Sitting of 6 August 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Tin Duties (Cornwall); Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster; Exche
1014
quer Bills; Public Works (Ireland); Consolidated Fund; and County Treasurers (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Valuation of Land (Ireland); Bank of Ireland Repayment; Militia Pay; Stamp Dies.
Petitions presented. By Mr. MARTIN, from Tuam, against the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland.—By Mr. FIELDEN, from Hyde, Chowbent, Huddersfield, Leigh, Paisley, and Padiham, that Mr. Robert Owen may be heard at the Bar of the House in explanation of his principles of Social Reform; from certain Merchants and Manufacturers of Oldham, praying that Warehouses for Bonded Corn may be instituted in the great manufacturing towns; from Crompton, to the same effect; from Halifax, Elland, Heptonstall, Almondbury, Wadsworth, Hyde, Midgley, Thornton, Staniland, Queenshead, Mixenden, Northowram, Ambler Thorn, and Coldon Heptenstall, for Universal Suffrage, etc.; from Male and Female Inhabitants of the Borough of Maldon (Essex), and other Inhabitants of that Borough, for Amendments of the New Poor-law; and from Hand-loom Weavers of Norwich, for an Act to regulate the rate of Wages.—By Sir E. WILMOT, from the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Coventry, against the Parochial Assessment Bill.—By Lord STANLEY, from the Diocese of Fermanagh, against the Encouragement of Idolatrous Ceremonies in India.

PENSIONS.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Pensions Bill was read a third time.
On the question that it do pass,
Mr. O'Connellmoved, that the passing of the bill be deferred till to-morrow, in order that he might have an opportunity of bringing up a clause relating to Lady Westmeath's pension. It was quite impossible that any man could say a word in disparagement of that lady, but he thought, under the peculiar circumstances of her case, that her pension should not be continued during the lifetime of her husband. Lady Westmeath had lately passed through a most afflicting ordeal; she had obtained from an ecclesiastical court a decree of separation from her husband, on the ground of his cruelty against her. It was therefore, he thought, right that the pension should be suspended, inasmuch as it was in fact paid to her husband, not to herself. Sir John Nicholl, on decreeing a separation between the parties, had assigned Lady Westmeath, besides her pension of 385 l. an alimony of 700 l. a-year. Against that decree the Marquess of Westmeath had appealed, and the Vice-Chancellor before whom the case was heard, sustained the sentence of the inferior court as regarded the separation, but reduced the alimony to 315 l., on the ground that Lady Westmeath was in the receipt of a pension of 385 l. a-year. Nobody could think it proper that Lord Westmeath should be rewarded by the amount of this pension for having acted with cruelty towards his wife. He contended, that the lady's income should remain intact, but that it

1015
should be paid by the person who had maltreated her, otherwise the continuance of the pension would only be a mitigation of a deserved punishment. It might be said, that this was a legal pension, being granted out of the Irish revenue. He was not disposed to dispute the accuracy of the opinion given as to these pensions by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, in opposition to the views of the hon. Member for Middlesex, but he was of opinion that in peculiar cases the holders could be proceeded against by information or scire facias, and indeed a case of that kind had already occurred.
The Attorney-Generalwas glad to find that the hon. and learned Member agreed with him in the opinion he had given respecting the Irish pensions, but on that very ground, he must see that such a clause as he suggested, would be inexpedient and even unjust. This was a legal pension, to which Lady Westmeath was entitled during her lifetime, of which nothing but an Act of Parliament could deprive her, and surely it would not be just to deprive an individual by an Act of Parliament of a vested right.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerresisted the proposition. If such a clause were permitted, it would overturn the unanimous decision of the Committee.
Motion negatived, the bill passed.

PLURALITIES.
The Lords' Amendments to the Pluralities Bill were taken into consideration.
Mr. Aglionbymoved the restitution of what had been Clause three in the original bill, and which was omitted by the Lords. The object of the Clause was, to prevent persons holding a benefice of the amount of 1,000 l. yearly value from holding along with it another of 500 l. yearly value, and vice versâ, and by its omission, there would be no legal objection to persons holding two such pieces of preferment as Stanhope and Durham together.
Lord J. Russellagreed that the Clause was a very useful Clause, and regretted its omission. Hereafter it might be proper and necessary to legislate on the subject, but at present he was not inclined to disagree with the Lords' Amendment in this particular.
The House divided: Ayes 28; Noes 54:—Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Brownrigg, S.

