Sitting of 10 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Consolidation Fund (Appropriation); Militia Ballot Suspension; Exchequer Bills (Public Works); Slave Trade Treaties; Tithe Advances (Ireland); Bankrupts (Ireland); Militia Pay Bill.—Read a first time:—Lords Justices.
Petitions presented. By Dr. BOWRING, from Kilmarnock, against the Slave Trade; By Mr. FIELDEN, from Operatives of Oldham, for a repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Operatives of Mansfield and Manchester, for a total repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. GILLON, from Airdrie, for some alteration in the mode of apprenticing Slaves in the West Indies By Sir W. FOLLETT, from 800 Bachelors of Arts of the University of Cambridge, not to encourage any plan to injure that Establishment; and two in favour of the better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. W. FATTEN, from Lancaster, against the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr. ROBINSON, from Creditors of certain South American States, for redress.

SLAVERY.
Mr. Fowell Buxtontook the opportunity of asking the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control, whether it was the intention of the government of India to put an end to slavery in that country?
Sir John Hobhousecould only repeat what he had stated in reply to a similar question in the last Session of Parliament, that the Government of India were taking such steps to ameliorate the condition of slavery as, at no distant period, should lead to its total extinction. The hon. Member must be aware that the domestic slavery of the East was very different from that of the slavery of the negroes in the West Indies; but he might rest assured that neither the Home authorities nor the Local Governments would for a moment lose sight of an object which every Englishman desired to see attained—the total extinction of slavery in every part of the British dominions.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonadmitted, that the domestic slaver of the East might at the present momen be of a very mild character; but he felt perfectly satisfied if sugar should be grown to any extent in the East that the system of slavery would soon become as disgraceful as it had ever been in the West.
Sir John Hobhouseassured the hon. Gentleman that, supposing sugar to be cultivated on a more extensive scale in
1854
India than it had hitherto been, the Government at home, as well as in the East, would take ample care that no such state of slavery should arise as had existed in the West Indies.
Mr. FowellBuxton was much obliged to the right hon. Baronet for that assurance. He begged, however, to put another question connected with the same subject. He had received communications from the Mauritius, by which he was informed that a vast number of the natives of Bengal had of late been imported into that island as well as into some of the West India islands, to assist in the cultivation of sugar. He wished to know how these importations took place, and whether the natives so imported were in any degree regarded as slaves?
Sir John Hobhousethought, that the hon. Member must himself be well aware that the exportation of these persons from Bengal took place entirely with their own consent, and that they were landed in the different settlements to which they sailed in the character of free labourers. They were no more regarded as slaves than the House of Commons itself. The Governor-general of India, in consequence of the increased exportation of these free labourers, had thought right to make certain regulations for their transport, by which their convenience and comfort were insured. Only a certain number were allowed to embark in any ship, and that under regulations which secured their comfort on the passage. Care was also taken, in case they should not like the country to which they were removed, that every facility should be given them to return.
Sir George Greyas far as the colonies were concerned, begged to assure the hon. Gentleman that wherever these natives of the East were imported every precaution was taken to preserve them in a state of complete and perfect freedom.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Bannermansaid, that he was prevented by the immediate termination of the Session, from calling the attention of the House to the memorial from the Moderator of the General Assembly to the first Lord of the Treasury on the subject of Church accommodation in Scotland, agreeably to the notice which he had previously given. He should therefore merely say that if he had had the opportunity of bringing his motion forward, he should

