Sitting of 17 April 1826

LONDON CORN EXCHANGE BILL.
On bringing up the report of this bill,
Sir T. Baringsaid, he felt it to be his duty to enter his protest against this unwarrantable and uncalled-for measure. Its chief effect would be, to increase the number of retail dealers in corn, to the evident injury of those who had already embarked in that trade. That, however, was not the principal ground on which he founded his opposition. His great objection to the bill was, that it would interfere with the private rights of individuals—with the rights of those who were the possessors of the present Corn Exchange—without adequately remunerating them. The individuals who had formed this project might build a corn exchange where they pleased, but they had no right to throw down buildings which belonged to the occupiers of the existing Exchange. Who were the parties with whom this plan originated? They were, in fact, a joint-stock association, and they set this scheme on foot, as likely to be a speculation of a profitable nature. They asserted that a new exchange was greatly wanted. Now, he was disposed to doubt the correctness of that statement, as he believed the sale of corn had not increased within the last twenty or thirty years. He should therefore move "That the report be received this day six months."
Mr. Humeseconded the motion. The present measure was, he said, one of those instances of interference with private property that ought to be resisted by the House. He had not attended the committee, but having seen their proceedings since they had closed their labours, he was sure, from what had transpired in the course of the inquiry, that the House would not tolerate this invasion of private property. The bill went to take from the present proprietors their property in the Corn Exchange, without any guarantee that another would be built. This was granting to the projectors a right which no persons ought to possess. If the present Corn Exchange was not large enough, he had no objection to allow a new one to be built by any body of individuals; but as no complaint had been made of the old Corn Exchange, he wished that to be suffered to remain also.
Sir E. Brydgessupported the measure
266
on the score of public utility. It was said, that the present Exchange was private property; but if it were, it differed essentially from other private property, because it was devoted to public purposes. He hoped that the report would be received now.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, it had been asserted by the supporters of this measure, that corn would sell better in a large market than in a small one. If this were so, and if the present corn market were not sufficiently spacious, let the parties enlarge it, or build another elsewhere. The existing corn market was built by private parties for their use and convenience, and the business had been carried on there very prosperously for a great many years. This measure, he thought, interfered with private rights as much as any measure could possibly do. He believed that the sale of corn by commission had decreased, instead of having increased, of late years; and, that therefore, there could be no necessity for a new market. The effect of this bill would be, to turn out those who were in possession of the old market, and to allow the projectors to replace them by any persons they pleased. At present, the rent of a stand was 10 l. a year; but if this measure succeeded, no doubt 20 l. or 30 l. a year would be charged; which would be an excellent speculation for those who formed the plan.
Mr. H. Sumnerexpressed himself friendly to the bill. A new corn exchange was very much wanted. The present corn market was a joint-stock company concern, seventy-five years ago, when the consumption of corn could not have been near so great as it was at present. He believed the increased growth and importation of that article considerably exceeded the increase of the population, and required this new market. The present market was quite inadequate for the sale of corn; and the place opposite to it was equally so. In consequence of the want of necessary accommodation, the street in which the market stood was frequently rendered impassable. It was said, that this was an uncalled-for invasion of private property. He did not view it in that light; but even if it were considered as private property, this interference was rendered necessary for a public object. They were told that the new proprietors would, under this bill, go and turn out the old proprietors. It was no such thing. They said, "We

267
will build a market by the side of yours; and we will, for the purpose of making a communication between the two markets, take down as much of your wall as admits of four stands, at the annual rent of 40 l. a year, for which we will make full reparation." It was also stipulated, that the new proprietors should, at the option of the old, take the whole of the market, if the latter desired it. He was decidedly of opinion that the House ought to give its assent to this measure.
Mr. Curteisthought there was great necessity for a new market; and therefore he should support the bill.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, that a most respectable corn dealer had, in his evidence, pointed out the impossibility of carrying on business in the present state of the market, and it had come out in the course of the inquiry, that a bye-law had been framed by the society, or joint-stock company, who held the Exchange, by which they excluded from participating in this corn trade, every person except corn factors. The corn factors had thus elected themselves into a body, who were to mete out to the public whatever quantity of corn they thought fit, under their own regulations, and at their own price. That this was a monopoly, and a very profitable one, was apparent from this fact—that though the premises were not worth more than 10,000 l. the good-will was estimated at 60,000 l.; and the proprietors actually called for that indemnity, if the market were affected by this measure. Those who required this bill, were anxious that the present proprietors should throw open the market to the corn dealer generally, and give sufficient accommodation for transacting business. They did not wish to keep possession of the whole, but to have a place allotted to them where they might have the same advantages as were enjoyed by the corn factors. That was refused. Then they said to the old proprietors, "If you will not do that, let the city, or the government of the country, take the matter up. We are not anxious to pay our money. Let the government of the country advance the money on the usual terms, and let a new market be erected." This proposal appeared to be as disagreeable to the old proprietors as the other. The new proprietors then said, "Let us have access to the old market by a passage. All we ask is ingress and egress to those premises which we are about to build,
268
through your market." This was also refused, although a full indemnification for any loss was offered. The new proprietors then asked for a facade. "Let the portico," said they, "run round the market, and we will raise a building contiguous to it; so that the doors of the two buildings will be under the same portico." This was likewise refused. In short, he never before heard of such a series of refusals connected with a matter of public utility. What did the persons who called for this bill say? They said, "We want another market; and if you, the old proprietors, refuse to grant what we require, and we are compelled, under this bill, to take your market, let the value of the premises be assessed by a jury, and we will pay you even 60,000 l., if they are estimated at that sum, and that, too, before a single stone of the building is touched." This was perfectly fair. The bill, too, it should be recollected, was only for a limited period; and if the new building were not built in the course of twelve months, and the money for indemnity, whether 10,000 l. or 60,000 l., paid, its provisions would be null and void. Those who were hostile to this measure were not opposing the projectors of the bill, but the general benefit of the public at large.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that the object of this bill was, to take by force the property of individuals; and, in order to put a face upon the matter, those individuals were calumniated as monopolists. That was the charge against them. Now, he suspected that the other parties were the monopolists; because, if they intended fair competition, they would leave the old Corn Exchange to compete with the new one. If this were done, he could understand what his gallant friend meant when he spoke of benefitting the public. The old proprietors only said, "Leave us as we are, and we will compete with you; but pray do not take away our property." What would the Bank of England say, if, at the end of their charter, a body of individuals declared, "We want to set up a bank to upset your monopoly; but we will not only do that, but insist on having your premises?" The Bank would make answer, "Leave us as we are. You may set up a bank in the most commodious place for the benefit of the public, and we will compete with you; let there be two banks, but leave our premises alone." This was his view of the case.

269
He could not agree to this infraction of private right, to serve any set of speculators.
Sir E. Knatchbulldefended the character of those with whom this measure originated. It was admitted on all hands, that the present market was most inconvenient; and those individuals had taken the only method of remedying the inconvenience. But it was said, "cannot you build elsewhere?" It would, indeed, be speculating with a vengeance if they came to the west end of the town to erect a corn-market. These individuals had fixed upon the only place where the corn business could be efficiently carried on. If this bill was defeated, the building would still go on; but there would be no communication between the two markets, and the greatest possible inconvenience would be the consequence.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, there could be no doubt that it would be very inconvenient to the promoters of this new market if the bill should not pass, as they had already purchased the ground for it close to the old one; but that was no valid reason why those who held private property should be compelled to surrender their rights. He, however, wished to see the matter amicably arranged; as he was of opinion, that there ought to be an enlarged market; but, he trusted parliament would not encourage an invasion of private property, especially as there was no charge brought against the individuals who would be affected by it.
The House then divided: For bringing up the Report 76; Against it 27. Majority 49.

CORN LAWS—IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN GRAIN—LONDON PETITION.
The Sheriffs of London presented at the bar a Petition from the Corporation of London, setting forth,
"That the petitioners, cordially approving of the principles of free trade, are desirous of seeing them carried into effect, as far as is practicable under the circumstances in which this country is placed; that the petitioners are deeply impressed with the present distress of the country, which seriously affects almost every branch of the manufacturing and commercial interests; that while the petitioners approve of the principles of free trade, and are desirous of seeing all unnecessary restrictions upon the commerce of the country removed, as far as prac-
270
ticable; yet they are most strongly impressed with the difficulty and danger of carrying such measures into effect with the present high price of food, artificially kept up by the restrictions upon the importation of corn, and the load of debt and taxes which still press upon the manufacturers of this county, and which must disable them from competing with those countries where food is cheap, and the national burthens are inconsiderable; that the Corn laws in their operation counteract the natural tendency of industry, skill, and enterprise, to extend and improve manufactures, and thereby to render this country the market for supplying the demands of a great part of the; habitable globe; that with a view to facilitate these objects, it is essential that raw materials of every description should be freely imported in exchange for the goods manufactured in this country; that the foreign demand for the manufactures of this country is limited, in a great degree, by the means of payment possessed by foreign consumers, and as those countries which are purely agricultural can only barter with the produce of their soil, it follows that, by prohibiting the importation of such produce, they are debarred from purchasing British goods, and thus induced to become our competitors in many branches of manufacture; that restricting the importation of foreign corn, while free trade is to be opened for foreign manufactures, tends to deprive British artizans of employment, at the same time that it enormously enhances the price of their food, and reduces them to a state of pauperism; that the petitioners cannot consider the present system of the Corn laws beneficial to the agricultural interests, seeing that under those laws great fluctuations of price, and distressing reverses have been experienced by the farmer, whilst the peasantry have been reduced to a condition of great misery and distress; that the present distress demands an immediate and effectual reduction of the expenditure of government, in the military and every other department where it can be admitted, in order that the country may be relieved from the assessed taxes, and all those burthens which so greatly impede the restoration of the national prosperity; the petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, That the House will take the premises into their consideration, and that the free importation of foreign grain may be per-

271
mitted under certain duties; and that the assessed taxes may be forthwith repealed, or that the House will afford such other relief as to their wisdom may seem meet."
Alderman Woodsupported the prayer of the petition, and said, that it was impossible for our manufactures to compete with the commodities of other countries while food was at more than double their price. It was high time for parlialiament to turn its attention to the subject, and to take notice of the great falling-off in the supplies of grain. The difference in the quantities brought into the market in the corresponding quarters of 1825 and 1826 was as follows:—In wheat there was a difference of 57,677 quarters, being that much less in the last quarter than in the same quarter of 1825. In barley there were 79,937 quarters less; oats 20,000 quarters less; pollard, 36,000. It was quite plain that corn would by this time have reached a famine price, had it not been for the late alterations in the currency.
Mr. Whitmoresaid, he had been misunderstood as to his intention of bringing on the question of the Corn laws. On fixing another motion of his, which stood for the 23rd of May, he had, by mistake, been represented as having put off his motion of to-morrow on the Corn laws. He wished it to be clearly understood, that it was his fixed determination to bring on the subject to-morrow.
Alderman Thompsonconcurred with the enlightened citizens of London, that it would be vain to attempt to establish principles of free trade, unless they were extended, in an equal degree, to the trade in grain. Some thought, that they ought to have begun with the corn-trade; but, for his part, he was anxious first to divest the agriculturist of the argument which existed in favour of monopoly, in the restrictions and prohibitions on foreign manufactures. Those prohibitions and restrictions were now almost wholly done away, and all articles were admitted, on payment of reasonable duties. The same principle ought to be applied to imports of grain. They were told, when the bill was passed in 1817, that the effect of the bill would be, to produce plenty at cheap rates and fixed prices. At present, trade was every where stagnant, or nearly so, and the general poverty and distress were aggravated by the danger of scarcity, and the high price of food. Nothing could be more fluctuating in price and quantity than corn had been ever since.
Ordered to lie on the table.

