paving, lighting, &c. which may be occasioned by the houses to be pulled down.
This proposition was opposed by Messrs. Calvert, Gordon, Sumner, Grenfell, and sir M. Wood, on these ground:—that no estimate of the amount of the proposed compensation was presented; that in fact no indemnity was due for poor's-rates, because as the houses were to be taken down, if the amount of the poor's-rates were reduced, there would be also a proportionally diminished claim upon those poor's-rates in consequence of the reduced population; and also that there was no precedent for such claims; nothing of the kind having been ever suggested in Westminster, upon the removal of so many streets to make room for the recent improvements.—The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued on the other side, that it would be unfair to allow the funds of a particular district to suffer a severe loss, by the creation of an establishment for the public good, and that there was a precedent for this proposition in the case of the new gaol of the City.—A division took place: For the motion, 52; Against it, 21: Majority, 31.

CHAPEL EXEMPTION BILL.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill "to exempt churches, chapels, and other places of religious worship from parochial rates," was recommitted.
Mr. Wrottesleysaid, it was his intention to propose a clause, that no chapels which should be built hereafter, should be exempted from the payment of parochial rates, unless in every chapel a certain number of free seats were provided, proportioned to the size of the chapel.
General Thorntonwas extremely averse to giving patronage to dissenters: he considered that the Bill would be injurious both to Church and State. He then moved to leave out the words 'meeting-houses,' and to insert in their stead, 'chapels according to the established religion.'
Mr. H. Martinbegged to know whether the hon. general meant that chapels not
[578
conforming to the established religion, should be subject to the payment of poor-rates?
General Thorntonsaid, he objected to the principle of the Bill, and would oppose it in every stage. He had a great dislike to the levelling system, and thought it improper to throw additional rates on parishes. The Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped it was not a measure of administration. He was not for giving such encouragement to dissenters, by making the persons of the established church pay for the rates of meeting-houses. It would be much better to throw them on the public.
Mr. Martinsaid, that if such were the sentiments of the hon. general, he ought to have opposed the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowobserved, that there never was an amendment more hostile to the principles of a Bill. He perfectly agreed with the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thanked him for bringing the Bill forward. If the hon. general meant to make the Bill ridiculous, he was perfectly right in proposing his amendment; but he hoped he would stand single.
Mr. Protheroesupported the Bill, as he thought it would remove a very galling distinction now subsisting between two classes of the community.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdefended the introduction of the Bill as relieving a number of meritorious individuals from considerable vexations, and by no means infringing upon any parochial privileged. At the same time he did not wish to be considered as giving any other weight to the measure than what it might justly derive from its own merits.
Mr. Davies Giddyconsidered the Bill a matter of conciliation, and that it ought to be adopted. He observed, that the rates arising from places of worship were inconsiderable.
General Thorntonstated, that in one parish, that of St. George's, Hanover-square, the amount was 151 l. 18 s. 4d. He did not at all desire to infringe on the Toleration Act, but he thought this Bill extremely injurious to the established religion.
Mr. Bankesobserved, that as many chapels were built in the west end of the town, on speculation, and for the sake of profit, it was perfectly just to compel the payment of rates. If those parochial rates were not enforced, it would be putting so much the

579]
more money in the pockets of the proprietors. He thought that the clause to be introduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wrottesley) respecting free seats, should not be prospective only, but also retrospective.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowwas a strong friend to the Established Church, but he could not look on this Bill in the light in which some gentlemen had viewed it. As to free seats, he perfectly agreed with the clause which the hon. member was about to propose.
General Thornton's amendment was then put, and rejected. Mr. Wrottesley then brought up his clause, which was carried. General Thornton next moved, that the words 'or for the gratuitous instruction of the poor,' should be omitted. After a few words from the Chancellor bf the Exchequer, Mr. Martin, and general Thornton, the motion was put, and negatived. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.

