Sitting of 15 August 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Bolton Police; Manchester Police.

DISTRICT CONSTABLES.
The County and District Constables Bill read a third time.
Mr. Hodgson Mr. Hodgson moved an amendment, to the effect that constables should not be disqualified for voting at elections for Members of Parliament.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that he felt no objection to take whatever course might be most acceptable to the majority of the House; it did appear to him, however, that the object of disqualifying constables from voting in their own districts could not be fully accomplished, unless they were also disqualified from voting in those which were immediately adjoining.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand.—Ayes 39; Noes 17: Majority 22.

List of the Ayes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Attwood, T.

Pechell, Captain

Baring, F. T.

Rich, H.

Bryan, G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Buller, C.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Divett, E.

Salwey, Colonel

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Grey, right hon. Sir C.

Steuart, R.

Hawes, B.

Stewart, J.

Hector, C. J.

Stock, Dr.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Surrey, Earl of

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hoskins, K.

Wakley.T.

Hutton, R.

Warburton, H.

Langdale, hon. C.

Williams, W.

Loch, C.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Lushington, C.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

TELLERS.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Parker, J.

Muskett, G. A.

O'Ferrall, M.

List of the NOES.

Blackburne, I.

Holmes, W.

Broadley, H.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Lygon, hon. General

D'Israeli, B.

Polhill, F.

Eliot, Lord

Somerset, Lord G.

Forester, hon. G.

Trench, Sir F.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Gisborne, T.

TELLERS.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Hodgson, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

In clause 16, Lord G. Somerset moved the insertion of the following proviso: "Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall invalidate the appointment, or interfere with the payment, of parochial constables."
The House divided, when there appeared—For the proviso 30; Against it 32: Majority 2.

List of the Ayes.

Blackburne, T.

Lowther, J. H.

Bridgeman, H.

Lygon, hon. General

Broadley, H.

O'Connell, D.

Brownrigg, S.

O'Connell, J.

Calcraft, J. H.

Pechell, Captain

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Polhill, F.

Dick, Q

Pryme, G.

D'Israeli, B.

Scholefield, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Forester, hon. G.

Townley, R. G.

Grimsditch, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hodgson, R.

Wakley, T.

Holmes, W.

Williams, W,

Irving, J.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS.

Langdale, hon. C.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darby, G.

356

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Redington, T. N.

Baring, F. T.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Bryan, G.

Rich, H.

Buller, C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Currie, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Dalmeney, Lord

Salwey, Colonel

Divett, E.

Somers, J. P.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Duncombe, T.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Gisborne, T.

Surrey, Earl of

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Lushington, C.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Mildmay, P. St. John

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Parker, J.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

On the question, that the bill do pass,
Mr. D'Israelihad opposed this bill on its original stages, although he had offered no factious opposition. Now that the measure had arrived at its last stage, he thought he was justified in entering his protest against it, and dividing the House against its passing. Her Majesty's Government, and those who supported this measure, seemed to have taken up the view, that the first and sole duty of a police was to maintain order; but he (Mr. D'Israeli) apprehended, that, in a free country like England, there was a co-ordinate duty for a police, and that was, not merely to maintain order, but to respect liberty. He could not bring himself to believe that the rural police, as it was proposed to constitute the body by this bill, and as it had been brought into operation in some districts already, could fulfil both those duties. He wished to call the attention of the House to a document, which seemed to have been studiously kept out of sight in the course of the discussion on this bill—the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Constabulary Force of the Country. There were some curious details in the evidence annexed to that report, which he thought it was the duty of the House not to overlook, clearly showing what must be the character of a rural police formed upon the principles of this bill. It was proved, that the practice of the police, in those rural districts where the force had been called into existence, was to enter cottages, and order lights to be extinguished, because, according to one of the witnesses examined, cottagers had no right to have lights to serve as signals

357
to poachers and marauders. It was also proved to be their practice, in other districts, to enter cottages in the daytime, and see if there was mutton boiling in the pot on the fire, because a sheep might have been killed in the neighbourhood. He asked the House, if these practices were sanctioned, what would become of the celebrated national dogma, that every Englishman's house was his castle? It might be said that these were very salutary regulations, and referred only to the labouring classes; but he (Mr. D'Israeli) looked upon their rights as equally sacred with those of the rest of the community. Another part of the evidence was to the effect, that the magistrates of Chelmsford regretted extremely that trampers, as they were called, were not exposed to be arrested for hiring beds in lodging-houses, whereas, if they only slept in the open air, they might be apprehended; but they congratulated themselves that the police, under their direction, had entered houses, and examined beds, to ascertain the character of the occupants. How was this to be reconciled with the sanctity of private dwellings, which had always been considered a very important principle of our social arrangements? He could not support this bill, when he looked to the hurried and unsatisfactory manner in which, at the end of the Session, this and other measures of police had been introduced. Although there might be a variation in the circumstances of the cases to meet which they were brought forward, yet, when he considered the manner in which they had been introduced, he must believe that there was an identity of purpose and a similarity of principle in all. The Birmingham Police Bill, on its introduction, was founded on a popular principle; in a very few days that was changed, and the principle of centralization adopted. The present bill was founded on a report which recommended centralization. When he saw that Government adopted that principle with avidity when they were sure of a majority to carry it, and gave it up only when they could not induce the House to agree with them, it was quite clear to him that the principle on which they were proceeding was that of centralization, and which, he believed, would be fatal to the liberties of the country. Under these circumstance), he should take the sense of the House against the passing of the bill, believing that its principle, however it
358
might be veiled, was hostile to the liberties of the people.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—For the motion 45; Against it 13: Majority 32.

List of the Ayes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Baring, F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bernal, R.

Price, Sir R.

Blackburne, I.

Pryme, G.

Broadley, H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Brownrigg, S.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Bryan, C.

Rich, H.

Buller, C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Calcraft, J. H.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Salwey, Colonel

Currie, R.

Sheil, R. L.

Dalmeny, Lord

Smith, J. A.

Dick, Q.

Smith, B.

Divett, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Surrey, Earl of

Ellis, J.

Thornely, T.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Townley, R. G.

Gisborne, T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grey, right hon. Sir C.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobbouse, T. B.

Warburton, H.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Parker, J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Pechell, Captain

Bridgman, H.

Polhill, F.

Grimsditch, T.

Scholefield, J.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hodgson, R.

Williams, W.

Holmes, W.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Duncombe, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

D'Israeli, B.

Bill passed.

BANK OF IRELAND.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Bank of Ireland Bill.
On the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee that day three months. He declared, that, in the present thin attendance of Members, it was not fitting that a bill of so much importance to Ireland should be proceeded with.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as the bill was for the public interest, he was determined to persevere with it. This was what he was determined to do; for, until the measure were disposed of on its merits, and by way of fair argument,

359
he should feel he deserted his duty to the country, if he allowed it to be defeated by the mere mechanical means of successive divisions.
Mr. Ellishoped the House would persevere in its opposition, and lay down the principle, that no Minister should ever attempt to take that House by surprise, and inflict serious injury on Ireland.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 36; Noes 17: Majority 29.

List of the Ayes.

Baring, F. T.

Milton, viscount

Bernal, R.

Norreys, Lord

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Broadley, H.

Pigol, D. R.

Brotherton, J.

Polhill, F.

Brownrigg, S.

Price, Sir R.

Buller, C.

Pryme, G.

Currie, R.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Darby, G.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Dick, Q.

Rich, H.

Divett, E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Smith, J. A.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Smith, B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hawes, B.

Townley, R. G.

Hodgson, R.

Howick, Viscount

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Stanley, E. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Redington, T. N.

Bridgeman, H.

Sheil, R. L.

Bryan, G.

Somers, J. P.

Callaghan, D.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ellis, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Wyse, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

TEL

Muskett, G. A.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

House in Committee.
On Clause 2 being read,
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell moved, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again. He should lose no opportunity of dividing the House on the remainder of the bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted him with not making a call of the House on this bill; if he had had the least chance of success, he would have moved for a call of the House, but he had not, and had therefore abandoned that intention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the power to prevent his succeeding in that motion through the aid of the Ministerial Members, and now taunted him with not making it. The
360
very object of the privilege of Members to divide the House at any stage of the bill, was precisely to meet a case like the present, and Heaven forbid that he should shrink from the performance of his duty. The right hon. Gentleman had himself told a meeting of fifteen Members, in Downing-street, that notice had been given to the Bank of Ireland that the charter was to be discontinued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I beg to contradict the hon. Gentleman in the most distinct manner I can.
Mr. O'Connell: And I beg to contradict the right hon. Gentleman in the most distinct manner I can. (Cries of "Order!" "Chair!")
Mr. Ellis: I rise to order. ("Chair!" "Order!") I rise most distinctly to deny the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. The right hon. Gentleman has told the hon. Member to adhere to the rules of the House, and now he has broken them himself.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had been taunted for not having the House full; he should do all he could to have the House full. It was said that by postponing this measure the Bank of Ireland would continue; he admitted it. It was said there would be no inconvenience from this—
Mr. Finch: I rise to order. I think I see a gentleman under the gallery taking notes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, there was no power of taking notes at all in the House. If the objection of the hon. Member were to taking notes, it would extend to other parties in the House. Unquestionably, persons below the Bar of the House were considered as out of Parliament. If the act of taking notes were objected to, the gentlemen in the gallery taking notes must be objected to.
Mr. Finchsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not made the distinction between the cases, which must be obvious to every Gentleman in the House. His objection was not to the gentlemen in the gallery taking notes, but to individuals under the gallery taking notes. That course was not the proper one. He saw on the other side the hon. Member for Oxford University, to whose opinion, in questions of this kind, he paid the greatest deference, and to whom he would appeal, and he thought he should have his support.
Sir R. Ingliswas not prepared to give an opinion upon it. The objection, ac-

361
cording to the rules of the Mouse, was not to strangers taking notes, but to strangers being in the gallery, and it was in the power of any hon. Member to say, "I spy a stranger in the gallery," and it was then the old practice for the Chairman to move "that strangers do withdraw." He apprehended that the hon. Member did not intend his motion to go that extent.
Mr. Finchsaid, he believed the proper; course in this matter must rather rest with another Gentleman, who usually sat at the other end of the House (we believe the Serjeant-at-Arms); therefore, having called the attention of the House to it, he had done.
Sir T. Fremantlebelieved the hon. Gentleman was under a mistake. He believed, it was as consistent for the strangers sitting at one end of the House to take notes as for the strangers sitting at the other.
Mr. Baringbelieved the old practice was for strangers to take notes in the old gallery for strangers. He did not know that they had given any particular privilege to any one part of the House.
Mr. Finchhoped it would be understood, that any gentleman who went below the Bar in the strangers' part of the House, might in future be permitted to take notes.
Mr. O'Connellresumed. Never had there been a more gross neglect of duty than the non-service of the notice on the Bank. He had not called for petitions on this subject from the city of Dublin, because he had not time to do so. The country was in a sad state; he believed it was never in a worse state, financial and political, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to revenge all this upon unfortunate Ireland; like the man who, finding himself embarrassed in the world, went home and beat his wife and children. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to explain the causes which had kept away some Irish Members. Whilst he accounted for their absence, he might taunt the right hon. Gentleman with bringing forward the measure at so late a period. From first to last he had been in fault; he was in fault for keeping the people of Ireland in ignorance for twelve months; he was in fault for not bringing in the measure sooner, and the arguments which he had used damaged his own case. He should move that the Chairman report progress,—House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Stage Carriages; Rogue Money Assessment (Scotland); Militia Pay.—Read a third time:—Judges' Lodgings; Slave-Trade Treaties; Constabulary Force (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from, the Provincial Medical and Surgical Association, for a Reform of the Medical Profession.

BIRMINGHAM POLICE.—
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the second reading of the Birmingham Police Bill (No. 2). In consequence of some difficulties connected with the charter that had been granted to the town of Birmingham, the corporation were unable to establish an efficient police, which was so essential to the preservation of the peace of the town, and this bill was to enable the Treasury to advance to the corporation of Birmingham, the sum of 10,000/l., for the establishment of a police force. He believed that the only part of the bill that was objected to, was that part which vested the appointment of the commissioner of police in the Government, as was the case with the metropolitan police of London. It was the opinion of the Government, that it was essentially necessary for the preservation of the peace of the town of Birmingham, that the police force should be placed on that footing, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would approve of the principle of the bill, making such alterations as should be thought proper in committee.
Lord Broughamcould not agree to the proposition of the noble Viscount, without entering his protest against it. The noble Viscount had not laid sufficient grounds for undoing by one act, what Government had themselves done by a preceding Act of Parliament. The last act of Government was one of confidence in the town-council of Birmingham, for which purpose they availed themselves of all the powers given by their own Municipal Corporations Act. If, then, in the month of October, 1838, the town of Birmingham

287
—that great, important, and populous town—was so well deserving of the confidence of Government, that Government incorporated it, gave it municipal institutions, permitted it to choose its own magistrates, and enabled it to enjoy the very important privilege of voting in wards for those who had to administer justice within so vast a circuit, he did not see that any case had been made out for altering their course of proceeding, for entirely retracing the steps of Government, for undoing in August, 1839, what they had done in October, 1838, for stamping the town of Birmingham as unworihy of confidence, and for stigmatising the people of Birmingham as being unfit to be entrusted with the management of their own concerns, in a matter the most important, namely, the arrangement of the police establishment, and the superintendence of the Queen's peace. The main principle of the Municipal Corporations Act, was to establish corporations for police purposes. But for such purposes that Act would have been entirely unnecessary; and yet now, before they had given that Act a trial, before it had been found ineffective or inoperative, they were called upon totally to undo what they had before done. The town of Birmingham was to have the name of a corporation without the reality. It was to have a town-council; but functions they were to have none. The people of Birmingham were to be allowed to establish a body to superintend the police; but at the same time the persons so chosen by their fellow citizens were not to be allowed to have the superintendence of the police; they were, in fact, told that they were not fit for any of those things for which they were created, and that they were not to exercise those powers, for the purpose of exercising which powers alone, they were called into existence. He had never before heard of an attempt to abolish a corporation, unless they were abusers or non-users of their functions. What charge was brought against this corporation? Why their petition, which had been presented that evening, stated very truly and very properly, and he might say very eloquently, that not only were they not convicted, but they were not accused. If a charge were brought against individuals of the corporation, that was no reason whatever for saying that the whole corporate body had incurred forfeiture. Some
288
objection had been taken to the course adopted by a worthy friend of his, the mayor of Birmingham, but he must say, that he saw no reason whatever for that objection. Another excellent friend of his, a medical gentleman, and a member of the corporation, was charged with an error of judgment in hesitating to act without the presence of the chief magistrate; but even if there had been an error of judgment, was that a reason why the whole corporation should suffer? But the matter was now made the subject of inquiry; they were told that an investigation was going on, so that still it was doubtful, whether there was any charge or not against the corporation, and this bill was to interrupt the inquiry, and to interfere with the trial; and before the inquiry was even begun, and when it was only pending, they were called upon to act as if the inquiry had been gone through, and as if sentence had been pronounced against the parties who were put upon their trial. He would ask whether the inquiry could be fair after this? Would it be fair in the case of a military officer, that the Crown should stigmatize him before the court-martial had come to a decision? He had to add that there was no charge against the town as a corporate body. And whom were they called upon to stigmatize? Not the corporate body merely, but in reality the whole of the inhabitants, who had by au immense majority chosen the town-council, He knew it might be said, and he agreed in saying, that the choice of one or two of the magistrates was not very felicitous. He thought there were one or two who ought never to have been appointed. But what had the town-council to do with this? The justices might have done ill, but the town-council was a different body. His objection to one or two of these justices, was not that they were not worthy and loyal men, or that he had the least doubt that they would exert themselves strenuously to preserve the public peace. Quite the contrary: he thought their appointment objectionable, because they might be induced to exert themselves more strenuously than was necessary, from a feeling that they laboured under a suspicion of not being disposed so to act; but his chief objection was, that people would not believe that they would exercise the powers entrusted to them, and he therefore thought it unwise to appoint men who,

