Page images
PDF

for having complied with the prayer of a large and influential community? If so he was much mistaken, and he trusted the House would give him credit for having discharged his duty in a most straightforward manner.

Sir C. Lemon thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended himself perfectly from the attack of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The Cornish Members wished for no concealment, and had made none.

Lord Eliot begged to corroborate, as far as his knowledge went, the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord concluded by expressing his regret at the necessarily tardy introduction of this measure.

Sir H. Vivian was sorry that the hon. Member should have applied the term "disgraceful" to this bill, which he considered was most just and proper. The amount of the present duty on tin was not so much the grievance complained of as the vexatious and inconvenient proceed ings which were connected with it.

Lord G. Somerset said, that although it was his intention to support the resolution in the present stage, he should be sorry to do so on the principle set forth by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was his intention in a future stage to propose the reduction of the duty. He would support the resolution because he felt convinced, that it would never be adopted in any other reign. If he had been the responsible adviser of the Crown he would have given his assent to the proposition. He thought it wrong to take from the Crown and place on the Consoli dated Fund the hereditary revenues of the country.

Mr. Poulett Thomson entirely agreed with the noble Lord that they werejuslified in making the transfer, solely because they had no hope of reducing the duties on tin without resorting to some arrangement of that sort.

Resolutions agreed to and a bill founded on them, brought in and read a first time.

Petitions presented. Dy Lord Sboiiavk, from Uic Grand Jury or the county of Gloceslcr, for the ttepenl of the Beer Act.—By the Duke of Wellington, from certain Individuals, against postponing the period for the Imprisonment for Debt Bill coming into operation.—By the Earl of Shaftbsbury, from the Ministers of three denominations of Dissenters, for Improvements in Prison Discipline—By the Marquess of Salisbury, from Hertford, in favour of Mr. Hill's Postage plan.—By the Bishop of London, from Bury St. Edmund's, and other places, against encouraging Idolatrous Ceremonies in India; from the Clergy of Limerick, and other places in Ireland, against parts of the Irish Tithe Bill.—By Lord Ashburton, from a place in Essex, against the Beer Act. —By the Earl of Rouen, from Dublin, and other places in Ireland, against parts of the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill; from Bath, against any further Grant to the College of Maynooth.—By the Earl of Ciiichbstrr. Viscount Canning, and the Earl of Lichfield, several, from various places, against encouraging Idolatry in India—By the Marquess of Downshirb, from the county of Down, for the settlement of the Tithe Question.—By the Marquess of Lansdowne, from Uic Dean and Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, in favour of Mr. Bowland Hill's plan of Post-office reform.—By the Earl of It I PON, from Liverpool, against the encouragement of Idolatry in India; from three Individuals, complaining that they had suffered great loss and hardship in consequence of the Sei2ure of the Vixen.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, August 6, 1838.

Minutes.] Bills, rtead a first time:—Militia Ballot Sinpension; Valuation of Lands (Irclandl; Bank of Ireland Repayment; Militia Pay: Oaths Validity; and Stamp Dies.—Read a second time:—Constables on Public Works; and Mails on It ail" ays,—Head a third tune :—

iHVMlil. . .rtV... I. .. <

Nabob Of Oude.] Lord Brougham inquired whether there would be any objection to laying upon the table a copy of the subsidiary treaty which had been entered into with the prince who now occupied the throne of Oude?

Lord Glenelg declined laying the document before their Lordships, because, in fact, it had not been ratified by this Government, and could not therefore be regarded as a treaty.

Lord Brougham -said, that was no reason for its non-production; for, whether ratified or not, he believed, that it had been acted on.

Lord Ellenborough said, that to assert, that there was no treaty in existence because it had not been ratified at home was not a correct representation of the fact. The treaty was ratified by the Governorgeneral, and certainly might be acted on. It would be a most extraordinary exercise of power if they were to annul or modify the treaty after it had been ratified by the Governor-general.

Lord Glenelg said, the President of the Board of Control had refused to produce this document, and the House of Commons had coincided in the propriety of that decision.

Lord Brougham could not see that any ground had been shown for withholding the treaty merely because it had not been ratified. If anything so monstrous should be disclosed in these papers as thai ihey had at midnight extorted from their pu'ipet an engagement, that he would i

[graphic]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

:tate, I did not anticipate any objection to this

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

b. ing m.-.TiiieJ ol :li;s t.'caty, express Ins disapprobation of liie .nanuer in w.i'eli the Momise to procure had been drawn Hum the syvei'ti-u of Oude. but he also caused it to be utimated in the most exsi!it-it maimer to that p.i'ice, that he was in no degree bound by the promise to sig^ri such a treaty, and entirely relieved from at'v stipulations or conditions it imposed.