Phillips, M.

Bryan, G.

Pryme, G.

Codrington, A.

Redington, T. N.

Currie, R.

Somers, J. P.

Curry, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Divett, E.

Style, Sir C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Thornely, T.

Finch, F.

Wallace, R.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Yates, J. A.

Hutton, B.

Kinnaird, hon. A.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Morris, D.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Macleod, R.

Anson, Col.

Mahon, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Maule, hon. F.

Baker, E.

Maule, W. H.

Blackburne, I.

Morpeth, Lord

Broadwood, H.

Murray, J. A.

Bruce, Lord E.

Palmerston, Lord

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, R. T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Perceval, Col.

Clayton, Sir W.

Praed, W. M.

Eliot, Lord

Praed, W. T.

Estcourt, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Richards, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Harvey, D. W.

Sandon, Lord

Hayter, W. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hodgson, R.

Stanley, E. J.

Hope, G. W.

Stock, Dr.

Hotham, Lord

Surrey, Earl

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Thomson, G. P.

Kemble, H.

Thornhill, G.

Labouchere, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Verner, Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wood, Sir M.

Lowther, J. H.

Lucas, E.

TELLERS

Lygon, hon. Gen.

O'Ferrall, M.

Lynch, A. H.

Steuart, R.

Amendment agreed to.
On the Lords' amendment for the omission of clause 62, relating to the appointment of additional curates in parishes where further spiritual aid was required, and where the expenses of such appointment were to be defrayed by the parishioners,
Mr. Haweswished for the restoration of the clause and he moved to disagree with the Lords. The clause had received the general assent of the House of Commons, and ought not to be omitted.
Lord John Russelladmitted, that the clause was generally approved of by that

1017
House, but as it appeared from the discussion in another place that it might excite great jealousy amongst the curates originally appointed, he should support its omission.
The House divided, on Mr. Hawes' motion, Ayes 26; Noes 46;—Majority 20

List of the AYES.

Bowes, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Phillips, M.

Bryan, G.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Clements, Lord

Power, J.

Codrington, Adm.

Pryme, G.

Currie, R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Divett, E.

Stock, Dr.

Duke, Sir J.

Style, Sir C.

Finch, F.

Tollemache, F. J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Yates, J. A.

Hutton, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Dr.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Hawes, B.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Murray, J. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Parker, R. T.

Blennerhassett, A.

Parnell, Sir H.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Price, Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Eaton, R. J.

Richards, R.

Ellis, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Etwall, R.

Sandon, Lord

Fergusson, Sir R.

Seymour, Lord

Freshfield, J. W.

Shaw, F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stanley, E. J.

Gordon, Capt.

Stuart, R.

Hodgson, R.

Surrey, Earl of

Hogg, J. W.

Thomson, C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Turner, E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vere, Sir C.

Jones, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Kemble, H.

Wood, C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wood, Sir M.

Lucas, E.

Wood, T.

Maclean, D.

Macleod, R.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Parker, J.

Morpeth, Lord

Troubridge, Sir T.

Lords amendment agreed to.
The other clauses of to the Bill were agreed to, and a Committee was named to confer with the Lords upon differing from their amendments.