1855
have endeavoured to have proved that the course pursued by several of the Scotch clergy as well as others, so far as the Church of Scotland was concerned, had been most unwise; and, so far as his Majesty's Ministers were concerned, had been most unjust and ungenerous. So far as being unconnected with the Church of Scotland he was circumstanced similarly to the hon. Baronet the Member for Bute, who had lately called the attention of the House to this subject; but he begged to assure the House that he was as anxious as that hon. Baronet to see the Church of Scotland upheld. He should, however, have objected to his late Majesty's Government deciding upon any partial question relating to that Church. He should have opposed their taking any steps with reference to Glasgow, or Aberdeen, or Edinburgh until the subject had been thoroughly investigated. In the meantime, this Church extension question, as he had anticipated, was now made a handle of for electioneering purposes in Scotland. He should be sorry to occupy the attention of the House with anything in which he was personally concerned, but he could not refrain from adverting to a document that had lately emanated from an electioneering Committee, in which allusion was made to the Church Commission in Scotland, and in which it was stated, that it was impossible for the friends of that Church to overlook the petition for the overthrow of the Establishment in that country, which had been presented by Mr. Bannerman, without one word of objection on the part of that gentleman. This document set forth that the petition in question came from persons who cared not for reason, truth, or consistency, and who, disregarding the councils of the wise and good, sought the overthrow of religion, treated its injunctions with scorn, and held up its ordinances to derision. Such were the terms in which these parties, for election purposes, thought proper to speak of the petition which he (Mr. Bannerman) had presented to the House. Now, he begged to say that he never did present any petition for the overthrow of the Establishment, and yet he was described by these persons as one who was totally void of religion, of consistency, or of truth. This manifesto was put forth at a time when the parties well knew that he was five hundred miles distant. But they very soon should know that he had remained in London for the purpose of
1856
moving for certain returns to enable the Government to facilitate the settlement of this Church question. The hon. Gentleman moved for a return of the number of churches erected in Scotland by voluntary contributions recognised by the General Assembly, and whose ministers were appointed by the Kirk. Also a return of the number of seats in every such church, specifying the mode in which they were appropriated; likewise a return of the stipends paid to the ministers of every such Church, and the sources whence those stipends were derived; together with the sums annually collected for the support and education of the poor in every such place of worship.
Motion agreed to.

ABDUCTION OF AN ELECTOR.
Mr. William Gladstone rose, in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to the petition of certain electors for the combined counties of Ross and Cromarty, which he had the honour to present a few evenings ago. The petitioners set forth, that at the last election for the combined counties of Ross and Cromarty, which was contested between Thomas Mackenzie, of Applecross, Esq., and William Mackenzie, of Muirton, Esq., one John Gibson, farmer, was an elector; that on the day preceding the election, a messenger came to inform him that Captain Hugh Clark wished him to come immediately to the house of Mr. Watson, of Cromarty, as the captain was desirous of paying him a sum of money which was due to him. Gibson crossed the ferry that evening, and at the house of Watson met Clark, and two other persons named Reid and Smith, the latter being a surgeon of Cromarty. The parties supped together, and afterwards had a jug of toddy; but before drinking any of it, Gibson asked Clark to settle with him; but Clark said he could not do so then, but would the following day. Gibson drank about three glasses, when he became insensible, in consequence, as it was presumed, of some drug having been mixed with his drink. Between one and two o'clock on Friday morning, a boat's crew came to Watson's house, and with the assistance of Watson, Clark, and others, took Gibson, who was all the time in a state of insensibility, across the Nairn. A chaise was then hired by Watson and others, and into which Gibson was forcibly placed and carried towards Grantown.

