House Of Lords, Monday, J...
PARTLIAMENITARY INVTELLIGEANCE. Thc LoUnD CHANCELLOR, the Earl of SHAFTESBuRY, and the Earl of HAnnoRWBY sat as Commissioners, and notified the Royal sswent to the customs duties bill the East India possessions bill, the ecclesiastical beneficesbill, the New South WVales bill, the East Indlia goods bill, the lldedwav canal bill, the Irish grand jury present ments bill, the Fleet-market removal bill, the Alarylebone new street bill, the Kent Life Insurance bill, and several other bills, about thirtv in number. Oa the motion of Ea-l GROSVEN OR, certain returns respecting places. revertians, &c, whilch had not been made, were ordered to be presented forthwitb. The noble earl afterwards alluded to a report, which he said had prevailed, that ministers were lukewarm on the subiect of the improvement of the slave population, and did not in- Xend to rosecute the measures which had been brought forward. He aknow.ledged that the question was one of a very delicate nature, but if nothing should be done before next session, he would himself think it his duty to bring forward a proposition on the subject Lord TORRINGTON presented ,alt adozen petitions from dif- fer!nt narts of Kent, praying for the improvement of the slave po- pulation of the WVest India colonics. On the s'otion of Lord HOLLAND, the Earl Marshal's office bill wsread % thirdl time, and passed. SLat,V3! TRADE LAWSrS' CONSOLIDATION BILL. The Earl .f WESTMORLAND, on the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, rose to oppose its progress until it should obtain furth'er con4ideradon. He observed, that as the bill consisted of 97 folio ,-3ges, the task would be arduous to him, anti its xcmution tedious to their ordLships, were he to go through the whole of it. Tbat, however,v7as not necessary to show the injusticeand absurdity of thebill, and heshoild therefore confine himself to noticing only a few c auses. N'owithstandift m that hehad been one of those who to the last opposed the abolition ofthe slave trade, he sincercly con- curred in all measures necessary for enforcing that abolition. What. ever sentiments heonceentertained circumstanees had since occurred which made him regard the abolition as an act of great wisdom on the part of his Nfajestv's Government. Having stated this, he must beg leave to say, that in all measures connected with that ob- ject their lordthips vere always bound to consider that they were legisating for British subjects and on British property. The pre- sent bill was entitled " An Act for Consolidating the Lawsrelative to the Slave Trade ;" but provisions were introduced which were in no way connected with the slave trade. The first clause he should notice was one which made it felony to lend money to be applied to purposesofthe slavetrade. Itappeared that every man who lent money, orbecamesecuritv for advancesofmoney- which might afterwards be applied t theslave-trade,was,under this act,liable to be tried for felony. He wished to know what was to be heldasevidenceofatransaction of th:is kind? There never bef'ore existed in any civilized country a law by which a man was liable to be tried fer felony, when no felo- nious act was committed. But this very clause lhad already been niade the subject of a single bill, and had been rejected by their lordships in a committee He should be told as a reason for intro- ducing the clause in this bill, that the slave-trade was carried on in defiance of the law. On the contrary, he would assert that since the abolition it was scarcely possible to find a case in which an English- man had been guilty of a breach of the law. He paid no regard to rumrurs and conjectures, but would ask whether, since ihe act of abolition passed, any Englishman had bcen tried at the Old Bailey fer this of}ence ? One or two cases, if they had occurred. would only serve to support his argumen's ; for,e cordiDg to all logical fairncss, exceptio proiet regelurn. The f.ct, however, he believed, swas, that no person had been prosecuted. lere he would call to -e recoleetiott of their lordships the laws relative to pi- -^c=, which were the 27th llenry VIIL, the 11th and h Pf Williamn III., and the 46th of his late Alajesty. I:V the ^ts of William and George III., persons charged with pi- racy were liable to be tried before any Admiralty Court; and con- sequently persons charged under this act might be deprived of the advantage o trdal by jury. Now if a British legislature consented to enact such ~eJa l he should almost begin to doubt that he was in a BEti-h nation. The next clause he should notice was that which prohibited the renoval of 3 slave from one colony to another. Such removal, whether rig,f. or wrong, he must contend had no relation to theslave trade, and noth-ng to do with the ostensible purpose of the bill. This clause was a great violation of the rights of propetty, ;. *n consequence of it, a planter could not send a slave from his es- ta.e in one island, to an estate which he might have in another,with- out ernding to England, and obtaining a ticence frorm the King in cnuncil. Besides, this power of granting a licence only ezetended to the Ist of January, 1827, and by an amendment, to the end of the next session of Parliament. le would be glad to know whether the ,ca,,nists were aware of this clause, which mnade so great an invasion -n their property ? He believed they were just as ignorant of it as hc was sure the majority of their lordships had been before lie yointed it out. Mhat was the policy of a measurc which went the cna,th of confining a erowded population to perhaps an exhausted island? There was surly no little crudty in confining a popula- tion to a soilon which they might bc starved ? The bill'contained ntany other unjust enactments, and was fuD of inconsistencies and .cnntiadiction. He therefore proposed that it be re-committed, in order that it might undergo sufficient consideration, and be rendered a fit act for a British senate to pass. Earl BATHURST defended tie bill. His noble friend had con- itendled that ao British subjects were cencemed in ca-rying on the Scav_treade- If he meant for supplying British colonies with slayep, was little reason to uestion hiis assertion; hut he could not a,,_e. with bis noble frien in the Opinion that British enterprise was no wintreenrgnged in providing slaves for foreign interests. It ap- c2eitd that an.llegal tTaffic was camried on at the lsle of Bourbon and the Mauritius- . With regard to the knowledge in the colonies of the clause aZiost the removal of slaves, the plante.-s knew a year -3gO that enema a me:tre was to be proposed, and no remonstrance Iad been made against it. ffe had always xaintained that tle slaves and their posteritywere the property ot their lniasters; but hle'could rnor go so ar as to say that they were therefore to be considered as ordinary goods and chattels, liable to be removed at any time from theplacc inwhich they had been born and brought up. Rt5gard wa; to ibe had to the feelings of those unfortun3te beings, and to the Trmeans of promo'ing their moral improvetaeliLt. The E-arl of - ROSSLYN, though he approved of the consolida- tio3 of laws, must admit that it was imrproper t2 intrnduce, under the precence of consolidation, entirely nev-mtattfer. He admitted the w ct that thse Wet india planters had beete affiorded the opportunity ef remonstrating a5ain5t the clause of reloval; and if they did not come forward to object to it. he mpst :o fess that he didl not think that he or any of their lordshlips isere called upon to stated up in op- Nwvitiomz to it. The meMasre, however:,vould umdoubtedly very se- ajosly affect WYest Indip propeft.<Uaob>oct to it au another ground-iaiely, that R.Was injuribus tothe slaves themselves as it wopld be to thc labouritsg ptslation of any country, if they were! confined to one spot. On thlat account he objectedtethe rluse rv'wi*wlpb took, after tbe closeof the session oE 1a, from thle Kiiig:in-counil the power of conscnti-nf-o_emnovala. - psr ought to be talgen2 totpre . vent the propfietors fjom-'separatik.ltusband atud wife,.parents and children-;, but at the satie time, ministers oughtto retaMn the power of permitting removals whichm ight bacome indispensably aecessany 'in periods of'scarditv ine dioardqus of eaNSrtOWNlooked w~ittt gfeat anialety to the passing of this bill, and his approval of it was chiefly founded on that clause which the noble earl who spoke first, and 1iis noble friend regarded as mr,st objectionable. Being one of those who thoueAt it would be wrong rashly to open a door totrmancipation,but beink also persuaded that Eome alteration in the p'resenlt condition of the slaves was no less necessary to the West Int iatproprietors than to those unfortunate beings themnselves, he was tvilling to adopt any measute which -might seem likely, to promeise and lay a ground fur that moral improvement on which ie alone re'hed for bettering the condition of the population, and giving security to the colonies. So longas any powerof removal was allowed to exist, the worst part of the slave-trade would remain; because that po- er presented an in- superable barrier to the moral improvement and civilization of the slaves. To encourage marriage-to instil into their minds a desire for the acquisition of property-to teach them to feel an interest in the society^in which they 1ived, were the objects to which the great- est attention ought to be directed but to accomplisls those objects, security must be afforded to the slaves. Unless security against re- moval wvas given, it would be impossible to excite in thel minds of slave-population thcse feelings whichi would not only elevate thmcm in the tscale ot mnoral beings, but render them nmore valuable 'to thd planters themselves. No objectioni had been stated, and nonc coldd be stated, to the clause, except thse dtif. ficuli y in wlhkh the planters might be placed in a period of scarcity ; but tlis wag in fact its recoMmendation; for it woild im- nose upon thle master thie necessitY of' selecting certain slaves fur emancipation. Thus there would be created by degrees a class of persons, whiclh, under suclh circumstances, could only be fornied by degrees-he meant a class of free labourers; who would be at liberty to go to any island they pleased, and offer their se-vices where thev might be most wanted. The objection, then, was answered by the fict, that to provide for the gradual emancipation of slaves was to provide against the very evil which the noble earl opposite an his noble friend apprehended