SPIRIT LICENCES (IRELAND).
On the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Spirit Licences (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. Shawrepeated his objections to the bill, on the ground of the immoral effect
1018
of the practice it sanctioned. As Government must be convinced of the pernicious consequences of the practice, and as two years' warning had been given, with a clear understanding that no further indulgence would be granted, there was no reason for this Bill. He moved, that it be committed that day three months.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the bill. There had been ten or eleven divisions on the bill already; and he thought the House ought not to countenance the system of opposition pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this bill. A Committee of that House had reported in favour of the grocers, and when it was proposed to take from them the privilege of selling spirits, a deputation from that body had satisfied the Government of the injustice of such a proceeding. The grocers in Dublin might be prepared for terminating their retail trade in spirits, but in the country towns an immediate prohibition would be productive of ruin to many, as they were not aware that such a measure was even contemplated. All they wanted was one year more, to enable them to take their capital out of this branch of their trade, and to dispose of the stock on hand. He might mention to the House, that not a single grocer had lost his licence for misconduct, and he did therefore hope, that they would consent to allow the bill to proceed.
Mr. Lucaswould give his most determined opposition to the measure, as he believed the mischiefs of the system of permitting grocers to sell spirits could not be got rid of in any other way than by throwing out the bill. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had stated, that no grocer had lost his licence for misconduct, but it was impossible to find the grocers guilty of improper conduct, because they had not the same power over them as over the keepers of public-houses.
Sir W. Somervillewould give his vote in favour of going into Committee upon the bill, because he wished the grocers to have an opportunity of disposing of their stock; but he thought the system of permitting grocers to sell spirits ought to be put an end to.
The House divided. Ayes 35; Noes 25;—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Archbold, R.

Blennerhassett, A.

1019

Chalmers, P.

Parker, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Parnell, Sir H.

Etwall, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Gordon, R.

Pendarves, E.

Hector, C. J.

Phillips, M.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Power, J.

Howard, P. H.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Lushington, C.

Stock, Dr.

Lynch, A. H.

Thornely, T.

Macleod, R.

Townly, R. G.

Maule, W. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Morpeth, Lord

Wallace, R.

Morris, D.

Wyse, T.

Muskett, G. A.

Yates, J. A.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Connell, M.

Pryme, G.

List of the NOES.

Acland Sir T. D.

Lockhart, A. M.

Alsager, Capt.

Lucas, E.

Brotherton, J.

Praed, W. T.

Clements, Lord

Richards, R.

Estcourt, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Hawes, B.

Thornhill, G.

Hodgson, R.

Tollemache, F. J.

Holmes, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Jones, T.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Shaw, F.

Lefevre, C. S.

Ellis, J.

Bill went through a Committee. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Militia Ballot Suspension; Valuation of Lands (Ireland); Bank of Ireland Repayment; Militia Pay; Oaths Validity; and Stamp Dies.—Read a second time:—Constables on Public Works; and Mails on Railways.—Read a third time:—Juvenile Offenders.
Petitions presented. By Lord SEGRAVE, from the Grand Jury of the county of Glocester, for the Repeal of the Beer Act.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from certain Individuals, against postponing the period for the Imprisonment for Debt Bill coming into operation.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Ministers of three denominations of Dissenters, for Improvements in Prison Discipline—By the Marquess of SALISBURY, from Hertford, in favour of Mr. Hill's Postage plan.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from Bury St. Edmund's, and other places, against encouraging Idolatrous Ceremonies in India; from the Clergy of Limerick, and other places in Ireland, against parts of the Irish Tithe Bill.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from a place in Essex, against the Beer Act.—By the Earl of RODEN, from Dublin, and other places in Ireland, against parts of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill; from Bath, against any further Grant to the College of Maynooth.—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, Viscount CANNING, and the Earl of LICHFIELD, several, from various places, against encouraging Idolatry in India.—By the Marquess of DOWNSHIRE, from the county of Down, for the settlement of the Tithe Question.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, from the Dean and Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, in favour of Mr. Rowland Hill's plan of Post-office reform.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Liverpool, against the encouragement of Idolatry in India; from three Individuals, complaining that they had suffered great loss and hardship in consequence of the Seizure of the Vixen.

