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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 1839

sition. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had looked at the,papes
that had been laid before th'eir on thIS
subject, and he must say, that no stigma whatever
Vettea tih the House of Assembly in that respect.
They had done ail they could be 'expected to do.—
( Hear, hear.) It was not his (Lord Lyndhurst's) in-
tention to go into the details made by Ceurisel at Op
bar, but he would call flit, gttnittiiiii ac ttieir Lordships
to two er thl4-0.1/4, raas which would satisfy them that
t.ing the Learned Counsel had urged was correct. In
1834 the attention of the House of Assembly was
called to the subject of prisons, and an address was
presented to Lord Sligo, telling him that they would
direct their attention to it immediately. They fulfilled
their pledge—they appointed a Committee—that
Committee prepared a Bill—the Bill was introduced
and passed that Session, and it was pronounced
upon more occasions than one by Lord Sligo
to be a most beneficial measure. That was the first
step. What followed ? Lord Sligo some time after-
wards informed the House of Assembly, that in some
of the parishes of the Island, the Bill could not be
carried into effect. The House of Assembly again ap-
pointed a Committee, and found that representation
to be true ; and they voted 42,000/. in aid of the pa-
rochial assessments for that purpose. That was not
all. In the same Session a third Bill was pissed relating
to a object, and every thing that could be effected
was effected in 1834, to render the system effectual.
Was it any reproach to the House of Assembly that
in that first effort for the purpose of establishing a
good system of prisons, the system was open to some
objections. Their Lordships had themselves been em-
ployed on this subject during thirty years, and their
labours had not yet been completed. The House of
Assembly entered honestly into the consideration of
the subject. They passed a Bill which was consi-
dered by all persons as a most beneficial measure,
and the moment any difficulty was pointed out
they directed their attention to the subject, and passed
those Acts which were necessary for removing the ob-
jections. Such was the state of things in 1834. Now
what took place in 1835 ? Lord Sligo represented
that there were some defects in the system. What
did the House of Assembly do They appointed a
Committee immediately for the purpose of investigating
the statements made by the Governor, and what was
the result? They recommended that a Bill should be

introduced for the purpose of remedying these de
fects.—( Hear.) While they were so employed
a message came from the Governor, laying
before them the Bill passed by their Lordships in 1835,
together with three Reports of different Committees
upon the subject of prisons. The Committee directed
their attention to these Reports and to the provisions of
the Bill ; and before they could read the Reports, in
the course of eight days from that time the House of
Assembly was prorogued. Was it the fault of the House
of Assembly that it was interrupted ? No, it was not the
fault of the House of Assembly, but of Lord Sligo himself.
It showed that Governors could commit errors as well
as Houses of Assembly, for Lord Sligo had himself on
three occasions been guilty of a flagrant violation of
the privileges of th House of Assembly, and
it was on tat account that he prorogued the House.
The Governor was afterwards compelled to make a con-
cession, which proved that he had been in the wrong.
This was in 1836. What took place in 1837 ? Sir
Lionel Smith, the then Governor, directed the attention
of the House of Assembly to the subject of prisons.
They appointed, as they had done before, a Committee
to investigate the subject. A communication was made to
them by the Governor, informing them he had ordered
returns to be prepared from the different parishes, and
that when they were completed, they should be con-
densed and laid before the House. They were
never laid before the House. The Governor did not
redeem his pledge. And after this was it to be said
that the Assembly had neglected its duty ? Lord Gle-
nelg bad stated in his dispatch that the Prisons' Bill
expired in 1840, and that before the arrival of
that period it would be necessary for the Assembly
to direct its most serious and earnest attention to this
important subject, with a view of introducing some
amendment into the existing system. This showed that
the Colonial Office did not at that moment expect an
immediate change. On the contrary, it was suggested
that the subject required careful deliberation. It cer-
tainly was necessary to complete the alteration
before 1840—but this was only 1837—and what
was there to lead the House of Assembly to
conclude that the Colonial Office expected it
should dons immediately ? The Committee, how-
ever, catiniled itt Almost immediately
afterwards Captain Pringle arrived, as a Commissioner
from the Government to inquire into the state of pri-
sees in Linaicni and id report open the subject—
with what view, and with what purpose 't For
the purpose, assuredly, of laying a foundation
for some future improvement of the system.
Capt. Pringle arrived in this country ; he presented his
Report to the Government, but no copy of that Report
was ever sent to the House of Assembly. Was the
House of Assembly therefore to blame? Certainly not.