would arise. In prDportion as occa- sional manuimission became the interest of the planter, p;epqratson would be made for a general but gradual system of emnancipation, which was to be looketd forward to. On considering that in conse- quence of the passing of this bill, the slave wonild no longer be ex- posed to remnoval at the caprice of an individual-that it would give hini a real connexion with the soilon o liclw he lived, and secure to hins the enjoynment of those social relations frox which the improve- nient of his iminti and the cultivation of a *oral character Were tntl. cipated, he felt that their lordships would be advancing one step in the great work of emancipation; and that that step would be one which they could take with perfect safety. Lord 1014,A ND beliovedl that, on the whole, the prolibitory clause was a wholesome one; though he would have been better pleased if there had been sonme modifications ?nd exceptions in it; but considering that it would be beneficial, he should sipport it. Lord CALT fIORPE regretted that the noble earl (the iarl of Westmorland) shoyid have de'erred, till thelast stage of the bill, to state thc numerous objections wlich he appeared to entertain against it; and considering the persevering opposition of that noble earl Io the measure of the abolition o' the slave trade (which seem- ed to have survived the abolition of that trafEc by law), be thought the fiiendes of the abolition could hardly hc expected to give im- plicit credit to hsg declaration, that in wishing for the reommit- of this bill. he did notsleclare himself hostile to the passing of it. Hei (Lord Calthorpe) thought the present measure necessary to give effect to those which the legislature had already approved: he should therefore support it. Thie question was put, and strangers were excluded, but on our return below the bar, we understood that no division had ;.ken place, and after a few words from Earl GRosvENoa, thi bilt was read a third time and passed. Lord HOLLAND presented a netition from the pawnbrokers of Nottingham, against the equitable loar bill, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. AIARINE INSURANCE. Lord BEXLEY moved the third reading of the marine insurance bill.I The LORD CHANCELLOR proposed the clauses, of which he gave notice and described on Friday last, viz.- " H Provided always, and be it enacted, that it shal not be lawful for any society or partnership, composed of more than six persons, trom and after tse passing ot this act, to contract or agree for the insurance of any ship, or goods, or of any itstercst therein, until a menmorial shall be enrolled on oath in the higls Court of Chancery, containing the names and (tescripdons of the several members Uf such societv or partnership; rind that when a transfet is made of any share or shares of ansy member or members of anid in the capital or stock of such partnerslhip or society, a memorial thereof shall bh en- rolled in like manner within three months afier such transfer, conitaining the names and description of the original member or members, and of the person to whoni the shares or interest are trans- ferred; or otherwise such transfer shall be null and void, and of no etrert- " 2. Previded always, and be it also enacted that any pe,son or persons, a member or members of such partnersiip or society, whose name ornames shiall be expressed in any such enrolment as aforesaid, shall be. and shall continue liable in law and equity to all actions, suits, iudgments, and execudons for the perfornrance of any contract, claim, or denmand, made or arising whilst such person or persons was or were members of such partnership or society as aforesaid, until a memorial or me- inorialsof the transfer of the share or sbares of such member or members shall have been enrolled in the High Cousit of Chancery as aforesaid, and execution on any judgment or decree in any such action or suit obtained against any such rember or members may be issued and ca:rieAl into effect against any person or persens who was or were a member or members thereof, at the time the contract, claim, or demaNd was made, or arose, in respect of which such action or suit was brought, or against any member or memhers for thetime being, of such partnership or society, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, " 3. And whereas great difficultdes may attend the effectualy enforcing of just demands a ainst such partnerships or societies as may be tbrmed under the au1Isority of this act, where the number of the members of such partnerslhips or societies is considerable; be it therefore cnacted, that in all rases in which the number of members shall exceed , and in which thicre shall be occasion to sue the persons forming such partnerships or societies, the plaintiff' in any action or suit in equity shall not be obliged to make, as parties, defendants to any such,action or suit, more than two persons whose names are so enrolled as aforesaid, and such two persons shall be deemed and taken in all courts ot' justice to represent the whole of the members of such partnership or society, for the purpose of carrying on effectually any such action or suit to a judgiment or de- cree; and in case judgment or decree shall be obtaintd in such ac- tion or suit