289
not being supposed to be likely to exercise their functions vigorously, would hold out a kind of temptation to seduce persons into those depredations and outrages that had unhappily been committed. But that objection applies at the utmost' only to two of those appointments. And he would ask, was it common fairness to stigmatize and disfranchise the town of Birmingham, because one or two persons had been appointed justices who ought not to have been appointed 1—those appointments having been made by the veiy parties who were the authors of the present bill. First they appointed a corporation, and, before the municipal body had done anything, they appointed certain municipal officers justices, and then, because they themselves appointed justices who ought not to be appointed, they, the same Government, now wanted to take away the charter which they themselves had granted. Upon these grounds, he thought that nothing was more unfair, or more inconsiderate, than any attempt of this kind; and this being his opinion, he felt it his bounden duty to resist the second reading of this bill. One thing was perfectly certain, that if this bill passed, they could not stop here, they would be absolutely bound to pass all the other bills of the same sort that might come at that late period of the Session from the other House of Parliament. The Manchester Bill, and the Bolton Bill, must be passed in the same way, if they were now to decide previously to inquiry, before trial, that the corporation of Birmingham had misdemeaned itself, which it certainly had not done. He thought, that the effect of this bill would be to keep alive, or rather to revive those discords that had happily ceased, and to revive and perpetuate those cruel dissensions, the result of which had been a breach of the peace, which all good men and loyal subjects must chiefly lament. It was perfectly clear, that if this bill were so altered as to give power to the proper quarter, thus showing that confidence which had not been forfeited, and that respect which was fully deserved by the town-council, he believed that that peace which had now been restored would be perpetuated in the town, but if, on the contrary, they condemned without trial, if they disfranchised those whom they had so lately enfranchised, if they stigmatized those whom a few months ago they delighted to honour, and all this without a
290
shadow of pretence, except that the Government who brought in a good bill one day, chose to change their views the next—if they took this course, he was morally certain, he was intimately persuaded from all he knew of that place, and of the people in general, that they would widen the breach—that they would render these dissentions that lately existed hardly curable—that they would sow the seeds of future discord broadcast over the town, and the youngest among their Lordships might not live to see the end of those dissensions, and the appeasing of those discords. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Viscount Melbourneagreed with the noble and learned Lord, that they were placed in a very unsatisfactory state of circumstances; but at the same time the question they had to consider was, whether this bill were necessary or not? He should have been much more happy, much better satisfied, if the corporation of Birmingham, which it was said the present Government had established, had been enabled to use the powers which were in. tended to be given to them. He certainly should have been much better satisfied if the corporation had been acquiesced in by the whole town of Birmingham, and if it had commanded the confidence of the whole of the inhabitants, if no legal objection had been taken to their constitution, and if they had been allowed to perform those functions for which they were intended and appointed. But that, unfortunately, was not the case. The noble and learned Lord, in opposing this bill, relied upon the certainty of the tranquillity of the town of Birmingham. All numerous bodies were very apt to get pretty rapid impressions of things. The impression of their Lordships minds some time ago, as to the state of Birmingham, was pretty strong and vivid, and he should have apprehended at that time, that there would not be the slightest difference of opinion as to this bill, and that there could not be a difference of opinion in respect to the propriety, and, indeed, necessity, of taking measures for the establishment of an efficient police in the town of Birmingham. After what they had seen, after what had so recently taken place, and with the ill-feeling that seemed to prevail in a great part of that town, he could hardly believe it possible, that tranquillity had been so completely and en-

291
tirely restored as to be, according to the noble and learned Lord, much more certain and fixed than ever, or that the people were united in a degree of harmony and concord much greater than any that existed before the late tumult. If that were true, certainly this tumult was the most fortunate and auspicious that possibly could be. But the real fact was, that the legal constitution of the corporation was impugned at law, and they had not the power of taking those steps that were necessary for raising a police force. They bad not the means of doing it. They could not raise a rate, as the rate would not be paid. And even if it were paid, the overseers would not feel themselves sufficiently justified in paying the money over to the town-council. Therefore it was, that this bill was absolutely necessary to supply the deficiency of authority, and to take immediate measures for the preservation of the peace, and the maintenance of order in the town of Birmingham. This bill cast no stigma upon any body or individual, it interfered with no trial, it interrupted no inquiry, it had none of those defects which had been attributed to it by the noble and learned Lord, it was merely a bill which they considered that the present state of circumstances rendered necessary for the purpose of maintaining peace and order in Birmingham, and of securing that tranquillity which had recently been so seriously disturbed. The noble and learned Lord said, that they sought to pass this bill, in order to remedy their own appointment of magistrates. In the first place, the bill had nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates; and, in the next place, the noble and learned Lord assumed and took for granted, that persons had been appointed who ought not to have been appointed. The noble and learned Lord said, respecting the conduct of those magistrates, that persons who had taken a leading part in politics, were likely to distinguish themselves by great anxiety, and an over desire to maintain the public peace. He did not know whether the opinion of the noble and learned Lord had been realised precisely to that extent; but a noble Earl, who was not now present, the Lord-lieutenant of the county of Warwick (the Earl of Warwick), told them, that unquestionably those gentlemen, whose names had been already mentioned, and whom he would not men-on again, had been as ready, as firm, as
292
energetic, and had taken as much share of the duty of preserving the public peace, as any other of the magistrates. But this bill had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of the magistrates; it cast no stigma upon the corporation, or upon the town of Birmingham; but the unfortunate circumstances of that town, and the jealousies that existed there, made it necessary that a police should be established, and, with the present feeling of the people of Birmingham, he put it to their Lordships, whether that police ought not rather to be established under an independent and impartial authority, than under the authority of the corporation?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he could not concur with the noble and learned Lord, in thinking that what had lately happened in Birmingham was likely to heal the dissensions, or to minister to the re-establishment of the peace of that town. He was afraid it would have a contrary effect. It appeared to him, that this bill was necessary in consequence of the disturbances which had prevailed in Birmingham, and in consequence of the state of the question depending in a court of law, respecting the legality of the grant of the charter to the town of Birmingham. He believed that that charter had been granted with great precipitation, and the consequence was, that the corporation had not the power of levying a rate to support a police force. That question was now under consideration in a court of justice, and would not be decided till November next, or possibly later, and it might be decided against the legality of the charter. In the meantime, it appeared absolutely necessary that there should be some power of regulating the police, and if care were not taken to establish a power to regulate the police by this bill, the town would be again left without a police as before. He considered, therefore, that this bill was the necessary consequence of the state of the question regarding the charter. He begged to remind the noble and learned Lord, that the Crown, having granted the charter, could not deprive the town of Birmingham of that charter. The inquiry must go through its regular course, and care must be taken to provide for all the consequences that might arise, either from the establishment of the charter, or from the decision of the court of law, that the charter was illegal. He believed that the present bill provided for both those consequences.

293
With respect to the other question that had been adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, namely, the appointment of the bench of justices, that appointment was another consequence of the grant of this charter, which is now questioned, and stated to be illegal. The Government thought proper, not in October, but in January last, to grant sessions of the peace to the town of Birmingham, and to the corporation of that town; and having granted these sessions of the peace, a noble Lord, in another place, recommended certain persons to be appointed justices of the peace of that town. That noble Lord was responsible for the selection of those justices; but if it should be found that this charter had been illegally granted, it would follow that the grant of the sessions of the peace was also illegal. It would also follow, he believed, that this commission of the peace could no longer exist, and all those gentlemen, who were thus appointed under the commission of the peace, would not be qualified to act as justices of the peace, when they were no longer justices of the peace of the sessions of the corporation of Birmingham. He believed that their Lordships would find this to be the case, and this circumstance rendered it still more important that care should be taken by this bill that there should be a commissioner to take charge of this police, who should be totally independent of the charter, and of the justices appointed under the charter, and in consequence of the charter. He thought it a very improper act to appoint these sessions at the time the grant was made. The Chartists were then embodied, and moving about the country, namely, in October, and he certainly agreed with the noble and learned Lord, that those who might be supposed to partake of the political sentiments of those persons, ought not at that time to have been appointed justices, under the commission for the corporation of Birmingham. There was another very curious circumstance attending this commission of the peace of Birmingham, which showed the haste and want of consideration with which all those arrangements had been carried into execution, and of which the public had seen the consequence. The opinion of some noble Lords of great authority, had been given on the point, whether the magistrates of the county of Warwick had or had not jurisdiction in the corporation of Birmingham, after that
294
corporation had been established, and the sessions of the peace had been granted. It now appeared to be the decided opinion, that the magistrates of the county of Warwick had, and ought to have had from the commencement, jurisdiction within the corporation of Birmingham. But how was it that persons had considered it right to grant a sessions of the peace, and that under the circumstances the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, should interfere, contrary to the intentions of Parliament, and grant to ten or twelve of the magistrates of the county of Warwick, that their names should be inserted in the commission of the peace for the corporation of Birmingham, which corporation it was now understood by all the great legal authorities, to have had no jurisdiction during the whole of the period? After this, to suppose that confidence could be placed in those by whom such things had been transacted, was a matter of impossibility. He could not have any such confidence, and all, therefore, he could say was this: That he was most desirous that there should be a police in Birmingham, for the purpose of saving it from such misfortunes as had occurred lately, and, therefore, he must vote for this bill, in order to give a police to the town, and, at the same time, to be quite certain that it should be in the hands of some one, who would manage and conduct it for the benefit of the community.
Lord Broughamstated, that, as the Government pressed, and as the noble Duke supported this bill, he should not press his motion, but reserve the further objections he had to this measure for the Committee.
Bill read a second time.

TRADE ON THE WESTERN COAST OF AFRICA.—
Viscount Strangfordhad to present a petition to their Lordships from certain merchants who had been for some years engaged in carrying on a trade in gum, at the British port of Portendic, on the western coast of Africa, complaining of an interruption to their trade by the French Government. If the Session had not approached so near its close, he should not have contented himself with merely presenting the petition, and saying a few words in its support, but he should have felt it his duty to follow it up by a substantive motion, considering, as he did, the case to be one of the greatest hardship

295
injustice, and oppression, as regarded the individuals concerned, and as involving the great national question whether or not this country had a right under treaties, to trade with that part of the African coast, or whether this country held the right on sufferance, and at the will and pleasure of another power. If this country had that right—and he believed it was unquestioned—he thought this country was bound to show its feeling, as well on account of the importance of the trade itself, as because the establishment of commercial relations with that part of the world, and the interchange of their produce for British manufactures, furnished the best means of introducing- into that country, the blessings of civilization, and of putting an end to the sinful traffic which was there carried on. He felt confident that the extension of those relations in all directions, and their maintenance by all lawful means, would do more to put down the horrors of that traffic than all the attempts which might be made to bring minor and weaker states, for to them the attempts were limited, under the operation of acts of the British Parliament. The case of the petitioners would, he believed, be best and most briefly told in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read that part of the petition. The petitioners stated, that
"They have been for some years engaged in carrying on a trade in gum at the British port of Poitendic, on the western coast of Africa. That this article is one of great importance to many of the staple manufactures of Great Britain, and that the English trade therein, at the said port of Portendic, has been observed for more than a century with great and increasing jealousy by the French merchants established in the Senegal. That a tribe of Moors, denominated the Trazars, is supposed to exercise considerable influence over the direction of this trade, in the interior of that part of Africa where the gum is principally produced. That the French thought fit to declare war against this tribe in the year 1832; and that under the pretext of carrying on the said war, the Governor of the Senegal caused a report to be circulated, towards the close of the year 1833, that he intended to blockade the coast of Portendic. That your petitioners, astonished at so extraordinary a menace, sought for protection against it from his late Majesty's Government, in consequence of which, the British Ambassador at Paris (Earl Granville) was instructed to inquire whether any such intention existed on the part of the Government of France, when
296
a reply was given that they had no such intention. That, notwithstanding this solemn pledge, the Governor of the Senegal despatched two ships-of-war in July, 1834, to the said British Bay of Portendic, where two English merchant vessels, the Governor Temple, and the Industry, chartered by two of your petitioners, were then engaged in carrying on the gum trade with the Moors; that these two vessels were ordered by the French commander to quit the bay, without taking in the cargoes of gum prepared for them on the shore; that the English captains refused to obey this order, whereupon one of the French ships anchored close to the coast, and commenced tiring upon the Moors with grape and round shot; that the English flag was placed upon the gum collected on the shore intended for embarkation; that the flag was fired upon by the French; that the two merchant vessels were captured, taken to the Senegal, and not restored until much of the benefit of the voyage was lost to the charterers; and that after up-braiding the two supercargoes in the most insolent language, the said commander ordered them on board his ship, where he detained them for several days as prisoners. That an official proclamation having been previously issued, the said British coast of Portendic, was actually blockaded by the French on the 15th of February, 1835, and an adequate force stationed in the bay to maintain the said blockade, which was continued without intermission for more than six months. That the Eliza, belonging to one of your petitioners, which had arrived at Portendic a fortnight before the commencement of the blockade, and had landed and disposed of part of her outward cargo, and was prepared to ship from the shore the gum bargained for in exchange, was violently boarded, taken possession of, and conveyed out of the harbour by the French marine, leaving the gum on the beach; and that subsequently several other vessels belonging to your petitioners, which were proceeding to that place with cargoes of dry goods, in order to procure gum in exchange, were driven away by the blockading force. That the practical result of these proceedings has been, in the first place, to inflict actual losses on your petitioners to the amount of 100,000 l.; and in the second place, to cause in the intercourse between the English and the Moorish dealers in gum, a derangement which has not been since found susceptible of any permanent remedy, and that the trade may be said to have passed from your petitioners almost wholly into French hands. That your petitioners lost no time in preferring claims against the Government of France for indemnity for the heavy losses which they have sustained by reason of the outrages herein stated; and that her Majesty's Government, and the law officers of the Crown, having taken the said claims into consideration, have found them, after the most minute examination, to be valid and just in every respect. That the claims of

297
your petitioners for redress, having been forwarded by her Majesty's principal Secretary of State to the Government of France, such redress has been refused by the French upon various pretexts, all of which have been pronounced unsatisfactory by the law officers of the Crown. That in answer to the repeated applications made by your petitioners to the said Secretary of State, requesting that he would obtain from France the indemnity to which he admits they are entitled, his Lordship has stated that he has done and is doing everything in his power in order to obtain such redress for your petitioners. That nevertheless, year after year passes over without such redress, or even any promise of it, being procured from France, and that thus the losses inflicted upon your petitioners in the years 1834 and 1835 have been very seriously aggravated, not to mention the further injuries which they have since sustained by the almost total termination of their trade at Portendic. That, under these circumstances, your petitioners appeal to your Lordships for protection, and trust that you will take such steps as may seem most meet, in order to procure for your petitioners indemnity for past injuries, as well as security for their future trade. That your petitioners are far from soliciting the adoption of any measures which might affect the amicable relations now so happily subsisting between England and France; but at the same time, they humbly conceive that the treatment which they have received from the authorities of France, is such as cannot be tolerated without compromising the honour of her Majesty's Crown, and exposing the rights of her subjects to frequent violation in every quarter of the globe."
The various statements contained in this petition had been brought under the consideration of another assembly last year, and in the early part of the present Session by the right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. That right hon. Member founded upon them a motion for the production of papers, which motion, however, was withdrawn on the assurance given by the noble Viscount who was at the head of Foreign Affairs, that the Government of this country was at that time negotiating with France on the subject of these transactions, and that the production of the papers moved for, might be prejudicial to that negotiation. The noble Viscount, at the same time, unequivocally admitted all the facts contained in this, or rather a similar petition—he admitted the undoubted right of British subjects to trade on the western coast of Africa—he admitted the violent interruptions which had been given to that trade by the naval forces of France—the
298
insult given by firing at the British flag—the con fiscal ion of property covered by that flag—the capture of British vessels, and the imprisonment of British subjects. The unjustifiable character of the whole of the transactions from first to last, was recorded by the solemn opinions of the law officers of the Crown on the case itself, and the right of the parties aggrieved to claim compensation and redress; all these facts had been admitted by the noble Viscount at the head of the Foreign Department, who stated further, that so convinced was he of the correctness of the statement, and the importance of the matter to the country at large, that he was then using his exertions to bring the French Government to a sense of what was due, not to this country alone, but on the principle of self-respect as due to France herself. He was sorry to say that these efforts appeared to have been totally without success. For five years these unfortunate gentlemen, the petitioners, had to complain of grievous injuries inflicted upon them by acts of an ally of their sovereign, and for five years this country had lost the advantage of a trade which furnished an article indispensable to her manufactures, which trade, by force of arms, had been monopolized and usurped by France, upon whom England had now to depend for the supply of an article she could not do without, and which she was compelled to take from the French on their own terms, and at their own price. This, however, was a narrow and paltry view of the question which involved the national honour and national rights. He hoped he should not witness any interruption of the good understanding which existed between France and England, on which depended mainly the happiness of the civilized world; but he was not anxious to purchase that good understanding at the expense of national character or national honour. He hoped that her Majesty's Government would use that earnest and serious tone is this matter, which was never misunderstood by the party in the wrong, when perseveringly employed by those in the right. He assured their Lordships that he was not influenced by any party feeling in taking upon himself to present this petition; in fact, it was a case into which party feeling could not enter. It had been twice brought before the other House by one of the most strenuous supporters of her