FOREIGN SOLDIERS ENLISTMENT BILL.
—The order of the day being read, for taking into further consideration the Report from the Committee of the whole House, on the Bill "to continue two Acts of his present Majesty, for enabling Subjects of Foreign States to enlist and serve as Soldiers in his Majesty's service, and to enable his Majesty to grant Commissions to Subjects of Foreign States to serve as Officers, under certain restrictions,"
Lord Folkestoneobserved, that the present Bill was one of the most serious importance, considered in a constitutional point of view, as its object was to admit 16,000 foreign soldiers, commanded by foreign officers, into the kingdom. The Bill likewise differed from the former, inasmuch as the present authorized the introduction of such a force during any war, while the former limited it to that during which it had been enacted. But, not satisfied with admitting those foreigners into the kingdom, to enjoy rank within their immediate corps, the Government had given them commissions in the English army, and had advanced them to the rank of generals commanding brigades and districts. On what principle was it, that while Englishmen of rank and fortune were prevented by the rules of the service from arriving so suddenly at the head of the army, these foreigners should be exempt from their operation; and, having entered
[580
the service as lieutenant-colonels, be advanced to the rank of generals? At the commencement of the French Revolution, private persons were permitted to raise regiments, in which they held the temporary rank of colonels, but were at the same time precluded from the possibility of promotion, in consequence of the nature of their commissions. Among others he noticed lords Uxbridge, Craven, and Lynedock, each of whom was compelled to resign his temporary commission, entering the service de novo, and passing through the regular gradations, in order to obtain the capability they before wanted. From this necessity the German officers were exempted, while our own were compelled to submit. Sixteen Germans were now generals in our service, which he conceived a great hardship to British officers. On the late regulations with regard to the Order of the Bath, ten Grand Crosses were reserved for foreign officers in our service. The present Bill he conceived to be contrary to the Act of Settlement, and he would therefore move, "That the Report be taken into consideration that day three months."
Lord Palmerstonthought the House would hardly entertain the noble lord's proposition, which went to cut off 20,000 men from our army, at the very moment when the country was again at war. As to the other observations of the noble lord, it would be very hard if the German officers in our service were to lose that rank in peace, which they had merited by their conduct in war.
Mr. H. Martinthought it rather alarming for the House to hear, that at no period, even of peace, these foreign officers would cease to belong to the British army.
Lord Palmerstonexplained, that all that was meant by this Bill, was to continue the services of German officers, as we were now at war. The Act was limited to the return of peace.
Lord Folkestone'smotion was then put, and negatived. Several clauses were introduced into the Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

FOREIGN SLAVE-TRADE BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdownemoved the second reading of the Foreign Slave-trade Bill. He did not anticipate any opposition to the motion; but conceiving it to be the duty of those who moved the second reading of a bill to state its general nature and object, he should do so in the present instance, as shortly as he could. It had unfortunately happened that since the abolition of the Slave-trade in this country, the Slave-trade of foreign nations had been carried on in a great measure by means of British capital, and the penalties imposed by the act of 1806 had been found insufficient to check that practice. By this advance of capital, a slave might be purchased in Africa, carried to the West Indies, and landed in the islands, where the importation of slaves was permitted, for about 25 l. In the British West India islands, where no such importation was permitted, the price of a slave was 100 l. The profits of capital employed in the cultivation of the islands was about 10 l. per cent., and there was a temptation to employ it in this prohibited slave traffic of about 40 l. per cent. The consequence was, that a great deal of British capital was so employed; and the object of this Bill was to check that practice, which contributed so materially to the preservation and extent of that nefarious commerce. Unless a measure of this kind were adopted, the former provisions of the Legislature would be rendered in a great degree nugatory, as a person who still wished to carry on the Slave-trade might do so under another name. If he were to go into minor considerations on a subject of this magnitude, he might say, that it was certainly the interest of this country, and especially of the West India proprietors, that this Bill should pass; for the facility of introducing slaves into the foreign islands, and the procuring at a rate so comparatively cheap, would enable them to enter into a ruinous competition with our own West India islands. Such was the object of the Bill, and these were the grounds on which he moved the second reading. If any amendments in the detail should appear necessary, they might be suggested in the committee.
The Earl of Westmorelandhad no objection to the principle of the Bill, but he was alarmed at the extent to which it
[558
would go. An innocent West India merchant lending his money to one who, without his knowledge or participation, might employ it in this traffic, might be subjected to punishment, and therefore some caution ought to be used in that respect. Then, again, a person might be tried at any of the colonies by a commission, and found guilty of felony, without the verdict of a jury. The noble marquis, who was so much a friend to the liberty of the subject, ought hardly to support such a proposition. For his own part, he was alarmed that British subjects should in this way be made liable to such a severe punishment. They might be tried at Sierra Leone, where an unfortunate case of this kind had lately occurred.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that the object was to render the persons employing their capital, or consenting to have it employed in this traffic, guilty of felony; but he was not aware that the provisions of the Bill would at all compromise innocent persons, and, as the West India interest was much more fully represented in the other House, he had no doubt their case had been attended to. As to the trials in the colonies, the object was to place this on the footing of piracy, which certainly might be tried in all the jurisdictions of the country; and as to what the noble earl called the unfortunate case at Sierra Leone, there was no doubt that the persons to whom he alluded were really guilty; but the sentence against them had been reversed from the want of a formal document, or an irregularity in point of form of some description. The execution of the law and the appointment of the officers rested with the ministers; and if they appointed ignorant persons to those situations, the blame rested with them. If any objection in the detail occurred to the noble earl, the best time to state and amend it would be in the committee.
The Bill was then read a second time, and committed for Monday.

