The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-03 00:00:00

all the letters be wrote soliciting support in behalf of
the Constitution of Canada, but not one came to sup-
port him—not one of the Noble Lords now so eager on
behalf of Jamaica supported him last year when he
stood up in behalf of Canada ; and yet if he (Lord B.)
were to protest now he should copy his protest word for
word from the protest he recorded last year. There was
a distinction attempted now, but he (Lord B.) could see
none. The attempt was embodied in the speech of the
Noble Marquis, who described the badness of the Con-
stitntion of Jamaica, complaining that in
the House of
Assembly thither the property nor the population of the
country Oh represented. He (Lord B.) was very
glad to hear such a complaint from the Noble Marquis,
for such doctrines did not at all savour of finality.—
(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) But if it were true that
the Assembly of Jamaica was not a popular representa-
tive Assembly, what became of the House of Commons
lof the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ?
The House of Commons represented a great deal of the
property of the country it was true ; but as for the po-
pulation, ninety-nine out of every hundred were unre-
pretentedin it. There was not an engineer or an arti-
zen—there was not an honest, informed, respectable
work man in the Metropolis, or in Manchester,or Liver
pool, or Sheffield, who was not altogether without a
vote in the election of Representatives in the English
House of Commons, though they were quite as free
men as the negroes of Jamaica or the neeroes of any
part of the West Indies.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.)
Surely there ought to be some sympathy in the breast
' of the Noble Marquis for his white fellow creatures,
not one of whom had a vote for their representatives,
who taxed them much more heavily than the members
of the Howe of Assembly of Jamaica taxed the
negroes! Yet no one thought of turning out the
British House of Commons.—(Laughter.) But the
Constitution of the House of Assembly of Jamaica,
was as much a part of the British Constitution, as
was the Reglish House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
God forbid, that he (Lord B.) should throw anyimpe-
diment in the way of the passing of Parliamentary
Reform, and having introduced this Bill for the sus-
pension of the Constitution of the Assembly of Ja-
make, on the ground that it did not duly represent
the people, he trusted the Noble Marquis would intro-
duce a Bill for extenclitig the franchise in that island, so
that the House of Assembly should be no longer be a
Borough Parliament. Again, he would ask what valid
apollegy had the Imperial Parliament for proceeding in
its proposed course of tyranny towards the House of
Assembly. Had it given that body any opportunity of
retrieving its error ?—( Hear, hear, hear.) As they
refused to interfere with the House of Assembly
last year, be thought they should not do it
this year. In his anxiety on behalf of the negro last
year, he called upon their Lordships to interfere with
the Assembly, but they would not. Now let them
also be left to themselves—and here he would acknow-
ledge he had less reason to be apprehensive on the part
of the negroes than he really was. The Constitution
of Jamaica had been enjoyed nearly two centuries.
Let it not be now abolished. They might alter or
modify' is—they might adopt it to the change of the
times ; but they should abolish it only in the exist-
ence of a necessity so overwhelming, so undeniable,
that no two min could have a difference of opinion
about it.—(Hear, hear.) If the representation were
net popular, it was at least more popular than a Go-
vernor and Council would be, and such as it was the
people of the island were friendly to it. The Noble
Marquis said that the Assembly consisted principally
of the attorneys of planters. There were many plan-
ters to whom he was anxious to pay his just
tribute for the great humanity, and sound
judgment and discretion they had displayed.