Lord Btvu'iham thought that declaration amount, d to little better than nothing. T'lis poor man engaged, under duress, to si'j;n any treaty that should be dictated to him, and what did it signify that Lord Auckland had said to him, "Whatever you may have signed is u><t at all binding ou you?" The fact was, after that release he was found to have signed a treaty giving us seventeen lacks of rupees. Why did he sign or execute that treaty? tie executed it post hoc, cryo propter iter.

Lord Ettenboroujk entirely agreed with the noble and learned Lord in thinking, that the treaty should be produced, and that the person who transacted it should immediately have been recalled.

Subject dropped.

Prisons.] The Lord Chancellor moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving into a Committee upon this bill. The object of the bill was twofold—first, to make prisons in borough towns havinc Hcssioiis of their own, and to put thnn upon the siitne fooling with the prisons of the countyj null also to niio the borough junticcH within their ra«t>c<• tiioj111i.s<JictioHp tho same powflia with ic-peel to the pri Bun* ns the county tnagistiuloi hail, tic

nart of the bill. There was another part, however, to which opposition would prob, ably be given, on account of the additional expense which it would have the effect of throwing upon counties, and also because a new subject matter was introduced. Under the 5th and 6th William 4th., the justices were empowered to make rules and regulations for the classification of prisoners. By the 13th clause of the present bill, they were also empowered to make rules and regulations, but an additional power was given them, which was power under the same authority and control as before, and subject to the same reference to the Under-Secretary of State. If upon being referred to him they were approved of, the same machinery which existed under the old law was made use of: and if the present prisons were not sufficient in point of magnitude or construction to enable them to carry the rules and regulations for the classification of the prisoners into effect, then the justices at quarter sessions were to have the power to make provision by presentment for the erection of new prisons of such form and structure as would admit of the regulations being carried into effect. That this provision would have the effect of throwing upon counties a great additional burden and expense he (the Lord Chancellor) was willing to admit; but, at the same time, he thought, if the regulations were proper and useful ones, considerations of < oncht not to be taken into i

The Marquess of Salisbury L„. tnat a bill of such great extent and importance, involving so many interests, and which had been three years under the consideration of the Under-Secretary of State, should have been brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session. The bill was uot brought up until the '24th of July, and it was altogether impossible, that their Lordships could be then prepared to enter fully into the consideration of a subject of so much difficulty and importance. The bill also introduced a new power upon a subject which was attended with considerable difficulty, and upon which great difference of opinion prevailed—he meant the separation of prisoners. If a further separation were desirable, as in his opinion it was, the experiment ought in the first instance to be made in a public prison, under the superintendence of the Under Secretary of State. The present bill was objectionable in many other respects. One of the clauses in particular was most extraordinary, and altogether new. He alluded to that in which power was given to the justices to appoint as chaplain one not a clergyman of the Established Church. He hoped he had stated sufficient to satisfy their Lordships, that the bill ought to be postponed till next Session, and with that view he should move, that it be committed that day three months.

Lord Lyndhurst would support the motion of his noble Friend. The effect of the bill was in substance to enable the Under Secretary of State to establish a system of solitary confinement in every gaol throughout the kingdom. Every one knew, that there was not a single prison in any county of the kingdom adapted to that system. The consequence was, that every one of those prisons must be altered or pulled down, and a new one built in its stead, so that the Under Secretary of State would virtually have under the bill an uncontrolled power of taxation. That such would be the necessary consequence of the bill he hoped he should be able to satisfy their Lordships. As the law at present stood, magistrates had the power to make rules and regulations respecting the management of prisons, and these were then submitted at stated intervals to the consideration of the Under Secretary of State, who had the power each time to alter them and make such other rules and regulations as he should think proper. All the rules and regulations were, therefore, absolutely under the control of the Under Secretary of State. The person who could from time to time alter the regulations had clearly absolute power and control over them. Such was the state of the law as it at present stood. It was considered, however, that an order for separate or solitary confinement would not come within the rules and regulations, the making of which was sanctioned by the act. Fresh powers, therefore, became necessary, and accordingly a clause was introduced into the present bill, enacting, that any rules and regulations which might be made respecting confinement in separate cells should be considered as rules and regulations sanctioned by and within the meaning of the former act. That provision, in effect, came to this—that the Secretary of State might establish a system of solitary con

