Sitting of 16 August 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Joint Stock Banking Companies.—Read a third time:—Assaults (Ireland); Sale of Spirits (Ireland); Constabulary Force (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Gosford, from Armagh, against the Repeal of the Com-laws; also for a Uniform Penny Postage; from a number of places, for allowing Presbyterian Soldiers to attend Places of Worship of their own Persuasion.—By the Earl of Stanhope, from the Shoreham Working Men's Association, for an Inquiry into the Birmingham Riots.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from the Kensington Union, in favour of a Collection of Poor-Rates Bill; and from Halifax, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from Lambeth, against a Clause in the Collection of Poor-Rates Bill.

BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
Earl Stanhopewished for a few minutes to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the noble Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government, to the contents of a petition which had been placed in his hands. It came from a number of persons at Birmingham, denominated the Working Men's Association, and related to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police in that town on the 4th of July last. The petitioners complained, that the Metropolitan Police had on that day made a most wanton and unjustifiable attack on the people of Birmingham. They denounced that force as unconstitutional, and contended that the employment of such a body by the Government evinced a design to destroy the right of the people to assemble at public meetings, and was calculated to subvert every principle of constitutional freedom. The petitioners, therefore, earnestly entreated their Lordships to institute a serious and searching inquiry into the allegations contained in their petition. Before he presented the petition, he (Earl Stanhope) had an opportunity of conversing with the party to whom it had been intrusted, who, he believed, was a person of great respectability, and who was described by those who had long known him as a man of a strictly moral character. He alluded to Mr. Taylor. That individual was present when the attack was made on the people. He had seen the party that morning. He had questioned him on the subject, and he had committed to writing what his informant had described as having occurred. That minute he should take the liberty to read to their Lordships. The noble Earl read as follows;—
" The informant was at Birmingham on the

363
4th of July last, and returning from the post-office about a quarter before nine in the evening, he passed through the Bullring, which is a space capable of containing many thousand persons, and in which, round Nelson's monument in the centre thereof, was assembled a crowd of persons, in number, as he believes, between 500 and 800, who were listening to a person reading a newspaper, but without obstructing the thoroughfare, and leaving a wide open space all round them. He did not perceive that they were armed or carried sticks, and he did not hear any shouts, or groans, or hissing, or menacing language. They intended to separate, as was usual for them, at nine o'clock. At four minutes before nine o'clock, Dr. Booth and the Mayor came, attended by London policemen. He heard Dr. Booth say to the policemen, and pointing to the man who was reading the newspaper, ' There is the man, do your duty;' upon which the policemen drew their staves, and began to beat the people, some of whom were knocked down, some had their heads broken, and the blood flowed. The people fled in all directions, but afterwards rallied, having procured staves of casks, and shutters taken from the shops, and then the riot began. He was told the next day, by two of the policemen who were employed on that occasion, that they were ashamed of having been so employed, and one of them said that he would leave the service, which was different from what it was when he entered it. He believes that the above-mentioned proceedings created sympathy in Birmingham, in behalf of the Chartists. He was present on the 5th of July last, in New-street, Birmingham, when a bricklayer, who was returning from work, at a little past 9 o'clock in the evening, was desired by a London policeman to move on. The bricklayer said he was moving on, and was struck by the policeman on his mouth, knocking out six of his teeth, and felling him to the ground. The bricklayer rose from the ground, and exclaimed, ' Gentlemen, am I in England?'"
From this statement it appeared very doubtful whether any commotion would have taken place had it not been for the appearance of the Metropolitan Police. He questioned whether any disturbance would have occurred but for the violent interference of that force. He did not know what particular charge there might have been against the individual who was reading the newspaper, and he was yet to learn whether reading a newspaper of any description was to be considered as a misdemeanour, leading to a breach of the peace. But, if it even were an offence, the person committing it should have been arrested in a different manner, and the parties assembled ought not to have been treated with such violence. Injudi-
364
cious, violent, and outrageous conduct, such as was here described, must naturally excite the indignation of the people, and bring into disrepute and discredit those who adopted it.
Petition laid on the Table.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the third reading of the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill.
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst moved, that the 9th Clause, providing a salary of l,200 l. a-year for each of the magistrates under the bill be expunged. The reason assigned for granting this increase of salary was, that the magistrates would have additional duties to perform. But, as they had already omitted the clause by which the additional duties would be imposed, he thought that the salaries ought to remain as they were. It would be time enough to grant an addition of salary next Session when the additional duties should be imposed.
Viscount Duncannonopposed the amendment, which, if it were agreed to, would hazard the loss of the whole measure, as this was a money clause.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the clause stand:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 18: Majority 12.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Duncannon

Richmond.