FOREIGN SHIPPING—PETITION FROM SUNDERLAND FOR A DUTY ON.
Mr. Heathcotepresented a petition from the Ship-owners of Sunderland, setting forth,
"That the Shipping trade of this kingdom, on which the petitioners are dependent for employment and support, has of late been greatly depressed, and the circumstances of the petitioners thereby considerably impoverished; that the cause to which the same is mainly to be attributed is, the operation of the 'Reciprocity of Duties Act,' which, by allowing the importation of articles of foreign merchandize in ships belonging to any country on equal terms with British vessels, gives to foreigners a decided advantage over the subjects of this country, inasmuch as that the former being enabled to build and navigate their ships at a considerably less cost than the petitioners, are consequently in a situation to accept freights at a much lower rate than the petitioners; that a considerable proportion of their shipping is now laid up, the petitioners finding they can only be navigated to a loss, the effects of which will not only be severely felt by themselves, but will also be the cause of much poverty and distress to the working classes dependent on them for employment; that the petitioners beg to refer to the Custom-house returns of British and foreign tonnage employed during the last year, which, when compared with that of the year preceding, they have no doubt will show a very great increase in foreign shipping over British; that the petitioners humbly conceive themselves to be entitled to the protection of the legislature equally with other branches of trade and of agriculture, and hope the House will be pleased to pass a law for levying such a protecting duty on foreign shipping as will enable the petitioners to compete with foreigners in the freight market, without which the petitioners find they must shortly be reduced to a state of comparative poverty; the petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, That the House will take their case into their serious consideration, and afford them such relief as in their wisdom may seem meet and proper."
Sir M. W. Ridleysupported the petition, and wished that the president and vice-president of the Board of Trade were in their places, as this was a subject deserving the gravest consideration of govern-

273
ment. It was not a little extraordinary to observe, that between 1821 and 1825 the tonnage of British and foreign shipping engaged in our trade having been doubled, the foreign shipping had increased in equal proportion with the British. Another circumstance worthy of remark was, that there was uniformly an increase in the shipping of those countries with which we had entered into commercial treaties, while there was no increase of the shipping of those countries with which we were not bound by any such treaties. He did not say that the increase of foreign shipping was hurtful to the trade of the country; but it was clearly calculated to injure our carrying trade, and to counteract, in that degree, the great nursery of our seamen.
Mr. Heathcotesaid, that the facts proved by the returns on the table ought to be sufficient at once to induce ministers to take up the consideration of this very important subject. The following would show, in one view, the slow progress which British shipping had made within this year:—

BRITISH.

Ships.

Tonnage.

Men.

1824

11,733

1,797,320

108,700

1825

13,517

2,144,680

123,120

Increase.

—

1,784

347,360

14,420

FOREIGN.

1824

3,389

469,151

28,421

1825

6,967

958,050

52,630

Mr. Sykesexpressed his concurrence in the sentiments of the hon. member who had preceded him.
Mr. Baringobserved upon the absence of ministers from the House at that period of the evening; then near six o'clock. Here were petitions before the House involving questions of the highest interest to the country, and there was not one minister of the Crown in his place to give any opinion or information respecting them. The House of Commons, he must say, was not accustomed to be treated
274
with such disrespect. With reference to the Reciprocity system, he was one who had concurred in the experiment being tried; but only as an experiment. He must admit that, as far as it had gone, it had failed. He should like, however, to hear what the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had to say upon the subject. He wished to know what had been the cause of the present appearances, and what was expected to be the future results of the experiment. He was inclined to think the experiment had not yet been sufficiently tried. The worst result undoubtedly was, that those powers with whom the Reciprocity treaties had been made, showed an increase in the employment of their own shipping; but it was, at the same time, to be borne, in mind, that this increase had taken place without any diminution upon the total of ours. The whole question was one of the highest importance; and it would be useless for him to add, that it was a question not only of national wealth, but of national power.
Mr. Robertsonthought that the hon. gentlemen opposite, who had urged ministers to these experiments, saw now sufficient reason for retracing their steps. While the taxes of the country were so heavy, it was impossible we could compete with the foreigner.
Mr. Humewas also sorry that ministers were not present, when a subject of so much importance was before the House. If they had been in their seats, he would have recalled to their memory, the speech delivered by the late Mr. Ricardo, when the Reciprocity Duties bill was under debate. He had stated distinctly, on that occasion, that if this country acted upon the system of reciprocity, without repealing the heavy duties by which the shipping interest were pressed down, the consequence would be, beyond all doubt, that we should lose that branch of our trade; and he had voted for the bill only on the understanding, that in the ensuing session all those duties would be removed. He entirely concurred in Mr. Ricardo's opinion. If the taxes on our navigation were repealed, he believed that, under the freest competition, British shipping would keep their ground against all rivals, from every part of the world; but for that purpose it was essential that the whole of the taxes should be abolished on hemp, timber, iron, tallow, and all other commodities consumed by the shipping interest.
Mr. Irvingsaid, it was a fact much to be deplored, but undoubtedly true, that the employment of British shipping was now confined to the colonial trade; and he regretted to observe, that there was a set of persons seeking, night after night, to destroy that interest. Almost the whole of the navigation of the countries, that had adopted the reciprocity system, was carried on by foreigners.
Ordered to lie on the table.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM—PETITION RESPECTING.
Mr. Humerose to present a petition signed by about three hundred individuals, setting forth "That the petitioners, taking into consideration the high dishonour reflected on the Christian religion, and the absolute surrender of the great principle of the Protestant Reformation, which is the right of private judgment, in the late prosecutions for blasphemy, most humbly beseech the House to pass an act for the immediate and unconditional liberation of all persons now under confinement for blasphemy, impiety, or heretical pravity of any kind or degree whatever; and that it might be made the law of England that from henceforth no person or persons shall ever be subject to annoyance or prosecution for the holding, maintaining, or propagating, by printing or preaching, any religious principles whatever, provided they conduct themselves as virtuous members of the community, and loyal subjects of our sovereign lord the King." He concurred in the opinion of the petitioners, that no man ought to be imprisoned for holding a religious opinion which happened to be different from his neighbours; and it was certainly a reflection on the present enlightened age, that people should be cast into prison for three, four, and five years, for no other crime than that of thinking as they pleased upon speculative subjects. He was glad to find that the present Secretary of State for the home department did not, like some of his predecessors, encourage these prosecutions; still it was singular, that when, on a late occasion, he had ordered the liberation of Mr. Carlile, he had not also set at liberty a number of other persons who were incarcerated for offences of the same nature. If these matters were left to their own operation, without the notoriety of state trials, they would soon become things of utter indifference.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that there was
276
a great distinction between Carlile's case and that of the others to whom the hon. member alluded, and who were confined for certain definite periods. The additional confinement which had been endured by the former individual was by way of commutation for his fine and sureties.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowdenied that these prosecutions interfered with the right of private judgment, unless, indeed, that could be called such which struck at the root of all morality and religion. It was an abuse of terms to designate blasphemy and impiety as connected with the just right of free opinion in a well-regulated state.
Ordered to lie on the table.

EXCLUSION FROM COURT OF CHANCERY—PETITION OF G. FARQUHARSON.
Mr. Abercrombyrose to present a petition from Mr. George Farquharson, of the Strand, which stated, that the petitioner had been employed for upwards of twenty years by the suitors and solicitors of the court of Chancery, in taking notes of the proceedings of that court, and that he was now in the employment of a morning newspaper. That on Friday, the 14th instant, the day on which the New Court of Chancery in Westminster-hall was opened for business, he, the petitioner, following his customary avocations, applied for admission to that court, but was told, to his surprise, by the officers of the court, that he could not be admitted, and that the reporters were in future to be excluded; and the petitioner, after stating the loss which such a measure would be to the public, and the hardship of his being deprived of his employment, if such exclusion were persisted in, concluded by submitting his case to the House, in order that the liberty which he had enjoyed for so long a period might still be continued. In presenting this petition, the learned member said, he thought there must have been some misconception between the petitioner and the persons by whom he had been excluded. If otherwise, he certainly thought it extremely hard, that the court of Chancery should be exclusive in adopting a measure which had not been acted upon by the other courts, where reporters were not denied the right of being admitted. It was not necessary at present to state the benefits which resulted to the public from the practice of giving publicity to judicial proceed-