299
Majesty's Government, the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he was satisfied that the terms of condemnation; employed by that learned person, were not too strong. He repeated, that he earnestly hoped the noble Viscount would take the subject into his serious consideration. The noble Viscount might depend upon it, that the great commercial community of this country would not suffer the matter to stand as it did; unless some decisive step was taken, they would not be satisfied.
Viscount Melbournesaid, their Lordships must have seen from the statements of the noble Lord, and also from the allegations of the petition, which he believed could not be denied, that this was plainly a matter for grave and serious consideration. It was unquestionably such a matter as might lead to that which the noble Lord had so much deprecated, unless some means were found to bring about an amicable termination of the disputes. It was the opinion of the Government, that her Majesty's subjects in that part of the globe where the transactions complained of had taken place, had suffered injury, and that there had been a violation, if not of a treaty, at least of those rights of commerce which belonged to her Majesty's subjects. He could assure the noble Lord that there had been no lack of interference or remonstrance on the part of the Government with those free and easy Ministers to whom he had referred, though he seemed to insinuate that nothing had been done. There was no difference of opinion amongst the members of the Government upon this subject, nor had there been any throughout the whole course of the negotiations which had taken place. It was felt that great injustice had been done by the agents of France in that part of the world, and he was sorry to say that they had not viewed it in that light, but that they had taken rather an opposite view of it. The noble Lord might rely upon it that the matter had been pressed upon the attention of, the French Government in the most earnest and solemn manner, and that it would still be so pressed upon them, and he could not but hope that when the principles stated by the noble Lord came to be duly considered, due reparation would be made to her Majesty's subjects for the injuries they bad suffered.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.
Viscount Melbourne, having first moved, tat the Address to her Majesty on the Slave-trade, agreed to by their Lordships on Friday, the 2nd instant, and her Majesty's gracious Answer thereto, be read, rose to move the second reading of the Slave-Trade Suppression Bill, and said, that, deeply impressed as he was with the great importance of this measure in every point of view, whether considered politically, or with reference to the great measure which it was intended to forward, he at the same time apprehended that he should not be compelled to intrude upon the patience of their Lordships for any very great length of time. The solemn act of their Lordships, to which he had recalled their attention by moving that their address to the Throne be read, the circumstances under which this bill had been introduced, and the present state of the question, rendered it unnecessary for him to enter into a long statemant of the reasons upon which it was founded, or of the grounds on which he hoped for their Lordships' approbation of it. They would perceive, that every provision of this bill, and the powers which were requested to be conferred by it, were stated in a very clear, and simple, and distinct manner in the preamble, and in the several clauses thereof. The objects were simply these:—that those persons who should be employed under the authority of her Majesty, for the detention and seizure of vessels engaged in the slave-trade, should be protected against the consequences of executing the orders given to them, by indemnifying them against all suits or actions brought against them; and that power should be given to the Vice-Admiralty Courts of the colonies to adjudicate upon the cases of all vessels so captured, in the same way as if they were British ships. Those were the principal features of the bill. Their Lordships were aware of the general object which it was intended to assist and carry out; and it was not necessary for him to make many observations upon that head. Their Lordships knew that this country had been now more than fifty years engaged in that which was unquestionably a very difficult, but at the same time, a very noble and honourable and praiseworthy task, and one which he thought would, hereafter, be the principal glory of Britain—that of attempting to abolish the African slave-

301
trade, and to extinguish that condition of slavery which had unfortunately grown up in many parts of the globe in consequence of that trade. After labouring for this end for many years, when peace was restored to the world, we had endeavoured to induce other nations to unite in the same honourable cause, and to combine their efforts with ours for the same glorious object. Their Lordships were aware of the zeal and energy displayed in this cause, and of the sacrifices made in it by this country; they knew that it was a cause which was deeply entwined and interwoven with the moral and religious feelings of the people, and that the general desire of the nation was for the extinction of this traffic. But when he came to consider the result of the exertions and sacrifices which had thus been made, he feared that what was stated in many quarters was too true, and that, indeed, it was a fact which was so strongly pressed upon their attention, that we had succeeded in a very limited degree in our object, and that the slave-trade was still carried on under certain flags which were allowed to shelter and protect it. He would not enter into particulars here; he would not stay to inquire whether the slave-trade were now as extensive as when measures for its suppression were first set on foot, or whether it had increased, as was alleged by some persons who had paid great attention to the subject, and possessed much information upon it. Suffice it to say, that it was impossible to doubt that the slave-trade was still carried on to a great extent, and prevailed in many parts of the globe, and that many thousand persons were yearly brought from their native shores to be subjected to that wretched state, which was injurious both to him that suffered, and to him that caused the suffering. Although there might be some doubt with respect to the greatness of the amount of the traffic alleged by some persons, there could be no doubt that its amount at present was great. But there was another point upon which he must touch. It was said that we had, by the measures which we had taken to put down the slave-trade, aggravated the evils which its victims had felt under it; and the horrors of the system had been depicted, in the course of the last Session, by his noble and learned Friend who sat on his right (Lord Brougham), with a force which must have left a strong
302
impression upon their Lordships' minds, and in language which he believed it was hardly necessary for him to repeat, in order to convince their Lordships of the deep sufferings and horrid cruelties inflicted by the furtive attempts which were made to elude all the vigilance of those who were engaged in putting down the slave-trade. It was felt and agreed on all hands, that this contraband system should not be permitted to continue, that every effort should be made to put a stop to it, and that the Legislature was in duty bound to carry out the great and good work which the nation had begun. But, unfortunately, they had to deal with cupidity—that blinding vice, which would allow the individual to regard nothing when in the pursuit of gain, but that one object, that thirst for gold which made men disregard every horror and misery to which others might be subjected while in pursuit of their own gratification. Such was the passion which had unfortunately defeated us, and deprived us of that success which we had anticipated, and which he still hoped to see realized. Amongst the nations under whose flag the slave-trade was now carried on, he was sorry to say that Portugal was pre-eminent. A greater part, he might say, but certainly a large proportion of the traffic, was sanctioned by the Portuguese flag. Their Lordships well knew how the matter stood with respect to Portugal, which, by more than one treaty, had undertaken to put an end to the slave-trade. It was not his wish to use any strong language upon this occasion, because he trusted that their Lordships would so enter into the matter, and act in so decisive a manner, as would render more strong language superfluous and unnecessary. But he would call their Lordships' attention to the last note presented by Lord Howard de Walden to the Portuguese Government, in which the case with respect to the conduct of Portugal was stated in a perspicuous manner. Lord Howard de Walden states that Portugal—
"In disregard of the 10th article of the treaty of 1810, declines to co-operate with her Britannic Majesty, by adopting the most efficacious means for bringing about a Anal abolition of the slave-trade.' In disregard of another part of that same treaty, she permits her slave-trade to continue in parts of Africa, ' where the Powers and States of Europe which formerly traded there have discontinued and abandoned it,' In violation of the treaty

303
of January, 1815, she still 'permits her flag to be used for supplying with slaves other places than the Trans-Atlantic possessions of Portugal.' In violation of the 3rd article of the additional convention of the 28th of July, 1817, she absolutely refuses to ' assimilate the legislation of Portugal upon slave-trade with the legislation of Great Britain.' In violation of the 2nd article of that convention, she seeks to prevent Great Britain from putting down that slave-trade which, by that article, both Powers jointly declare to be illicit—namely the exportation of slaves in Portuguese vessels from ' ports not possessed or claimed by Portugal, in Africa,' and the importation of slaves in Portuguese vessels into ' ports not in the dominions of her most faithful Majesty.' In violation of the separate article of the 11th of September, 1817, she refuses to adapt the provisions of the convention of the 28th of July, 1817, to that altered state of circumstances which exists in consequence of the law, which has abolished the slave-trade in all the dominions of the Crown of Portugal. She has refused to sign a treaty which comprises stipulations indispensably necessary for carrying these various provisions into effect, although urged to do so by Great Britain, during a negotiation protracted for upwards of four years; but on the contrary, she insists upon stipulations which would render such a treaty as inefficacious as are her own laws. Instead of consenting to give greater power for the detention and for the condemnation of of slave-vessels, she endeavours to recede from the limited power which she granted for those purposes twenty years ago. She tries to narrow the extent of the mutual right of search, which, by the treaty of 1817, is without any limitation of geographical space, and which may now be exercised in every part of the world. She wants to abolish the mixed tribunals, established by the existing treaties, and to submit the adjudication of detained slave-ships to Portuguese tribunals, from whom, in cases of this kind, guilt the most flagrant and the most clearly proved, would be certain to obtain an acquittal. She struggles for a power to cancel, at the end of a certain period, such portion of the treaty as she may dislike; that is to say, in other words, she asks for a power to revive, at the end of a certain period, the slave-trade of Portugal, in all the original plenitude of its iniquity. She demands a guarantee of her African possessions against the dangers to which they will be exposed from a measure which the Portuguese Government itself acknowledges to be an indispensable foundation for the welfare and prosperity of those colonies; and she asserts, that ' propriety and decorum require these conditions,' se utterly repugnant to good faith, to national interest, and to national honour."
He had thought it necessary to read that passage, because it contained a very clear and distinct summary of the case with
304
respect to Portugal. But he had commenced his observations by stating that the present position of the question, and furthermore, that the acts which they had already done, and that the votes which they had come to, rendered it unnecessary for him to go at length into the case, in order to prove what had been the conduct of Portugal in the long-protracted negotiations which had taken place between the two Governments, and how far that conduct called for a measure of this kind. On looking back to the past proceedings of their Lordships, he found that his noble and learned Friend moved an address to the Crown upon the subject of the slave-trade, which address was agreed to by their Lordships, and at its close contained the following paragraph:—
" 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 before 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."
That was the conclusion to which their Lordships came upon that occasion, and he need scarcely remind them that very recently they had agreed to another address to the following effect:
"That her Majesty will be graciously pleased by all means within her Majesty's power, to negotiate with the Governments of Foreign Nations, as well in America as Europe, for their concurrence in effectually putting down the traffic in slaves; and also that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give such orders to her Majesty's cruisers as may be most efficacious in stopping the said traffic, more especially that carried on under the Portuguese and Brazilian flag, or by Brazilian or Portuguese ships; assuring her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur with the other House of Parliament in whatever measures may be rendered necessary, if her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to comply with this prayer."
Her Majesty had complied with that prayer, and had given directions to the cruisers to take the most efficacious steps to put down this traffic. The present bill, therefore, was necessary, in order to fulfil their Lordships' own intentions and wishes as expressed in their address to the Crown upon this great and important subject.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that no man could have read the papers upon this

305
subject which had been laid upon the Table, or have listened to the able speech which had been made last year by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) opposite, or to the statements which had that evening been advanced by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, without being fully convinced of the existence of the slave-trade at the present moment. There was, in his opinion, no proposition more true, than that the slave traffic had of late increased, and that it had, in particular, extended to parts of the coast from which it had once been entirely expelled. He was also of opinion, for he had concurred in the address which their Lordships had sent up to her Majesty, that measures ought to be adopted by the Government to induce the government of Portugal to perform the stipulations of the treaties into which that nation had entered with her Majesty and with her Royal predecessors. No man could be more convinced of the necessity for such measures than he was, nor could any of their Lordships be more willing to adopt and to sanction such measures as Government, on its own responsibility, might offer, in order to the attainment of so desirable an end as the termination of the trade in slaves. But while he felt the deepest anxiety to see a period put to the traffic in slaves in every part of the world, he could have wished to see a different course adopted from that which had been pursued upon the present occasion. An application to Parliament of this description was not the proper course to be pursued for the enforcement of treaties entered into by other nations with her Majesty. The proper course was, for the Government to have adopted, on its own responsibility, the measures which they might have thought necessary for enforcing those treaties. In the first place, recourse ought to have been had to diplomacy, and, in his opinion, they ought to have sought, by negotiation, to secure the fulfilment of the treaties which Portugal had made But Parliament was not the proper judge on questions of this description, because it was not acquainted with the details of those negotiations. If, however, diplomacy failed, then they must resort to measures of a naval or military character, or of both, in regard to which that House had no knowledge either of the debates or of the consequences, or of the means necessary, any more than the
306
the other House of Parliament. Such measures were to be adopted by her Majesty, on the advice of her responsible Ministers, and not by Parliament, which had no knowledge sufficient to enable it to act. It was on these grounds that he had, on a recent occasion, advised their Lordships to reject a similar bill to that which was now before them; and he confessed, that he saw in the present bill fresh reasons for wishing that her Majesty had taken such steps as her Majesty might have thought proper, with reference to Portugal, before Parliament had been called upon to adopt any measures for carrying her Majesty's intentions into effect. The objection which he had taken to the former bill was not one merely of form, for he had opposed that measure on grounds which were essential to the existence and preservation of the authority of the Crown of England, and to the due carrying on of the public business; and he would again say, that it was impossible for him, or for any of their Lordships, except two or three noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, who were admitted to her Majesty's councils, to know what were the means at the disposal of the Government for carrying into execution those measures which her Majesty might deem necessary to enforce the fulfilment of those treaties. Much less were their Lordships able to judge of the consequences of those measures, of the means necessary to be employed, or whether those means which would be required were at the disposal of the Government, in case the diplomatic measures which he had first mentioned failed—in case Portugal should resist the remonstrances of England, and in case the dominion of the Crown, or the commerce of the country, should, in consequence, be exposed to risk, or to actual injury. He confessed that he saw other reasons, arising out of the enactments of the bill before their Lordships, which induced him to wish that her Majesty's Government had taken their own course on this subject, rather than have called for the decision of Parliament. He saw in the different clauses of this measure reasons for believing that the framers of the bill had not sufficiently attended to the treaties which had been formed, and which were now in force, between her Majesty and nearly all the powers of Europe, for putting down the slave-trade. The first clause said—