1857
In the morning Gibson awoke, and found himself in the chaise with Watson, and on observing that he was in a strange part of the country, and asking where he was, Watson replied, "God knows! I was asleep as well as yourself; it is now Saturday morning." And on Gibson expressing his surprise, Watson said, "It was easy for Dr. Smith to make you and me sleep for eight days." Gibson then forced himself out of the chaise, but was soon retaken and put into the chaise again, and was then taken to an inn at Ardclach, about eleven miles from Nairn. They represented Gibson to be out of his mind, who certainly appeared stupid and foolish, and asked the landlady what day of the week it was. Watson and Gibson proceeded to breakfast, and afterwards Gibson laid his head down on a table and pretended to be asleep, and heard Watson go out of the room and call for the driver of the chaise. The driver having come in, Watson and he went to the corner of the room, and Watson pulled a letter from his pocket, and said to the driver, 'This is a letter which I have from my friend Muirton,' (meaning William Mackenzie, of Muirton), and desiring me to try to get Gibson out of the way, as he is 'the cock' of the Tories. Watson further added, ' You will watch the door below, and I will lock the door here, and put the key in my pocket.' Watson then undressed himself and went to bed, and, having fallen asleep, Gibson took the opportunity of forcing the lock of the door with a knife, and went down stairs. Gibson met the driver in the passage, and desired him to put the horses to, and he would walk on before him. Watson afterwards got up and looked after Gibson, and informed the landlady that Gibson was a most respectable man, and that it was not for his vote they cared, but for those of three others. Gibson walked about a mile on the road to Calder, when he was overtaken by the driver without the chaise, who insisted on his return to Mrs. Falconer, the landlady. Gibson returned, got into the chaise, and was drawn to Calder with Watson. On inquiring on the road, Gibson discovered it was then only Friday, although he had previously been informed that it was Saturday. They arrived at Calder about six in the evening, and about an hour afterwards were overtaken by John Strachan, messenger, in Tain, and a person of the name of Mackay,
1858
who arrived there in a chaise, and took Gibson back with them to Cromarty the same night, notwithstanding the opposition of Watson, who insisted that Gibson should proceed with him. Gibson was thereby enabled to give his vote the next morning for Thomas Mackenzie, of Apple-cross. On his return to Cromarty, he discovered that his coat had been torn, his hat destroyed, and his face much cut and swollen; his shirt was covered with blood, and he was in a very weak state from the usage he had received." He thought that these facts amounted to a forcible abduction of Gibson, and called for the attention of the House. He was aware, that under ordinary circumstances, the proper course would have been to move, that the parties be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms; but at the present moment, this course was wholly inappropriate. He had, therefore, determined to move, that a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty to give directions that there be laid before the House copies of the depositions and declarations taken by the officers of the Crown concerning the forcible taking away of John Gibson, from Cromarty to the parish of Ardclach, in Scotland, on the 13th of April last. The hon. Member then concluded by making a motion to the effect he had just stated.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the circumstances of this case had already been investigated by the officers of the Crown; and it was considered that no further proceedings were necessary to be taken. Very serious imputations were thrown by the petitioners on individuals who had no opportunity to defend themselves. It was a question deserving the serious consideration of the House, whether petitions were to be made the means of attacking the characters of individuals by the insertion of imputations which it was admitted formed no essential part of the proceedings on which the petitioners founded their complaint. If the person had been, subjected to the injurious treatment set forth in the petition, it was competent for him to prosecute the parties inflicting-the injury, but the present complaint was on the part of certain electors of the county of Ross. What injury was it that had been done to them? Had they lost the vote of Mr. Gibson? Not so; because it was admitted in the petition that Mr. Gibson voted on the second day of

1859
the election. The electors of Ross, therefore, had no ground of complaint. With respect to the motion before the House, he begged to state to the hon. Gentleman that the uniform practice on the part of his (the Lord Advocate's) predecessors had been to consider it to be inconsistent with the proper course of criminal procedure that any communication of the result of a private inquiry on the part of the Crown, should be made to other parties. As far as regarded the fact, that no further proceedings had been taken on the part of the Crown in this case, he was quite ready to hold himself responsible for that course.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Attorneys and Solicitors; Sheriffs Fees; Post-Office Management; Malt Duties Regulation; Creditors (Scotland); Administration of Justice (New South Wales); Dundee Police (No. 2); Theatres Regulation; Court of Exchequer (Scotland)— Read a second time:—Coroners Durham; Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely); Letters Patent; Punishment of Death; Read a first time:—Consolidated Fund; Militia Pay; Militia Ballot Suspension; Exchequer Bills (Public Works); Slave Treaties; Tithe Advances (Ireland); Bankrupts (Ireland).