277
ings, as its good effects were sufficiently apparent; but it might be requisite to state, that the suitors of the court of Chancery in particular were extremely anxious to obtain accurate reports of the cases in which they were interested, and it would be hard if, by any new measure, that accommodation should be denied them.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that if any person connected with the public press had been excluded from the court of Chancery, he was confident that such exclusion did not originate with, and was not sanctioned by, the head of that court. There was no accommodation, however, in the new court for reporters to sit.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that a more contemptible court of justice than the New Court of Chancery there was not in the kingdom. There was no adequate accommodation for the gentlemen of the bar, and in every point it was a most inconvenient court. There were no means of accommodation for the public, not to speak of reporters. With respect to the court of King's-bench, all he could say about it was, that every defect of the old court seemed to have been scrupulously copied, for the purpose of transferring it to the new court; and, as to the court of Exchequer, although from its size it was certainly the most commodious of the new courts, its internal arrangements were by no means improved. Indeed, as he had just remarked with respect to the King's-bench, every defect of the old court was scrupulously continued. The bench was awkwardly situated, and the seats for counsel being on one side only, occasioned much inconvenience. Then, as to the gallery behind the bench, which had been copied from the old court, he never yet could see the use of it. The only improvement which had taken place in this court was, that in point of space it had been considerably enlarged. He would not allude to the useless passages which surrounded the courts, or the senseless ornaments by which the walls were decorated; but he would venture to say, that a greater waste of money had seldom taken place than in the making of these new courts. He was sorry to say that the suggestion he had made last year, to appoint a committee to manage the improvements, had not been carried into practice. The passages that ran parallel from Westminster-hall were of no use whatever; and he wondered at the wild-
278
ness which could have induced men to adopt such fantastical plans as those which had been put into execution in the new courts at Westminster. He was sorry to say, that the public had been put to very great expense, and that the accommodation which they were to receive in return was by no means adequate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that after the strong language used by the hon. and learned gentleman who just sat down, he felt called upon to say a few words, as well for the satisfaction of the House, as for the sake of rescuing the reputation of the professional gentleman by whom the new courts were built, from the unmerited censure with which he had been assailed. Five or six years ago, when the building of those courts was contemplated, it was understood to be indispensably necessary that they should all open into Westminster-hall. The site of them being therefore particularly prescribed, and the space within which they were to be erected exceedingly limited, the wonder was, how so much could be accomplished within so circumscribed an area: hence the professional character of the architect was placed under the influence of circumstances of peculiar difficulty. In executing a work of that nature it was not to be expected that he could succeed in giving universal satisfaction. It was impossible for Mr. Soane to consult all those gentlemen in the legal profession who had formed themselves into a sort of committee to arrange the building; but he had frequent communications with the judges. He had consulted them over and over again, and all their suggestions he had carried into execution; and all the alterations they recommended he effected. With respect to the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, he had the honour to attend him over the works; he had directed Mr. Soane to call upon him and explain all the plans, and had flattered himself that the learned gentleman was quite satisfied that every alteration suggested had been carried into execution, that was not incompatible with the wishes and opinions of the judges of the courts. With respect to the passages alluded to, he thought, that so far from their being objectionable, they were indispensable as a means of communication. It was, therefore, very hard to throw such blame on the architect. Mr. Soane's hands were tied up; so inadequate to the purpose

279
was the space allotted. He did not believe that any other man in England could, out of such space, have afforded so much accommodation; and it was a little too much that the reputation of a distinguished architect should be destroyed by severe animadversions in that House.
Mr. Scarlettdisclaimed any idea of casting aspersions on the character of Mr. Soane.
Sir M. W. Ridleyexpressed his disapprobation of the mode in which public works were carried on. When a public building was about to be erected, plans and models ought to be submitted from the various artists generally. The thing should be thrown open to the public; for, according to the existing state of things, it was impossible for any architect to be employed, unless he was connected in some manner with the Board of Works, as it was called. There should be a fair competition thrown open to the talents of the various artists. Let them only look round the town, and see the abilities which the various public buildings, churches, &c, had called forth. For example, there was the new church at Chelsea. Had it not been for that opportunity, the talents of the distinguished artist who erected that beautiful church might have passed unnoticed. He did not mean, in the slightest degree, to dispute the talents of Mr. Soane, or to detract in the least from the acknowledged merits of that individual; but he thought it would be a considerable improvement if public works, like those of a private nature, were open to a fair competition.
Mr. R. Colbornesaid, that with respect to plans and models, none but young artists could present them, for the more experienced and distinguished were occupied so constantly, that they could not have leisure for such a course.
Mr. Holme Sumnerconsidered the new courts to be very inconvenient. They might with more propriety have been erected on the other side of the Abbey; but he did not consider Mr. Soane at all to blame, as he had acted under the direction of others. It was certain that the courts were inadequate, and that they were by no means suited to the public convenience. He considered, however, that they might be rendered commodious, and he regretted that the report of the committee, who had
280
taken the trouble to suggest considerable improvements, had not been attended to. Amongst other suggestions, in consequence of several complaints having been made, it was proposed to add twelve committee-rooms to those already provided. Two committee-rooms, however, were only added, and the consequence was, that considerable inconvenience existed from the want of those rooms. He intended to move that the committee of improvement should be revived.
Mr. Abercrombywas rejoiced to find that his impression that no order had been given for excluding reporters from the court of Chancery was correct. The presenting of Mr. Farquharson's petition would, in all probability, have the effect of preventing the authority of a judge from being abused by those who said, they acted under his directions.
Ordered to lie on the table.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move the order of the day, that the House do resolve itself into a committee of ways and means.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowobserved, that his motion for the second reading of the Usury Laws' Repeal bill was entitled to precedence; however, he was willing to concede priority on the understanding that his motion should come on immediately after the committee of ways and means.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he considered the best course to pursue would be to abstain from the second reading of the bill this session. Owing to the present state of the country, and the inquiries which were going on in the committee on the Scotch and Irish currency, he thought that some future occasion would be much better than the present for discussing the subject. He would not pledge himself to support the bill, but should be guided in the course he should pursue by the evidence which might be given in the committee, and by the information which he should endeavour to acquire on the subject before next session.
Mr. Philipsobjected to this delay. He considered that a question of such importance ought not to be put off session after session.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, he did not complain so much of the personal inconvenience to which the frequent postponement of this measure had exposed him, as that it precluded him from having the

281
question fairly brought forward. He had first introduced the measure to the notice of the House in the year 1816, and he had laboured ever since to forward it. With regard to a further postponement he should abide the pleasure of the House. This was a bill which should have emanated in the first instance from government, and not from an individual. It had been its fate to meet with much opposition, although many gentlemen who at first opposed it were now its warmest supporters. The measure had made many converts, and he could not help regretting that it had not been long since carried. If ministers had given it their support, he could not but feel that much of the misery which the country was doomed to witness last November and December, would have been spared. If they would themselves bring forward the measure, he would at once decline pressing the present bill, and would support theirs.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that his learned friend was entitled to the highest praise for his perseverance. It was not on account of the lateness of the session, that his right hon. friend wished for the postponement of the question; but because there were at present under the consideration of parliament, so many important subjects, as to render the period extremely inconvenient. There was an inquiry on foot as to promissory notes, which was closely connected with the subject; and it would be obviously inconvenient to make any alteration in the law relating to interest, at a moment when the whole question of the currency of England, Ireland, and Scotland, was under consideration. As the learned serjeant had been patient for ten years, perhaps he would consent to defer the subject a little longer. In the recess, the attention of the government would be directed to it, and they would, of course have no objection to relieve the learned serjeant from the labour of the question, if, upon due consideration, it appeared a subject which they would be justified in bringing forward.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, that after what had fallen from his right hon. friend, it would be doing great injustice to the question to persevere in his motion. He should therefore beg leave to withdraw the bill.

EXCHEQUER BILLS.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he rose to propose certain resolutions respecting the funding of Exchequer-bills, a measure which had been adopted by his majesty's ministers for the purpose of relieving the Bank from a portion of the advances which had been made to government, and of diminishing the amount of Exchequer-bills already in the market. In pursuance of that plan, government had, in the course of last week, sent a proposal to the Bank, stating the nature of the measure, and explaining that it was intended to fund Exchequer bills, by creating a new stock, which should yield four per cent., fixing the amount of stock at 107 l. for each subscription of 100 l. in Exchequer-bills, or 100 l. 10 s.cash; and it was further proposed, in order to make the proposition more acceptable to the parties who might purchase, that the four per cents should not be redeemable in a less period than seven years. In consequence of this measure, books were opened at the Bank on Wednesday last, and it was fixed that the interest should commence on the 5th of April current, and that the first payment should be made on the 10th of October next. The result would yield a bonus of two per cent. The total amount proposed to be subcribed for was 8,000,000 l. He was happy to state that the measure had been most successful: 8,000,000 l., or near 9,000,000 l., had been purchased, and he had no doubt, that if the transaction had not been closed, a still greater amount would have been subscribed for. All that remained now was, to state the charges which would be created by this funding of Exchequer-bills. The addition thus made to the funded debt would be 8,560,000 l., the interest on which would amount to the annual sum of 342,400 l. The addition of the sinking fund would be 5,600 l., not upon the stock created, as the only sinking fund necessary would be one per cent upon the funding and capital created, making a total of 350,368 l., including 2,568 l. for the expense of management. The difference in the charge on the operation would be 77,000 l. This deficiency he meant to supply by no new tax, but to charge on the consolidated fund; so that it would make no increase to the public burthens. It was not necessary for him to go further into explanation, as it was not probable that the House would be disinclined to confirm a bargain which was so fair for the parties and the country.

283
The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving the several resolutions.
Mr. Irvingasked, whether any arrangement had been made for including in the payments to be made to the Bank the sums they had disbursed in the purchase of Exchequer bills in the early part of the year?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that undoubtedly the Bank would be paid off at the most convenient time, and the present arrangement would enable the government to do so; but the payments would be made at such times and under such circumstances as the state of the currency and the demands of the Bank would render it most desirable to the government and useful to the country.
Mr. Maberlybegged to ask, how the; right hon. gentleman proposed to pay off the new debt, and what was the amount of the new sinking fund which he proposed to create?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that, by an act of parliament, the sinking fund was to go on increasing at compound interest until it amounted to one per cent, on the whole amount of the debt. The whole debt, funded and unfunded, was already provided for by the regular sinking fund; so that the sinking fund to be raised was only upon the sum which formed the difference between the original amount of Exchequer bills as it stood under the name of unfunded debt, and the new stock now about to be created, forming a sum of about 560,000 l.
Sir. J. Wrottesleyasked, if there was any precise time in which the right hon. gentleman proposed to himself the payment of the Exchequer bills?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that it was undoubtedly his object to have the means of paying them off as soon as possible; but, as he had already stated he was not under an obligation to pay them off at any particular time, but was at liberty to watch the market, so as to take advantage of such opportunities as occurred most beneficial to the public interests; as it was impossible, therefore, to mention any precise time—all he could say was, that it would be done as soon as convenient, although he thought it would be very imprudent to take any sudden measures which would affect the circulation.
Sir J. Wrottesleyasked, what was to become of the surplus which would thus remain in the hands of government, provided it were not found necessary to make
284
the repayment of the greater part to the Bank?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the effect of that would be, to render a smaller issue of Exchequer-bills by the government necessary, than might otherwise be required.
Sir F. Ommaneywished to know, whether a preference in the subscription for the new stock was not given to those who offered money rather than to those who went with Exchequer-bills?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not aware that he had said any thing about a preference being given to any party. The conditions on which the new stock was to be issued were known to the public on Wednesday last. But he had no objection to lay before the House an account of the nature of the subscriptions for the stock, distinguishing the amount in Exchequer-bills from that in cash.
The resolutions were then agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Criminal Justice bill,
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that this bill, which purported to have no less an object than the improvement of the Criminal Justice of England, seemed to him to be of such great importance, that he conceived the best method he could adopt in its consideration would be, to have it read clause by clause to the House. In that way he could, he thought, introduce most satisfactorily the very few amendments and alterations which it was necessary to propose. The first, and by far the most important, related to the powers of magistrates in the taking of bail—powers which had remained without any alteration since the time of Edward 1st. His object was, in this bill, to procure such a legislative provision, as would make it distinctly understood—what the powers of magistrates actually were with regard to bail, upon which there had been, for a long period, very considerable obscurity; and next, to extend the class of offences for which bail could be received, by giving some precise and definite description of the kind of offenders from whom bail could be taken, pointing out clearly who might be admitted to bail, and who must be committed to safe custody. He proposed, that where any person should be taken on a charge of felony, or suspicion of felony, before any justice of the peace, and the charge should be supported by positive evidence of the fact, or by