finement in every prison throughout the kingdom. To give to one individual, and that individual a Minister of the Crown, power to establish throughout the kingdom a system of solitary confinement was an alteration in the former bill, and an augmentation of power never intrusted to any single individual. He (Lord Lyndhurst) did not mean to say, that the separate system might not be a proper system. It was still in its infancy; it was in controversy in America, and the question of the superiority of the one plan over the other had been discussed in a variety of publications, and was still going on. Were their Lordships prepared to establish the separate system, or in other words solitary confinement with additional labour, and nothing to make up for it but the use of books to such of the prisoners as could read? By the law, at present, it was said that solitary confinement could not be inflicted for a longer period than a month at a time, or three months in a year. The present bill contained no such limitation, so that a prisoner, after being in solitary confinement for one month, might the very next day be committed for another month, and so on from month to month through the whole year. He would not consent to leave in the discretion of any individual absolute power to establish separate gaols in this country—first, because he did not choose to intrust to any individual such immense and monstrous power, and also because, in addition to the objectionable character of the power, he would also have the absolute power of taxation without control. He knew from inquiries respecting the gaols of Middlesex, that the expenses of making the necessary alterations would be enormous. He, therefore, said, that at this late period of the Session, they had not time to make the necessary inquiries, and that a subject of so much importance ought not to pass hastily through their Lordships' House, but ought to receive full, mature, and deep consideration.

Lord Wharncliffe was also opposed to the bill. It would throw a great additional burthen upon counties, and the powers which it conferred upon the UnderSecretary of State were excessive constitutional.

Lord Brougliam agreed with and learned Friend, that su powers of taxation w He thought there \

[graphic]

1011

Prisons.

{LORDS} Foreign Slave Trade. 1012

the matter, and that it was the intention of the framers of the bill, though that intention could not be collected from the words, to allow such of the present prisons to stand as might be made to answer the purposes of the bill. He did not mean to say, that anything of the kind was said in the bill, but it might possibly be the intention, and therefore the alteration might be made in Committee. If this were not done, he should oppose the bill. He had not heard enough to convince him that they ought to intrust such extensive powers to a Minister of the Crown. He did not think the Secretary of State ought to possess the power to alter and to aggravate the punishment which might be directed by the judges of the land.

The Earl of Chichester intreated of their Lordships to allow the bill to go into Committee. He did not think that it contained those extraordinary powers which the noble and learned Lord asserted that it did. He thought that in Committee they would be able to modify the separation clause, and if they did, he conceived that such an alteration would obviate the principal objections to the measure.

The Duke of Richmond contended, that all the objections to the measure might be got over by means of alterations in Committee. He hoped that some benefit would be effected by the bill, and he, therefore, should regret to see the present opportunity of passing it lost. He professed himself the advocate of the silent system with partial separation to such an extent as might be necessary for preventing contamination, and hoped that if the bill were committed they might be enabled to put back the clauses to the point recommended by a committee of their Lordships' House.

The Lord Chancellor said, that the observations made in opposition to the present measure did not contain a single objection to that portion of it which related to borough prisons; for the arguments which their Lordships had heard turned upon the construction which his noble and learned Friend put upon one of the clauses. The power of which his noble and learned Friend complained would be vested, not, as was said, in the Secretary of State, but in the person authorised by law to make rules and regulations. The bill certainly gave to the Secretary of State larger powers than he had before enjoyed, but yet he was not the person authorised by

law to make regulations. By the 4lli of George 4th, certain rules and regulations were to be made by the authority of the magistrates, and draughts of them were to be sent to the Secretary of State for his approval. If the prisons were not large enough, the Secretary of State could order larger gaols to be erected, and to that his power was limited. Unless the magistrates neglected to make the necessary rules, then, and only in such a case,could the Secretary of State himself issue rules and regulations.

Lord Lyndhurst replied, that by theotli and 6th of William 4th, the magistrates ai Quarter Sessions could make rules and regulations, but they were bound to transmit them to the Secretary of State. He possessed power to alter them as he thought proper, and to add to the rules and regulations so submitted to him. Surely it would not be denied, that if a certain person had the power to alter and add to certain rules and regulations, it was quite clear that he had absolute control over them. The magistrates at Quarter Sessions might suggest, but the Secretary of State could do as he pleased with the rules and regulations.