Now this Assembly was not so well constituted as might
be desired. They could not have a much better from
the nature of the case. At all events they were a re-
presentative Assembly, and chosen by the people. This
unfortunate di,pute arose. What happened ? What
was the majority ? A majority of one sixtieth ? That
wo4d not have been a single man. The opinion
was pronounced broadly, clearly, definitely, distinctly,
by five to one—more like the n:ajorities in which we
used to exult here in 1833 and 1834 than those of
1839. Five to one wasjthe majority—five dissentients
only were the minor y upon that constitutional ques-
tion. The Governor, in the exercise of an undoubted
arwhority, of course,appealed to the people, from which
he (Lord B.) must draw the inference that he did not
think an election such a farce as some of our statesmen
here.—(Laughter.) He expected that, as in Canada,
an appeal had been made to the people, so it might be
there, and he might get a better Assembly. But what
happened in Canada happened there also. The mino-
rity was lessened to one, just one ; four joined the mino-
rity—and then instead of the numbers being ‘)5 to 5 they
became 29 to 1. He drew these two inferences—first that
the Governor thought this was a real election, and that
the sense of the country would be gained ; and, secondly,
that the sense of the people was made known, and that
so as to give what had been a great majority, an over-
whelming majority—nay, to have reduced the dissen-
tients to one single individual. It was no light matter
to treat a community, so unanimous as this, in the
way which they were disposed to do. It was a course
not to be recommended—infinitely to be deprecated—
anxiously, by all possible means, to be avoided, and
only to be embraced in the last instance, and after
every Teens of delay, of conciliation, of negociation
had been tried, and exhausted, in vain. It was said
that they were not now legislating for the Colony
itself, but that they were delegating the legislative
functions. This was his (Lord B.'s) objection to the
Bill:" If the Assembly there would not do their duty,
we could do ours, and do theirs for them in one and
the same act, at one and the same time. If the Assem-
bly would not pass proper laws for the protection of the
negroes, let them be passed here. He differed with his
Honourable and Learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst)
entirely in the doctrine, which he hopcd he did
not mean to push to its full extent, denying
our right of external legislation. He maintained
that we had an undoubted right of internal legislation
with all the colonies of the Crown. If there should
e exist any doubt of that, he referred to the declaratory
Act of the 6th of George 111., independent of the
common law. That Act gave power and authority to
make laws and statutrs to bind the colonies and planta-
tions of the people thereof " in all cases whatsoever."
That Act had never been repealed ; it had only in one
instance been departed from, in the 78th of the 18th
Geo. 111 , passed twelve years afterwards, which was
confined to taxation exclusively. We had exercised
this right over and over again, and the most striking
instance, independently of the Prisons Bill, was the
Emancipation Act, which was a proof that we had the
entire and absolute right of legislating internally. Now
his (Lord Brougham's) proposition was this, that in-
stead of delegating powers of this sort to a dictator we
ought to legislate citri-selves. Was there any difficulty?
It was said that the details were such that they could
not be entered into by persons on the other side the
Atlantic. That was not true in point of fact, and the
preamble contained a complete contradiction of it.
The Orders in Council could be put into the form
of British Acts and passed. Why did he prefer
this course ? First, Because it was infinitely less
offensive to the colonies themselves. They had
chosen the course most galling, grating, insuffer-
able in their eyes, and had made their Governor a
tyrant over tliem, by giving him an absolute and despo-
tic power. But there was another reason—he did not
like to trust any man with such absolute power, which
was as bad for hire who received it, as for those over
whom it was to be enforced. But, in the next place,
he confided in the wisdom of Parliament. He would

infinitely rather have-any measure which was to be forced
upon our fellow-subjects in the West Indies brought
into Parliament, discussed by the representatives of the
people, undergo the scrutiny of the Peers of the realm,
with all the lights of information, of experience, of
knowledge, of libofill attainments which belong to such
assemblies, than he would have it put in the hands of A
single man, who was always liable to error ; so that, if
the wisest of men were to be armed with such powers,
the chances of his abusing it would be infinitely greater
than if so many scores of less accomplished, less in-
structed, and less sagacious individuals were to
adopt the same counsels.—(Hear, hear.) " Let it
not be supposed, though he had given these rea-j
sons for preferring that course to the course which was
adopted, that he thought the Government had a right
to adopt that course, unless a case of necessity was
clearly substantiated.—(Cheers.) He did not think
thif; tie necessity existed in the present case—(Hear,
hear)—for suspending the Assembly, and substituting a
grounds
on farm of government. These were the
on which he had come to the opinion that it was impo-
litic, unjust, and therefore highly inexpedient, and a
lto-
gether u
unjustifiable to adopt the first and leading cr liu
of this Bill.—(Cheers.) There were other objectionsrdsoe
to which his Noble and Learned Friend had refe
which he would merely advert. One was, that the Act
fl 4 not work out its own purpose. It professed to do
orle thing—it did another wholly different ; it professed
to suspend the Constitution until the Legislature of Ja-
maica should pass certain laws ; it professed to arm the