NABOB OF OUDE.
Lord Broughaminquired whether there would be any objection to laying upon the table a copy of the subsidiary treaty which had been entered into with the prince who now occupied the throne of Oude?
Lord Glenelgdeclined laying the document before their Lordships, because, in fact, it had not been ratified by this Government, and could not therefore be regarded as a treaty.
Lord Broughamsaid, that was no reason for its non-production; for, whether ratified or not, he believed, that it had been acted on.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that to assert, that there was no treaty in existence because it had not been ratified at home was not a correct representation of the fact. The treaty was ratified by the Governor-general, and certainly might be acted on. It would be a most extraordinary exercise of power if they were to annul or modify the treaty after it had been ratified by the Governor-general.
Lord Glenelgsaid, the President of the Board of Control had refused to produce this document, and the House of Commons had coincided in the propriety of that decision.
Lord Broughamcould not see that any ground had been shown for withholding the treaty merely because it had not been ratified. If anything so monstrous should be disclosed in these papers as that they had at midnight extorted from their puppet an engagement, that he would at any time

1007
sign any treaty which they chose to dictate, and that such an engagement had been acted upon, unless Parliament was ready at once to abdicate all its functions of superintendence and control over the colonial and East-Indian administration of the empire, they were bound to insist on the production of such a document.
The Marquess of Lansdownedid not rise for the purpose of entering into the question as to any objection there might be to produce this paper. He was bound to admit, that there was on the face of this transaction what must naturally have attracted the attention of Parliament; but he was sure his noble and learned Friend would hear with much satisfaction what he had now distinctly to state, that not only did his noble Friend at the head of the government in India, immediately, on being informed of this treaty, express his disapprobation of the manner in which the promise to procure it had been drawn from the sovereign of Oude, but he also caused it to be intimated in the most explicit manner to that prince, that he was in no degree bound by the promise to sign such a treaty, and entirely relieved from any stipulations or conditions it imposed.
Lord Broughamthought that declaration amounted to little better than nothing. This poor man engaged, under duress, to sign any treaty that should be dictated to him, and what did it signify that Lord Auckland had said to him, "Whatever you may have signed is not at all binding on you?" The fact was, after that release he was found to have signed a treaty giving us seventeen lacks of rupees. Why did he sign or execute that treaty? He executed it post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Lord Ellenboroughentirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord in thinking, that the treaty should be produced, and that the person who transacted it should immediately have been recalled.
Subject dropped.

PRISONS.
The Lord Chancellormoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving into a Committee upon this bill. The object of the bill was twofold—first, to make prisons in borough towns having sessions of their own, and to put them upon the same footing with the prisons of the county; and also to give the borough justices within their respective jurisdictions the same powers with respect to the prisons as the county magistrates had. He
1008
did not anticipate any objection to this part of the bill. There was another part, however, to which opposition would probably be given, on account of the additional expense which it would have the effect of throwing upon counties, and also because a new subject matter was introduced. Under the 5th and 6th William 4th., the justices were empowered to make rules and regulations for the classification of prisoners. By the 13th clause of the present bill, they were also empowered to make rules and regulations, but an additional power was given them, which was power under the same authority and control as before, and subject to the same reference to the Under-Secretary of State. If upon being referred to him they were approved of, the same machinery which existed under the old law was made use of; and if the present prisons were not sufficient in point of magnitude or construction to enable them to carry the rules and regulations for the classification of the prisoners into effect, then the justices at quarter sessions were to have the power to make provision by presentment for the erection of new prisons of such form and structure as would admit of the regulations being carried into effect. That this provision would have the effect of throwing upon counties a great additional burden and expense he (the Lord Chancellor) was willing to admit; but, at the same time, he thought, if the regulations were proper and useful ones, considerations of expense ought not to be taken into account.
The Marquess of Salisburycomplained, that a bill of such great extent and importance, involving so many interests, and which had been three years under the consideration of the Under-Secretary of State, should have been brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session. The bill was not brought up until the 24th of July, and it was altogether impossible, that their Lordships could be then prepared to enter fully into the consideration of a subject of so much difficulty and importance. The bill also introduced a new power upon a subject which was attended with considerable difficulty, and upon which great difference of opinion prevailed—he meant the separation of prisoners. If a further separation were desirable, as in his opinion it was, the experiment ought in the first instance to be made in a public prison, under the superintendence of the Under