against any two persons, members of such partnership or society, it shall be competent for the person so obtaining judg- ment, to issue execution tliereon, or to enforce the decree agaiast aill and eacch of the members of such partnership or society, in the same manner, and as fully and effectually, as if such members had been, together with the two other members,defendantsin such ac.ion orsuit. " 4. Provided always, and be it also enacted, that when any such partnership or society as a'fbresaid shall consist of mere than six members, it shall be lawful for ther to sue in law and equity by the secretary or any member thereof, on behalf of the partnershipor society; and such suit shall be aS effectual to aU intents and purposes for the benefit of such partnership or society as if the suit were car- ried on in the names of all the earties thereof: and the several mem- bers thereof shalL, as well as such secretary or member in whose name such siit may be brought, be responsible to the defendant or defendants in such stit for costs, arid in al other respects as if they had all been parties to such suit." lIis lordship declared that his first wish was that these clauses should now be agreed to, but if the sense of the house was against him, he tdid not mean to press it: but lhe desired it might be distinct- ly understood, in order that no man might hereafter complain of be- ing subjected to an c.r postfacto law, that he would in the nest sesssion of Parliament bring forward a general measure to put aU companies under the restrictions wbich these clauses imposed. The Earl of LlVERPOOL said, this was a bill to do away with the charters of two insurance companies, and unless there was any point of good faith or strong motive of policy, he did not see any ob- jectiou to themeasure.The house had heard counsel on tbepart ofthe companies,and had determined that there wasno such ground,and that it would be right to leave the law as to insurances as it stood in the common law before these charters were granted; when, therefore,their lordships should have passed tlhis act, the law would be as it was be- fore any monopoly existed ; if, therefore, his noble and learnedfriend thought proper to bring in such a general law as he had mentioned, he(LordLiverpool) could see no objection to suchageneral law being proposed, neither could he see any objection to the proposed enact- mnents, but he did object to their being attached to a bill which did not go to grant any new monopoly, but to do away with a monopoly which already existed. He did not think there would be teme to discuss the clauses at this advanced period of the session; he hoped, therefore, his noble and learned friend would bridig them forward in the shape of' a separate measure 'in the next session of Parliament. He (Lord 'Liverpool) did not ob- ject to the principle of the clauses, but he did not think it proper that they fsiinuld be attachedto this act. Lord REPESDALE contended thlat the provisions of this actdid in effect make a new law. He w.s convinced of the necessity of these clauses, and lie firmily b.elieved, that if'tbey were not attached to this bill, they never would be passed till the mischievous effects resulting from the want of sach resttictions should be severely felt. Lord BEXLEY contendedtithat no inmenvenirtice could possibly arise fromn p.-stponing the clauses to another session of Parliament: he hoped, therefore, his noble and learned friend would consent to withdrawing them at present. The LOR) CHANCELLOR said, that if it were intended to establish any gigantic insurance company, the advice that a lawyer would lhave given to the parties would havc been this-" (Get these chartered companies demolished first, and then, during the recess of Parliament, you rmay establish your conspany undier what regula- tions you please: if you warxt to form an Atlas Company, give me this little bill, and I will'move the wlhole world." If, therefore, during the recess any combinations of perons should arise to defeat the objects he had in view, lhe hoped to have the assistance of Parlia- ment to pass -ome measure; and if the Parliament did its duty, they would be able, in spite pf the whole ol the mnniied men of the country, to do what was proper tinder the circumisstances. l1e hoped he should be able to satisfy their lorasliips, as he was sure the pub- lie were satisfied, that witholt some restrictions suc&i cornpnnies would be the most ruinous nuisance ever known. He should now nierely move that the clauses be read profernra. Tle clauses were accordingly read and withdrawn, and the b'ill read the third time and passed. The rUarqui:s of LANSDOWN complained that thle report of the committee appoiisted to inquire into the state of kreland harl not beec printed, ailtlou'gh be would not have agiced to passing the insurrection act on any othergroulnds than those stated in that report. WELCH JUDI('ATUTE. Lord DYNEVOR nmoved the order of the d'yv- for tl;e third read- ing of flie biUl for enlarging the powers of the J'udges of Great lPsr sions in %Vples. After a few words from hord CiwD oit, the house divided, the numbers were:- Content, 8 l Not content, 9-Majority, 5. The bill was then read a third time, and passed,-Adjoened. HOUSE OF LTORDS, M5ONDAY. JUNE 21.