Government with despotic power only in the event of
the Assembly continuing to abdicate its functions. But
suppose to-morrow the Assembly were to say they re-
pented, they no longer persisted in their abdication,
they were ready to pass contract bills, squatting bills,
and vagrancy bills, did it follow that the Governor
would not have despotic power ? Nothing of the
kind. The Govornor had only to refuse his assent
to the Bills which the Assembly might pass, and,
whatever the ground of his refusal, if the Bill should
not be p'assed into a Jamaica law the power of the Go-
vernor attached, and he could legislate, and instead of
taking the odium on himself he might divide the re-
sponsibility wth his Council. One word as to the
limited nature of the Bill. If the story which had been
told of the legislaifine of Jamaica were true, namely,
that they represented nobody, it would seem odd to
select one colony. Was Barbadoes very differently eir-
curiastanced ? ItVits that assembly so much
*spectable than that of Jamaica ' There
more
c-
hardlyr i
k, be said to be so muqii difference as to justify this treat- I
meet. What became of the smaller island's, where by i
far the greatest atrocities were committed under the 1 t

slavery system, where the Hodges and the Higginre;
were, where society was so constituted that instead of
taking part with the victim of the master's cruelty, they
took part with the master, juries refusing to find bills,
and planters and their wives and daughters associating
with murderous felons.—(Hear, hear.) No—such Bills
were for Jamaica alone ; and this accidental, caprici▪
ous
legislation was for the purpose of demonstrating that our
views were enlarged, enlightened, and liberal, and that it
was for the sake of the negro, and not against the whites,
that they were now about to legislate. This observa-
tion of itself threw a light upon the impolitic and unj▪
us-
tifiable course which the House was now called upon to
pursue. I hope and trust (said the Noble and Learned
Lord) whoever have neglected their duties, you will do
yours ; that you will refuse to suspend the Jamaica
Constitution, because you have come once into collision
with the Jamaica Assembly ; but that if you see, in
point
of fact, a ground for resorting to extreme reme-
dies, you will take a remedy which is framed according
to the nature of the mischief, which is calculated to
meet that specific mischief ; that you will interpose with
the wisdom of Parliament, and not by the appointment
of dictators, and that you will teach to my Honourable
Friends behind me, the heads of the Liberal Whig
Constitutional Government—(Laughter)—this memo-
rable lesson, to let the suspension of the Constitution,
to let the abrogation of popular rights, to let the extinc-
tion of a Representative Government not be upon every
occasion the easy remedy to which, to save trouble, they
have recourse to, but be reserved for extreme cases of
absolute, and over-ruling, and undeniable necessity.
Lord MELBOURNE said that the Noble and
Learned Lord, who had just sat down, had addressed
the House at great length ; and the Noble and Learned
Lord under the gallery ( Lyndhurst) had very clearly
and distinctly stated his objections to the Bill, of which
he had moved the omission of the first clause. There
had been much debate on this subject in the other
House of Parliament, and there had been laid on their
Lordships' table a great variety of papers relating to
the question ; and he thought there never was offered
to the consideration of the Parliament, to the determi-
netion of this House a more clear, a more simple, a
more distinct question, than that which was now sub-
mitted to their Lordships' consideration. He utterly,
lie absolutely, he completely denied the assertion with
which the Noble and Learned Lord under the gallery
had commenced his speech, that there was either on his
own part, or on the part of his Noble Friend's, any dis-
position whatever to abrogate and to abolish the Ja-
maica House of Assembly, or to interfere with the
rights either of individuals or bodies of men either in
this country or in the colonies. That which they had
done they had done with the utmost regret, with the
utmost concern, with the utmost reluctance, and with
the utmost unwillingness ; but the course which they
had pursued was absolutely forced upon them by the
conduct of the House of Assembly ; and he declared
before God that were such conduct to be pursued by
any other House of Parliament, aristocratical or demo-
eratical, be it where it might, he would not hesitate to
advise the same sort of measures in order to supply
those functions which had been left wanting, and those
duties which had been abandoned by those to whom
they were committed. He respected the rights of all
parties, of all individuals, of all bodies, whether elective
or hereditary ; but if they deserted their duties and
completely abandoned them, they committed suicide of
themselves. It was not the Government who would
put an end to the Assembly in such a case, but the
Assembly which would put an end to itself—it was the
Assembly which would compel them to provide for the
powers which they had not exercised, and from that duty
they ought not to shrink. The House of Assembly
had stated that they admitted the absolute necessity
of legislating upon those points which the Bill was
to provide for, and then they went on to say
that they would not legislate upon that or any other
subject, with certain exceptions, until their privileges
were respected, or until Parliament should withdraw
from the course which it had pursued. Therefore, that
this was an abdication of their duty, a complete neg-
lect of the whole of the interests of the State, it was
impossible for any one to deny ; and if they would
not perform the duties which they admitted to be
necessary, he asked their Lordships if they would not-
provide the means of supplying the deficiency. It was
said this refusal was only limited. What right had they
to say they would only exercise part of their functions ?