307
"Be it enacted, that in case her Majesty should please to issue orders to her cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or vessels of any Slate whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having on board, or the master whereof shall refuse or neglect to produce, on demand, papers showing to the subjects of what State such vessels belong, it shall be lawful for any person or persons, under any order or authority of the Lord High Admiral, or of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, or of any one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State, to detain, seize, and capture any such vessels, and the slaves found therein, and to bring the same to adjudication in the High Court of Admiralty of England, or in any of the Vice-Admiralty Courts within her Majesty's dominions."
Now, he would beg their Lordships to observe what the effect of that clause would be. The Lord High Admiral could, by the provisions of the clause, give, under his hand, authority to any one to detain, seize, and capture the vessels of any State whatever employed in the slave traffic. But let their Lordships recollect, that, before they could proceed to seize and capture, they must, in the first place, detain those vessels, for the purpose of examining papers, and that any one, under the clause, was to be empowered to perform to the ships of any nation. Such were the provisions of this clause; and now let him call their Lordships' attention to the special treaties which existed between her Majesty and the different Powers of Europe in reference to the detaining of vessels, to boarding, and to the examination of papers. In the first place, he wished to direct their Lordships' attention to the important treaty with France, in reference to these points, and to show what the effect of this first clause would be upon the provisions of that treaty. The treaty with France limited the time when, and place where, the visitation of French vessels could be made for the examination of papers. In the next place, that treaty stipulated, not that any or every person might detain and visit the vessels of France, but that the visitation should only be made by the commander of one of her Majesty's ships specially appointed for that purpose. The number of those commanders who were to have the right of visitation was limited by one of the articles of the treaty; and it was also provided, that the number and names of the vessels employed should be signified to France, as well as the names of their
308
commanding officers. It was also stipulated, that those officers having the right of visitation should not be under the rank of captain or lieutenant of the Royal Navy of Great Britain. Such were the stipulations of the treaty into which this country had entered with France, and yet the provisions of this bill empowered any person, no matter whom, if acting on the authority of the Lord High Admiral, not only to detain, for the purpose of examining papers, but to seize and capture the vessels of France, or of any nation whatever. He would go no further than the question of visitation. The clause gave the power to any person to detain, to board, and to visit any ship, to whatever nation she might belong, going, or supposed to be going, upon the slave-trade; and all this their Lordships were asked to consent to, after the matter of visitation had been thus settled in the treaty with France into which this country had entered. There was another point of great importance, in regard to this treaty, to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention. It was required, in order to render more certain that provision of the treaty which stipulated that a captain or lieutenant of the navy should be employed in this duty, and in order that it might be known to the French government what ship it was that he commanded, that the commander of each vessel should carry with him an authority, empowering him to make the visitation, and which authority it was also required that he should produce at the first moment of boarding. But by this bill no exception was made—no authority was to be required to be produced—no limitation was made as to the ships to be employed, or in regard to the officers commanding them; and their Lordships, in defiance of this treaty, were called upon to pass a measure in which the power of visitation was to be given to anybody, and in which that power was to be extended to the ships of all nations. As he had said before, he should go no further than the question of visitation; and he would ask their Lordships, whether it was possible for them to consent to the provisions of the first clause of this bill, when they took into their consideration the stipulations of the treaty into which the country had entered with France? He would also beg to remind their Lordships that this treaty with France was substantially the same as those into which England had entered

309
with Spain, the Hanse Towns, Denmark, Sardinia, Naples and almost all the other Powers of Europe, and yet the flags of every one of those nations were to be exposed to the oppression of the enactments of this measure. He warned the Government not to proceed with this measure, but rather to issue an Order in Council or a declaration of war, or even to apply to Parliament, if necessary, to enable them to carry measures into operation under the treaties; but let them, in every case, take care, in granting this power of visitation, so to limit it as to leave no room for her Majesty's intentions to be misconstrued by other nations. That was another reason why he had wished, that instead of this bill, which had been sent up from the other House, and which he concluded was framed by persons who had no perfect knowledge of those treaties, the Government had brought down a message from the Crown, or published a declaration of what her Majesty's intentions were. Such a course would have been proper as regarded Parliament, and the object in view might in this way have been effected without the difficulty and without the scandal which must inevitably attend the passing of this first clause. There was one other clause of great importance, on which he wished to say-a few words—he alluded, to the fourth, or the equipment clause, as it was called. That clause was the most offensive of all. It was absolutely necessary that it should be known what equipment was to be the sign of a vessel being engaged in the slave-trade, but the same objections which were applicable to the first clause were also applicable to this clause. Vessels might be seized by any one acting under the authority of the Lord High Admiral, if in the equipment of such vessel there should be found any of the things mentioned in the clause; but in all the treaties to which he had alluded he found provision made in respect to equipment, and particularly in the treaty with France, on which all the others were founded. If their Lordships looked at those treaties, they would find it impossible to carry the provisions of this fourth clause into effect by an Act of Parliament without a manifest breach of their engagements with Prance, and without at once putting an end to all those treaties into which this country had entered. Other nations entertained on those points strong prejudices, and were determined
310
never to give up to England the power of visitation; and he could not imagine that the French government would ever consent to allow the vessels of England on the authority of an Act of Parliament to detain, seize, and capture their ships. He would entreat their Lordships to consider the situation in which they would place the country with respect to other nations by passing this bill, which put at defiance all those treaties. He could not think that this was a wise or politic course. There were some nations, one great nation in particular, the United States, with whom this country had made no treaties for putting down the slave-trade. It was true that there were engagements made by diplomatic notes, in which the United States had expressed her readiness to co-operate with this country in putting the slave-trade down, by declaring it piracy. Documents, however, which had lately been laid before their Lordships, showed that the slave trade was still carried on by vessels bearing the flag of the United States. If, then, there was one point more to be avoided than another, it was that relating to the searching vessels belonging to the United States. He alluded particularly to the correspondence which had passed between the commissioners at the Havannah; and he perceived, that not only was no inclination shown on the part of the United States to permit this detention and visitation for papers, for the purpose of discovering whether the vessel had a right to claim the protection, of another state, but, on the contrary, if we might judge from the correspondence of their consul at the Havannah, the very mention that such a thing was done, although proof was offered of the fact, was resented as an insult. Now, if the Government were to act under the authority of this Act of Parliament, that would not relieve them from the consequences of interfering in this manner with the rights of other nations. For his own part, he could not judge of the consequences that might follow—nor could he form an opinion of what our means were for the purposes of carrying this measure into execution, supposing the United States should think proper, as he thought we had every reason to believe from these documents they would, to resist the operation of the Act. This was another reason, in his opinion, for desiring that the measure should originate with her Majesty's

311
Government, who had all this knowledge, and not with Parliament. But there was another view of this question, which he thought was rather a low view of it in comparison with those which he had already drawn under their Lordships' attention. All these officers whoever they might be, acting under the provisions of this bill, were to be indemnified from all Consequences, but the State would not be indemnified. Under all the treaties, indemnities were liable to be paid, and there was a positive engagement to pay a very large demurrage, and if so, we might be certain, that no vessel of the United States would be detained even for a visitation which might last only a few hours for which this country might not be liable. Under all these circumstances, he thought, that this measure was one to which their Lordships could not with propriety agree, if they entertained that respect for the rights of other nations, which had been the uniform practice of this country to observe in its best days, and he therefore moved, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Broughamsaid, that it was with unfeigned regret and some surprise, that he had heard the observations with which the noble Duke had concluded what was otherwise an able and temperate speech. He must say, that he thought, even on the noble Duke's own principles, and, according to the tenour and scope of his own reasoning, that the course which the noble Duke and their Lordships ought to take was not to reject the bill at its present stage of a second reading, but to adopt the principle of the bill, which was excellent, and to modify it by some alterations of a material nature, which he should show were very feasible after they had allowed it to go into committee. He deemed this to be of the very greatest possible consequence. Even if larger alterations might be thought fit to be introduced than he had any reason to believe were necessary, he still deemed it to be of the very last moment, with a view to the abolition of this accursed traffic, that their Lordships should not object to the bill in its present stage, but allow it to go into committee. Why did he think so? It was because he knew the state of this trade. It was because he knew, it had pushed its roots deep in other countries after it had been abolished in this. It was because its roots bad been pushed deepest and spread
312
widest in the dominions of our ancieut ally Portugal, and because it had spread its roots into the hearts of the people of Portugal, he grieved to say it, and because that infernal traffic which was viewed elsewhere with horror, disgust, and execration, was the object even of popular favour among the deluded people of Portugal. There was no part of the West-Indies, even when the traffic in slaves was carried on without restriction, in which the trade was looked upon with more favour than in the cities of Lisbon and Oporto. It was because he also knew, the anxiety with which the people of Portugal were regarding their proceedings, and that they hung with breathless expectation on the arrival of the next packet, fur the purpose of finding whether their Lordships would have dealt with this bill in the same manner as they did with the last. He well knew the anxiety with which the people of Portugal heard the accounts that the former bill was introduced, not merely on 'Change, where the criminals congregated, but even amongst the highest classes. They regarded that bill as a death blow to the Portuguese slave trade. What, then, must have been their feelings, when, in the midst of their anxiety in consequence of the introduction of the bill, and their fear that it would pass which they must have thought from our former behaviour, would be synonimous with its being brought in, they were relieved about a fortnight ago from their apprehensions, and found that some change had come over the spirit of the Legislature in this country, and that we were going in an opposite track to that which we had pursued ever since 1807? Happily, by the same packet which announced that rejection, there was conveyed the intelligence that that House in its wisdom had voted an address to her Majesty, which tended to provide a remedy for the evil which the rejection of the bill was calculated to produce; but the Portuguese must naturally have expected that their Lordships would follow up that address: that they would act not merely in the letter but in the spirit of that address, and that they would redeem their promise to aid the other House and the Government in -the completion of any measures which might be necessary to carry the Orders in Council into effect. But if the Portuguese found that their Lordships threw out this bill, their hopes would.

313
revive, their fears would be allayed for ever, and forthwith the waters of the Tagus, those waters which for all the purposes of trade and commerce might be considered a British stream, would be covered with the perpetrators of the most odious, the most audacious, the most incorrigible species of crime that ever disgraced humanity. All treaties, all quibbling in the construction of notes, all diplomatic arrangements would by the Portuguese criminals be heeded no more than the air which was breathed by those criminals, but which they did not permit to make its way into the pestilential holds in which they penned up their miserable captives. He, therefore, trusted that their Lordships would permit the bill to be read a second time, so that the dreadful consummation of the loss of the bill might be avoided. The difficulties stated by the noble Duke were by no means insuperable. The preamble, for instance, might easily be so altered as to meet the objection stated against it by the noble Duke, and, perhaps, not unreasonably. The noble Viscount had stated that her Majesty had commanded orders to be issued to her cruisers to repress this traffic, and, in point of fact, such orders had now been issued. The objection of the noble Duke as to the preamble would, therefore, be obviated by changing the form of words from the prospective into the retrospective, as thus:—" And whereas her Majesty has been pleased to issue orders to her cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or any vessel engaged in the slave-trade," &c. If some such form as this were substituted, it would remove the main objection of the noble Duke, for it stated that the Crown had actually issued such orders, and would go on to call upon Parliament to take such measures as might be necessary to carry these orders into effect. This would not be putting the cart before the horse; but it would the Crown beginning, and the Government acting, on its own responsibility. The Government took the whole responsibility of issuing these orders; it did not come to Parliament to shield it, to protect it; much less did it call on Parliament to take the initiative: it said "We have issued the orders, and we now call upon you to redeem the promise you made in the address you sent up to the Throne, and to support those orders." It might be said that the preamble conveyed too extensive
314
a sanction of the right of search, but the noble Duke had not limited this right in the Crown; on the contrary, he called on the Crown to send down a message to declare its wishes, to send forth a proclamation to declare its will. ["No, no."] Certainly the noble Duke said so; but really there were some noble Lords who seemed to forget every thing in their very extraordinary zeal against the repression of the slave trade, or at least against this bill; and he (Lord Brougham) was astonished to find his noble and learned Friend opposite(Lord Wynford) who had so distinguished himself during his legal career by his able opposition to the slave-tade, now carried away so much by some idea about non-infringement upon the rights of nations, as to seem to lend his support to those who were against the measure. If this right of search were established, which was not half so bad as a declaration of war, and if Parliament sanctioned this bill, you would not relieve the Ministers from the responsibility of any course that they might adopt. They would not be above the responsibility of answering for the ordering this right of search, or even going to war, if that should be deemed necessary. It could not be shown by any species of argumentation that, by passing this bill, they were lightening by a feather's weight the responsibility of the Government in any course that they might pursue in carrying out measures to suppress the slave-trade. The noble Duke said, that they must not forget the treaties which existed between this country and France, and also with other Powers, such as the Hanse Towns, and he was sorry to say that there was no such treaty with the United States. But this bill would not sanction any ground of proceeding contrary to treaties Supposing a measure introduced with provisions opposed to the latter of the treaty with France, the Hanse Towns, or any other power whatever—and supposing this bill as it had passed the Commons, and come up to that House, should receive the unanimous support of their Lordships, and afterwards receive the sanction of the Crown and become an Act of Parliament, it would be as mere waste paper as regarded the law of nations; it could only regulate or control or affect the municipal rights of this country, and if any matter growing out of the operation of such Act came before any judge of any court, who decided by the law of na-

315
tions, he would not look to the law of the lane; he would not look to anything in it which was contrary to the obligations of the treaty, but what was done by the law of nations, and not what was done otherwise; and in the teeth of the Act of Parliament, he would refuse his sanction to that which went against the letter and spirit of the law of nations. He felt perfectly confident in this, for no treaty could be broken merely by an Act of Parliament; and it was with the greatest surprise that he beard the noble Duke—considering his great sagacity and acuteness—should ground an argument on it; and he feared, from the cheers that he heard, that some other noble Lords were led away by the same feeling. But look to the details of the proceeding:—The right of search was not to be left to any persons to be named by the Lords of the Admiralty, but it was to be entrusted to particular cruisers of her Majesty, and, as it were, almost named for that particular service; but nothing in this Act of Parliament could effect the treaty existing on the subject between France and England, for if his noble Friend (Lord Granville), who so ably and admirably represented England in the French court, had a case involving the point brought under his notice, and if he was asked on what principle or ground the French cruisers had been seized, searched, and interfered with; and supposing that his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty had issued letters of marque, or allowed the fitting out of privateers—which he sincerely hoped and trusted he never would consent to do, for this or any other purpose—but the noble Duke knew where the distinction was between this description of free and regular ships of war—and, therefore, supposing that some private parties, zealous for the suppression of this infamous traffic should obtain some authority or other in the shape of letters of marque, and that these circumstances, in fact, happened, which the noble Duke had adverted to as being likely to occur, contrary to the treaty between the two countries, Lord Granville might, by possibility, say, that he did not mean to justify the transaction by the treaty; but here is an English Act of Parliament, on which one can rest under such circumstances, what would be the immediate reply? Marshal Soult, who, probably, from the pursuits and habits of his former life, was not a very good law-
316
yer, would be quite sufficient lawyer enough to know what to answer, and he would say here is the record of the treaty by which I abide; I have nothing to do with your Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament would be mere waste paper in justifying any course that might be taken respecting foreign powers, and the-only question that could come before them must be determined by the law of nations. He had no hesitation in saying, that he thought that only king's cruisers should be employed against the slave-ships, and in stopping and searching vessels supposed to be engaged in that traffic; for you had due right, by treaty, to search Portuguese ships; but you had not the right to search French ships, unless under certain restrictions. But he should be glad, that even in the case of Portuguese ships, the search should be confined to King's cruisers. If there was not at present a sufficient number of them at the disposal of the Admiralty, he trusted that his noble Friend, at the head of the Admiralty, who he knew was most anxious to use every exertion to put down and suppress this infamous traffic, would have a large number of small cruisers and steam-boats stationed on the coast of Africa, and these latter might act as steam-tugs to drag the cruisers into the the bights and mouths of rivers to cut out the slavers. With respect, however, to this first part of the bill, he would recommend the noble Duke to state his objections, and propose the alterations that he required when they got into committee. The same objection also might be made to the 4th section, which specified a great number of things; but if these were meant as part of instructions or suggestions to commanders of cruisers, or suggestions as to the mode of determining the character of the vessel seized, it might be very well; he did not look upon this as a statement of what might be, or might not be, evidence before a court of justice; and, above all, when they had been told that this could not be taken as conclusive, but that they must go and ascertain what were the powers given them by the treaties, and that they must not regard what was peculiar to this bill, but only look to what obligations or powers the treaties entailed on them; it appeared, then, that this was not to be a description of the evidence that was to be regarded as conclusive; but that when vessels were found to be equipped in the way described in the bill, the responsibility of proof