—( Hear, bear.) But the facts were still more strong
than that. Captain Pringle found fault with the con-
structiOn of three prisons 4 the House of Assembly
were prepared to alter them. No, said Captain
Pringle don't do that, but wait till the Government
plan for new prisons arrives here, otherwise you may be
throwing away your money. 'Was the House of Assem-
with for bly
ovteornbmlament hadekth pererfoortmetsiend wtoairtuinrgnifsohr
themtbe material
ppthmrbTPHbereradegheeooedraapumnuPtbti:sgai
erosseseteeeeti
fedonoda Billt
ftneol stated, fAbwimdaes
passed,
ar
nsya y
:Be
de
etgt
hi
mbhwlpi
woebeabx
ydasbsl
syyatGetaieCn.
hntdoddhgoe
wass,emTrfrwoer Committee
vastmi Notwithstanding
ebt waiting
svhheordntaeeete Lordships,
Chairmanawi
acisipiilnshpt‘tduysgihsieilrol,
asserted
t ooanora pteesrnhrfdeeri det‘i
et,toisfoepihnte:
arrived
privileges
fearlessly,
nniieeecNißntssetde'
information
oarll
meyenlars
sittaimoolsoatval
niifnahotthi
tsnidtisnaocei
dtaidinhe:,
it
was therefore not at all surprising that a popular Assem-
bly should, under such circumstances, be a little excited.
This was not all, that House bad not only invaded the
privileges of a popular Assembly, but it had insulted
mea threeetime rnkll,irsou afterwards.ldnetbeir
them at the same time. What was the nature of that
insult? The Bill, said to be so urgent, arrived in Jamaica
in September, but it was not proclaimed till November,
nearly
What
Lordships tools place
havee x
in
the.
pected every thing would have been done that would
have had a tendency to conciliate ?—(Hear)--but no
such course was pursued on the part of the Govern-
ment ; there was no conciliation from them, there was
no apology. What a contrast did this present to the
conduct of the Governor of Barbadoes. He did not
content himself with proclaiming the Bill, far from it ;
Lord Glenelg sent out a conciliatory despatch, which
was communicated by the Governor to the House of
Assembly, accompanied by a speech fraught with con-
ciliation by the Governor himself. This took place long
before the law was proclaimed in Jamaica, and it was
therefore known there what had taken place in Barba-
does, and of course the people of Jamaica had a right
to expect that they would be treated with the same
courtesy as their neighbours, but no notice was taken of
them ; the law was proclaimed, and the House of As-
sembly were left to find out what the law was. He
would ask their Lordships with confidence, therefore,
whether or not the circumstances to which he had ad-
verted went strongly in mitigation of the conduct that
had taken place ? So much for that part of the case.
But it was said that the House of Assembly would not
pass measures that were necessary and important for the
island. He had heard that charge made repeatedly, and
the Noble Marquis insinuated such a charge last night.
Had any message on the subject been sent down ? Sir
Lionel Smith, indeed, had said that they should
pass a law on the subject of vagrancy, but before
they forced the present law upon them they should
give the House of Assembly an opportunity of trying
whether they would pass such laws.—(Hear, hear.)
Until_they did that, they had no right to violate the
first principles of the constitution, and they them-
selves were, in the present case, the wrong doers.—
(Hear.) Did not the House of Assembly abolish the
apprenticeship system two years before the legal period?
Did they not do that by their own voluntary act ? He
did not mean to say that it was not a choice of difficul-
ties, but they did that act for which they were entitled
to, and for which they received the distinct and em-
phaticapplauded their conduct. It was said that these mea-
sures were necessary after having put an end to the ap-
prenticeship system.
thanks of the Government—which approved and
What right, however, had
they to say, that the House of Assembly would not pass
they
uwere applying every sort of
Assembly
? He would
tabusiveheir m measures, when
to betnhe
take leave to call their attention to the repeated in-
stances in which Sir Lionel Smith and Lord Sligo had
in the strongest and most emphatic terms approved of
their conduct. He would merely trouble their Lord-
Alps with one extract
from an address of Sir Lionel
w
Smith, after he had had twelve months' experience of
the conduct and temper of the House of Assembly.
(The Noble and Learned Lord then read the extract
in which Sir L. Smith acknowledged the attention they
had bestowed upon all his communications and sugges-
tions, and bore testimony to the good understanding that
had existed during a session unusually protracted. He
could furnish their Lordships with several full passageslall
to the same effect, but he thought it unnecessary. Such
being the case he asked where was the pretence for
passing the present Bill. He (LordL.) was not at present
objecting to the whole Bill, but merely io the first clause.