The abdicating of part of their functions was the same
as abdicating the whole—they had no right to withdraw
themselves from their duty or any part of it. But
they said this was only conditional—that if this
Act was given up, and the attack upon their privi-
leges was withdrawn, they would proceed to legislate.
But what right had the Assembly to impose conditions
on the exercise of their legislative duties ? Would the
House of Lords condemn their own Act of Parliament?
Their Lordships would recollect that to the Prisons
Act they had acceded. This Act had in the present
debate been spoken of in a very strange manner. The
Noble Earl (St. Vincent) who was so interested in
Jamaica had said that he was not in the House when
the Bill was passing. The Noble Duke said that he
did not attend to it. The Noble and Learned Lord
(Lyndhurst) said he had acceded to the Bill indeed,
but without a knowledge of the circumstances. The
Noble and Learned Lord near him (Lord Brougham)
said he had disapproved of the Bill, but had only pre-
sented a petition against it. "My Lords, will this do ?"
(continued the Noble Viscount, in a colloquial kind of
tone, that created some laughter.) Is this suitable ? Is
this becoming? Is this the way to maintain your own
dignity, your own authority, not to stand by your
own Acts ?—(" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial
side of the House.) To say " IVe passed a
most important measure in ignorance of the circum-
stances,—and though we dissapproved of it, we just
whispered our disapprobation and did no more,"—my
Lords, if this is the language of men, eminent in rank,
and authority among your Lordships,—what will the
world think of the rest ?—will it not be imagined that
perhaps this is your customary, your ordinary in ode
of legislation. My Lords, Ido consider it most unfitting,
that persons of weight, and authority in this country,
should for a temporary ptirpose—to aid a pre-
sent argument—make such avowals as these, or
measures of such importance.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
But, my Lords, are you prepared to give up this Pri-
sons Act ? No.—(Hear, hear.) It is your Lord-
ships' intention to retain that Act—though I do not
think you are exactly taking the wisest method of
so doing.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, it does appear to
me that it is the plainest possible question ;—that these
measures are essential to be provided for. Indeed the
Assembly admit their importance, and I consider that
your Lordships would be taking upon yourselves a
heavy responsibility, to neglect these matters, merely
in deference to the fancy of the Assembly. It has
been said, indeed, that we might have told the
Assembly, that we did not intend to make the Prisons
Act a precedent ; but, my Lords, that would not have
been true—your Lordships do intend to pass such
another measure, under the same circumstances—we
could not therefore have made such a statement.—
( Hear, hear.) It has been said, why do you suppose
that the Assembly will not legislate upon these sub-
jects ? Because, my Lords, they have told us so—they
have said that they will not thus legislate till they are
satisfied as to their privileges ; and how can we satisfy
them except by repealing the Act, which we are not
any of us disposed to repeal ?—( Hear, hear.) Is it not
clear, therefore, that by delay we can expect nothing
from the Assembly, and only incur ?additional risk ?