ROSEBERRY DIVORCE BILL.
The Marquis of Lansdownemoved, that the report of the earl of Roseberry's Divorce Bill be received.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose for the purpose of moving the rejection of all those amendments, which went to annul the marriage settlement, and also that clause of the Bill by which the offending parties were prevented from contracting

559]
a legal marriage. Before he stated his reasons he was anxious to say, that no one could have a higher respect than he had for the noble earl in whose favour this Bill had been introduced; and he was far from contending that this case was not, in some respects, one of great atrocity. It had been settled as the law of England, that a divorce à mensa et thoro did not enable the parties to marry again. The husband, therefore, came to this House asking a boon from their lordships, the privilege of marrying again, which the law did not give him: but this Bill not only gave him what he asked, but also relieved him from the marriage settlement. Now the settlement was a civil contract entered into with the wife and her friends for her benefit, and could not at law be impeached on account of the adultery of the wife. Why, then, should their lordships, because the husband solicited one advantage, give him another? He had heard the highest legal authorities declare in that House, that these contracts ought not to be interfered with, and he knew of no principle upon which the Legislature could justify such interference, where the object was merely to enable the husband to marry again; and there was in effect this injustice in the case, that while a husband might have this advantage against an offending wife, the wife could have no such advantage against an offending husband. This Bill, though its avowed object was to give the husband the power to marry again, was, in effect, by the destruction of the settlement, a bill of pains and penalties against the wife, and that without any evidence to justify the infliction. Their lordships had had lately before them a Bill for disfranchising the electors of a certain borough; and it was held that a bill of that description was one of pains and penalties, and a bill which ought not to be passed without such proof as the House required with respect to bills of that nature in other cases. This, too, was a bill of pains and penalties, as far as concerned the annulling of the settlement; and their lordships ought not to adopt that part of it without similar precautions. In the preamble of the Bill, it was at first stated that the lady by her crime had forfeited all right and title to the provision under her marriage settlement. That proposition, he believed would now be admitted to have been false in law; and accordingly the Bill had been in that particular amended:
[560
but if it was false in law, he could not perceive upon what principle the House could agree to allow that part of the Bill to stand which did in fact provide for such a forfeiture. As to the clause prohibiting the intermarriage of the offending parties, that was founded upon a standing order of this House, that it would pass no divorce bill without such a clause. His first objection to that clause was, that it was not conformable to the standing order; for it only provided that such marriage, if contracted, should be adjudged and held to be illegal. If the marriage was only to be adjudged illegal, he presumed that it must remain legal till otherwise declared by the sentence of a judge. The standing order was, that such marriages should be illegal by the Act without any sentence of a judge. [The Marquis of Lansdowne said, the Bill has been amended in that respect, and such a marriage declared to be illegal.] He understood that the clause had been amended in this particular, and made consonant to the standing Order. Why, then, his first objection to the clause in that view was, that it was unnecessary, because it only did that which the law already did, provided any one member of the community chose to enforce it; and if it was of consequence that no such marriage should be allowed to remain valid, some individual would, in all probability, apply to the proper tribunal to have the marriage declared illegal; and it would be better to leave it to the ordinary tribunals to deal with these matters than to interfere in this way. His next objection was, that the insertion of this clause might endanger the fate of the Bill. Their lordships were aware that a general measure had been suggested, and had received the assent of that House, to render such marriages illegal in all cases: but that general measure had been rejected in the other House. Then the standing order was adopted in that House, that it would pass no bill without such a clause: but that had already, in several cases, been dispensed with, and ought to be dispensed with in the present, rather than expose the noble earl to the loss of his remedy by the rejection of the Bill altogether. The adoption of the standing order in question, under the circumstances which he had stated, would make it appear to the other House somewhat like an attempt to legislate by the authority of this House only; and the insertion of such clauses would therefore be regarded with peculiar