317
should be thrown on the parties attacked or running the vessels. But this was, comparatively speaking, trifling with the structure of the bill, and the whole of these details should be referred to the committee. Something had been said in the course of the discussion about the United States of America. He could not disguise from himself that they were in this peculiar situation, that there was no treaty with America giving them the right of search of American ships. It was not the fault of the government of that country that this had not been done, for he thought that every praise was due to the government and the people at large in America for the abolition of the slave-trade; but, it should be borne in mind, that it was not very just to cast any odium on that State for not abolishing slavery, for, at the very earliest hour that it was enabled and allowed to do so by the federal union, it adopted the abolition of the slave-trade, and it was the first power to enact that it was piracy for any of its subjects to carry on the trade. He said that, because he looked with the utmost jealousy upon anything that was calculated, in the least degree, to lessen the amity which now exsisted between the two countries, which he thought it was essential for the interest of both, should be maintained. He thought that the popular prejudice against the people of America, for not abolishing slavery, was not altogether justifiable: it was a common thing to express something like contempt for the Americans on this account, and to set ourselves up in a pharisaical spirit above them, and to fold our arms, and say, "Oh, we are better than you, we have abolished slavery in our possessions; why do you not follow our example, and emancipate your slaves." He was sorry in being obliged to say, that they had followed the example of the people of England, not exactly of the people of Middlesex or Yorkshire who had no negroes; therefore, they had not the virtue of emancipating their own negroes, for the only virtue they had in the matter was the paying a portion of the price for emancipation; but he was sorry to say, that they had followed the example of another portion of the British people, namely, the people of Jamaica, of Barbadoes, of Trinidad, of Essequibo, of Demerara, of Berbice, of the Cape of Good Hope, and of many other places. If the matter had been left to them, how long would it have
318
been before the question had been settled? Would they have set this example which had been preached of so pharisaically to the Americans? The people of the northern states of America—the New England states—entertained similar opinions to the people of this country. They had no negro slaves, and had no objection to follow the example recommended here, for they appeared very zealous, as the people of Middlesex and Yorkshire were, for the abolition of slavery; but were the people of Virginia, the Carolina, Maryland, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tenessee, and other states prepared to follow their example? Therefore, he did not say that the Americans were so very inferior in this respect to ourselves, or that we should adopt such pharisaical airs at the example we had set; and reflection on this subject would only lead us to explain what was meant by the terms "we" and "ours," when we claimed such merit to ourselves. They set the example before us of abolishing the African slave-trade as soon as they possibly could, notwithstanding the spirit of mercantile enterprise, and the love of gold, held out such powerful inducements to continue that abominable and atrocious traffic. It should be recollected also, that the government in the United States of America was not so strong as a monarchical government in Europe, and had not such direct and powerful means of controlling its subjects. That country had most extensive coasts, and there were a great many inlets and harbours for their shipping into which they could get, almost without the knowledge and control of the Government, and he feared that they would often be found too strong for the law, and that the thirst of gold would often induce persons in this country, not only to risk their fortunes in this trade, but to stand the hazard of the die for incurring the deepest temporal loss, as well as the risk of almost eternal perdition. The Americans, however, were not without responsibility; but we should have set them the example long before we did; but still they were under a load of guilt as individuals when they allowed, not, indeed, the use of the national flag, but of their building yards, to send forth swarms of slavers to invest the coast of Africa, or, at any rate, of ships, which it was a matter of publicity and notoriety would be employed as slavers. He admitted that it was a very difficult question to grapple

319
with, and he sincerely wished that they could see their way. It appeared from the papers on the Table, that half a dozen ships had been fitted out, not as American slavers, but for Brazilians, or Portuguese, or Cuba men. They were, however, fitted out, and sailed under such papers, and in such a way that we could not take them as the law stood. You might say to the American builders, these vessels are evidently intended for the African slave-trade, and, therefore, should be condemned, and the proceeding of building of such vessels put a stop to; but he was afraid, that if any such complaint were made, the Americans would ask, in reply, whether it was not notorious that the handcuffs and fetters found on board the slave-ships were manufactured at Sheffield and Birmingham, where also were made their muskets for the coast of Africa, and for the trade in negroes, which burst before they had been fired three times. Now, it would not be very easy to draw a distinction, and to prevent these things being manufactured for the African slave-trade. He had just been put in possession of a letter, from a most respectable person in Barbadoes, who stated, that a King's ship had arrived there from the coast of Africa, and the officer commanding it had assured him, that there were 29 American-built ships now on the coast of Africa carrying on this horrible and revolting traffic. He believed that every one of those vessels was American-built, and manned by either Brazilian or Portuguese sailors, but on board some of them there were American captains. But although these vessels were American-built, it did not follow that the people of that country were responsible for the purposes to which they were devoted, certainly not more responsible than an English ship-builder, who sold the ships built in his yards, which were afterwards sent to the coast of Africa. If this bill, however, passed into a law, we should hear something more of the American ships said to be engaged in this trade. He should recommend that the consideration of the preamble, and the next enacting clause, be postponed until they get into committee, when such alterations might be made as would remove some of the objections of the noble Duke. But the great principle on which he went was, that, for the orders which would be issued, the Government would be responsible, and the bill, if it passed, would not
320
affect the treaties with France, the Hanse Towns, or any other Power, for the chief provision of it was to give an indemnity in our courts to the captain of a King's cruiser, who seized a vessel coming within the specifications of the equipment of a ship, as described in the second clause of the bill, and prevent any action for damages for the detention of such ship; but it did not in the slightest degree relieve the Government from any responsibility for the conduct of our cruizers against the ships of other nations supposed to be engaged in this trade. If any persons could make out any claim of right, or unjust detention and seizure, against the Government, in consequence of their orders, he would come forward and establish that claim; and if the country was serious in its intentions—as he, in his conscience, believed it to be—to put down the African slave-trade, he was sure that the Parliament and the people would cheerfully make good any indemnity for vessels that had been unlawfully and illegally detained or seized by our cruizers. He knew that he did not differ far from the noble Duke as to putting down the African slave-trade; the only question was, as to the mode in which the end was to be attained; and he trusted that they should be able to make this bill, to a considerable extent, effective for the purpose. He knew, also, that as to these means, he differed from his most excellent and estimable friend, Mr. F. Buxton, who, in a recent pamphlet on this subject, said that the Legislature had begun at the wrong end, and that it was better, at present, not to say anything more on the subject, because it only exasperated, instead of lessening, the sufferings of the negroes; and he almost doubted whether it would not have been better not to have passed the law for the abolition of the slave-trade, in consequence of the atrocities that had since occurred. Mr. Buxton also stated, that he thought all the attempts to put down the foreign slave-trade had only tended to increase the number of slave-ships, and to have exacerbated the crimes and horrors of the middle passage. He admitted the latter objection, but he still thought, that, if they went further than they hitherto had gone, they would put down the slave-trade altogether. When they told him, that they had not hitherto put down the slave-trade, and that they could not put it down, he would reply, that they could not

321
put it down till they had tried the means in their power. If they did not try—if they did not use every exertion in their power, they let "I cannot" wait on "I will not." When he said that he differed from this worthy individual as to the means of stopping the slave-trade, by putting a stop to slavery wherever it existed, he would ask, whether they were to wait until the inhabitants of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, Georgia, and the other slave-holding states of America, entertained this view of the subject? Were they to wait until the Portuguese, the Brazilians, the inhabitants of Cuba, and the South American States, were sufficiently instructed to adopt their opinions, and would they allow the African slave-trade to go on without check or interference, on the mere speculation that, perhaps, at the end of a century, these people would open their eyes to the evils of slavery. He emphatically denied, that the slave-trade had not been lessened or destroyed in any way by the ships that had been taken. The foreign slave-trade, it was true, had been increased within the last five years, but what had become of the English slave-trade? Had then the labours of Mr. Wilberforce been altogether in vain, as well as those of Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharpe, and Mr. Buxton himself? Was this, then, all the thanks that they were to give to the exertions of those great men in the cause of emancipation, and in liberating their fellow man from a state of slavery—were they, then, no longer to lay to their consciences the flattering unction of having proved successful in putting down the English slave-trade, and in having wiped away the foul stain of slavery from the name of England? Had it already been forgotten that, under the English slave-trade, upwards of' 20,000 slaves from the coast of Africa were formerly annually imported into the old colonies, and 10,000 into the new colonies? and, if the trade had been continued, more than double that number would, at the present time, have been imported into these colonies? Was no account to be taken of upwards of 50,000 persons that otherwise would have been consigned to all the horrors of slavery? Were they to be told that all their labours in this respect were to be regarded as nothing? But they were told that the profit was so great in this trade, and that the means of insurance were so open, that the greatest in-
322
ducements were held out to engage in the traffic. Did any one, however, at this present day, presume to say either a Bristol, a Liverpool, a London merchant, or shipowner, carried on the slave-trade? No: it was possible that the means of insurance against the loss of the vessel might be found, but was there security for the consequences of his conduct, and against the punishment that would follow, if detection took place? You have made those of your subjects who were found to be engaged in this traffic, run the risk of being hung by the neck, or being transported for life to Botany Bay; and did you find that they were engaged in it? These might be induced by the possibility of getting cent, percent., or double that, for the chance of success, and when the means of being repaid for his losses were afforded to him, but he would not run the risk of being dealt with as a felon, if he were discovered, for any such remuneration. He gloried in having been the instrument of effecting this, by his introducing to the other House, in 1813, first, the slave-trade (Felony) Bill, and subsequently, the slave-trade (Piracy). It appeared that the Spanish and Portuguese flags, and chiefly that of the latter power, had been the chief protection for conveying slaves from the coast of Africa. If Portugal saw that this country was in earnest, and would not longer be trifled with, but that she would insist on the fulfilment of the stipulations of the treaties she had entered into, steps would be taken by Portugal to effect the object she was bound to by the most solemn engagements. Talk, indeed, of resistance to us, on whom she almost depended for an independent existence—to us, without whose aid she hardly could have continued as a free state—to us, rather to be regarded as her mistress than as her friend, in consequence of the assistance we had so constantly rendered her—to us, who had sent the noble Duke and our armies to her support, and who had crowned himself with immortal glory in driving her enemies from her soil—to us, who had rendered so constantly the means of preserving her in the rank of nations—he would not listen to such language; it was idle, and had no meaning. If their Lordships were determined not o lend their countenance to her slave-traders by rejecting this bill, he would answer for it, that they would soon find the ways and means of putting down the African slave-trade

323
carried on under her flag. Let Portugal only do what she had solemnly promised—let her only fulfil what she had stipulated to do—let us have the assistance of her laws to that of our own, and that she would make it felony for any of her subjects to be engaged in the Slave-trade, from which no man could escape; let her try this fairly, and boldly, and eventually we must succeed in suppressing this atrocious traffic. He had exhausted himself, and, he feared, the attention of the House; but he spoke at such length in consequence of the deep interest he felt on the subject. He should sit down with the most consolatory and lively conviction, that he had not addressed their Lordships hi vain on this subject, but that they would be induced to give this righteous bill a second hearing.
Lord Wynfordsaid, the question before them was, not whether the slave-trade ought to be put down, but whether the means provided in that bill were those which ought to be adopted for that purpose. If the treaties were stated by the noble Duke with his usual accuracy, that bill, if carried, would involve us in a general war. It was not the effect of the Act on our relations with Portugal which should be looked to, but its effect upon France and other nations. It was said they might alter the bill in committee, but if they could not alter the treaties it would not be of any use to alter the bill. One of the enacting clauses of that bill gave a very extensive power to our officers who might be engaged in the prevention of the slave-trade. It indemnified them in entering and examining ships of all nations, not confining that power to ships sailing under the Portuguese flag. Such an Act might tend to endanger our relations with France or with America, and with the latter nation we had no treaty which could by any means authorise us to seize an American ship. He should be sorry to say anything to impeach the address which they had voted a few nights ago—an address which pledged them to do all they could to put an end to the Slave-trade—that meant anything which it might be lawful and consistent with the treaties they had entered into, to do. They might indemnify their officers, it was true, but that would not indemnify them for acting in that manner towards the ships of other nations. As the noble and learned Lord had correctly observed, Marshal Soult
324
would not look to Acts of Parliament in the case of the seizure of a French ship, but he would look to the treaty. If the Act of Parliament were not borne out by the treaty it was a dead letter, except so far as it went to involve England in difficulties. He was aware that the course which noble Lords took in opposing that bill would be subject to misrepresentation, and that it would be said they professed a willingness to put down the slave-trade, but that they refused their co-operation when the proper time arrived. They were willing to put down the slave-trade, but it was the mode proposed for so doing to which they objected.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, it was with sincere concern that he felt himself called upon to vote against the amendment, and in support of the motion of the noble Viscount. The duty was imposed on this nation of suppressing this traffic, which had so long disgraced Christendom. If we valued our liberty, we ought not to lose a moment in giving liberty to those who had so long, partly through our instrumentality, been bereft of it, and in restoring those blessings to the benighted inhabitants of Africa, for the loss of which we had so fearful an account to give. The rejection of this bill, he was satisfied, would induce the Portuguese to think they might continue this traffic with impunity, and before six months elapsed the sea would be covered with slavers. With respect to the observations of the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) upon the opinions of an hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Buxton), and of those who concurred with him in his views as to the suppression of the slave-trade, it appeared to him (the right rev. Prelate) that the noble and learned Lord had not correctly stated those opinions. All that Mr. Buxton, and those who agreed with him, argued, was, that the efforts for the suppression of the slave-trade and slavery, had been successful only in a degree; but they did not say, that those efforts had not been productive of most important effects to the cause of humanity. One of their very useful suggestions, was, that attempts should be made to civilize the African chiefs so as to convince them that it would be more profitable for them to employ the labour of their subjects or prisoners than to sell them to slavery. With respect to treaties, that was a subject on which he did not feel competent to en-

325
ter, but it did seem to him to be a matter of common sense, that this bill, if it became an Act of Parliament, would in no wise alter the position of this country with regard to those treaties, because the maintaining or violating those treaties would still rest with the Crown. The Act did no more than give them increased powers and facilities for carrying into effect those measures which, with a strict regard to treaties as they now existed, or as they might by future negociations be modified, might be required. Even on this point he should not feel precluded from voting in favour of the bill, which he should do with the most perfect satisfaction. The passing of this Act would be an honourable demonstration in the eyes of all Europe of a fixed determination on the part of a Christian people to consider, that whatever they might have achieved for Europe by securing the liberties of millions, yet, that the great work would remain imperfect until they should have put down that most revolting and abominable traffic, which had been and which continued to be, a disgrace to the nations of Europe.
The Lord-Chancellorrose for the purpose, if possible, of divesting their Lordships' minds of what he conceived to be a great misapprehension on this subject, because he felt their Lordships would concur in voting for the measure, if the apprehension had not taken possession of their minds, in consequence of what his noble and learned Friend (Lord Wynford) bad said, that it would lead to a violation of existing treaties. His noble and learned Friend, had said that this bill must be considered as if it enacted that French ships should be searched contrary to the treaties with France. There were no such enactments in the bill. The enactments were to enable the Crown to give directions for dealing with Portuguese vessels, and certain other vessels. [Lord Wynford: All other vessels.] Well, all other vessels: but if the master of a French ship said we are protected by the treaty and we will not be searched, if that were so, it would be a violation of the treaty to search that ship. But was it because they directed search to be made where search might be made, that search would be made where it ought not to be made? The Crown would be just as much bound to adhere to the treaties with France, and any other country, if the bill passed, as it would if the bill were le-
326
jected. But with regard to Portugal, the bill would undoubtedly be an effective measure. The object of the bill was, to enable her Majesty to direct her cruisers to do that which Portugal had contracted to do, but which she had refused; and to prevent them being called on in this country to account for what they had done. The issuing of orders by the Crown would not indemnify those officers; and was her Majesty to direct her officers to seize those vessels, at the peril of they themselves being liable to pay for the damage sustained, or the value of the vessel that might have been taken. That their Lordships, he was sure, did not wish. But, then, he would ask, what did their Lordships mean when they addressed the Crown to issue these orders, and said they would take such measures as would enable them to be executed? What measures? He apprehended, simply to indemnify the officers that might act in execution of those orders. That was all ibis bill proposed to do. He did, therefore, hope, that when his noble and learned Friend looked at the provisions of the bill, and saw that its object was confined to those purposes, and left the relations of this country with other countries untouched, that he would not refuse to go into Committee on the bill. If their Lordships apprehended there was anything in the bill that would interfere with our relations as to other countries, nothing could be more easy than to introduce a proviso in Committee to guard against that; but to refuse to pass this bill after the resolutions their Lordships had agreed to, seemed to him to be conduct the most unintelligible. It was, in fact, refusing to do what they had undertaken to do, if the Queen should issue certain orders to her cruisers,—and these orders had been issued.
Lord Ellenborough: If those orders have been issued they ought to be communicated to the House.
Viscount Melbourne: There never was such a thing as that done.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that to know what measures were necessary to be taken, it was requisite to know what the orders were. The bill confounded two principles that ought to have been kept entirely distinct—measures with respect to Portugal, and measures with respect to other countries. It was said their Lordships were only now asked to pass such a measure as would indemnify the officers for executing