( Hear, hear.) Why, indeed, should the Assembly give
way, when they were supported and maintained by an
influential party in the British Parliament? I should
think them children were they to give way under such
circumstances. The Neble and Learned Lord adverted
to the smallness of the majority in the other House, by
which this measure was sent up to us. My Lords,
I will not make any observations as to the
nature of that majority. That the fact is a
melancholy one, I do not deny : on that point,
I entirely concur with the Noble and Learned Lord—
(An ironical cheer from Lord Lyndhurst)—and in no
case can the circumstance be more melancholy than
with reference to the great Colonial questions which we
have to determine ; the measures themselves may not
be of so great importance, as that they should be passed
with the appearance of unanimity in the legislature of
the parent country. And how can you expect your
measures to be respected—to be successful—(Cheers
from the Ministerial, re-echoed by the Opposition Peers)
—unless they are thus passed—unless they are clearly
and impartially considered ?—(Hear, hear.) My Lords,
I make no allusion to party views—on this question, I
know of none—(Hear, hear)—party feelings have been
loudly disclaimed on this occasion. It has been often
asserted that the opposition to this Bill has not pro-
ceedeck from any party or personal motives—l fully
believe it, perhaps too much so—for however much party
motives—the desire of power—are to be condemned—if
they arc even culpable, let it be recollected that though
the absence of such motives may render the conduct of
parties who object to such measures, less blame-
able, makes it more senseless and unintelligible.
(HarThe object of party, one, per-
fectlye , and a laugh.)
understands.—(Hear, hear.) But if that object
is disavowed, what motives can be conceived, except
mischief and folly ?—( Cries of "
N. o, no," from the Op-
position.) Of course I cannot impute this to your
Lordships—(lronical cheers)—but
mo-
tive, I am utterly
am.—(The Noble Viscount here, accord-
at a loss'ers)—but without such I
am utterly at a loss, my
Ps
ingto his usual custom when excited, stammered and
hesitated exceedingly ; and while he was at at a loss
for a word, the Duke of Wellington said, in a voice
clearly audible all over the House You " You are at a loss
indeed." The observation called forth a faint cry of
" Order," but excited much laugl My 1'
ter., —ores,
lor
am utterly, then, at a loss to account for the oppo-
sition which has been given to this measure.
My Lords,
the Noble and Learned Lord who
spoke l
that even if the Assembly showed an inclination to said,
id,
re-
sume their functions, the Governor would still have
t
the right to exercise his arbitrary powers. My Lords,
it is all very well to talk of the corruptibility of human' nature, and the probability of power being abused; but
is it at all likely, in the present age, with the superin-
tendence of Parliament—is it likely, that any

Lord BROUGHAM said his question applied not
to the general subject, but to one particular argument.
The Noble' Marquis had argued that the Assembly of
Jamaica, as a body, were so ill constituted, that it was
impossible they could satisfactorily carry on their Le-
gislation.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of NORMANBY—My argument
was that the Assembly had abrogated its functions, and
therefore we were bound to interfere.—( Hear, bear.)
After a few observations from the Earl of MANS-
FIELD, strangers were ordered to withdraw.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the Clause
For the Amendment
Majority against Ministers .
Lord BROUGHAM complained that here was an
indirect violation of the Act of 1788, the 18th George
the Third, which declared that the inhabitants of a
colony should not be taxed without their consent, He
proposed an insertion to prevent such an application
of power by the Governor.

Lord MELBOURNE explained,
Lord BROUGHAM repeated his objection.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said if he admitted
there was no necessity for the power of reviving this tax
law he would accede to the amendment ; but he had a
communication with a gentleman connected with the
finances of Jamaica, and was convinced that the renewal
of them was absolutely necessary for the purpose of
paying the public officers and other purposes.
Lord BROUGHAM said perhaps for a month or
two, until a remedy was applied.
Lord CANTERBURY suggested that it would be
better to postpone the clause for further consideration,
as it might be considered to affect the privileges of the
other House.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH also recommended the
postponement.
Lord BROUGHAM said if that was the general

Governor would dare, if the Assembly appeared
willing to resume their functions—is it likely that any
Governor would dare to retain these arbitrary powers ?
I really see no danger of such an event.—(Hear, hear.)