285
such evidence as, if not explained or contradicted, should, in the opinion of the justice, raise a strong presumption of the guilt of the person charged, such person should not be admitted to bail by any justice or justices of the peace, either in or out of sessions; but should be committed to prison by the justice before whom he or she should be so charged, in the manner hereinafter mentioned. But (and this was one of the amendments he proposed to introduce at present), if there was only one justice present, and the person should be charged before him with felony, or the suspicion of felony, and the charge was not sufficient to justify an immediate commitment; but yet, if there was, in the opinion of the justice, such a strong presumption of guilt as would render it necessary to have further inquiry made, before he could either safely commit or discharge—the justice should not, in that case, take bail, but order the prisoner to be detained until he could be taken before two justices; and if the further evidence produced against the person suspected was not such in the opinion of two justices, as to raise a strong presumption of his guilt, or such evidence should be adduced on behalf of the person charged, as should, in their opinion, weaken the presumption of his or her guilt, but there should, notwithstanding, appear to them to be sufficient ground for judicial inquiry into his or her guilt, in such case, the person charged should and might be, admitted to bail by such two justices in the manner mentioned. This provision, with this amendment, would have the important effect of lessening the number of those who were sent, sometimes most unnecessarily, as it turned out afterwards, but yet, in strict compliance with the law, to an imprisonment injurious at once to health and to morals; for, looking at the number of commitments for felonies—and the number ultimately prosecuted and found guilty, there appeared a disparity which excited a strong suspicion of the policy, whatever might be said of the justice, of the course at present adopted. Now, if the committee looked to the effect of imprisoning for a long period in a common gaol an innocent man on a charge of felony, and considered that, in almost all cases, such a person came out a much worse man, in point of moral character, than he was when he went in; they would not, he was sure, object to the grant of a power to magistrates, which would pre-
286
vent, in many cases, the chance of an innocent man being exposed to such a contamination. He inserted the word "credible," and that was a most important alteration, because at present, where a man was charged with felony, the magistrate, even though he might not think it a case strongly presumptive of guilt, had not the power to admit to bail, but must commit or discharge the prisoner. In cases where two magistrates were present at the first hearing of the charge—and that, he thought, would generally happen in all cities and large towns—they would have the power of admitting to bail, if the circumstances should appear to them to be such as he had before mentioned. But where only one magistrate was at the first hearing, he would be bound to remand, if he had the doubts to which he had before alluded, until two magistrates could hear the case.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, that, in point of fact, magistrates already exercised the power about to be granted them by this act.
Mr. Denmanthought that great difficulties would arise from placing too precise and exact limits to the conduct of magistrates. Too technical a laying down of their duties would have the effect of embarrassing them. He considered that there was a strong objection to the use of the word "credible," which was generally considered as synonymous with "competent;" and that, unless a person was convicted of some disqualifying crime, he must be considered competent. He should like the clause better, if magistrates were authorized, when the evidence appeared insufficient, to discharge the prisoner rather than remand him. He saw great reason for pausing before the clause proposed was agreed to. At all events, he hoped that nothing which passed that night would be considered as final, but that every clause would be printed and placed in the hands of members.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that the clause already proposed was the most material one. The others were not of such consequence at present. If the evidence against the prisoner was positive, the magistrate was bound to commit; and therefore it was that he added the word "credible" to "positive." "Credible" was not to be taken in its technical sense. It meant to guard against the evidence of persons of suspected or doubtful character, as, for instance, common prostitutes.
The Attorney-generalagreed with his right hon. friend, that the word "credible" was to be taken in its popular acceptation. Indeed, it was used as contra-distinguished from "incompetent." It meant persons who were credible from their character and conduct.
The clause was agreed to. On the clause, "That before any person shall be bailed, or committed, the justices shall take down the examinations, and bind all persons to appear as witnesses on the trial; and that all examinations, informations, and recognizances be returned to the Court,"
Mr. Horace Twisssaid, that great inconvenience arose from not having the deposition of witnesses returned before the trial. In the absence of these documents, it was impossible to determine whether the evidence of the witnesses, as given before the magistrates, agreed with that given on the trial of the prisoner. He should therefore suggest, that in no case the trial should be proceeded on, unless the written examinations taken before the magistrates were in Court.
Mr. Secretary Peelwas strongly of opinion that, if the suggestion of the hon. and learned gentleman were adopted, it might tend, in many instances, to defeat the ends of justice. Measures, for instance, might be taken by the friends of a prisoner to intercept the messenger who was conveying the depositions to the assizes, and thus prevent the trial from coming on, Besides, it would have the effect of taking the discretion of postponing the trial quite out of the hands of the judge.
Mr. Horace Twissreplied, that, unless the judge had seen the depositions, he could know nothing of the merits of the particular case, and therefore could use no discretion.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that perhaps it was not necessary that the judge should be in possession of the merits. He thought it would be wrong to legislate on the subject.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that if the suggestion proposed by his learned friend was adopted, a prisoner, through the neglect of the magistrates' clerk, might have his trial put off to the ensuing assizes. He admitted that it would be desirable to have the depositions in court during the trial; but if it was necessary to have them returned before the assizes, it might so happen that no officer would be in attendance to receive them.
The clause was agreed to.
Mr. Secretary Peel,on the clause being moved, that all informations and examinations on which any person should be imprisoned or admitted to bail, should be committed to writing, and returned into court at its opening, said that, at present, magistrates, upon charges of misdemeanour, were apt not to reduce the examinations to writing; but although it might give some little more trouble, he conceived it right that this should be done in all cases.
This clause was agreed to; as was also the clauses for giving similar powers to coroners, in this respect, as to justices, and imposing a fine on both of them in case of their failing to observe the above regulations. Upon the clause being moved, that all felonies, without benefit of clergy, should be ousted of that benefit under all circumstances consequent on the indictment,
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman, whilst he was improving the criminal law, would be conferring a great benefit if he were to do away with the distinction as to the benefit of clergy altogether. Indeed, the meaning of this term was far from being generally understood.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he, for the most part, concurred in the opinion of the hon. gentleman; but the simple repeal of all these distinctions now would be premature. He hoped at no distant period, so early, indeed, as in the next session, to bring forward bills for the consolidation of the whole of the criminal statutes [hear, hear!]. These he would propose to take in the following order:—first, the laws relating to the injury of persons: second, those relating to coining and forgery. When these had undergone revision and alteration, most of the criminal law would have been revised and condensed. As soon as they had made that progress, it would be right, perhaps, to make one uniform provision upon the subject: but at present, those offences that were clergyable, and those that were not, were so interwoven in the statutes, that it was inconvenient to separate them, or to come to any specific provision upon the subject. Besides, the simple repeal now, by abolishing the words "without benefit of clergy," would have the effect of making some offences capital that were not so by law.
The clause was agreed to.
Mr. Peelnext proposed the clause enacting, that "if any person indicted for

289
any felony for which the offender is entitled to the benefit of clergy, and he shall on arraignment confess the felony, or stand mute of malice, or shall be outlawed under such indictment, &c. in every such case the person shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of such felony, and the court shall award such judgment as if such person had been convicted by a verdict."
Lord J. Russellwas desirous that every person arraigned should have the benefit of a trial, whatever plea he might put forward, or under whatever circumstances a charge was preferred against him.
Mr. Scarlettobserved, that the judges had uniformly evinced the greatest unwillingness to admit a party to plead guilty. Even where a prisoner was obstinate in refusing to plead at all, the judge had a plea of "not guilty" entered for him, and the trial gone through.
Mr. Peelsaid, he only proposed to enact what he already found in several statutes. The clause only proposed, in a compressed manner, to enact that which was already in force.
The clause was agreed to.
Mr. Scarlettobjected to the clause which subjected "accessaries before the fact" to the same punishment as principals, in all cases of felony. There were some cases in which an exception was made to the general provision. As a general rule, he admitted that accessaries were liable to the same punishment; but before they altered the law as relating to excepted cases, he thought the committee ought to have before them the statutes, by which, for certain offences, the accessary was visited with a less punishment, the principal with a greater. The effect of the present clause might be, to increase the number of capital punishments, in some cases where the principal was indictable for a capital felony, and the accessary only made liable to one that was not capital.
Mr. Peelreplied, that he had adhered to the principle on which the law proceeded in the punishment provided for offences. It was, that the accessary should be liable to the same punishment as the principal. Indeed, in some instances, the accessary, in his opinion, was more criminal; as in the case of persons instigating boys to steal in dwelling-houses, to commit robbery, or some other offence, with the expectation that, on account of their youth, they might escape the capital punishment due to the crime. There, in his opinion, the
290
accessary was far more criminal. The principle was such as he had stated, and would be found to pervade all the statutes relating to murder, burglary, stealing in dwelling-houses, forgery, and arson. And, as this was the general principle, he attributed the omission of observing this principle to negligent legislation in those cases where exceptions were made. He would ask, why accessaries in one class of aggravated offences should be subject to heavy punishment, and those of another class be exempted? Why, for instance, should a man, who was an accessary in piracy, be liable to the punishment of death, and the accessary in an unnatural offence not be liable? Wherever, therefore, he saw these exceptions to the general principle, he considered it owing to negligence in drawing up the statute.
Mr. Scarlettwas desirous of having the cases in which the accessary ought not to be punished equally with the principal brought distinctly under the consideration of the House. He therefore wished the right hon. gentleman to postpone the consideration of this clause until an opportunity should be given to draw up an enumeration of the cases in which the accessary before the fact and the principal ought to share the same punishment.
Mr. Peelwas anxious to have the clause passed now, in order that the printing of the bill might not be postponed. After it was printed it would be re-committed, and the learned gentleman would then have the opportunity of creating the discussion which he desired.
Mr. Denmanconcurred in the opinion, of his learned friend, that before any alteration was adopted, the particular statutes in which these distinctions between the principal and accessary were made, should be laid before the committee, and the grounds of them examined.
The clause was agreed to. On the moving of the clause empowering offences committed within five-hundred yards of the boundary-line of two counties to be tried in either county,
Mr. Sykesexpressed a wish, that in all cases a prisoner should be tried either in the county where the offence was committed, or in that in which he was apprehended.
Mr. Peelthought, that it would be much better to have the prisoner always tried in the county where the offence was committed, as it would enable both prosecutors and prisoners to conduct their