Falkland

MARQUESSES.

Lismore.

Lansdowne

LORDS.

Normanby

Wharncliffe

Westminster.

Stanley

EARLS.

De Freyne

Gosford

Holland

Bathurst

Foley

Uxbridge

Sudeley

Ilchester

Dinorben

Albermarle

Montford

Devon

Stafford

Stanhope

Lilford

Leitrim

Cottenham

Minto.

Denman.

VISCOUNTS.

BISHOP.

Melbourne

Peterborough.

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Headfort

Winchester

Methuen

Thomond

Carlisle.

Hertford.

Several clauses of the Bill agreed to.

SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.
House in Committee on the Slave-Trade Suppression Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstwould then state the amendment he should propose, the object of which was to confine the operation of the bill to Portuguese vessels, and piratical vessels engaged in the slave-trade—that was to say, vessels having no national character. For this purpose he proposed to omit the words,
" 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 state whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having on board or the masters whereof should neglect to produce on demand papers, showing to the subjects of what state such vessels belong,"
And to substitute the words,
" That in case her Majesty should please to issue orders to her cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in slave-trade, or any other vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and not justly entitled to claim the protection of any flag."
Lord Broughamsaid, he understood it would be convenient if he were to call attention to the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, as they all had but one object. He was sure that he had not the slightest idea of making this a party question, any more than his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman). This was no party question, and the best proof of that was, the division of last night, when some of the most constant supporters of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) voted against him. He was quite sure, that the noble Duke had, as much as any man in England, the strongest desire to put down this human traffic. He wished to rail the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the difficulty that would be created if his amendment were agreed to. It would only be necessary for a Portuguese slaver or a pirate to hoist the French flag, and from that moment they might sail in safety. If this clause were altogether omitted, and if the bill itself were burned, the Crown could give orders to carry into effect the object sought to be effected by this bill, the only thing was, that the amendment of his noble and learned Friend would leave the masters and captains of cruisers without any security or indemnity in cases where they might seize a wrong vessel, which they might have reason to suppose was a slave
366
vessel carrying a neutral flag. Let their Lordships once obtain a clear idea of what the difficulties were, and what bearing upon those difficulties the bill had, and what bearing it had not, and could not have, and let them define the bounds of the royal prerogative, and the legislative power of Parliament, as respected the rights of neutrals, and every part of the discussion would then be easy and plain. Whatever they enacted in this statute, did not signify as regarded America, France, or any other country, a single farthing. This bill was intended merely to regulate their own courts for their own purposes. This Act of Parliament could not injure our foreign relations, or endanger the peace of the country, whether they passed it in its present shape or otherwise. The right of seizure and search did not depend upon this Act of Parliament, but upon the orders of the Crown.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that by the bill as it stood, not only Portuguese vessels, but the vessels of all nations, were subject to seizure and search, and this search, as regards the other nations, was in contravention of treaties. It might be said, how were they to distinguish piratical vessels from other vessels? This was a batter that rested with the Ministers of the Crown, and it was their duty, if a vessel were improperly seized, to make the necessary explanations.
Lord Ellenboroughopposed the amendment, and cited a decision delivered in 1817 by the eminent Admiralty Judge, Sir W. Scott, in the case of "Le Louis," which was strongly against permitting the right of search in time of peace. He implored of their Lordships not to take the first step in this novel course of legislation, nor authorize by their act that which he held to be contrary to the law of nations, which would excite the jealousy of every other maritime power, and would not ultimately succeed in putting down the evil which it was intended to suppress, while it would most probably have the effect of involving this country in an universal war.
The Lord-Chancellorsaid, that the bill did not touch in the slightest degree the right of search, as alluded to by the learned Judge, whose opinion the noble Lord had cited. Captains, in time of peace or war, might run the same risk which they would under this bill. How