My Lords, Ido at once admit that this Bill is, pro
tanto, a superseding of the House of Assembly ; but I
say the conduct of the Assembly has rendered the mea-
sure absolutely necessary. And I feel confident that if
this Bill be not adopted, as it now stands, great risk
will he incurred, and ultimately a much stronger mea-
sure will be had recourse to.—(Ministerial cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM, in explanation, said—My
Lords, as to the charge of " mischief and folly"—(Loud
cheers from the Ministerial benches)—l really wonder
that the acuteness of my Noble Friend who has just
spoken did not enable him to discover, that it was just
possible that English statesmen and legislators might
have some other motive than " mischief and folly," in
refusing to suspend without cause the free constitution
of one part of the colonial dominions of the empire.—
(Cheers.) And I must further say, my Lords, that
heard, with amazement, the threat uttered by the
Noble Viscount not against Barbadoes, or Mont-
serrat, or Nevis, or Jamaica—but against the Lords
and Commons of England.—(Loud cheers.) "If any
Assembly," said the Noble Viscount, " do what they
ought not to do,"—that is, do what he does not wish
them to do —(Laughter) —" for their mischief and
folly, I will treat them just as I have the Assembly of
Jarnaica."—(Laughter.) How? By passing a Bill
enabling the Crown and the Lords to legislate without
the Commons? The Lords would probably not agree
to that.—(Laughter.) Oh, that is " folly and mis-
chief."—(Laughter.) Well, what will he do? March
grenadiers into the House of Commons ? Nothing
else will do. And your Lordships are included in the
threat, too ; tile Noble Viscount said, " Any body,
elective or hereditary,"—now your Lordships are the
only hereditary legislators in Europe, since the French
Chamber ceased to be hereditary, where, by the bye,
the Noble Viscount possesses as much power as he does
here. Thus does the Noble Viscount threaten us for
refusing, forsooth ! to pass the Bills he offers us ; and
such Bills, in truth, I don't expect we shall pass.
My Lords, I will not say that the Noble Viscount was
guilty of folly in uttering such threat—mischief most
assuredly there was none—for anything more absurd I
never heard.—(Laughter.)
Viscount MELBOURNE immediately rose, and in
a very solemn and deliberate manner, said,—My Lords,
what I intended to say was this, that every part of the
Constitution had its duties, which it was bound to per-
form, and that if any part abdicated its functions and
refused to perform its duties, it was absolutely necessary
for other parts of the Constitution to provide means for
their performance.---( Hear, hear.) My Lords, "Si non
judicare, cessa regnare" has, I think, always been consi-
dered sound and judicious doctrine.—(Hear, hear.)
And I see nothing in legislative assemblies, or in here-
ditary assemblies, or in the Crown itself, to be excluded
from the condition thus attached to power—that every
public body is bound to perform its duties, and if it
does not, depend upon it it will lose the power.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.)
Lord BROUGHAM—My Lords, I am exceedingly
obliged to my Noble Friend for having placed the
Crown in the same predicament with the other Mem-
bers of the Legislature.—( Hear, and a laugh.) We
now have it—on the responsibility of the advisers of
the Crown—that if the Crown refuses to exercise its
functions, the sceptre may be taken from the hands of
the reigning Monarch.—(Cries of " No, no.") Well,
what is the meaning of it ?—(Hear, hear.) My Lords,
1 must say it is unwise, and unstatesmanlike to enter on
these general declarations, respecting great Constitu-
tional questions ; they are but traps and pitfalls, into
which may fall rash and unguided steps, and should
not unnecessarily be touched upon.—(Hear, hear.)
Viscount MELBOURNE—My Lords, I contend
that they are now necessarily entered upon ; the argu-
ment being as to the functions of a Legislative Assem-
bly, it is necessary to consider these questions.—(Hear.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD said he was opposed to
the Bill, though he did not entirely justify the Assembly.
He thought that some allowance ought to be made
for the feelings of irritation that had been shown by
the House of Assembly, considering the manner in
which it had been treated. The great ground of irrita-
tion was the Prisons Bill. Now with respect to that
measure, when it was passed, he must confess that he
had no reason to suppose that it was a measure that
would have given the offence it had done. It had been
said that that measure been sent out-for the purpose of
irritation ; he (Lord M.) could not agree that any 'such
motive was in view when that measure was passed.