291
cases with the least possible expense. If the prisoner was to be tried in the county where he was apprehended, how would the hon. gentleman act, supposing the prisoner was apprehended on the boundary-line, or in a boat on a river dividing two counties? He certainly could not consent to the hon. gentleman's proposition.
Mr. Denmanasked, whether it would not be expedient, in order to give effect to this clause, to empower the magistrates to commit to the gaol of either county?
Mr. Scarlettobserved, that if there were any doubt as to the boundary of a county, there would be also some doubt as to the distance of five-hundred yards from that boundary. It appeared necessary to make the law more explicit upon this point.
Mr. Peelobserved, that this clause only re-enacted the present law. The clause contained the words "any felony may be inquired of in either county." These words, he conceived, met the case mentioned by the learned member for Nottingham. If they did not, he should be happy to insert a clause in the bill, which would give the magistrates the power which the learned member thought they ought to have.
The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.

LARCENY LAWS BILL.
On the order of the day for the further consideration of this bill,
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had to propose several important alterations. He therefore wished the House merely to go into the committee pro forma, that the bill might be reprinted, and stand over for consideration. He had originally proposed to consolidate, and he trusted he had succeeded in consolidating, the whole of the statute law of England relating to all offences against property, connected with theft; but he had found, in attempting to legislate with respect to theft, that all that part which related to the mischievous destruction of property was so intimately connected with theft, that it was difficult to draw a distinction. It was probable, however, that, should the committee agree to his alterations, he might think it expedient not to pass the bill through the House this session, but suffer it to lay over for consideration, in its amended state, till the next session.
Mr. Scarlettapproved of the course pursued by the right hon. gentleman.
292
He was aware of the importance of the bill, and was anxious that it should be passed as speedily as possible; but it was expedient that so novel a measure should be rendered quite perfect.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Mr. Peelsaid, he would shortly state to the House two or three of the alterations which he desired to make. In the first place, as it was expedient to limit, as far as possible, the list of offences which were subject to the punishment of death, he intended to repeal that law which made the stealing in a church (no matter under what circumstances, or to what amount) a capital crime. As the statute stood, a man who stole his neighbour's prayer-book, as they sat in the same pew at chapel together, would be liable to suffer death for it; the act being in itself no more than a simple larceny. He saw no reason why any other law should be applicable to a place of worship than to the common case of a dwelling-house. In either case the breaking and entering would be capital, but not the simple act of stealing. In the same way, the statute which made it death to steal from a booth or tent at a fair, was one which he thought deserved to be revised. People who kept such open booths ought to guard their property sufficiently themselves, and not look for laws of unreasonable severity to protect it. The stealing to the amount of 40 s. in a dwelling-house, independent of burglary, was now capital: he proposed to increase the 40 s. to 5l. The sum of 40 s. had been fixed, as necessary to constitute the capital offence, in the reign of queen Anne. Considering the different circumstances of the country, the amount which he now proposed was not materially greater. There were two other statutes on which he would detain the House a moment—those applicable to stealing fish, and to stealing deer. The punishment for stealing fish out of any pond was seven years' transportation; and there was no difference between an angling and a stealing by nets or other engines. Now, he thought it rather hard to send an angler, although he did fish in other people's waters, to Botany-bay for seven years; and he therefore proposed a mitigation in favour of such characters. The law, as he would have it, should oblige every angler, who caught fish improperly, to give his name and address on demand, subject to a

293
penalty of 20 l. for giving a false one; and is punishment should be, to pay three times the value of the fish taken, with an additional fine to the king, to be levied by order of the magistrate. With respect to deer-stealing, hon. gentlemen were perhaps aware, that by the present law, any person who was sworn to have had the head, hide, or any part of the flesh of a deer in his house, within one month from the date of the oath, was liable to be called on, without any proof given that he really had possessed such venison, to show that he had not possessed it illegally. This statute was too severe; indeed perfectly unreasonable; and he proposed to leave the law as to venison on the same footing with that which applied to other meats. There were one or two other alterations which he proposed, and among the rest some change in the law referable to obtaining goods on false pretences; but with these, at so late an hour, he would not intrude upon the House.
The bill went through the committee, and was reported.

ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
The Marquis of Lansdown,in rising to present to their lordships the petition of the Catholics of Ireland, said, that, although the petition he was about to ask permission to lay on their table was one relating to a subject on which petitions had been presented on many former occasions, yet it was one which their lordships would feel, from its magnitude and importance, that he could not lay on their table, without wishing to say a few words, though he had no wish to involve in controversial discussion a subject which hereafter must be again brought under their lordships' notice. The petition had been placed in his hands in consequence of an event which he, in common with their lordships, must deeply deplore. He alluded to the loss of that distinguished individual, to whose hands it had generally been intrusted; whose whole political life, from its commencement to its close, had, from particular circumstances, been closely connected with this subject; and who continued, to the last, its able, uncompromising, and disinterested advocate. Their lordships would feel that, though the ground had closed over him, as it had

245
closed over many other distinguished public characters, who had taken a deep and unceasing interest in this subject, without seeing their efforts rewarded by success—transmitting to other less able men the task of extending to all the benefits of civil and religious liberty;—although the grave had closed over many of those who had petitioned, as well as over the public men who had supported their claims, and advocated their cause; yet their lordships could not but feel, that as long as the consequence of a difference of religious opinions was to deprive a large portion of the people of this country of their just rights; as long as the people of this country continued to cherish their peculiar affection for freedom; and as long as there was a desire among this large portion of the population to enjoy those blessings, excluding them from which might unite them, but could not lessen their numbers; as long as the people felt—and God forbid they should cease to feel—a desire, when labouring under this principle of exclusion, to share all the advantages of the constitution; as long as they should know that they were the only Catholic subjects of a Protestant sovereign, who were exposed to such excluding laws; as long as the exclusion existed, it could not be expected, and it was not possible their lordships should expect, that this subject should not be again and again brought before them by petitions, claiming to have those exclusions removed, which could not be defended upon any principle of policy or justice. Having said thus much, he did not think it expedient to do more than to move that the petition be laid on the table; but he still felt it to be a duty he owed to the petitioners to observe, that, indulgent as he knew the House, and even those of their lordships who were hostile to the claims of the Catholics, would always be to any language which might be employed by persons in pursuit of rights of which they conceived themselves to be unjustly deprived, and which their lordships would admit proceeded from no improper or dishonourable motive; yet he was happy to say, that in perusing this petition he had found nothing in it which would require the kind of indulgence to which he had alluded—nothing which was unworthy of the petitioners, and nothing which could call for the animadversion of their lordships. He was also happy to have the opportunity of stating, that the petitioners
246
had, with great propriety, abstained from any thing like polemical discussion. They had introduced into their petition none of those theological questions which, however proper in the pulpit, or in learned dissertations from the press, he never wished to see agitated within the walls of that House. They had, with great propriety, confined themselves to answering the allegation, that they were unfit to enjoy the same privileges as the other subjects of his majesty. He meant, the allegation that they could not give an undivided allegiance. This incapacity they solemnly disclaimed. To the pledge thus given, he trusted their lordships would pay that attention which it deserved at their hands. He would not trespass further on their lordships' time than to say, that he concurred in the sentiments expressed by the petitioners, and to express his hope that a period would soon arrive when those sentiments would be more generally adopted by that House. The question was one, the consideration of which could not be avoided; for he was sure it would force itself again and again on that House, until justice was done to the claims of the petitioners.—The petition was lead and laid on the table.—The noble marquis then rose, and presented another petition from a great number of the principal Protestants of Ireland in favour of the Catholic claims. Among the names attached to it were those of the duke of Leinster, the marquis of Downshire, the earl of Portarlington, and many other noblemen and great landed proprietors. Their lordships in receiving this petition would hear from those distinguished persons, in their own words, how deeply they considered themselves and their property to be affected by the existence of those laws which excluded their Catholic fellow-subjects from the participation of the privileges which they themselves enjoyed.
Earl Greysaid, he had to call their lordships' attention to a petition from the same body as that with which the first petition presented by his noble friend originated, and which could not have been intrusted to the care of a more zealous and able advocate. His noble friend had that day shown that his zeal for the cause which he espoused was tempered by the soundest discretion, in refraining from doing any thing more than to make the usual motion for laying the petition on the table. It was his intention to follow the same course as that which had been adopted by his noble friend—namely, to

