The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-16 00:00:00

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 looked at with a jealous eye.
That is the print;ple that was laid down by Sir
William Grant, and by that principle I think
your Lordships ought to be guided.—( Hear, hear.)
That I state to be the exception to the rule to be intro-
duced by the treaties. The slave trade bf Spain was re-
cognized by implication, end therefore it was that the
judgment of the Court 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 thy Noble
and Learned Friend that in our Courts of Law there arc
many difficulties on the point, and that it would be the
height of injustice to the officers employed to carry oat the
humane principles recognised 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 maids that he was guilty of
any crime, and liable to heavy punishment for so humane
an Act.—( Hear, hear.) 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 Lordships' orders, stopped him in the
inhuman traffic, was guilty of a punisbale crime. I say,
your Lordships are called upon to do 'something for the
protection of your own agents, acting upon your own ad-
vice.—( Hear.) 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 ; it 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. lam
really sorry to say one word upon the subject after what
fell from my Noble and Learned Friend. I feel ashamed
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 pawer binds only cer-
tain powers to be given to parties of a particular
rank, 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 must take their chance, for nobody can
possibly tell that a vessel was fitted out for slaving pur-
poses until be 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 as she was to put an end to
the atrocious system. She has said that the slave trade is pi-
racy—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
ether 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. I am extremely unwilling to go beyond the
argument; the arguments of his Noble and Learned Friend were
so clear and satisfactory that he did not think it possible the
Bill can meet that fate which he thought it would do in the
early part of the evening. The Government take upon them-
selves 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 Ad-
rniralty Court t 9 adjudicate upon seizures made under the treaties.
1 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 there is not
one objection made to the measure but can be remedied and ob-
viated in Committee. I therefore say that my opinion strongly
is, that your Lordships should permit the second reading of the
Bill.

Lord WYNFORD explained. What he had stated was, that
under the treaties with France and other countries, any person
seizing a ship must be bound by the treaties, and the Captain,
or the British public, must indemnify the parties.
Lord BROUGHAM explained. Of course, any dispute
under the treaties would form the subject of negotiation with
the respective Governments.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought there was great force in
the objections taken to the Bill by the Noble Duke. The
measure was not 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 them in so hasty and informal a manner. It was
true the Bill did not add to the powers of the Crown,
but it gave powers which must lead to explanations
which would 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. Still
though disapproving of the present measure, he was sincerely
anxious to co-operate 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.—
(Hear, hear.) And no desire for the attainment of the more
desirable object, the abolition of the traffic in our fellow-crea-
tures, should induce him to assent to a measure which he be-
lieved would endanger the general peace, by producing jealou-
sies and dissensions among different nations.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord COLVILLE said 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 Bill—(Hear,
hear) and had imagined that after the address which had
been unanimously agreed on by their Lordships, the Govern-
ment 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 com-
plimented the Noble Lord more upon his candour than his pru-
denee.—( Hear, hear.) No doubt the Bill might have somo
faults, but he had no doubt they would be amended in Commit-
tee. Ile had intended to rise to advocate the cause of those
officers and men who, in obedience to the orders of the Admi-
ralty, might expose themselves to great hazard ; but their
claims had been so ably stated by t. he Nuble 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 ?—( Hear, hear.) It was for the British Le-
gi lature 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 altera-
tions 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.-4 Cheers. )
Their Lordships then divided, when the numbers were—
Contents
Non-Contents
Majority for the Bill

POOR-LAW COMMISSION CONTINUANCE BILL_
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the House re-
solve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Earl STANHOPE would ask whether the Noble Marquis
thought it decent—whether it would not be adding insult to the
injuries already heaped on the people, to bring this question
forward at this late hour of the night (a quarter past eleven)—
a question involving se many important considerations, and
which it was impossible he could allow to proceed a stage with-
out offering to it his decided opposition.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE considered this Bill to be
of so simple a nature, it being merely a temporary Bill to con-
tinue the existence of the Poor-law Commissioners for one
year longer, that it might proceed through the stage put down
for to night. The Noble Earl might avail himself of this stage to
state anything which he thought proper, and he would have
another opportunity of stating his objections to the entire prin-
ciple of the Bill, in which he stood single.
Lord WYNFORD said the Noble Earl did not stand single.
He submitted that this was not a proper hour to discuss a Bill
of this kind.
The House then went into Committee.
Lord STANHOPE considered it for the convenience of
their Lordships to limit the discussion to the question imme-
diately before the House—whether the power of the Poor-
law Commissioners should continue for another year or not.
Limiting himself to that which was strictly the purport of the
Bill—he would say nothing as to the annihilation of that right
of self-government which always existed in vestries—he would
say nothing as to the appointment of what were called guar-
dians, or of the new prisons called " Union Workhouses," or
of the starvation dietary—he would say nothing even of the
rapid and enormous increase of rates under this Bill,
and which would tend to the confiscation of property,
but would confine himself merely to the appointment
of the Commissioners, because the House had no right
to transfer to them the power of making rates,
orders, and regulations, which were to have the force and va-
lidity of law. The Noble Lord cited the authority of Black-
stone and Lord Bacon against giving unlimited, uncontrolled,
and wholly irresponsible power to Commissioners. The rules
of the Poor-law Commissioners were different in various places
and not general, and those rules they had taken care should
not be brought before Parliament. They had no desire
to promulgate their laws, in short, they had desired
that all the meetings of the Guardians should be se-
cret. They professed the public good while they
had :no such object at heart—a greater set of despots he
never heard of ; they had executed the law in a manner which
was never intended. He would assume that their powers had
been beneficially employed. Was that shown by the fact that
upon inquiry the Home-Office learned that their powers could
not be extended to the Manchester district without the aid of
two or three regiments of soldiers? and the Home Secretary act-
ing prudently, and wisely thinking the best part of valour was
discretion, paused in extending it so far, and it had
not yet been introduced into that district. One great
point made in favour of the Bill was the uniformity of the sys-
tem of administering the Poor-laws throughout the country •
but had that been the result of the working of the Bill? Alas,'
no, the result was as great a diversity as ever—the Commis-
sioners giving their sanction to various dietaries. That law
had been the result of much crime, and was the superinducing
cause of those dangers which now
eptehdaacetep r
Houseeocf a tt the
acnteutho.hseterrepeaeptoeepnalleeed.d thhHey
would
r yu.l t
inTaht
eel
yN etwe Proeopre-allaoerdv,phoiylefi
Honeewtio•uhlidchnocnoutilnduenoatpebr!
putconvduolwsi onnbs,y
either
thatsoldiers would
w
severing opposition to the law under the banner of peace and order,
as one which he thought violated all the rights of the people.
He had now stated as briefly as he could the reason which
nwnonuol p
ind
prroeinveisnintghimm neglecting
oppfroosition
h otolievtnr thatgiv e thisno amendmentsth e mo s t
would remedy the fundamental vier, .4 a measure subv,—,ive of
the rights of the people, and passed by a House in which the