What were the powers they were going to give to the
Governor and Council ? They were about to create a
new Constitution for Jamaica—they were about to place
arbitrary power in the hands of the Governor and Council
—they were going to transfer the power Srom the three
branches of the Legislature to two branches of the
Legislature—they were about to give the power to the
Governor and Council to impose laws upon: Jamaica, if
the House of Assembly did not pass laws: in accord-
ance with the opinion of the Governor and Council. Let
the House ofAssembly pass such lawsas they really thought
necessary for the welfare of Jamaica—let them be acting
bona fide according to the local knowledge they possessed,
still, unless those laws met with the concurrence of the
Governor and Council, the latter would have the power to

impotefFhatlavv,s they pleased upon the people of Jamaica.
attending a little to the course of thinga in that House
and the Colonial-office, it. was not too much for him to
assume that the Governor, acting under the direction
of the authorities at home, would assent to no law
that materially differed from those Orders in Coun-
ell. lie must shut his eyes, and ears, and under-
standing to what he had heard, if he doubted
that those would be the instructions he would receive.
By this clause they were enabling two branches of the
Legislature to pass laws for the government of Jamaica,
and would therefore be violating the first principles of
the Constitution. But was that all ? When these
laws were once passed by the dictation of the Governor
in Council, they could not be altered by the House of
Assembly. He knew it was supposed that every
thing was in the power of the Assembly, and
that they might vary, alter, or modify those laws,
but it was only =in the power of the two branches
of the Legislature to do that. There was a most
extraordinary, most arbitrary, and most unconstitutional
power given by this Bill—a power which, under no cir-
cumstances, would he (Lord L.) feel disposed to grant.
He would not enter into the consideration of the
laws themselves. He had not local knowledge enough
for the purpose, nor was it necessary for the ob-
ject he had in view that he should do so ; but there
was one thing with regard to the Law of Contracts
which struck him to be deserving of attention. He
found by the laws regulating contracts between master
and servant, that no contract was valid which was not
in writing, subscribed by the parties, and entered into
in the island of Jamaica ; neither could a contract of
that description be enforced for a period of more than
twelve months from the time it was entered into. It
was necessary to enter into contracts of that description
with artificers going out to Jamaica ; but he passed over
that point because it was not, necessary to the view he
took of the question. There was another clause co the
Bill to which he would advert for a single moment—he
meant the second clause, and he put it to Noble Lords
opposite of their own free will to abandon the first portion
of that clause. The Bills mentioned in that portion
were money Bills, and he was told by many persons
acquainted with the island that they were not
necessary. The passing of these Bills by the Imperial
Parliament was a direct infringement of the Declara-
tory Act. They violated that law directly and distinctly
by legislating for the renewal of these Bills. But more
than that, they were doing the greatest injustice ; but
more than that, they were violating the law gratuitously,
because the House of Assembly, in their resolution,
had stated that they would not exercise any legislative
functions except those that were necessary for preserv-
ing faith with the public creditor. Why then should
the Imperial Parliament violate that principle, when
the House of Assembly had pledged itself to renew these
veryßills ? Before it was asserted that they would not,
they ought to give the House of Assembly an opportu-
nity of renewing them. From the 20th of December
till the present day they had been kept in a state of
prorogation, and no opportunity had been afforded them
of redeeming their pledge. He merely threw out the
point for the consideration of the Noble Lords opposite.
The Government could not with any decency retain
these Bills in the clause, and they ought by their own
voluntary act to abandon them. He (Lord Lyndhurst)
was not going to make any proposition of the
kind—he was merely moving the omission of the
first clause. He recommended to their Lord-
ships a course of conciliation. He disapproved
of the resolution of the House of Assembly—he wished
to give them an opportunity of rescinding that resolu-
tion by retracing their steps. They had begun the
system of conciliation by removing Sir Lionel Smith,
who was a warm partizan, and if the new Governor
proceeded in a proper spirit, there was little doubt that
the unfortunate dispute between the parent state and tha
colony would be put an end to. if they acted in the
way he had suggested their position would be changed.
The Government at home was now in the wrong ; but
if they gave the House of Assembly an opportunity of
passing these Bills, and that they refused, then the Le-
gislature of Jamaica would he in the wrong, and they
would have all parties in the empire wishing to put
them down.—(Hear, hear.) It was said that the Bills
were urgent, and that it was material they should be
immediately passed. He denied that. They could not
be sent out to the island of Jamaica and carried into
operation before the month of November. If the House
of Assembly held out, and did not avail itself of their
offer long before Parliament met again, they would have
received information of the fact, and before the expira-
tion of the month of March, by the unanimous assent of
both Houses of Parliament, these laws would have
been passed and imposed upon the colony.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) There would not be a single dissen-
tient voice.—(Cheers.) And what, he asked, would
be the loss of time ? Four months.—( Hear, hear.) Was
that a consideration in such circumstances ? Let them
take the vagrancy law, which was one of those contained
in the clause. Would any inconvenience result from the
delay as regarded that Bill ? He said—None. There
was no vagrancy in the island at present, although it
might spring up from the negroes refusing to work. An
immediate law therefore was not necessary. He was
not without authority for what he was stating. Lord
Glenelg had addressed inquiries to the various dis-
tricts and parishes of Jamaica, for a return of the
number of prosecutions for vagrancy, from the aboli-
tion of the apprenticeship system to the end of last year.