367
were they to ascertain whether a vessel was privateering or Portuguese without instituting a search? The matter must be left to the discretion of the officer in command, and that was simply what this bill proposed. If the right of search was confined to vessels supposed to be Portuguese, it would in effect legalize piracy, because vessels would take care not to have any evidence to show that they belonged to any nation whatever. The amendment would entirely protect all nations who, by treaty, had a right to say this country had no right to interfere, and allowed an interference with Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, against which a case had been made out, and with pirates in whose favour no noble Lord had spoken.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that the argument of the noble and learned Lord did not answer the objections taken by his noble Friend near him (Lord Ellenborough). This bill gave no right of search which did not at present exist, but it appeared to give a Parliamentary sanction to the Government, exercising a power which the Crown ought to exercise on the responsibility of the Government, and not under the authority of this provision. The great objection was, that the bill did not give a right, but that it sanctioned a practice. He objected also to the amendment suggested in the second clause, because he thought officers guilty of error ought not to be protected even in their own courts of justice. He therefore hoped the amendment in the second clause would not be persevered in.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he should persevere in the amendment to the second clause, because he thought, that a captain and crew, acting on the authority of Government, should not be responsible for that act, but that if any act was committed which should be contrary to the law of nations, the matter ought to be left between the two states, and compensation should be made by the state, and not by the parties who had acted under its authority. That was the object of his second amendment.
The Earl of Devonshould be ready to agree in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), if he was first informed of the manner in which it was intended to advise her Majesty to exercise the Royal prerogative, but he objected to the principle which sought to
368
sanction by Act of Parliament an unlimited and undefined right about to be exercised against all the world. No grounds at all had been laid which ought to induce their Lordships to believe, that the Government would do right in advising orders for general search, and for these reasons he objected to the bill as it stood.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that by the treaty with France, this country was only empowered to employ as limited a number of ships as France in the suppression of the slave-trade; therefore, if any greater number of vessels were employed, those vessels could not act against French ships engaged in that trade. The noble Earl last night appeared to be struck with astonishment because he (Lord Ellenborough) had asked to see the instructions, but, notwithstanding the horror the noble Earl might feel, the very first time any capture under this Act was brought under adjudication, those instructions must be produced, or no adjudication could take place. The Act, then, ought to be in conformity with the instructions, because the officers would be indemnified only according to the instructions. Therefore he did not think it was a very unreasonable thing to ask for the instructions, when they were legislating upon them, for otherwise they might pass a bill which would be totally inapplicable to them.
The Earl of Mintoobserved, that it was perfectly true, that by the treaty with France this country was tied down to the employment of a certain number of ships only in the suppression of the slave-trade. But there was a number of other ships employed in putting down the trade under other flags.
House resumed.

BIRMINGHAM POLICE.
On the Motion of Viscount Duncannon, the House went into Committee on the Birmingham Police Bill (No. 2).
On clause 1,
Lord Broughamsaid, in consequence of objections having been raised to vesting certain powers with the town-council of Birmingham, on the ground that the charter was likely to be set aside, he intended to propose, that every part of the bill should remain precisely as it was, except that part which related to the nomination and appointment of the superin-

369
tendent of the police, and to give that power jointly to the Secretary of State and the town-council, so that the latter should be at liberty to name a superintendent, subject to the approval or rejection of the Secretary of State. If the town-council should not nominate an officer within a certain number of days, then the Secretary of State should at once appoint one. That would provide for the contingency, if it should arise, of the charter not being valid, and it would meet the suggestion which the noble Duke opposite threw out last night. He thought nothing could prevent their Lordships from agreeing to this proposition but a deep-rooted distrust of the town-council of Birmingham, which had done nothing to deserve it. He was told, that the amount of the salary to the superintendent was strongly objected to. Certainly, 800 l. a-year was a large sum; in other places the salaries of superintendents of police ranged from 150 l. to 400 l. a-year, which last was the highest salary. In Liverpool, a much larger place, it was but 400 l., and he did not know why it should be twice as much at Birmingham. But he was afraid their Lordships could not alter that part of the bill, and he only mentioned it as an additional ground for agreeing to his amendment.
Viscount Duncannonthought it was not unreasonable, that as the bill was to last only two years, a liberal salary should be given in order to secure a competent person for the office.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, his objection to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord was one of principle. He could not consent to divide the responsibility in the manner proposed.
The House resumed.