327
the orders that had been given; but that was a totally distinct case from that brought under their notice, because they were now asked to make provision for indemnifying officers who seized the vessels of any nation. When he heard the observations of the noble Duke, he had thought, that although the noble Duke pointed out the difficulties and dangers that might arise, he might, perhaps, have been dwelling on an exaggerated picture of the evil; but he had since had placed in his hands the last report of the Commissioners of Sierra Leone, and he found that all the noble Duke had prophesied was actually intended, and the object was to seize the vessels of all nations that might be suspected of carrying on the slave-trade. The Commissioners said, that even a treaty with America was of little importance—that the slave-trade had gone from France to Portugal, from Portugal to America, and that it would go to all the States of South America; but they said there was a remedy in time of war, and that Great Britain exercised the right of searching all neutral vessels, and that that was the only possible mode of putting down the slave-trade. The Commissioners might be right in that, but what they meant was universal war. And, desirous as he was of putting an end to the slave-trade, he was not prepared to run the risk of universal war for the accomplishment even of that object. He was surprised that noble Lords opposite, after hearing what the noble Duke had said, should not yet have more fully explained themselves, and should not have evinced the slightest disposition to answer the objections the noble Duke had stated, and, by acting in conformity with constitutional principles, place the House in a position to do that which it desired to do—indemnify her Majesty's officers acting under those orders that were necessary. He was not prepared to give them the right to search vessels of all nations in time of peace; and whatever might be the feeling of the country with respect to this measure now, yet when they found, that, under the delusive hopes held out by this bill, they had been betrayed into measures that would lead to a collision with France, and a collision with the United States, and that there was a feeling of universal jealousy on the part of all maritime powers, and a determination to maintain their rights by war, the people would then think that the noble Duke was wise, and that
328
noble Lords opposite had been led away, to gratify the present feelings of the country, to do that which had been productive of great evils.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that of all the surprising and astounding statements which, he was sorry to say, he had heard that night, the greatest was that with which the noble Baron commenced his speech, in which he stated, that the Government ought to communicate to Parliament the terms of the orders issued to her Majesty's cruizers—a thing which had been resisted and refused by every Government, and never insisted on by that House. And for what purpose was that to be done? Why, that that House might have the appearance of directing and conducting those very measures to which the noble Duke and the noble Baron said that House ought not to be a party, but which ought to be conducted on the sole responsibility of the Government. The question of the relations of this country to other countries had been so well argued, that he would not trouble their Lordships with going over the arguments again. The noble Duke had accused the Government of neglecting treaties, and of asking for measures that would lead this country into war with other powers, and more especially with the United States. There was nothing in the bill calculated to excite the slightest jealousy on the part of the United States. The slaver-trader had in many instances, resorted to the flag and the ships of the United States. But how had he done that? Why, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, a vessel was built in America, and chartered at the Havannah. She went from Havannah to the coast of Africa with an American captain. She got a cargo of slaves, and came away with a Portuguese or American flag. Five or six instances had occurred in which ships of this description had been stopped; but how had the Americans treated the capture of those vessels? The parties had been conducted to Boston. The authorities there had said, that, according to their feelings, the slave-trade was a piracy not to be tolerated by any Christian country. They had not remonstrated against the capture of the vessels, but they had, on the contrary, requested that our officers and men should remain there, to give evidence in their courts, for the conviction of their subjects who had violated those laws. That was the danger

329
we ran of a collision will) the United Slates. The simple question was, whether their Lordships would or would nut, in one form or another, co-operate with the Government in putting an end to this detestable traffic. The address that had recently been sent up to her Majesty on this subject, and her Majesty's answer to that address, seemed to settle the question. On the faith of Parliament, those orders had been issued. Their Lordships had been informed by his noble Friend, and he repeated that information, that orders of a most peremptory nature had been despatched, calculated to carry out the views of Parliament,—orders which he would not at present minutely describe; but he was perfectly ready to tell what would be the effect of those orders. They would lead to the detention and capture, by our cruizers, of all slavers under the Portuguese flag-, whether on the north side of the line or on the south side of the line, without regard to place or time. Those orders would lead to the detention and to the capture of every piratical vessel sailing without a legal national character, let her be found sailing where she might. That would be the effect of the orders. To execute these orders, it was necessary the officers should be protected and indemnified for the consequences. He did not think that either the Government or his friends would take upon themselves any great responsibility in doing all they could to meet the wishes of the whole of the people of the country to suppress the slave-trade. He would now endeavour to satisfy their Lordships that the enactments of the bill were necessary. The first enactment was, that her Majesty should issue orders to capture vessels not having on board the proper flag and papers. He thought no noble Lord could doubt the propriety of that enactment, because the mixed commission courts, constituted under treaties, could deal with no ships except those which had the colours and character of the countries to which the mixed commission court belonged; and, therefore, unless this power was given, vessels carrying on this illegal traffic would have nothing to do but to sink their papers, and they would get off with impunity. It was necessary, therefore, that a power should be given to stop all ships that had not a lawful national character. Such a provision did not confer any additional privilege on the
330
Crown, it only confirmed the powers that it now possessed. It was impossible, also, that any violation of a foreign flag could take place under this clause of the bill. Then, with respect to the next clause, it provided, that if any slaves were found on board the vessel, they were to be brought o adjudication. Was not that provision necessary, in order to deal effectually with piratical vessels? If such vessels were allowed to run free, how could slaves that were found on board be brought to adjudication? The next clause indemnified all persons against actions, and established a court, in which all claims were to be tried. With respect to the fourth clause, he felt bound to differ from his noble and learned Friend, that it could be conveniently dispensed with, because he thought it essential that there should be some distinct statement as to the equipment, which constituted a vessel carrying on the slave-trade. These were the several provisions of the bill, and he trusted their Lordships would give their assent to them. He begged their Lordships to consider that the slave-trade of the world was at the present moment carried on under the flag of Portugal. He had received returns relative to the number of vessels that had been captured for carrying on the slave-trade, and of forty-three vessels thirty-six were Portuguese, six American, one Spanish, and one Russian. Latterly, the whole slave-trade of Havannah had been carried on under the flag of Portugal. In the papers, now before their Lordships, they would find Portugal expressing her horror of the slave-trade. Nothing was more zealous than the language of Portugal against the slave-trade, but in proportion as she expressed her horror of the slave-trade, in that proportion it increased under her flag. She had declared the slave-trade illegal, and yet she was the only slave-trade nation in the world. The noble Earl concluded by expressing a hope that their Lordships would cordially co-operate with her Majesty's Ministers in putting an end to this detestable traffic.
The Earl of Gallowaywished to know if the bill went into committee, whether it were the intention of the Government to alter the preamble, by slating that her Majesty had ordered ships engaged in the traffic to be captured, instead of that she might order it.
The Earl of Minto; the recital would run—(That her Majesty had thought fit."
Lord Denmansaid, my Lords, I feel so strongly on this subject, that I should not forgive, myself if I did not state my reasons for thinking that it is the duty of your Lordships to pass the present bill. It is clearly admitted by the noble Duke opposite, that Portugal has no right to complain of any measures that may be adopted to put an end to the traffic in which her subjects were engaged. I am not going to argue this question with the slightest party feeling whatever, but I think your Lordships having it now in your power to prevent a great and enormous crime, it is your bounden duty to do all in your power to accomplish so benevolent and desirable an object. If the House does not pass this bill, they will be holding out a premium for the commission of a crime which diffuses blood over the whole world, and I hold, therefore, that it is the duty of your Lordships to spare no means of accomplishing so desirable an object. Supposing this measure was made applicable to Portugal alone, would there be the slightest objection to the passing of this bill? Certainly not; and if there is any objection arising from the other provisions of the bill they may be each struck out. Your Lordships have now a case before you, and you ought not to allow any opportunity to pass which will enable you to make the suppression of the practice of the slave-trade not merely a name, but a fact. What possible objection can there be to putting this country in the same position as Portugal in the suppression of the slave-trade. My noble Friend on the other side of the House must have forgotten the excellent judgment by which he distinguished himself in 1823, when a judge in the court in which I have the honour to preside; that judgment was that no subject of any nation had any right to sue in the courts of this country if he was guilty of a crime that was looked upon as such in the law of nations. The slave-trade is looked upon as such, not only by this country, but by Portugal herself. Though my noble Friend has forgotten that judgment, the right rev. Prelate has stated the same fact. The Government, therefore, in my opinion, ought not to shrink from the performance of their duty in persevering in this bill. When once it has been established that the slave-trade is illegal, the restraint which treaties have put upon its abolition ought to be looked at with a jealous eye. That is the prin-
332
ciple that was laid down by Sir William Grant, and by that principle I think your Lordships ought to be guided. That I state to be the exception to the rule to be introduced by the treaties. The Slave-trade of Spain was recognized by implication, and, therefore, the judgment of the court, in the case be had just alluded to, was, that the English captain had acted improperly, and was bound to make compensation. I may be told that the power proposed to be given by the bill is not wanted—that the indemnity proposed to be given by it is not required; but I need not tell my noble and learned Friend that in our courts of law there are many difficulties on the point, and that it would be the height of injustice to the officers employed to carry out the humane principles recognized by your Lordships, should they not be indemnified—that an English judge should be obliged to tell an English jury, that for a single moment there was a doubt on their minds that he was guilty of any crime, and liable to a heavy punishment for so humane an act. I say, then, that the necessity is imposed upon your Lordships of providing that the judge should be relieved from the necessity of stating that a man who had been engaged in the capture of his dark fellow-creatures was engaged in a legal traffic; that he had a right to go and drag hundreds of thousands of his fellow-creatures, and consign them to all the horrors of slavery; and at the same time tell the jury, that the man who, in obedience to your Lordship's orders, stopped him in the inhuman traffic, was guilty of a punishable offence. I say, your Lordships are called upon to do something for the protection of your own agents, acting upon your own enactments. Now, my Lords, with respect to the Admiralty Court—it surely would be a great security for the suppression of the slave-trade, that that Court should have the power to adjudicate upon such cases in the spirit of English law. The bill can do an injury to no one being; in may be superfluous, but it can do no harm; and if your Lordships should follow the course you took the other night, it will be a source of lasting regret to all those who abominate the horrid traffic. Then, my Lords, with respect to the seizure of other vessels. I am really sorry to say one word upon the subject, after what fell from my noble and learned Friend. I feel ashamed

333
to repeat that no Act of Parliament can give the Crown power to seize vessels which it is precluded from doing by treaties. The words "any vessel" mean only any vessel which the Crown is now permitted to seize by treaties into which it has entered, and does not include any vessel which under the treaties it could not capture. If the treaty with France or any other power, binds our Government to employ only parties of a particular rank, and require their conduct to be limited by special instructions, surely that does not interfere with the principle of the bill—it can be remedied and provided for in Committee. The description of persons to be employed, may there be made conformable to the treaties. Although by the treaties, the power is restricted to certain classes of individuals, still there is the right of search and visitation. The persons seizing a vessel, must act on their responsibility, for nobody can possibly tell that a vessel was fitted out for slaving purposes, until he has been on board. But let me ask, my Lords, what other possible method is there of putting down the abominable and atrocious slave-trade? Now, my Lords, allow me to allude for a moment to the case of America. Undoubtedly there must be the right of search of American vessels as well as others. There have been seizures of American vessels, and she has not resisted it—nay, she has handed over her malefactors to her own tribunals for punishment, anxious to put an end to the atrocious system. She has said that the slave-trade is piracy—an abomination and an atrocious crime—in which she ought to have been joined by all nations. Now, my Lords, if a mistake is made either with an American vessel or one of any other nation, the captain making the mistake, must be liable in respect of it, or the State in his place. If it were not so, it would be impossible to take any steps for the suppression of the slave-trade. The Government take upon themselves the responsibility of the whole matter, they call upon the House to do nothing but indemnify the officers of her Majesty in the discharge of a duty imposed upon them, and to allow the Admiralty Court to adjudicate upon seizures made under the treaties. I wish to abstain from any topic that can produce any angry feeling. I am anxious to do nothing but call your Lordships' attention to the true state of the case—to show that
334
there is not one objection made to the measure but can be remedied and obviated in Committee. I therefore say, that my opinion strongly is, that your Lordships should permit the second reading of the bill.
The Earl of Wicklowthought, there was great force in the objections taken to the bill by the noble Duke. The measure was not brought in a due and proper manner before the House. It ought to have been recommended by a Royal message. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that the statement of a Member of that House, but especially of a minister, was sufficient reason for legislation on the part of their Lordships—he did not agree in that opinion. Had their Lordships been aware of what would grow out of their resolution of a few nights ago, he thought they would have hesitated before they agreed to it in so hasty and informal a manner. It was true the bill did not add to the powers of the Crown, but it sanctioned the exercise of powers which must lead to explanations, and might prove very embarrassing to the country. A second and more serious objection might be remedied by confining the operation of the bill to Portugal. But then other flags would be resorted to, and the slave-trade would be carried on. If that were the case, the second provision of the bill, calculated as it was to lead to incalculable mischief, must be retained, or the measure would be wholly ineffectual. Though disapproving of the present measure, he was sincerely anxious to cooperate with the Government in any proper measure for the suppression of the slave-trade. He protested, however, against its being considered that his professions were insincere, because he did not happen to agree on the plan which the Government chose to propose. And no desire for the attainment of the more desirable object, the abolition of the traffic in our fellow-creatures, should induce him to assent to a measure which he believed would endanger the general peace, by producing jealousies and dissensions among different nations.
Lord Colvillesaid, it was with pain he felt himself on this occasion compelled to vote in opposition to those with whom he usually' had the pleasure to act, and against the noble Duke, for whom he had the highest respect. He had hoped that there would have been no resistance to the

335
bill—and that after the address which had been unanimously agreed on by their Lordships, the Government would have been supported in the means which they took for carrying it into effect. He could not help remarking, that it was very injudicious to call on the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, to divulge the orders of the Board, and he complimented the noble Lord for having divulged so much of them, more upon his candour than his prudence. No doubt the bill might have some faults, but they would be amended in Committee, He had intended to rise to advocate the cause of those officers and men who, in obedience to the orders of the Admiralty, might expose themselves to great hazard; but their claims had been so ably stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and eloquently urged by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Denman) that he need not attempt to add anything to what they had said. Those noble and learned Lords had stated, that these parties were wholly unprotected—they could not examine into the constitutional considerations connected with any particular service—their duty was to obey orders. Was it not ungenerous, then, to leave them to be tormented by protracted law-suits, instead of passing the close of their days in peace and comfort, and enjoying those domestic felicities from which they had so long been separated in foreign climes? It was for the British Legislature to do everything they could to put an end to the slave-trade as now existing; and he trusted their Lordships would allow the second reading of the bill, in order that such alterations might be made in Committee as were deemed necessary. God forbid it should go forth to the world, that the House had refused to pass an Act of this description.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 28: Majority 11.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Uxbridge

Richmond

Galloway.

Argyll.

VISCOUNTS

MARQUESSES.

Melbourne

Lansdowne

Lismore

Normanby

Duncannon

Westminster.