247
require of their lordships nothing more than to permit this petition to be laid on their table. But, in doing this, he also wished, in common with his noble friend, to express his opinion, that civil disqualification on religious grounds, if not founded on a paramount public necessity, could not be maintained on any principle of policy or justice; and that upon the accomplishment of the object of the petitioners, the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and therewith the security and power of the British empire, depended. But, concurring as he did with his noble friend, that it would at present be inexpedient to trouble their lordships by calling their immediate attention to these topics, he must state with his noble friend, that this question was of such a nature, and so vitally connected with the interests of the nation, that it must force itself again and again on their consideration. He therefore looked forward with an anxious hope to a time, and that not distant, when, under his auspices, this question would be taken up and pursued to a successful issue. Having said thus much, it was now his duty to advert to the particular object of the petition which he had the honour to present to their lordships. The petitioners expressed their deep sense of the injury they suffered from the disqualifications under which they laboured on account of their religious opinions. They stated, that they had endeavoured at various times, and through various channels, to remove the unfavourable and unjust impressions which existed against them. With this view they had associated and formed that body which was called the Catholic Association—an association formed on sound and constitutional principles, and in the institution of which they were warranted by the precedents and practice of the best times of British history. They complained, that, against this association, a bill was introduced. The allegations of that bill they offered to refute, and prayed to be heard at the bar for that purpose; but this prayer was refused. They therefore complain, that, without examination or inquiry, that bill was passed into a law. By that law the petitioners felt themselves deeply aggrieved; and they had stated in strong terms, but not in such terms as would render it unfit for him to present the petition to the House, their sense of the injury they had sustained. They concluded their petition by praying their lordships to repeal the law. After this statement, it only
248
remained for him to fulfil his duty by moving, that the petition be laid on the table. Before he made that motion, however, he would, in order to save time, beg leave to present another petition, which was from the Catholic inhabitants of the parish of St. Audeon, in Dublin. The object of this petition was Catholic emancipation; and on that general subject it was not necessary for him to make any further observation. But the petitioners requested their lordships' attention to a particular point—to those proposed measures which were known by the name of "wings," but which he concurred with the petitioners, did not assist the cause in its upward flight; for, instead of enabling it to soar, they clogged and impeded it. To these measures he had strong objections; particularly to that which went to disfranchise a large body of electors upon the allegation of abuse—to deprive freeholders of the right to elect representatives—a right which they held under the same sanction of British law by which all other rights and property were protected. He was not at all surprised that those persons who had always opposed Catholic emancipation should take up this particular clause of disfranchisement for the purpose of defeating that measure, to the principle of which they objected. He agreed with the sentiments expressed in the petition, on this point as well as on its general object. There was no question, the consideration of which was so essential to the peace and security of the empire as that of the continuance of those laws, as unjust as they were unwise, which excluded Roman Catholics from the privileges enjoyed by other British subjects.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SLAVERY IN THE WEST-INDIA COLONIES.
Lord Suffield,after expressing his sense of disadvantage in following the two noble lords who had just sat down, and who had rendered an interesting subject near home doubly interesting by their powers of eloquence, said, he felt it was now his duty to direct their lordships' attention to grievances, not, perhaps, of a less interesting nature, in a more remote region. Since he had first declared his hope that the motion which he was about to submit would meet with their lordships' unanimous approbation, nothing had occurred to diminish his confidence. It was an abstract proposition, unconnected with any matter upon which difference of opinion

249
was known to prevail; emancipation itself would neither be protracted nor accelerated by the result of his motion; and, although a difference of opinion might exist upon the fittest time for carrying that measure into effect, he was happy to say he believed no man in the country, certainly no one in that House—no, not even the noble lord who was the most able and ready advocate for slavery, or rather the most ready and able apologist of the West-Indian system, was prepared to deny that slavery ought to cease throughout the British dominions.—Here lord Suffield took occasion to repel the accusation against the abolitionists of a desire for precipitancy. He was personally acquainted with many of those best known to the public as advocates for emancipation: he had attended many of their private conferences, and it was remarkable that he had, in no one instance, heard a wish expressed for sudden or convulsive emancipation, nor had he heard one scheme devised for its attainment, by any means that were not cautious and gradual. Next, as he had complained of one accusation, and as very recent allusion had been made to the matter of compensation to the colonies in the event of emancipation, he could not forbear expressing his own sentiments on that subject. The abolitionists had been accused of disinclination to compensate slave-owners for their losses: he denied that charge, on his own behalf and on the behalf of the country, if a clear case of damnification could be made out. But the call for compensation seemed to him to come from the wrong quarter: the mother country had, it was calculated, during a period of thirty years, added 150 millions to her debt in support of the colonies; 50,000 British subjects had, during the same space of time, been sacrificed to the climate, and three millions of money were now annually paid to continue the system of slavery! Surely the mother country should be indemnified for this vast exhaustion of blood and treasure; but it appears in the mean time, that the colonists have become impoverished and not enriched—they have found it unprofitable; they do find it so, and ever will find it unprofitable, as it seems by the ordination of Providence. Then he was quite sure that the people of England would rather pay six millions annually for the discontinuance, than three millions for the continuance, of slavery. Thus compensation, however unreasonable in principle, would readily
250
be granted. One point more on the general subject, and he would proceed with his motion. Some indignation in that House had been exhibited at the assertion that slavery was incompatible with Christianity, and this assertion was fathered on the abolitionists; now, although conscientiously thinking as he did, that, the principles of the Christian religion were adverse to slavery, the assertion alluded to, he believed, might be traced to a different source from that contemplated, perhaps, by the noble earl opposite; namely, to the West Indians themselves, not to the abolitionists. In 1808, the Royal Gazette promulgated this doctrine:—"He that chooses to make slaves Christians, let him give them their liberty. What will be the consequence when to that class of men is given the title of beloved brethren, which actually is done. Assembling negroes in places of worship gives a momentary feeling of independance both of thinking and acting, and by frequent meetings of this kind a spirit of remark is generated; neither of which are sensations at all proper to be excited in the minds of slaves." Again, in 1823, says the government paper, "To address a promiscuous audience of black or colonial people, bond and free, by the endearing appellation of my brethren and sisters, is what can no where be heard except in Providence chapel." Such are the sentiments of the colonists, as given in their own newspapers, if correctly quoted in the House of Commons in the course of a debate on the trial and condemnation of the missionary Smith.
He begged pardon for this digression; but, as he had not before addressed the House on this subject, he could not resist the opportunity of expressing his own sentiments on the two or three points now adverted to, and of disclaiming for himself and his friends, first, the alleged desire for precipitancy; secondly, the denial of compensation if shewn to be just or requisite; thirdly, the originality of the notion that slavery and Christianity are incompatible. —Now, said the noble lord, to the subject of my motion without further digression or preface:—He did not strive on the present occasion to convey to the slaves civil rights; his object was, to prevent criminal wrongs, in the words of Mr. Dewarris, who expressed the same ideas so exactly, that he should beg to read an extract to the House from his report now upon the table. "Lastly," says Mr. Commissioner Dewarris, "to all arguments

251
drawn from the evils of the system and strangely applied in favour of its continuance, because slavery is a great or a necessary, it ought not therefore to be an unmitigated evil; it ought, as it appears to me to be softened, precisely because it is contended it cannot with safety and justice be destroyed." The attempt to convey civil rights to slaves would be absurd; the attempt entirely to secure persons in a state of slavery from criminal wrongs would perhaps be impracticable; but it will be something if we oppose some check to that mockery of justice—that pretence for legal oppression and violence, of which this fallen race have at present to complain.
All who have ever written or spoke in public on the subject of slavery, all who have directed their thoughts to it, lord S. said, he believed, agreed in the opinion that the evils of the system were by no means confined to the individuals who were slaves: those degraded and unfortunate beings only shared the bad effects of slavery with their masters, and with all who were in any degree connected with the system. Its baneful influence extended itself over all classes of society within its sphere; and he was confident that he could shew, from papers on the table, that no persons resident in the slave colonies, and connected with the administration of the laws, were exempt from the contagion. He would begin with the colonial legislature—their blind and ill-advised resistance to the wishes and recommendation of his majesty's ministers; secondly, he would prove the apathy of the colonists relative to recorded cases of cruelty; thirdly, he would shew something very like misrepresentation, at all events gross inconsistency, on the part of a commissioner appointed to inquire into and report upon the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the West Indies. The more unintentional the misrepresentation the better for his argument. If he could shew impolitic conduct on the part of the legislature; apathy, injustice, and partiality on the part of those who had to administer the laws; and unintentional misrepresentation on the part of the commissioners, all these persons being men of undisputed integrity and honour, his case was made out beyond a question. What better proof could be afforded that persons being owners of slaves are not fit for the high offices which they hold? But if still a doubt could exist, he would lastly quote the opinion of some of the colonists them-
252
selves, high in authority, who had favoured us with their sentiments on the subject, in direct concurrence with the object which was to be accomplished by the motion which he had that day to offer to their lordships.—The first reference he would make to the papers in their lordships' hands was relative to the blind resistance made by the colonial legislatures to the recommendations of his majesty's government. The party known to the country by the name of abolitionists, the country itself, and the ministers, all united in desiring an improvement in the condition of the slaves to be the work of the colonists themselves. No one here wanted to have the credit of accomplishing such improvement. All wished the slaves to feel indebted to their masters for any benefits they might receive. Accordingly, a recommendation is made of certain measures for the adoption of the colonists. Now let us see what has been the consequence. He would read an extract from a despatch, signed by the noble earl opposite (lord Bathurst), respecting Jamaica. He selected the observation on Jamaica especially; first, because it appeared on the very face of the correspondence printed and on the table; secondly, because Jamaica was a principal colony; and lastly, because Jamaica had ready and able defenders in that House upon all occasions when it was, and often when it was not, attacked.
Lord Bathurst says, "Jamaica has always been considered as the colony which was most likely to take the lead in every measure which was calculated to improve the state of society in the West-India colonies, and it is a great mortification to those who looked with confidence to the support of that legislature that there is not any one West-India colony that has not done more than Jamaica, or has not made the example of Jamaica their apology for doing so little."—And now let us see what the duke of Manchester thinks of the house of assembly—resident as he has been for some time in the island, and competent therefore, it is to be presumed, to form a pretty correct notion of the sentiments of its inhabitants. "I am afraid," says the duke of Manchester in one of his despatches, "after so many repeated trials, that there is no hope of persuading the present house of assembly to do any thing effectual for the relief of the slave.—I have exhausted all the means in my power to lead them to a proper way