THE NEW POOR-LAW.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that seeing his noble Friend (Earl Fitzwilliam) in his place, he wished to ask him if he could furnish the House with any information as to the unions lately formed under the Poor-law Commissioners in that part of the North of England with which his noble Friend was most immediately connected.
Earl Fitzwilliamwas extremely glad his noble Friend had afforded him an opportunity of stating, as he had been most anxious to do, what from his own knowledge he knew the reception of the Poor-law Act had met with in that part of Yorkshire with which he was connected. If he had not been misinformed, it had been stated in the House by a noble Friend of his, who exercised a high office in the county of York, that the people of that county were exceedingly averse to the introduction amongst them of the New Poor-law, and if he had not misunderstood the manner in which his noble Friend made that statement, it would seem that the people in that part of the country were almost unanimous in disapproving of the measure, Now, if he (Earl
1848
Fitzwilliam) could draw any sure inference from what he had himself observed in the county of York, he was satisfied that any disposition to oppose the introduction of the Poor-law Act into that county would not be calculated to forward the views of any Gentleman who might be a candidate for its representation. He (Earl Fitzwilliam) had been engaged in the formation of one union under the auspices of the Poor-law Commissioners, and on this day week he had attended the first meeting of the board of guardians, and he could state, not only with respect to the board of guardians, but also with respect to the population of the town in which it was to be fixed, that not the slightest symptom of dissatisfaction had been expressed. The town in question, their Lordships would remember, was a manufacturing town, and one portion of the population was composed of agriculturists, and another portion of the inhabitants was engaged in mining and manufacturing employments. Not only was there no disposition manifested by the people of that town against the introduction of the new law, but also no board of guardians could exhibit greater alacrity in carrying that law into effect than had been shown by the board of guardians to which he referred, and he was perfectly satisfied that though the delusion which had been attempted to be excited in the country might not be entirely extinct, yet it was about to subside, and he was certain that in a very short time, and in the most populous districts, the more the measure was understood the more it would be acquiesced in; and that even in those parts where some persons from mistaken views of philanthropy, and others whose views he would not attempt to describe, had endeavoured to excite these delusions, it would fail, and would come to the conclusion—the true conclusion—that the main basis upon which the Poor-law Amendment Act rested was the transference of authority from persons legally, but not morally or practically, responsible to those representative bodies in which the administration of the law was now vested. He had thought it his bounden duty, persuaded as he was that on the maintenance of that law mainly depended the prosperity of the country, so far as regarded the state and condition of the labouring classes, thus to bear his testimony to the complete success of the new law in that populous district of the

1849
country with which he was most immediately connected.
Subject dropped.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT (IRELAND) ACT.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the second reading of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill.
Lord Redesdalecould not help admiring the cool manner in which the noble Viscount had moved the second reading of this Bill. In his (Lord Redesdale's) opinion, it was one of the most monstrous Bills that had ever been presented to either House of Parliament. It was ordered to be printed seven days after the Queen's message was communicated to the House, and it was determined that no important business should be proceeded with in the present Session. It was a Bill to affect the manner of polling at elections in Ireland; and it was brought forward on the eve of a general election. It bore the title of the Reform in Parliament Bill; but it ought to be denominated the Dublin and Cork Election Bill. It was a decided and disgraceful job, and he therefore called upon the House to stop its further progress. Its real object was to disfranchise a number of voters in Dublin and Cork; and it was a mere electioneering manœuvre on the eve of a general election. He trusted that their Lordships would not allow such a Bill to pass. And by whom had it been introduced into the other House? By the hon. Member for the city of Cork! It was a monstrous thing that a Member for a city should come down to Parliament on the eve of a general election, to propose a measure, the effect of which would be to disfranchise the very persons whose interests he was sent to Parliament to protect. And by whom was that hon. Gentleman assisted? Most strangely, by the Attorney-General for Ireland; so there was the spectacle of the highest law officer of the Crown in the sister country lending his aid to one of the most disgraceful jobs which had ever been heard of. Nothing could be more deserving of reprobation than this attempt at tampering with the rights of voters on the very eve of an election. It gave a power to the majority of the day, in the House of Commons, at the close of one Parliament, to secure a majority for the next Parliament. There was no tyrant so dreadful as a tyrant majority. [Cheers.] He understood that
1850
cheer, but he must observe that it appeared that the only use of a majority in one House was to watch the jobs in the other and to correct them. On constitutional grounds, and for the sake of the liberties of the people, he trusted that this Bill had gone as far as their Lordships would permit it to go, and that it would now meet with its proper fate—rejection.
Viscount Duncannonobserved, that the noble Lord did not seem to be aware that early in the evening a message had been brought from the House of Commons stating that the second and third clauses of the Bill had been left in it by mistake, and requesting that their Lordships would strike them out.
The Marquess of Lansdownethought that, under the circumstances of the case, the words "tyrant majority," used by the noble Lord, might well have been spared. The Bill was simply a measure to enable the returning officers in large towns in Ireland to increase the number of polling places; and was not at all liable to the imputations cast upon it by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord would inquire into the subject, he would find many cases in which bills had been sent to that from the other House of Parliament, with clauses which the other House afterwards requested might be withdrawn. Their Lordships had only to do with Bills as they came before them; and the present Bill must be considered with the clauses objected to by the noble Lord struck out. So considered, the Bill certainly did not justify the strong expressions applied to it by the noble Lord.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas of the opinion which had been expressed by his noble Friend, that the introduction of a measure like the present, after her Majesty's message, and after her Majesty's Ministers had declared that they would not introduce any new measures, was extremely reprehensible. He thought his noble Friend was perfectly justified in characterising the Bill as he had done; and, under all the circumstances of the case, he could not help joining with his noble Friend in the hope that their Lordships would not read the Bill a second time.
The Earl of Wicklowwas surprised that, if the present Bill were considered necessary, her Majesty's Government had not thought it necessary to introduce a