Falkland.

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Minto

London

Ilchester

Peterborough.

Leitrim

LORDS.

Gosford

Holland

336

Denman

Cottenham

Brougham

Langdale

Seaford

Sudeley

Foley

Methuen

De Freyne

Colville

Stanley

Calthorpe

Barham

Bexley

Dinorben

Sondes

Lilford

Gage

Gardner

Rayleigh.

Montford

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Glengall

Wellington.

Eldon.

MARQUESSES.

VISCOUNTS.

Thomond

Hawarden

Ormonde.

Canterbury.

EARLS.

LORDS.

Devon

De Ros

Shaftesbury

Redesdale

Abingdon

Ellenborough

Poulett

Sandys

Stanhope

Fitzgerald

Beverley

Lyndhurst

Liverpool

Tenterden

Wicklow

Stuart de Rothesay

Rosslyn

Wynford

Verulam

De L'Isle.

Beauchump

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Headfort

Cowley

Carlisle

Hertford

Stafford

Prudhoe

Hill.

Strathallan.

The following Protest was entered against the second reading of the Bill.
DISSENTIENT—
1. Because the object of this bill is to au thorize an officer of the Crown to order the adoption of measures of hostility against Portugal, and other operations of war, not founded upon any public declaration of the Sovereign, or message to this House in the usual form, announcing the necessity for such measures and operations, and calling upon the House to give its legislative assistance to enable her Majesty to carry into execution and perform the same, if such assistance should be necessary.
2. Because this House has not before it the information to enable its members to judge of the expediency and necessity for these measures and operations; of the force necessary to carry into execution and carry on the same; of the probable resistance and retaliation of Portugal and other powers, and, in that case, of the means of resistance of this country for the protection of her Majesty's dominions abroad, and of the innocent and defenceless commerce of her subjects in all parts of the world.
3. Because the constitution of this kingdom and uniform practice have been, to leave to

337
the Sovereign, acting by the advice of her servants, the decision on all questions of peace or war; and to carry into execution such measures, and to order such operations, as the Sovereign might be advised.
4. Because the enactment by Parliament of measures and operations of war against a power of Europe is unusual and unconstitutional.
5. Because the enactments of the first clause in the bill enable the Lord High Admiral, or any one of her Majesty's Secretaries of State to authorize any person or persons, that is, in a privateer letter of-marque, or otherwise, to detain, visit, demand, search for, and examine the papers of any vessels engaged, or by such persons supposed to be engaged in the slave-trade; and in case such vessels should not have on board, or the master thereof should refuse, or neglect to produce on demand, papers showing that they are justly entitled to claim the protection of the flag of any state or nation, to detain, seize, and capture such vessels, and this, while the existing treaty with the King of the French, for the purpose of more effectually suppressing the criminal traffic called the slave trade, stipulates that a mutual right of search might be exercised on board the vessels of each of the two nations within certain waters; but that the right of search shall be exercised only by ships-of-war, whose commanders shall have the rank of captain, or at least that of lieutenant in the Royal Navy. That the number of ships, invested with this right, shall be fixed each year by special agreement. That the names of the ships and their commanders shall be communicated by each of the Governments to the other, and information given of all changes. That the ships-of-war authorized to exercise the reciprocal right of search shall be furnished with a special authority from each of the two Governments. That the search shall be exercised only within the waters as described, that is to say, the west coast of Africa from the tenth degree of south latitude to the fifteenth degree of north latitude, as far as the thirty degrees of west longitude from the meridian of Paris; all round the Island of Madagascar, to the extent of twenty leagues from the island; to the same distance from the Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico, and from the coast of Brazil. That whenever a merchant vessel shall have been overtaken, being liable to suspicion, the commanding officer, before he proceeds to the search, shall exhibit to the captain of the merchant vessel the special orders which confer upon him, by exception, the right to visit her. The treaty then proceeds to specify the places to which shall be sent for adjudication French merchant ships detained by her Britannic Majesty's ships, being all of them places in which the jurisdiction was to be French.
But the first and all the clauses of the bill which enable the Lord High Admiral, or any Secretary of State, to authorize any person or persons to detain, search, seize, and capture
338
any vessels, require that the same shall be brought for adjudication in the High Court of Admiralty in England, or in any Vice-Admiralty Court within her Majesty's dominion.
6. Because treaties to a similar purport, if not copies of the treaties with the King of the French, have been concluded for the same purpose with the following powers and states: The King of Sweden and Norway, the King of Denmark, the Queen of Spain, the King of Sardinia, the King of the Two Sicilies, the King of the Netherlands, the Hanse Towns, and the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
7. Because the fourth section of the bill particularly refers to the equipment of a merchant vessel which has negroes found on board, shall be considered as a primâ facie evidence of the employment of such vessel in the transport of negroes or others for the purpose of carrying them to slavery, and requires that such vessels shall be brought to England, or elsewhere, to be adjudicated and condemned in a British court of justice, notwithstanding that the treaty with the King of the French contains a special stipulation upon this very subject of equipment, and provides that merchant vessels under French colours, detained and found to be so equipped, shall be sent for adjudication to a particular place stated, there to be adjudged by a French tribunal. The treaties with other powers contain similar stipulations.
8. Because the provisions of the bill convey powers to the Lord High Admiral and to the Secretaries of State, to give instructions to her Majesty's cruisers, and to give authority to all persons, which must occasion breaches of the stipulations of her Majesty's engagements with nearly all the powers of Europe, if exercised, as they may, and probably will be.
9. Because the exercise of the powers given by the bill to the Lord High Admiral, and to the Secretaries of State, may tend to the detention and search for papers; and the consequences of these acts on board the merchant vessels belonging to the citizens of nations or subjects of powers with which her Majesty is not engaged by any treaty for the mutual detention and search of vessels for the purpose of preventing the traffic called the slave-trade, may be that such detention and search may be resisted or retaliated, and eventually lead to other measures of war.
10. Because it is the Sovereign, with the advice of her Council, who ought to originate such measures likely to be attended by such consequences, if the honour or the interest of the country should require their adoption, and not the Houses of Parliament, whose duty it is to adopt proceedings in support of such measures, when regularly called upon by the Sovereign, by message in the usual form.
11. Because measures so unusual, and calculated to be attended by such consequences, are not necessary in order to obtain from Portugal the due execution of the treaties concluded with the Sovereigns of this coun-

339
try; at the same time, they are more likely than others to lead to permanent, if not interminable hostilities between the two nations.
12. Because the bill authorizes the capture and detention of Portuguese vessels, and natives of Portugal, subjects to the Crown of Portugal, and their adjudication before a British tribunal for a breach of treaty with the Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland, and a breach of the law of Portugal; thus assuming a right to exercise a jurisdiction at sea to punish a foreigner by the sentence of the courts of this country, for a breach of the municipal law of his own country.
13. Because such proceedings as are authorized by this bill, are inconsistent with the ancient and honourable policy of this country, to maintain for ourselves peace with all nations, by respecting the rights, institutions, and in dependence of all, and cultivating their good will by friendly relations, to promote peace between the nations of the world in general, by our good offices and exertions, particularly in favour of the weak.

Wellington

Lyndhurst

Fitzgerald

Redesdale

Beverley

Hawarden

Rosslyn

Canterbury

Devon

Shaftesbury

Ormond

Glengall

Wicklow

De L'Isle & Dudley.

CONTINUANCE OF THE POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Earl Stanhope, on the Order of the Day for their Lordships to go into a Committee on the Poor-Law Commission Continuance Bill, urged the postponement till to-morrow. He did not make this request on his own account, because, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and his own advanced age, he still possessed health, strength, and ability sufficient to discharge his duty, and would have no Objection to remain in that House till the same hour to-morrow night; but he did ask it for the sake of the question itself. Noble Lords must be aware of the horror and indignation with which this realm viewed the continuance of the New Poor-law, and the powers of those by whom it was administered. Was it then decent, was it not adding insult to the injuries they had heaped on the people, to bring forward at that hour of the night, a measure necessarily involving so many important and interesting considerations? He felt it would be impossible for him to do justice to the question, but though he should expire in the attempt, he was at least determined, that at every single stage, the bill should meet with his decided opposition.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, considering the present period of the Session, and the temporary simple nature of the bill, which contained no new provisions, but merely continued the board of commissioners for another year, felt compelled to press the order for its committal. At another stage the noble Lord might state his objections, in which he apprehended he stood single in that House, to the entire principle of the bill.
Lord Wynfordassured the noble Marquess, that there was one more opponent of the principle of the bill besides his noble Friend. He appealed to the noble Marquess whether it was right at that hour of the night, to discuss a bill in which the public took so deep and general an interest?
Order of the Day read. On the question that their Lordships resolve themselves into a Committee,
Earl Stanhopesaid, although the motion of the noble Marquess furnished him with an opportunity of going at length into the whole question then before the House, he was not disposed at that hour of the night to take so wide a range. He should, therefore, consider it more for the convenience of their Lordships to limit his observations on the present occasion, to the question whether the power of the three Poor-law Commissioners ought to be continued for another year. He was the more inclined to follow that course, because he was ready to admit, that any objections which might be urged against the bill itself, and which might be removed if the bill went into committee, would not afford a valid objection against the motion with which he intended to conclude his obsertions, namely, that this bill be committed this day three mouths. He felt that it was requisite that the discussion should be limited, as he had already stated, for no subject could long engage the attention of their Lordships, which embraced such important considerations affecting the rights and interests of a class of the community, which was not represented in the other House of Parliament, and which was therefore specially entitled to the protection of their Lordships. It was from a thorough conviction that in one discussion, to whatever length it might be protracted, it would be utterly impossible to go through the various parts of this subject in a satisfactory manner, that he thought it was desirable, that they should

341
be all submitted successively to the consideration of their Lordships. Limiting himself, therefore, to what he conceived to be the main purport of this bill, he should say nothing at present upon the annihilation of the ancient and inestimable right of the people to self-government, and upon the flagrant injustice with which vestries had been despoiled of all control in the management of their own concerns. He should also be silent as to the formation of Poor-law unions, some; of which were of an extent and contained a population very inconvenient to the poor. Nor should he say anything of the appointment of those novel officers called guardians by a strange misnomer, who were not, however, the guardians of the poor, and in many cases not even elected by a majority of the rate-payers. He should pass over in silence those new prisons erected under the name of workhouses, which were intended as prisons, and which, according to the expression of an assistant Poor-law commissioner, were built to inspire a salutary terror in the minds of the poor. He should say nothing at present of the starvation dietary adopted in those prisons, or of the deaths which had ensued in them in consequence of it, especially in the Bridgewater workhouse. He should take no notice of the laws respecting bastardy, which had produced such demoralizing influence as was shown by the Parliamentary returns now on their Table, exhibiting but a small portion of the cases in which mothers who had been seduced, had murdered themselves and their offspring. Nor should he enter at present into a variety of other considerations of great importance. He should also be silent as to a point which he considered of very little importance, but which was nevertheless deemed very interesting by some of their Lordships—he meant the rapid increase of the amount of the poor-rates under an Act of Parliament, which was recommended to their approbation as a means of preventing the loss of their estates, but which he now said would produce at no distant period the entire confiscation of them. Preserving silence on all these points at present, he would state, that he objected to the appointment of these three Poor-law Commissioners, because their Lordships had no right or legal authority whatever to transfer to them, or indeed to any other
342
body, the power of making rules, orders and regulations which were to have the force and validity of law. He did not state that as his own opinion, which might be of no value and have but little weight with their Lordships, but he stated it on authority which ought to be regarded even by them with due respect. Locke said,
"that the Legislature was empowered only to make laws, and not to make Legislators, nor was the executive to govern otherwise than by promulgated and established laws, not to be varied in particular cases."
Blackstone observes, in speaking of the legislative and executive powers,
"that wherever these two powers were found together, there was an end of public liberty, and that it was incumbent on the promulgators of the law to publish the same in the most public manner.
He would quote another authority, which was that of one of the wisest of mankind, and whose representative their Lordships then saw sitting among them—the great Lord Bacon. Lord Bacon declared, that
"If authority be given by the Sovereign to any commissioner or other, to govern otherwise than by known and published laws, then the Sovereign conferred a greater power than he himself, or herself possessed: "
adding,
"and, thus, commissioners who will not administer justice by law, but by their own will, may seem rather to desire to be kings than to rule the people under the Sovereign; and in giving such authority, the King ordains, not subordinate magistrates, but absolute Kings."
There was no occasion for their Lordships to look through the pages of the new Poor-law to discover that the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners were unlimited, uncontrolled, and irresponsible. And yet when, on a former occasion, he had applied to them the title of dictators—a title which he should repeat whenever he had occasion to name them—a noble and learned Lord seemed quite amazed and lost in astonishment, could hardly believe his ears, and seemed utterly surprised and confounded, that such a term should be so misapplied. If that title was not rightly and properly applied to such persons, if it did not truly designate them, it ought to be expunged from the dictionary as devoid of sense. So unlimited, so extravagant, and

343
so inordinate was the power of those three Commissioners, that there was no restriction as to the size of the unions they might form, or of the quality of the food which they might introduce into them. So that, if their Lordships imagined an extreme case—which in arguing an abstract matter of principle they had a right to do—there was nothing in the law, supposing that these commissioners were inclined to divide the whole of England into two unions, one for the north, and the other for the south, and to condemn the inmates of these new prisons to half an ounce of bread and a tea-spoonful of gruel a day; there was nothing, he repeated, in the law to prevent them from doing so, or to remedy such an abuse of power after, they had committed it. Their Lordships all knew that there was no power of which Englishmen were so jealous as that of taxation. There was no minister since the days of Charles I., whose fate was; well known—there was no Minister of| modern times bold enough to attempt to exert that power without the concurrence of that body which called itself the House of Commons; and yet, if commissioners could be appointed with unlimited powers of taxation—if, for example, the noble Lord opposite, who was at the head of Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman who filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that great political economist, who had his whole life and being in finance, who wrote on no other subject but finance, who talked on no other subject but finance, and who dreamt on no other subject but finance—he meant Mr. Joseph Hume—if such a triumvirate could be appointed commissioners to impose taxes, it would be less objectionable by itself, it would be less obnoxious to the country, and it would be far less injurious in its results than this Act of Parliament, which conferred upon three commissioners, despotic and irresponsible powers, which they were at liberty to exercise at discretion upon the poor. Let their Lordships go another step farther. If it were legal, if they had a right, if it were not an usurpation, which was in itself illegal, and which could, therefore, be lawfully resisted, to appoint such commissioners, why should not the powers now vested in them be vested in the Sovereign? That would be less objectionable than the present system, for the Sovereign must exercise them under responsible advisers, Where, how-
344
ever, were the responsible advisers of these three Poor-law Commissioners? That brought him to another argument, and that argument was founded on the manner in which the three Commissioners had violated the very words and intention of the Act itself with respect to the sanction to be given to their general rules and regulations. Their Lordships would find, that, by the 16th section of the Act, any general rules, which were to be applied to more than one union, were not to operate until 40 days after they had been laid before the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If in that time they were disallowed by the Secretary of State, they were not to operate at all; but if they were sanctioned by him, then they were to be laid before the two Houses of Parliament. Their Lordships would not have forgotten, that, when objection was made elsewhere to these arbitrary powers of the three Poor-law Commissioners, it was stated by a noble Lord, who had since taken his seat among their Lordships, that there could be no abuse of those powers, because they were first to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and afterwards laid before both Houses of Parliament. Was it not, then, a mockery to find, that in every year which had elapsed since the passing of the law, the Commissioners had evaded it, by not making any general rules at all? Their rules were all special, not general; and the reason, he supposed, was, that these worthy personages were unwilling to be overwhelmed by the compliments which they would have received for their legislation from all parts of the country. It appeared that about two years ago, on the motion of an hon. Friend of his, the Member for Kent, a return was made for all the general rules, orders, and regulations which had been laid before the Home Secretary by the Poor-law Commissioners under the 16th section of the Act. What were they? Orders about matters of no importance. That return was not furnished voluntarily; it was extorted from the despots by an order of the House of Commons. There had been a subsequent return, made by order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and which had been introduced very skilfully at the present moment to smooth the way to the passing of this bill. Blackstone had said, that it was incumbent on the promulgators of a law to publish it in the most public man-