253
of thinking." Can any thing more clearly shew the prejudice which prevails against all improvement?
But he would now proceed to examine a summary which he had made with great care, of all that each of the colonies had done in compliance with the wishes of our government at home. It appears that Sunday labour is prohibited by only one of the West-India legislatures; namely Dominica. That evidence of slaves is really admitted in two only—Grenada and Tobago. There being exceptions to the admission provided in St. Vincent's and Dominica which nullify it; even in Grenada and Tobago the admission is under such qualifications as to render it almost valueless. That the legalization of marriages has taken place in only two—the Bahamas and St. Vincent's. That right of slaves to property is enacted in four only—not admitting Jamaica to be one of the four, although it is there professed—legacies being irrecoverable by suit.—It is enacted in Grenada, Tobago, St. Vincent's, and Dominica. The power to purchase manumission—enacted nowhere. Non-separation of families enacted in two only—the Bahamas and Grenada. Abolition of driving whip—enacted no where except as used by slaves.—Of flogging females no where except as to the publicity of the flogging.
Having now, said lord S. afforded your lordships a fair specimen of the disposition of the colonies to comply with the recommendations of this government, I will proceed to examine the report of the fiscal of Demerara. The record of complaints includes only the short period of three months. It appears that cognizance was taken of twenty-five complaints in that time—seventeen of slaves against their masters, six of masters against their slaves, two of slaves against each other.—Of the seventeen slaves complaining against their masters, twelve were punished for complaining, two were restored to their masters, liable of course to similar punishment, and sure to receive it for the same reason—and two of the complaints were redressed, one by the dismissal of the manager, and one by fine, which appears not to have been paid—the remaining complaint seems to have been simply disallowed—Now it happens that of the six complaints of masters against slaves not one remains unredressed—four by flogging and two by imprisonment. The two other complaints, making up the
254
number twenty-five, are of slaves against each other.
Having no account of the nature of some of the charges, or the grounds upon which the decisions have taken place, little more can be gathered from this document than inference from the contrast between the redress afforded to slaves complaining against their masters, and the redress afforded masters of complaints against their slaves; but surely, my lords, the partiality of the fiscal is here made sufficiently apparent. Lord S. then proceeded in reference to the record from the fiscal of Berbice which he prefaced by observing, I now come to the shocking papers of Berbice; and, whoever desires to be made acquainted with the condition of slaves in the West Indies, would do well to examine this record with care—here may be seen a picture of slavery, not perhaps in its worst form, because it is notorious that, where slaves are worst treated, in the greater ratio does population diminish, whereas in this colony no such diminution takes place; then again, it is to be remembered, that the record regards only 23,000 persons out of a West-Indian-slave population of 800,000; and lastly, it relates only to the short period of about four years. The first case his lordship would cite, would be found in page 39 of the Berbice Report. Four women complain that they are not allowed time to suckle their children. Two of them were flogged for the enormous crime of suckling their offspring, and their statement was corroborated by the fact recorded by the fiscal that their coats were stained with blood.
The second case, page 39, is that of a woman who was flogged because she was unsaleable. She was sent out by her master to find a purchaser, and because a customer could not be found, on her return home she was flogged. The third and fourth cases, page 56 and 57, are of women reported to have been flogged, and to have miscarried in consequence, being pregnant at the time of the flogging. One of these cases especially having been already noticed in public, and remarked upon as being attended with peculiar circumstances of atrocity, has excited a strong sensation in the West Indies, and has been adverted to and argued; and, so far as it could be, combated by those who had the means of ascertaining the facts. It therefore deserves your lordships' particular attention. It is proved in all its

255
ferocity of perpetration by seven witnesses, the only part of the statement made on behalf of the unhappy female disputed is, a part of the consequences ensuing from the punishment—not the miscarriage, that remains uncontradicted, but the effect of the flogging upon the unborn child, and this is disputed on medical authority. What then remains an undeniable fact,—that a woman, big with child, was ordered to do work that she was unable to execute—the driver was ordered to flog her for laziness—he, a man pretty much habituated, it may be supposed, to severity,—even he remonstrated, saying, "she is rather big with child"—the word "rather" was omitted, my lords, in a former representation of this case, and the omission was made the ground of solemn complaint. He (lord S.) trusted therefore it would now be remembered that the driver said the woman was "rather" big with child. What was the reply?—"Flog her till the blood flies out!" She was ordered the next day to work; she complained of being ill, and the day following she miscarried! Now then, how stands the case? Admitting the consequences so far as regarded the unborn child to be misrepresented, and admitting the very important qualification as to the degree of pregnancy, the case, my lords, shrinks into a mere act of ferocious brutal outrage and infanticide!
The fifth case, page 86, is of another woman who miscarried in consequence of ill usage, and she complains also of the harsh treatment of her child, who exhibits marks of flogging. The sixth case, page 63, is that of Brutus, who is flogged because he would not consent to the violation of his daughter! A rape, however, is committed, and proved against the manager by a host of witnesses, who declare that they were posted as watchmen at the door while the crime was perpetrated; and, would your lordships believe it—the omission of this proof, the horrible fact that persons were posted as watchmen, is impudently charged upon those who made allusion to this case also on a former occasion in public, as a culpable suppression of evidence which would have overturned the case! Upon this, and upon all the cases hitherto cited, no decision of the fiscal is recorded; but, as an introduction to a few of those cases upon which there has been a decision, his lordship said he would next advert to one connected with the last mentioned in
256
some degree, which it seemed the fiscal had expressed an opinion upon. It would be found in page 137. It was the case of a negro, Michael, who had been punished on suspicion of a robbery. Goods very similar to those stolen were afterwards found on the person of another individual; Michael protests his innocence, and complains to the manager of his unjust flogging—the manager tells him to hold his tongue, or he shall be put in the stocks; he then complains to the master (and, be it observed, this is the same master who owned Brutus, the same plantation, and, for aught we know to the contrary, the same profligate manager) the master says the unjust flogging was not his fault, it was the manager's; he finally complains to the fiscal for redress, and here of course obtains it; then what is the redress? The manager is reprimanded for punishing a slave on such slight suspicion, and Michael gets no redress, because his innocence is not proved. In England happily it is necessary to prove guilt—innocence is presumed; but in the West Indies the rules of justice seemed to be reversed. It is to be lamented that we have no information relative to the decisions of the fiscal in any of the cases cited, except the last; but luckily we find some other cases on which decision has been recorded, and from the nature of them we may form some conjecture of the weight of punishment inflicted upon the monsters whose crimes have been represented in the papers before us: first, here is a case (page 124) a complaint of fifteen slaves against their master, who has treated them with the greatest cruelty—forced them to work on Sundays, and robbed them of their ducks, fowls, &c. all this is proved before the fiscal—and what is his decision? awful instance of retributive justice. The master is absolutely required to make restitution of the stolen property, or its value; and, as a terrific example to all other masters of slaves, he is threatened that, upon a repetition of his offence, he shall be criminally prosecuted. The second decided case is in page 92. Mark, a negro, is proved to have been illegally flogged. What is the consequence? The manager is reproved for three successive floggings! The third case decided upon is in page 131. Felix complains of the debauched conduct of the manager generally, and especially with respect to his own wife. The case is inquired into by the fiscal, and it appeared that Felix had not completed his

257
task when he came to complain. The case is proved against the manager, who, the fiscal remarks, had evidently taken improper liberties with the woman on the estate —and what is the consequence? Your lordships, I am sure, could not believe it if it were not on record in this official document. Felix, my lords—Felix, not the adulterous manager, but Felix, the complainant, is ordered to be flogged, and the manager is reprimanded! The fourth case was one in page 100. Lambert, a sick negro, could obtain no medicine, was forced to work night and day, complains: nothing appears in contradiction of his testimony, and he his flogged—why, we do not know; but here is the decision. Again, page 93, fifth case. Michael, an old man, complains of over work, and it is decided that he shall receive 75 lashes. Sixth and lastly, page 137. Ness is ordered to work on Sundays. He does not insolently refuse, but complains to the constituted authority. He is, for so doing, punished by the fiscal, not because his tale is untrue, for it appears that, although Ness is flogged, the manager is warned by the fiscal of the illegality of working slaves on a Sunday.
From these six decided cases we may draw something like a reasonable inference of the mode in which those other cases were decided, of which we have no information as to the result. In England, when men of education and of superior rank in life are proved to have violated the law, they usually hear from the judge who tries them, that they deserve, from having superior knowledge of their duty, the more signal punishment; and it is notorious that they generally received it: but in the West Indies, as it has been before observed, the rules of justice and equity are directly reversed.—His lordship then proceeded to point out the inconsistencies, amounting, as he thought, to misrepresentation on the part of Mr. Commissioner Dewarris, employed by his majesty's ministers to inquire into and report upon the civil and criminal jurisdiction in the West Indies. In pages 14 and 15, said his lordship, the commissioner tells us, that cruel masters were certainly heard of sometimes; he believes he heard of three such instances in twelve islands! He says, "the poor slave left to himself is generally contented and happy"—"A little more time and a little less work form the narrow boundary of his wants and wishes"—"He is in the enjoyment of do-
258
mestic comfort, capable of acquiring comparative wealth, and wearing an air of independence, quite inexplicable to those who have never had an opportunity of observing how manners and opinion can control laws." He then speaks of the paucity of crimes and the absence of want. Now really, lord S. observed, I did not expect to find in page 62, of the same report, that "in this island," speaking of Barbadoes, "slaves are without legal protection or redress for personal injuries." Murder is a capital crime, but "there is no other legislative provision to restrain the absolute power of the master over the slave, or of inflicting punishment upon the owners or others, in case of mutilation, dismemberment, or cruel treatment."—Here, said lord S., is a condition in which men may be happy and contented. Mr. Dewarris adds, "A slave who is or thinks himself aggrieved, looks in vain in this island for a proper quarter in which to prefer his complaint.—He can no where be received!" The commissioner surely could not mean the slaves were contented and happy in Barbadoes! Did he mean in Grenada? he particularly speaks in page 16 of the high reputation of Grenada for the humanity of her laws; then in page 66 he tells us that slave evidence cannot be received, and, in defect of it, a sheepstealer avoided prosecution; and, to prove the humanity of the Grenada laws more particularly, he tells us, in page 95, that harbourers of felons are to suffer death; in page 96, that any slaves personally insulting so as in any measure contemptuously treating any white or free person, shall be punished for every such offence at the discretion of any one justice of the peace, not to extend to life or limb. Then the happy condition of the slave could hardly have been contemplated in Grenada, and the humanity of her laws is not distinctly made out to us by the instances now mentioned. But where is the happy and independent looking slave? is he in St. Vincent's? there the commissioner tells us in page 66, "that there was a very affecting case, in which the dying declaration of a black woman, a slave murdered under very peculiar circumstances, was, in consequence of the exclusion of slave evidence, rejected, and an acquittal rendered necessary." "A little more time and a little less work form the narrow boundary of the slaves' wants and wishes," and "he wears an air of independence quite inexplicable to those