The Marquess of Lansdowne said, it certainly never was the intention of the promoter of the bill to confer upon the Secretary of State those large powers which the noble and learned Lord supposed it to give. The bill would merely give the power to the person who by law was authorised to make the rules and regulations. He should support the proposition for 'going into Committee with a view to amend the measure so as to remove all doubt respecting the powers which it gave, and this he thought might be effected by only expunging the word "add," for in the power of addition, as he thought, the whole of the objectionable powers lay.

Their Lordships divided—Content 32; Not-Content 33 -.—Majority 1.

Committee postponed for three months.

Foreign Slave Trade.] Lord Brougham said, that in the absence of his noble and learned Friend, the Chief .'ustice of the Court of Queen's Bench, he wished to make a motion to which he presumed there would be no objection. On the I Oth of May last, the H ouse of Commons agreed to an address to her Majesty, representing that the Slave-trade still continued with great intensity, and that the) thought a general concurrence of the great powers professing Christianity necessary in a declaration that the Slave-trade ought to be punished as piracy, and praying that their wishes and hopes might be made known to foreign courts in such manner as to her Majesty might seem best. What he had to move was, that their Lordships do adopt an address to the same effect, in order the more to strengthen the hands of Government as regarded this matter. The noble and learned Lord moved the following address :—

"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, dutifully to submit to her Majesty, that the Slave-trade, which the Congress of Vienna most justly described as having degraded Europe, desolated Africa, and afflicted humanity, nevertheless still continues with great intensity; that, notwithstanding the various treaties and conventions which have been entered into by her Majesty and her royal predecessors with different powers for the suppression of this traffic, and notwithstanding all the endeavours of successive Administrations at home and of her Majesty's Ministers and agents in foreign countries, and of her Majesty's naval force employed in this service abroad, the trade lias been aggravated in all its horrors; and that it is the opinion of this House, that a general concurrence of the great powers professing Christianity in a declaration that the Slave-trade, by whomsoever carried on, is piracy, and ought to be punished as such, is, under the blessing of God, one of the most probable means of effecting the abolition of that trade.

"That this House is further of opinion, that, in all treaties to be contracted between her Majesty and her allies, the concession of a mutual right of search of their commercial vessels respectively, would be another of the means likely to attain this most important object; and that this House most respectfully implores her Majesty to represent these their opinions, and wislios and hopes, in such manner as to her Majesty shall seem most likely to be effectual to her Majesty's several allies.

"That this House cannot refrain from expressing to her Majesty the deep concern with which they have observed, from the papers ■which her Majesty has caused to be laid befare them, that Portugal has not yet fulfilled the engagements which she has taken towards this country, by concluding with Great Britain an adequate treaty for the suppression of the Slave-trade."

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, August 6, 1838.

MlNlms] Bills. Read a second time:—Tin Duties
(Cornwall) | Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster;

qucr Bills; Public Works (Irciandi; Consolidated Fund' and County Treasurers (Ireland).—Read a third time :— Valuation of land (Ireland); Bank of Ireland Repayment: Militia Pay; Stamp Dies. Petitions presented. By Mr. Martin, from Tuam, against the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland.—By Mr. Fikldkn, from Hyde, Chowbent, Huddersficld, Leigh, Paisley, and Padiham, that Mr. Robert Owen may be heard at the Bar of the House in explanation of his principles of .Social Reform; from certain Merchants and Manufacturers of Oldham, praying that Warehouses for Bonded Com may be instituted in the great manufacturing towns; from Crompton, to the same effect; from Halifax, Eltand, Heptonstall, Almondbury, Wadsworth, Hyde, Midgley, Thornton, Staniland, Queenshcad, Mixenden, Northowram. Ambler Thorn, and Coldon Heptenstall, for Universal Suffrage, etc.; from Male and Female Inhabitants of the Borough of Maldon (Essex), and other Inhabitants of that Borough, for Amendments of the New Poor-law; nnd frc ; Hand-loom Weavers of Norwich, for an Act to regulate the rate of Wages.—By Sir E. Wilmot, from Uic Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Coventry, again9t the Parochial Assessment Bill.—By Lord Stanlky, from Uic Diocese of Fermanagh, against the Encouragement of Idolatrous Ceremonies in ludia.

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

[graphic]
« PreviousContinue »