1009
Secretary of State. The present bill was objectionable in many other respects. One of the clauses in particular was most extraordinary, and altogether new. He alluded to that in which power was given to the justices to appoint as chaplain one not a clergyman of the Established Church. He hoped he had stated sufficient to satisfy their Lordships, that the bill ought to be postponed till next Session, and with that view he should move, that it be committed that day three months.
Lord Lyndhurstwould support the motion of his noble Friend. The effect of the bill was in substance to enable the Under Secretary of State to establish a system of solitary confinement in every gaol throughout the kingdom. Every one knew, that there was not a single prison in any county of the kingdom adapted to that system. The consequence was, that every one of those prisons must be altered or pulled down, and a new one built in its stead, so that the Under Secretary of State would virtually have under the bill an uncontrolled power of taxation. That such would be the necessary consequence of the bill he hoped he should be able to satisfy their Lordships. As the law at present stood, magistrates had the power to make rules and regulations respecting the management of prisons, and these were then submitted at stated intervals to the consideration of the Under Secretary of State, who had the power each time to alter them and make such other rules and regulations as he should think proper. All the rules and regulations were, therefore, absolutely under the control of the Under Secretary of State. The person who could from time to time alter the regulations had clearly absolute power and control over them. Such was the state of the law as it at present stood. It was considered, however, that an order for separate or solitary confinement would not come within the rules and regulations, the making of which was sanctioned by the act. Fresh powers, therefore, became necessary, and accordingly a clause was introduced into the present bill, enacting, that any rules and regulations which might be made respecting confinement in separate cells should be considered as rules and regulations sanctioned by and within the meaning of the former act. That provision, in effect, came to this—that the Secretary of State might establish a system of solitary con-
1010
finement in every prison throughout the kingdom. To give to one individual, and that individual a Minister of the Crown, power to establish throughout the kingdom a system of solitary confinement was an alteration in the former bill, and an augmentation of power never intrusted to any single individual. He (Lord Lyndhurst) did not mean to say, that the separate system might not be a proper system. It was still in its infancy; it was in controversy in America, and the question of the superiority of the one plan over the other had been discussed in a variety of publications, and was still going on. Were their Lordships prepared to establish the separate system, or in other words solitary confinement with additional labour, and nothing to make up for it but the use of books to such of the prisoners as could read? By the law, at present, it was said that solitary confinement could not be inflicted for a longer period than a month at a time, or three months in a year. The present bill contained no such limitation, so that a prisoner, after being in solitary confinement for one month, might the very next day be committed for another month, and so on from month to month through the whole year. He would not consent to leave in the discretion of any individual absolute power to establish separate gaols in this country—first, because he did not choose to intrust to any individual such immense and monstrous power, and also because, in addition to the objectionable character of the power, he would also have the absolute power of taxation without control. He knew from inquiries respecting the gaols of Middlesex, that the expenses of making the necessary alterations would be enormous. He, therefore, said, that at this late period of the Session, they had not time to make the necessary inquiries, and that a subject of so much importance ought not to pass hastily through their Lordships' House, but ought to receive full, mature, and deep consideration.
Lord Wharncliffewas also opposed to the bill. It would throw a great additional burthen upon counties, and the powers which it conferred upon the Under-Secretary of State were excessive and unconstitutional.
Lord Broughamagreed with his noble and learned Friend, that such extensive powers of taxation were objectionable. He thought there was some mistake about