345
ner; but by this Act no direction was given to the Commissioners as to the manner in which they should give publicity to such of their rules as were to have the force of law; it was left to their will and pleasure and discretion. They had the power to publish their rules by the 18th section of the Act, but so far were they from being desirous to promulgate their laws, that they had, if not by a general, at least by a special order, desired that the proceedings at the meetings of the boards of guardians should be strictly secret. They had proceeded with large professions of their anxiety for the public good, with hypocritical pretences of being desirous to elevate the condition and to improve the character of the labourers, and vet at every step they proceeded with a degree of secrecy which was unknown in every other tribunal save that of the inquisition. Nor was this all; for a fragment of one of their special orders was to be found in an excellent pamphlet, called "Practical Remarks on the Severities of the New Poor-law," by Mr. Nicholls—not the dictator of that name, but an elected guardian of the Bourne Union. That gentleman gave, in his pamphlet, an extract of a letter from the notorious Mr. Chad wick, addressed to the clerk to the board of guardians of the Bourne Union, dated July 20, 1837. It was to this effect:
That "individual members of the visiting committee, or other guardians, are not empowered, as such, to visit the workhouse or individual inmates, without the previous leave of the board."
So that, instead of throwing open the doors of these prisons, not to the inmates of them, but to visitors, there was a strict order from Somerset-house to prevent individual guardians from entering them, except by permission of the board. There was another point, also, in which he thought that the country had a right to complain of the conduct of those dictators, and in which they executed the law in a manner not intended by those who were its authors. When a late most eminent writer, then a Member of the other House of Parliament, Mr. Cobbett, proposed, on the original discussion of this measure, that a clause should be introduced, declaring it to be illegal to separate men and their wives in the workhouse, it was said by the noble Lord who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now a Member of their Lordships' House, that
346
such a clause was unnecessary, inasmuch as such a separation was not intended by, the bill. And he spoke not from memory—for at the time he was absent from this country, and had seceded from their Lordships' House, to which he had returned with feelings of regret—he spoke not, he said, from memory, but from records which were familiar to their Lordships, and which were generally authentic. He found from those reports, that when a noble Friend of his brought up a petition from Stoke Regis, and expressed his apprehension that such a separation of man and wife would soon take place in every workhouse, the noble and learned Lord who then occupied the Woolsack, said, that it was quite impossible, and that the wildest imagination had never dreamt of such a thing. What was his horror and astonishment, when having recently found his way into a house of not very reputable character, and not very distant from the chamber in which they were then assembled, he heard a Minister of the Crown declare, that such a regulation was absolutely necessary, that it had always been intended, and that there was not one word to be said against it. He was aware that their Lordships were now arrived at the end of the present Session. It was impossible for Ministers to say what might happen in the next Session, or even before its commencement. For himself, he took no part in those discussions which were considered of a party nature. But some persons might speculate on such an event as a change in the Administration. Advice might, in such a case, be given to dissolve the Parliament; and he knew that by the dissolution of Parliament, the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners would be dissolved too. Now, for the sake of argument, he would assume, that the exercise of those powers had been beneficial and advantageous to the country, instead of being most injurious and most oppressive, and he would ask their Lordships what practical inconvenience could arise from the cessation of those powers? The whole surface of England had been carved out into unions at the mere caprice and discretion of these dictators. When a proposal had been made as to the expediency of introducing the operation of the New Poor-law Act into Manchester, the answer from the authorities was, that it could not be done without the assistance of the military and a large body of the police.

347
It was strange that a law so beneficial should require such strong measures to be taken to enforce it. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, upon hearing this, thought discretion the better part of valour, and wisely forbore to press forward the design. In all the unions now existing, the rules and regulations were framed by the board at Somerset-house, and might serve as models for the rules to be adopted by any new unions, if the power of the Commissioners were to cease. With regard, however, to these rules and regulations, he wished the Ministers would agree with each other, as to the extent and meaning of that celebrated measure, the Poor-law Amendment Act. He referred to the usual channels of public information for the words used on a former occasion by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government. The noble Viscount said—
"He knew not for what reason the commissioners should be invested with those large powers to which the right rev. Prelate had adverted, unless to enable them to adapt the provisions of the Act to the peculiar circumstances of peculiar parts of the country."
That certainly did appear to be the only reason that could possibly be assigned for passing the Act. But, unfortunately for the noble Viscount, one or two colleagues of his, in introducing the bill, recommended it principally for the uniformity of systems which it would produce throughout the country; so that the noble Viscount supported the bill, because it would lead to the establishment of different systems in different localities, and his colleagues supported it, because its consequence would be the universal adoption of the same system. The noble Lord, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed himself as follows:—
"An immense advantage would be obtained by the establishment of an uniformity of system throughout the country."
A similar opinion was given by Mr. Hume, who said,
"If there was any one thing more important than another to the complete success of the measure, it was the uniformity of the plan proposed."
Sir T. Fremantle "thought that, the principle of the bill was a uniformity of system for all parishes," and other Members of the House of Commons expressed themselves to the same effect. But the
348
noble Viscount was not only opposed by his own colleagues and supporters, but by his subordinates, for Mr. Chadwick, secretary of the Poor-law Commissioners, in a letter, dated January 31, 1837, stated, that their orders would "conduce to that uniformity which was so important to the efficient working of all unions." There was, therefore, no agreement either between the noble Viscount and his colleagues, or between him and the Poor-law Commissioners, upon the question, whether the intent of the Act was to produce uniformity or diversity. In many unions the system adopted was utterly at variance with the orders of the Poor-law Commissioners, because, in some cases, they made concessions to the authority and influence of individuals, upon whose mistaken support they relied for carrying into operation this detestable law; reserving, however, to themselves the power of drawing the cord tighter, as soon as an opportunity was afforded to them. There was no doubt that the new Poor-law was the cause of all the tumults which had already taken place in the country, and would be the cause of those much more serious tumults which, he feared, we should yet witness. With respect to the new Poor-law being the cause of the increase of crime in the country, be would read to the House extracts of letters from a clergyman who had long acted as a magistrate in a neighbouring county:—
"I have seen," said the writer, "its miserable effects with sorrow and regret, and well know the evils it has produced in the very numerous offences it has occasioned against the law, arising out of those miseries; and I have ceased to act as a magistrate, since I was not allowed to prevent crime, but only to punish it. I am so totally disgusted with the present inhuman and dangerous system of poor-law, that no consideration would induce me to enforce it. I can see no security for the peace of the country until the new law (as if made on purpose to produce disturbance) shall be either repealed or amended. It has been the cause of almost every crime of late, whether burglary, felony, or arson, within my knowledge; and the last nine men whom I committed to the county gaol, and who were tried almost all for capital offences, and transported for life, declared that they had been driven to despair by the refusal of both relief and employment."
If he did not wish for the maintenance of public peace and for the preservation of the ancient institutions of the country, and of property itself, which would be endangered, and at length destroyed, if this

349
pernicious Act were persevered in, he should have remained silent, and allowed the evil to take its course. He could entertain no doubt that the new Poor-law, if not repealed by Parliament, would be repealed by the people, but he deprecated the convulsions which would be occasioned by such a repeal. Those convulsions would be of a most tremendous nature, and such as no military or police force could prevent. Whatever might happen, it would be a source of great satisfaction to him to reflect that he had frequently, although ineffectually, warned their Lordships of the danger which they were incurring. He should persevere whether he were supported by few or many, or even without any support, in the discharge of what he felt to be his duty to the people of this country. He trusted that the people would, by such means only as were consistent with law and order, oppose this Act, which violated not only all laws, but trampled under foot the dearest and most sacred rights. To use the words of a noble Friend, whose memory he venerated, and whose loss he deplored, (he meant Lord Eldon), he would say, if Parliament would not do its duty, the people must do theirs. Upon all occasions he felt as strongly upon the subject of this Act, as if he were likely to come within the operation of its cruel and merciless provisions, and to be subject to its injury, its injustice, and its oppression. He had always recommended the people earnestly and fervently to seek the removal of this oppression by all legal and constitutional means, and having thus discharged this duty, to leave the result to Providence, which at its own season and in the fulness of time would judge between the oppresser and (he oppressed. He had limited his remarks, as he promised to do in the outset, to the appointment of the dictators of Somerset House, without bringing forward his reasons against the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act. The House would have to decide on the fate of the measure now before them. He should attach no importance to any amendment which might be proposed to it, because, in his opinion, no amendment was practicable of a bill founded on principles so unjust and so subversive of the rights of the people, and which would be passed, if passed at all, by a Parliament in which the people were not represented. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that considering how much agitation prevailed throughout the country on the subject of this bill, and considering its great importance, he was sorry to see that it excited so little interest in the House as to be discussed by a number of Peers barely sufficient to form a jury. When the new Poor-law Act was first introduced, he had objected to the appointment of Commissioners invested with such powers as that Act conferred upon them, because he considered it unsafe and unconstitutional to invest any men with powers so extensive. He thought, also, that it was most unwise to allow three gentlemen sitting at Somerset House, and knowing nothing whatever of the management of the poor, to control and direct the proceedings of country gentlemen, who from their station, habits, and experience, were much more competent to point out and carry into effect such amendments as might be from time to time required in the provisions of the Poor-law, for the purpose of remedying present evils. He had never been blind to the abuses which existed under the old system of Poor-laws, and he should be sorry to see the ancient mode of administering the law again resorted to, but he could not approve of the alteration which had been made by the new Act. It was as absurd to appoint the three gentlemen at Somerset House to direct the administration of the Poor-laws as it would be to subject all the farmers in the kingdom to such laws and ordinances as might be devised by a committee composed of gentlemen taken from the Stock-Exchange. These were his opinions when he had had no experience of the operation of the new law, and everything that, had taken place since had convinced him that his first impression was correct. He should, therefore, give his support to his noble Friend, and if they stood alone, the majority against them would not be very great. It was said that the effect of the new Poor-law had been to diminish the amount of the poor-rate; that might have been the case in some large parishes, but in small parishes he knew that the effect was directly the reverse, and that the expence had been considerably increased. But the expence was one of the very least of the considerations upon which the expediency of the measure depended. God forbid that he should purchase a reduction of expenditure by lowering the condition of the poorer classes!

351
He had been told, however, that wages had been raised in consequence of the new law. Could any noble Lord point out a place where wages had been raised from this cause? Did not every man know that wages, on the contrary, had been diminished? Then how had the poor been benefited by this measure, when it was universally acknowledged that it would be impossible to improve their moral condition without raising their wages? Unless that was done-, no education could be given to the lower classes, for at present, at the earliest moment at which a child could earn only a few halfpence for the support of its parents, it was condemned thenceforward to severe labour, which not only deprived it of all opportunity of mental improvement, but weakened and destroyed its physical constitution. It was not without cause that the people of this country were discontented. If he only looked at the dissatisfaction new prevailing in the country, without saying that concession should always be made to popular clamour, he should think there was sufficient ground for resisting the present bill. He was convinced that the dreadful laws now in force would never be changed while the gentlemen who now sat at Somerset House continued in office, and he was, therefore, anxious to put an end to their jurisdiction as speedily as possible. The Poor-law Commissioners had made a regulation that every man shall support his family out of his own wages. If crimes were committed in consequence of this absurd and iniquitous regulation, he (Lord Wynford) had no hesitation in saying that the greatest part of the guilt must lie at the door of those who drive the poor to such extremes. To support such a system as this was to legislate against nature; the attempt could not be made without mischief. There were many of the topics connected with this question, on which, had he not been present in the House since half-past three o'clock that day, he should be inclined to dilate. The poor had no representatives in the House of Commons; they had no hope but in their Lordships' justice, and he feared that that hope would be much blighted when they knew from the division that was about to take place, how very few of their Lordships thought it worth while to assist in the consideration of a question which affected at least three-fourths of the people of this country.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the benefits of the new Poor-law could not have been attained or perpetuated but by the existence of an authority central in its nature, capable of communicating with all parts of the country, and of introducing that degree of uniformity and similarity of principle, necessary to prevent such a law from becoming obnoxious to the inhabitants. It was from the Conviction, that if the powers of the Commissioners were withdrawn, unions would cease to be formed, and workhouses, which under the new system would be the sources of so many advantages to the poor, would cease to be built. That war between the labourer and his employer, and between parish and parish, carried on for the purpose of throwing the burden from one parish to another, would again disgrace the country and degrade the poor, while it crippled the exertions of the independent labourer. It was to avert these calamities, that this bill had been introduced, in the hope that being adopted by their Lordships, the system might be suffered to remain in operation, while an opportunity was afforded to their Lordships to consider whether any and what amendments might with propriety be introduced at some future opportunity. He was not prepared to admit with the noble and learned Lord opposite, that wages had in the least degree decreased in consequence of the enactment of the new Poor-law, but he was prepared to maintain, that its tendency had been decidedly to raise the wages of the independent labourer. He was persuaded, that opportunity had not yet been afforded for the full benefits of the law to be worked out, but it had had a marked and salutary influence in raising wages. In proof of this, he would state the very gratifying fact, that during the last year, when the price of provisions had been considerably above the usual rate, the number of the depositors in the savings'-bank had increased more than 50,000, and the amount of deposits had increased more than 1,800,000 l. They had the testimony of Mr. Tidd Pratt, than whom no man was better acquainted with these subjects, that this increase had taken place in a greater degree in the rural districts, than any other part of the country. He asked their Lordships, whether, if the new Poor-law had not had a salutary influence, an increase of the deposits to such an extent

353
would have been possible? It was only as a temporary measure, that he called on their Lordships to agree to this bill, without which, he firmly believed the great experiment now in progress fur ameliorating the condition of the poor, would not receive a fair trial.
Earl Stanhopeobserved, that no attempt had been made to answer the arguments he had urged as to the unconstitutional and illegal nature of this measure, and still less the reasoning he had offered to their Lordships, to shew that no Parliament in which the labouring classes were not fairly represented, had a right to pass this measure. He could see no reason why the commissioners' power should be continued. The noble Marquess had said, that the new Poor-law had had the effect of raising the wages of labourers; but he forgot that 400,000 workmen were employed in the construction of railroads, and that the demand for their labour, as well as the stimulus given to the iron trade and various other branches of industry in consequence, produced a rise in wages all over the country. No man who had considered the subject for one moment could possibly doubt, that the natural, immediate, and inevitable tendency of that execrable measure, was to lower wages and grind the faces of the poor. The inmates of a county gaol were better fed, and better cared for, than the unfortunates who were reduced to take refuge in an union workhouse. Convinced, as he was, that numberless evils were caused by the new system of administering relief to the poor, he must entreat their Lordships not to be parties to its continuance by adopting the present measure.
The House divided on the original motion—Contents 10; Not-Contents 2:—Majority 8.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Normanby.

Richmond.

VISCOUNT

EARLS.

Melbourne.

Verulam

LORDS.

Liverpool

Rayleigh

Shaftesbury.

Cottenham.

MARQUESSES.

TELLER.

Lansdowne

Earl Minto

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Lord Wynford

TELLER.

Earl Stanhope

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee.
Bill went through committee. The House resumed, and report received.

COLLECTION OF RATES.
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved the second reading of the Poor-rates Collection Bill.
Earl Stanhoperemarked, that this bill was strangely altered from its original form. It did not bear the most distant resemblance to the shape which it presented when it was first introduced. The necessary effect of the bill in its present shape would be to create throughout the country a most violent spirit of opposition on the part of the rate-payers. In that respect he thought it would have a most beneficial operation; it was the single drop of water which would make the cup of bitterness overflow, and render the new Poor-law a nullity.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that the overseers in certain districts having refused to make a rate, and having thus done their best to defeat the object of the Act, this bill became absolutely necessary. The guardians had incurred a very large amount of debt; and a writ of mandamus was both a tedious and inconvenient process, to obviate the necessity of which this bill was introduced.