The present Bill gave to the House of Assembly only
the semblance and not the reality of the power of legis-
lation.—(Hear, hear.) Its provisions were such a
mockery that for his own part he should think it would
be better for the House of Assembly to have their
functions suspended altogether than have their rights
interfered with by the Bill. In conclusion, he trusted
that their Lordships would not adopt the first clause of
the Bill.
Lord SEAFORD supported the BM. He thought
the arguments that had been offered to their Lordships
by the Learned Agent for Jamaica were entirely falla-
cious, and did not give a true representation of the csse
of the people of Jamaica. If the rights of the House of
Assembly had been violated by the Prisons Bill then that
Bill would be an act of oppression, but if it had not vio-
lated their rights then the suspension of their functions
by the House of Assembly was an unprovoked dere-
liction of duty. He would not consider that the
Bill was a violation of their rights when all the
high legal authorities in that and the other House
of Parliament had declared that it was not so.
He contended that Parliament was fully justified in
passing the Prisons Bill. The House was, therefore,
justified in maintaining its integrity. Looking at these
resolutions, and putting the narrowest and most techni-
cal construction upon them, it appeared to him that the
House of Assembly had made the repeal of the
Prisons' Bill the condition upon which their func-
tions were to be resumed. If they refused then
to repeal that Bill, it was clear that they could
not expect any active legislation from the Assembly of
Jamaica. Why, if their Lordships would look at the
provisions of the Abolition Amendment Act, they
would find that it conferred upon the Government the
very same powers as the Prisons Bill, the repeal of
which was made the condition for the resumption of
their functions. He feared there was little probability
that the :House of Assembly would retrace its steps,
and their Lordships could not be blind to the mischiefs
that would arise if the annual Acts embodied in the Bill
were not renewed. The objections that had been urged
by the Agent and others against the Bill would remain
in full force, even with the omission of the first clause.
In the opinion of the Agent, and, as he stated, that of
the Assembly of Jamaica, the Bill in its mutilated form
would be equally offensive as a violation of their consti-
tutional rights. They would resent it, as they did the
amended Abolition Act. The result of the omission of
the first clause would be that they would incur the
whole of the odium, while they would accomplish only
half the objects of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.) On these
grounds, he hoped their Lordships would reject the
amendment of the Noble and Learned Lord.—(Cries
of " Question.")
Earl ST. VINCENT supported the amendment.
It appeared to him that there was a wide difference in
principle between the Prisons Act and the Abolition
Amendment Act. The Noble Lord the late Secretary
for the Colonies had stated that the Prisons Bill was
only a continuation of Legislature in regard to the
great measure of Emancipation. If the Governor of
Jamaica had stated that to the House of Assembly his
(Viscount St. Vincent's) firm opinion was that the
irritation and hostility exhibited by that Assembly
would never have shown itself. He should support the
amendment.—(" Question, question !")
The Marquis of NORMANBY replied. In answer
to the question why the Government had not endea-
voured to legislate for the other colonies, he begged to
observe, no assignable cause had arisen for legislating
for any of the other colonies, but that he did conceive
an assignable cause had arisen for legislating for Jamaica.
Barbadoes had proceeded to legislate satisfactorily.
Tobago and St. Vincent had not only legislated in a
satisfactory spirit, but had adopted the very Order in
Council that had been questioned in the course of the
debate.

opinion of their Lordships he had no objection to do so.
The House having resumed,
The Bishop of LINCOLN gate notice, on the part
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, that his Grace in-
tended to move an Address to her Majesty, praying her
Majesty, that a subject of such importance as the ap-
pointment of an Education Committee of the Privy
Council might not be finally determined upon until
their Lordships had been afforded an opportunity of
expressing their opinions respecting it.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1839

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE

LORD CHAMBERLAIN'S-OFFICE, JUNE 27, 1839.
The Rev. John Vane has been appointed, by the Queen's
command, one of the Deputy Clerks of the Closet to her Ma-
jesty, in the room of the Bishop of Peterborough.

CAMBRIDGE-HOUSE, JutiE 26.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge has been pleased
to appoint Major Hugh Rose, of the 92d Highlanders, to be
one of his Royal Highness's Equerries.