1851
similar Bill with reference to Carlow. In that case, a number of voters who had been struck off by a Committee of the House of Commons, had been reinstated by the assistant barrister. As to the first clause of the Bill under their Lordships' consideration, he allowed that some measure remedying the inefficiency of the existing polling places might be expedient. But he agreed with his noble Friend, that a more inopportune moment for the introduction of a Bill like the present could not by possibility have been selected. It threw suspicion on the whole proceeding. In a few days, a dissolution might take place; and as it was impossible that, before that period, the contents of the Bill could be generally promulgated, he thought that more confusion would be created by passing the Bill than by rejecting it. He should, therefore, vote against the second reading of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that if he understood the object of the Bill, it was simply to provide the means for enabling persons who had a right to vote at elections in Ireland to exercise that right. Those who opposed the Bill, therefore, wished to prevent persons who had the right to vote at elections in Ireland from exercising that right. Of the Bill, in its original form, their Lordships could know nothing. They knew it only as it came from the House of Commons, qualified by the message which had been sent by that House, intimating that two clauses of the Bill had been left in it by mistake, and requesting that their Lordships would strike them out. It was in that shape, and in that shape alone, that their Lordships should look at the Bill.
Lord Wharncliffeconfessed, that he looked at the Bill with suspicion; the more so, recollecting the proceedings the other night in a Bill for altering the Reform Act, which was supported by no one, except the noble Lord who moved the second reading. It was said, that great inconvenience resulted from the existing state of the law. If so, it was the duty of the Attorney-General for Ireland to have brought in a Bill to remedy the evil at an early period of the Session.
Lord Dacresupported the Bill, which, in the form in which alone it could be considered by their Lordships, was solely a Bill to enable the returning officers in Ireland to provide a sufficient number of polling booths; thereby preventing the
1852
rejection of the surplus of 600 electors, the number which alone could be admitted to vote at one booth. The single object of the Bill was to find means for those who had the elective franchise to exercise it. How could that be called a job? It was true, that a general election was at hand. But what suspicion could that excite, seeing that the only object of the Bill was to provide for those who possessed the elective franchise, and the means of exercising it?
Lord Broughamobserved, with respect to the remark of the noble Lord opposite, relating to the silence of noble Lords on the motion the other evening for the second reading of a Bill respecting Parliamentary Reform, that it was too much for that noble Lord to infer that that silence of those noble Lords who took no share in the debate, were therefore unfavourable to the Bill in question. The clauses which the House of Commons had desired to be expunged having been expunged, he had no objection to the present measure. It had been stated, that it was introduced after her Majesty's message, and after the understanding that no new measure of any importance should be brought in, in the present Session. But really the present Bill was as much a matter of course as it was possible for any measure to be. There existed a difficulty in taking votes at the polling booths, a difficulty which amounted to the actual disfranchisement of those who were entitled to vote, and the object of this Bill was to remedy the evil. Now, instead of the approach of a general election being an objection to such a measure, it was a recommendation of it. A noble Lord had talked of the evils of "a tyrant majority." If, by a majority so reasonable a measure as this were rejected, the epithet "tyrant," would be justly applicable to it.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, if he understood the Bill properly, it had nothing to do with the franchise. The fact was, if their Lordships refused to agree to the Bill, they would be telling the people of Ireland to fight to get up to the poll. He regretted that any opposition should be made to the Bill, and he was the more surprised at it, because it was the unanimous opinion of that House, that one great good produced by the Reform Bill was the increase of the number of polling places. That was the object of the present Bill, and he, therefore, hoped his

1853
noble Friend would withdraw his opposition to it.
The House divided on the second reading:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 74: Majority 38.
Bill thrown out.