259
who have never had an opportunity of observing how manners and opinion can control laws."
Now, my lords, said lord S., although we occasionally have such opportunities in this country, this statement of Mr. Dewarris, if correct, would still appear, I think, to most of us a little inexplicable, as he says; but if inexplicable in Barbadoes, which he could not mean us to contemplate, where does he represent the happiness and flourishing condition of the slave; if he did not mean Grenada, nor St. Vincent's, did he mean to refer us to Tobago?—here perhaps we who do know how manners and opinion can control laws, shall find the case quite satisfactorily explained; in page 89 Mr. Dewarris gives us the evidence of the provost marshal, I think, who states, "a manager to Windward sent all the overseers, all white and free persons, out of the way—he then gave a negro 150 lashes." The negro was brought, in a state of which he might have died (how very cautiously worded is this by the worthy provost marshal), "in a state of which he might have died, to us the sitting magistrates. We had no means of proving it—and upon this, proposed a bill, either to admit slave evidence, or to make the accused purge himself on oath. The bill was not approved.—It is a very common thing, adds the justice of peace, when they wish to be cruel, to send all the free people out of the way—I have known many such cases." Still, be it remembered, the commissioner of inquiry tells us, although he heard this testimony, and furnishes us with it, that he only heard of three cases of cruelty in twelve islands. Really this is quite inexplicable. Then, as to paucity of crimes spoken of in page 16, we have to oppose the testimony of the senior justice of peace in Tobago, that he has had 2,500 complaints before him, breaches of the peace and misdemeanours, in something more than a twelvemonth! I will, said lord S., trouble your lordships with no more of these glaring inconsistencies. I am confident that Mr. Dewarris did not mean to mislead or to deceive; and, if he did not, how much must slave-ownership have obscured his faculties! I think, my lords, I have conclusively now made out the blind and ill-advised resistance of the colonial legislatures, the apathy and the partiality of those who administer the laws; and, lastly, the inconsistency of the commissioner of inquiry. I have now
260
only to refer, for confirmation of my own opinion, to that expressed by some persons high in authority in the colonies, and quoted in Mr. Dewarris's report. It does not distinctly appear in page 17, whether an attorney-general, or Mr. Dewarris himself, speaks of the Guardian Act, when he says "the magistrates in the one case, and the guardians in the other, are themselves owners of estates and slaves, who would resist the intrusion of a stranger upon their own grounds, and therefore will not set an example of interference with the property of others," page 18. The fault, in these cases, it appears to me, is not in the law or the lawgiver, still less is there any mala fides, any deliberate fraud and designed evasion. What is wanting, I conceive, is a due administration—which can only be by indifferent persons; and this conclusion I apprehend will be fully established, and the principles upon which it depends developed clearly, as the report proceeds. In page 98, his excellency the governor of Grenada observes, "there are no persons to be found to fill the situation of guardian, such as must have been contemplated by the act, who are, as they ought to be, independent. They are chiefly overseers and managers. Can they be expected to say that the clothing or food furnished by their employers is insufficient; or, if they do, may they not be afraid of the charge being retaliated on estates under their management?"
After the citation of these opinions, I feel, said lord S. that it would be an unwarrantable waste of your lordships' time if I were to add another argument in support of the motion which I am about to submit. It is not in our power to do much for the unhappy people whose cause I advocate, but I trust I shall have your lordships' aid in doing the little that we can. Before I sit down, however, I cannot forbear remarking, how sensible I am of the consequences entailed on every one who steps forward to ameliorate in any, even the smallest, degree, the condition of the unfortunate slave. In the front rank of these consequences I foresee the sarcastic complaints of the noble lord opposite to me (lord Dudley), but by him I am sure nothing will be offered which it would be unbecoming in a gentleman to offer, or in a gentleman patiently to receive. From another quarter I am aware that the grossest abuse is to be expected; but, my lords, so long as I draw breath, I will

261
do the best in my power to excite that public feeling through the means of which extinction of slavery is to be accomplished. I wish not to excite clamour, but resolution of purpose. To those whose efforts to suppress feeling on this subject are notorious, I shall make no further allusion than to say, in contemplating the consequences of my efforts this day, they are the last and least in my consideration. I now move, "That an address be presented to his majesty, praying that in future he will be pleased to appoint to the officers of governor, chief justice, attorney-general, fiscal, guardian, and religious instructor, in the West Indies, only such persons as are not owners of, and have no reversionary or other interest in, slaves."
Earl Bathurstsaid, that the noble lord who had proposed this address, had accurately described the difficulty which government had met with in endeavouring to carry into effect the wishes of parliament. He was of opinion, that the amelioration in the condition of the slaves should be effected rather by the act of the colonial legislature, than by the interference of this government; but he did not see how that could bear on the present question; at least, how it could bear favourably to the noble lord, since surely he would not endeavour to exclude slave-owners from the colonial legislature. The noble lord had mentioned the several cases which had been decided in favour of the masters instead of the slaves. Surely the noble lord should have made some allowance on account of the difficulties of the situation of the fiscal. In the colony of Demerara, the fiscal had encountered the greatest difficulties, on account of the opinions of the slaves; and before he could make any impression on them, he was compelled to undeceive them as to what was intended by this country; for they actually imagined that the parliament had resolved to set them free. It appeared from the noble lord's statement, that the commissioners employed by government were possessed of some property in slaves. Now, all that he could say was, that when he concurred in the appointment of that gentleman, he was not aware of the circumstance, or he certainly should not have thought a slave-owner the most proper person to appoint to such an office. He owned he was rather surprised at the charge of inconsistency made against that gentleman;
262
who, though he had admitted that the laws were severe, had considered, that as many of those laws were obsolete, the slaves could better trust to the good habits of their masters, knowing that from those habits they would receive a better protection than the laws would afford. As for the instances of cruelty, he might appeal to any noble lord, whether in former times cruelties, just as horrible, had not been committed in this country by masters against their apprentices? He admitted the excellence of the principle urged by the noble lord in his motion; but he doubted the possibility of carrying it into execution, at least with respect to more than one or two of the chief officers of the Colonial government. The other officers would not find a sufficient equivalent in the emoluments of their offices, to undertake them without being possessed of any interest in the colony. He should be sorry to oppose the resolution, because he agreed with it in principle; but, as he feared it would be impossible to carry it into execution, he should move the order of the day.
Lord Suffieldwas astonished that the noble earl should admit the principles on which he proposed to act, and yet decline to carry any portion of them into execution.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he would have been better pleased if the noble earl had given a direct negative to this motion. He thought there was no reason whatever for passing this resolution; but that, on the contrary, it would be productive of the most mischievous effects. He was convinced that, if any thing was done, it must be by the silent operation of the expressed opinion of this government, and by the example which they set in the treatment of the slaves in the colonies more immediately under their control. He thought this resolution would destroy the operation of that opinion. As to our legislating for the colonies, of this he was convinced, that ministers dare not submit such a proposition—that parliament would not adopt it; and if it did adopt it, that the people would not second it—nor could it, if it were carried, be executed without danger to the colonies, and without incurring the risk of sacrificing the slaves themselves. He thought that in this matter there could be nothing better than the example of good treatment to the slaves by those immediately under the control of the government. He re-

263
gretted much that, in the treatment of this question, the word emancipation had been made such frequent use of. Certain he was, that it should never have been used at all. The consequence was, that the amelioration of the condition of the slaves was thereby rendered a matter of far greater difficulty. Let their general condition be first improved, let them be rendered capable of appreciating the blessings of freedom, and let them then be emancipated. With these views of the question, he repeated his regret, that the motion had not been met by a decided negative.
Lord Calthorpesupported the motion. While public functionaries in the colonies were, he said, permitted to be the owners of slaves, or to have a reversionary interest in that species of property, it must necessarily produce a conflict of duties, and operate injuriously to the slave population.
Viscount Dudley and Warddeprecated the sort of imputation which had been thrown out against himself, of having on former occasions expressed himself with some degree of satirical warmth of those who were most earnest in their applications for the immediate abolition of negro slavery. He begged to assure the noble mover, that no man was more disinclined than himself to indulge in the language of sarcasm upon any measures submitted for the consideration of their lordships. On the present occasion, however, he must be allowed to declare that he could not, by any means, concur in the inferences which the noble lord opposite appeared disposed to draw from the long string of cases which had been quoted by him. Many of those cases were already well known, and had been much discussed and commented upon; especially in a very able pamphlet, which had been recently put forth by a society, of which the noble lord was himself a member. Still he felt himself much obliged to the noble lord for the moderation displayed in his speech; seeing that he had not gone quite so far as some others; for, while it was suggested, in the publication which he had just adverted to, that the planters and proprietors of slaves in our West-India islands should not be eligible to the magistracy, and other offices in the colonies, another writer had gone the length of proposing, that the legislature should declare those who were guilty of the crime of possessing plantations in the West Indies, cultivated
264
by slave labour, incapable of sitting in parliament. While he confessed himself obliged by the noble lord's omitting to put to the House any proposition, of so unreasonable an extent, he was not at all convinced that that noble lord had made out a case for the motion he had submitted to their lordships. He therefore felt himself compelled to give his vote against it.
Lord St. Vincent,as being better acquainted with the present condition of affairs in Jamaica than in any other of the islands, thought the present a favourable opportunity for saying a few words on the subject of the payment of ecclesiastical functionaries in that island. He had great pleasure in stating, that from the moment of the arrival of the bishop of Jamaica on his diocese, there was a general manifestation, among all ranks of the community, of a solicitude to put the whole of the clerical appointments upon the best and most liberal footing. The salaries of the rectors were voluntarily raised, and the stipends of the curates increased in proportion; while the vestries of the parishes were relieved from some obligations relative to certificates, which had formerly been found of much inconvenience. In short, every thing had been done which was best calculated to further the important objects of the bishop's appointment. The noble mover seemed to labour under some misapprehension with respect to an act, which he understood the noble lord to speak of, as having been passed; namely, a compulsory measure upon the owners of West-Indian estates to enfranchise any of their slaves who might offer their estimated value as the price of their enfranchisement. He was not aware of the existence of any such act; but this he knew, that, so far as he was interested in slave property, he should always be very happy, under such circumstances, to give the slave his enfranchisement, the very next moment after he had presented himself to ask for it. But, in the mean time, he thought it would be exceeding impolitic to pass any compulsory enactments upon this subject; because, the first suggestions of compulsion must put an end to all voluntary acts of this nature on the part of those with whom it lay to perform them. For these reasons he should give his vote against the motion of the noble lord.
The motion was then withdrawn.