561]
jealousy. If it was fit that these marriages should be declared invalid, it ought to be done by a general measure, passed with the approbation of both Houses. These were the reasons which induced him, in the discharge of what he conceived to be his duty, to move, that the clauses annulling the settlement and declaring any marriage of the parties illegal should be left out.
Lord Granvillesaid, that he was very far from agreeing with his noble friend, that the only object of the Bill was to enable the injured husband to marry again. The object was completely to dissolve the marriage, and consequently all contracts depending upon it. The difficulty was, when the marriage between the parties was to be dissolved, to find a principle upon which the settlement could be supported. The settlement was a contract made in contemplation of the marriage, and of its continuance; and when, by the misconduct of the wife, the contract was broken, he could not well conceive upon what principle the settlement, which was made solely for the purposes and upon the foundation of the marriage, could be allowed to stand. The effect would be, with respect to the injured husband, to leave his estate burthened with the obligations of a contract which his wife had chosen to put an end to. It was even difficult under such circumstances to find a principle upon which to found the alimony which this Bill provided for the wife; for as the marriage was to be dissolved, on account of the misconduct of the wife, it did not immediately appear on what ground the husband was to be subjected even to this burthen. He totally disagreed with his noble friend, therefore, on the subject of the clauses annulling the settlement. As the marriage was to be dissolved, every contract which was founded upon it, and made in the contemplation of its remaining unbroken, ought also to fall. Then, his noble friend objected to the clause by which any intermarriage between the offending parties was declared illegal, and the objections rested on two grounds—1st, That this was only doing what the law already did, if any one chose to enforce it; and 2nd, That even the remedy given to the injured husband, by enabling him to marry again, would be endangered by the insertion of such a clause. Before he addressed himself particularly to these objections he could not help observing generally, that in his opinion it was much to be regretted that in these cases the
[562
remedy must be sought by application to Parliament in each individual case. It would be much better, as he thought, that a general law should be established in this as in all other cases, by which the parties would be enabled to see the whole consequences which must follow from their actions, and that this law should be administered in the ordinary way by the Judges. As it was, however, they had only to consider what was proper in each particular case, and do that which appeared to be just and proper under all the circumstances. Then with respect to his noble friend's first objection to the clause, declaring the marriage illegal, if it was fitting such a marriage should be held illegal, it was, in his opinion, necessary that it should be declared so in this Bill. Under the existing law, matters of this kind were left to the Ecclesiastical courts; and he understood that it was only under particular circumstances, and at particular times, that the object could be attained. The parties by living abroad and out of the jurisdiction of the court, till the death of one of them, might render it impossible to annul such a marriage, and by this contrivance the issue might be legitimatized. He was informed also, (for he could only speak from, information,) that a sentence of nullity might be avoided by a species of collusion, not very creditable to any court of justice, by setting up an informer, and in this way preventing such a question from ever being fairly brought to issue; and, after the death of one of the parties, the legality of the marriage, he understood, could net longer be questioned. With respect to the other objection of his noble friend, he admitted that a general measure would be much more preferable; and on that head he still remained of the opinion which he had given when that measure was introduced into that House, but which had unfortunately as he thought failed in the other. He was of opinion, that such marriages ought to be declared void by a general law, as contrary to sound morals, to the law of the land, and to the scriptures. When the general measure failed, this standing order was made: but he could not agree with his noble friend as to the object and view with which it was made. His noble friend who then sat on the woolsack, and who had introduced it, knew too well the nature of the British constitution, and had too great a value for it, to do any thing so subversive of its principles, as to attempt to legislate by