The returns in all cases were Nil. There was not a
single case of prosecution for vagrancy.—(Hear, bear.)
The next law was that relating to the illegal occupation
of land, and it came within the application of the same
principle. If the negroes refused to work they became
squatters, and it would be necessary to remedy the evil.
It would probably grow up by degrees, but none existed
in the island at present. Then with respect to the third
law—the law of contracts, they merely related to a
change in the present system, and he would repeat that
by postponing the Bill till next Session—by adopting a
system of conciliation they would be acting wisely and
judiciously, and instead of being, as at present, in the
wrong, they would place the colony in that position. It
was upon these grounds and these principles that he pro-
posed the omission of the first clause in tote. They had
had no right to force that law upon the Assembly of
Jamaica. His object was to give the Assembly time
to rescind its resolution, and enable them to direct their
attention to legislation for the benefit of the colony.
He was sure, that if they wished to pursue a wise—if
they wished to pursue a temperate and a conciliatory
course, it would be that of forbearance on the part of
the powerful towards the comparatively weak. By
doing that they would best discharge their duty to the
colony and the country ; and it appeared to him to be
the most dignified conduct, and the wisest conduct the
Imperial Parliament could, after all, adopt. The Noble
and Learned Lord concluded by moving the omission
of the first clause, and resumed his scat amidst loud
cheers.

Lord GLENELG, in the few observations he should
make to their Lordships, would confine himself to the
subject of the Prisons Bill. The Noble and Learned
Lord had stated that he ( Lord Glenelg) had said the
Prisons Bill was part of the abolition law. What he had
stated was, that it was identical with the Abolition
Amendment Bill. Perhaps he had misunderstood the No-
ble and Learned Lord, but his statement would seem
to be that he (Lord Glenelg) had said the Prison Bill
had connexion with the original Abolition Act. His
argument had been that in considering the Prisons Bill
the House had in fact discussed the provisions of the
Abolition Amendment Act, because they were identical
in principle. The Noble and Learned Lord had said
that in the Jamaica Bill of 1834 was contained essen-
tially the provisions of the Prisons Act. He (Lord
Glenelg) had expressly admitted it to be a Bill in many
regards entitled to approbation. He had stated that
the great evil of the Prisons Act of 1834 was not that
it failed in enactments—its principle and provisions were
all right and perfectly accurate as regarded classifica-
tion, cleanliness, information, separation, ventilation,
religious instruction—all these were as distinctly and as
strongly placed as in any Act of the Imperial Parlia-
ment ; but he had stated, and he repeated it, with all
submission to the Noble and Learned Lord, that with
dl that machinery of principle and provision, that Act
was a dead and powerless letter, and why ?—because it
had no principle of execution, no adequate executory
principle.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble and Learned
Lord told them that the Act had precisely the same
power as the present Bill—that it enabled the Governor
to appoint inspectors. He (Lord Glenelg) would state
that the Act of 1834, from the first to the last, con-
tained no recognition of the powers of the Governor.—
( Hear, hear.) The whole execution was committed to
the local authorities, the mayor, the justices, and the
magistrates.
Lord LYNDHURST—The stipendiary mag►s-
trates are now local magistrates, and entitled to act as

inspectors.
Lord GLENELG—The Noble and Learned Lord
enumerated three particulars in which the Prisons Act
exactly corresponded with the Act of 1834—that it
allowed the Governor to make provisions for the regu-
lations of prisons. Now he (Lord Glenelg) bad stated
that the rules of the Prisons Act of 1834 were not bad,
but that there were no means of carrying them into
execution. In proof of that he would refer their Lord-
ships to an extract from one of his despatches, in which
he stated that the Bill was unexceptionable in all its
details, but its operation was paralyzed, because it had
no executory principle—that so long as its executive
was entrusted to the parochial authorities it would be
inoperative. That was fully borne out by the de-
spatches of Lord Sligo and Sir Lionel Smith, who
stated that its provisions were almost unknown in the
workhouses and prisons of the colony ; and Captain
Pringle in his Report, which was made at a subsequent
period, states precisely the same facts.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble and Learned Lord had omitted to allude
to two important points in the Prisons Act, which
were not touched at all in the Bill of 1834. The
one was the power conferred on the Governor of dis-
missing officers of the prisons and workhouses for mis-
conduct. The other was the right of the Governor to
intimate that any prison was not in a fit state for the
reception of prisoners, and from that moment it
should cease to be occupied as such. It was not
unusual to find the prisons in such an insecure state,