1011
the matter, and that it was the intention of the framers of the bill, though that intention could not be collected from the words, to allow such of the present prisons to stand as might be made to answer the purposes of the bill. He did not mean to say, that anything of the kind was said in the bill, but it might possibly be the intention, and therefore the alteration might be made in Committee. If this were not done, he should oppose the bill. He had not heard enough to convince him that they ought to intrust such extensive powers to a Minister of the Crown. He did not think the Secretary of State ought to possess the power to alter and to aggravate the punishment which might be directed by the judges of the land.
The Earl of Chichesterintreated of their Lordships to allow the bill to go into Committee. He did not think that it contained those extraordinary powers which the noble and learned Lord asserted that it did. He thought that in Committee they would be able to modify the separation clause, and if they did, he conceived that such an alteration would obviate the principal objections to the measure.
The Duke of Richmondcontended, that all the objections to the measure might be got over by means of alterations in Committee. He hoped that some benefit would be effected by the bill, and he, therefore, should regret to see the present opportunity of passing it lost. He professed himself the advocate of the silent system with partial separation to such an extent as might be necessary for preventing contamination, and hoped that if the bill were committed they might be enabled to put back the clauses to the point recommended by a committee of their Lordships' House.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the observations made in opposition to the present measure did not contain a single objection to that portion of it which related to borough prisons; for the arguments which their Lordships had heard turned upon the construction which his noble and learned Friend put upon one of the clauses. The power of which his noble and learned Friend complained would be vested, not, as was said, in the Secretary of State, but in the person authorised by law to make rules and regulations. The bill certainly gave to the Secretary of State larger powers than he had before enjoyed, but yet he was not the person authorised by
1012
law to make regulations. By the 4th of George 4th, certain rules and regulations were to be made by the authority of the magistrates, and draughts of them were to be sent to the Secretary of State for his approval. If the prisons were not large enough, the Secretary of State could order larger gaols to be erected, and to that his power was limited. Unless the magistrates neglected to make the necessary rules, then, and only in such a case, could the Secretary of State himself issue rules and regulations.
Lord Lyndhurstreplied, that by the 5th and 6th of William 4th, the magistrates at Quarter Sessions could make rules and regulations, but they were bound to transmit them to the Secretary of State. He possessed power to alter them as he thought proper, and to add to the rules and regulations so submitted to him. Surely it would not be denied, that if a certain person had the power to alter and add to certain rules and regulations, it was quite clear that he had absolute control over them. The magistrates at Quarter Sessions might suggest, but the Secretary of State could do as he pleased with the rules and regulations.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, it certainly never was the intention of the promoter of the bill to confer upon the Secretary of State those large powers which the noble and learned Lord supposed it to give. The bill would merely give the power to the person who by law was authorised to make the rules and regulations. He should support the proposition for going into Committee with a view to amend the measure so as to remove all doubt respecting the powers which it gave, and this he thought might be effected by only expunging the word "add," for in the power of addition, as he thought, the whole of the objectionable powers lay.
Their Lordships divided—Content 32; Not-Content 33:—Majority 1.
Committee postponed for three months.

FOREIGN SLAVE TRADE.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in the absence of his noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, he wished to make a motion to which he presumed there would be no objection. On the 10th of May last, the House of Commons agreed to an address to her Majesty, representing that the Slave-trade still continued with great intensity, and that they

1013
thought a general concurrence of the great powers professing Christianity necessary in a declaration that the Slave-trade ought to be punished as piracy, and praying that their wishes and hopes might be made known to foreign courts in such manner as to her Majesty might seem best. What he had to move was, that their Lordships do adopt an address to the same effect, in order the more to strengthen the hands of Government as regarded this matter. The noble and learned Lord moved the following address:—
"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, dutifully to submit to her Majesty, that the Slave-trade, which the Congress of Vienna most justly described as having degraded Europe, desolated Africa, and afflicted humanity, nevertheless still continues with great intensity; that, notwithstanding the various treaties and conventions which have been entered into by her Majesty and her royal predecessors with different powers for the suppression of this traffic, and notwithstanding all the endeavours of successive Administrations at home and of her Majesty's Ministers and agents in foreign countries, and of her Majesty's naval force employed in this service abroad, the trade has been aggravated in all its horrors; and that it is the opinion of this House, that a general concurrence of the great powers professing Christianity in a declaration that the Slave-trade, by whomsoever carried on, is piracy, and ought to be punished as such, is, under the blessing of God, one of the most probable means of effecting the abolition of that trade.
"That this House is further of opinion, that, in all treaties to be contracted between her Majesty and her allies, the concession of a mutual right of search of their commercial vessels respectively, would be another of the means likely to attain this most important object; and that this House most respectfully implores her Majesty to represent these their opinions, and wishes and hopes, in such manner as to her Majesty shall seem most likely to be effectual to her Majesty's several allies.
"That this House cannot refrain from expressing to her Majesty the deep concern with which they have observed, from the papers which her Majesty has caused to be laid be-fare them, that Portugal has not yet fulfilled the engagements which she has taken towards this country, by concluding with Great Britain an adequate treaty for the suppression of the Slave-trade."
Motion agreed to.