563]
the authority of this House only. The real object and design of that standing order he took to be this: that, as the Legislature could not agree in passing a general measure, it was desirable that the morals of society should at least have this security, that the propriety of having such a clause introduced should be brought under consideration in each particular case. There had been instances, accordingly, where, upon consideration, the clause had been dispensed with; and though he should have preferred a general measure declaring all such marriages void, yet since they were compelled to look into the state of each particular case, there were some of those instances in which he thought the clause had been properly dispensed with. But it was of the utmost importance, in his opinion, that there should be a general law on the subject, apprizing the parties beforehand of the consequences; for he was convinced, that the hopes of marriage with the seducer, in many cases, encouraged the crime; and as there was no such general law, their lordships ought, at least, to consider well before they dispensed with the clause in any particular case: and if it was important that such a clause should ever be introduced into such bills, surely, in this case, of all others, it ought not to be dispensed with. It was for that House to do its duty; and he did not believe that in the other House the remedy in this case, would be at all endangered.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the observations of his noble friend had very much anticipated what it was his intention to have submitted to their lordships on this case. With respect to the settlement, it had been justly and properly stated, that when the marriage was to be dissolved, the contracts made in contemplation of it, and with a view to its continuance, ought to fall with it. The noble earl had said, that this was a bill of pains and penalties against the lady, by thus setting aside the settlement, and that there was no evidence to justify it: but it did appear from evidence given at their lordships' bar, that she had been guilty of a crime which called for the dissolution of the marriage; a crime than which, under the circumstances, nothing short of the higher felonies could be more atrocious. Let it not be imagined, however, that he placed her guilt on a footing with that of her seducer. His crime was unquestionably mere flagrant: but though he was disposed to consider her offence as of a milder character, yet it was undoubt-
[564
edly such as rendered it highly improper to allow the settlement to stand. He agreed with his noble friend, that it was difficult to find a principle upon which to found this allowance of alimony, which was generally made on these occasions: but as the practice had prevailed, he should be rather inclined to comply with it to a certain extent, more especially when he considered that it might be the means of enabling the wife to avoid, if she chose, plunging herself in still further guilt. When the noble earl said, that the law did not in these cases pat an end to the provision for the wife, he had forgot that the only provision which was fixed for the wife before these marriage settlements came in use, that of dower, was completely at an end by the commission of such an offence. The fact of her having eloped with an adulterer might he pleaded in bar of the dower, so that she remained bare and naked as her crime had left her. With respect to the clause for declaring any marriage between the offending parties illegal, he had suggested the amendment to which the noble earl had adverted, because the word 'adjudged' appeared to render a previous sentence of a judge necessary to the illegality of the marriage. It was fitting that such a marriage should by this Act be declared illegal, because, for the reasons stated by his noble friend, the law as it stood did not afford an adequate security. He concurred in the opinion that a general measure would have been preferable to annul marriages between the offending parties in all such cases: but as there was none such, they owed it to the security of civilized society, to the confidence and happiness of families, to the purity and honour of domestic life, that this clause in the present instance should not be dispensed with. Such marriages were contrary, not only to the laws of the land, but to the law of God—and it had been so decided; and what could be more contrary to the law of God, than any thing which might afford the least encouragement to offences of this nature? It was absolutely necessary to the interests of sound morality, to the peace and happiness of social life, and to the purity and honour of private families, that such offences should be marked out as something against nature. If such an incestuous intercourse was to be allowed to pass without suitable animadversion, where could families find security? Not only domestic comforts would be at an end, but the very recesses,

565]
the very nurseries of private families would become the objects of distrust and suspicion; and even in the narrowest domestic circles, jealousies might arise, lest the male part of the family should be the gallants of the females. He did not wish to dwell upon this, because he was aware how acutely the innocent connexions of the lady felt upon this subject: and he was afraid, lest through the ordinary channels by which their observations were conveyed to the public, any thing said by him should meet their eyes and add to their already too heavy distress: but in the discharge of his public duty, he could not avoid stating his strong sense of the necessity of this clause in the present Bill. It had been said, that it would endanger the remedy altogether: but it was for their lordships in the first place to do their duty. Let it be their maxim, "as for us and our house, we will serve the Lord," leaving it to the consciences of the members of the other House of Parliament, whether they could for a moment hesitate to declare that in this case at least such a clause was necessary. For his part, he was convinced that the same considerations of what was due to the interests of morality, to the security of social happiness, and the peace and comfort of domestic life, would induce the other House to look at the subject in the same way that their lordships did.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he felt it impossible, in a case of this description, to give a silent vote. In his opinion, the interests of sound morals would have been better consulted if the general measure of declaring all such marriages void had been adopted: but as that unfortunately did not succeed, it was at least fitting to consider the propriety of introducing such a clause as this in every particular case; and surely in this case it ought not to be dispensed with, for how could there be a case which called more imperiously for such a provision? He trusted it would never be his lot to meet with a case where such a clause would be more properly introduced. If their lordships rejected it, they would ruin the peace of families, destroy the best affections of the human mind, and poison the very sources of domestic security and happiness. He concluded by declaring his strong sense of the necessity of the clause.
The Earl of Caernarvonsaid, that notwithstanding all he had heard, he still thought that such a general measure as
[566
that which had been suggested would, instead of being favourable to the interests of sound morals, prove highly detrimental to those interests: but a general measure would be preferable to the standing order of that House on that subject, for it had the appearance of insensibly and by stealth, as it were, introducing a practice which as a general measure the other House had rejected. If they thought that the object was one of such great importance, they ought again openly to come forward with a general measure.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that with regard to the point of alimony, the earl of Roseberry had no wish but to do what the House thought proper. The sum in the present Bill was proposed by the noble lord who usually sat on the woolsack, and the earl of Roseberry would have had no objection to a greater sum, if the House had thought it right to recommend a larger, though he did not feel that it was for him to propose it. The only anxiety which, in his communications with him, he had evinced was, that the sum, whatever it might be, should be properly secured for the lady. As to the introduction of the clause declaring any marriage between the offending parties illegal, he had no doubt that in this instance at least such a clause was proper.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that as he saw that the feeling of the House was so strongly against his proposition, he should not press it farther.
The Report was then received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.