SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADF.] | vessel carrying a neutral flag. Let their House in Committee on the Slave-Trade Lord Lyndhurst would then state the amendment he should propose, the object of which was to confine the operation of the bill to Portuguese vessels, and piratical vessels engaged in the slave-tradethat was to say, vessels having no national character. For this purpose he proposed to omit the words, "That in case her Majesty should please to issue orders to her cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or vessels of any state whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having on board or the masters whereof should neglect to produce on demand papers, showing to the subjects of what state such vessels belong," And to substitute the words, "That in case her Majesty should please to issue orders to her cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in slave-trade, or any other vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and not justly entitled to claim the protection of any flag." Lord Brougham said, he understood it would be convenient if he were to call attention to the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, as they all had but one object. He was sure that he had not the slightest idea of making this a party question, any more than his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman). This was no party question, and the best proof of that was, the division of last night, when some of the most constant supporters of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) voted against him. He was quite sure, that the noble Duke had, as much as any man in England, the strongest desire to put down this human traffic. He wished to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the difficulty that would be created if his amendment were agreed to. It would only be necessary for a Portuguese slaver or a pirate to hoist the French flag, and from that moment they might sail in safety. If this clause were altogether omitted, and if the bill itself were burned, the Crown could give orders to carry into effect the object sought to be effected by this bill, the only thing was, that the amendment of his noble and learned Friend would leave the masters and captains of cruisers without any security or indemnity in cases where they might seize a wrong vessel, which they might have reason to suppose was a slave Lordships once obtain a clear idea of what the difficulties were, and what bearing upon those difficulties the bill had, and what bearing it had not, and could not have, and let them define the bounds of the royal prerogative, and the legislative power of Parliament, as respected the rights of neutrals, and every part of the discussion would then be easy and plain. Whatever they enacted in this statute, did not signify as regarded America, France, or any other country, a single farthing. This bill was intended merely to regulate their own courts for their own purposes. This Act of Parliament could not injure our foreign relations, or endanger the peace of the country, whether they passed it in its present shape or otherwise. The right of seizure and search did not depend upon this Act of Parliament, but upon the orders of the Crown. Lord Lyndhurst said, that by the bill as it stood, not only Portuguese vessels, but the vessels of all nations, were subject to seizure and search, and this search, as regards the other nations, was in contravention of treaties. It might be said,. how were they to distinguish piratical vessels from other vessels? This was a matter that rested with the Ministers of the Crown, and it was their duty, if a vessel were improperly seized, to make the necessary explanations. He Lord Ellenborough opposed the amendment, and cited a decision delivered in 1817 by the eminent Admiralty Judge, Sir W. Scott, in the case of "Le Louis,' which was strongly against permitting the right of search in time of peace. implored of their Lordships not to take the first step in this novel course of legislation, nor authorize by their act that which he held to be contrary to the law of nations, which would excite the jealousy of every other maritime power, and would not ultimately succeed in putting down the evil which it was intended to suppress, while it would most probably have the effect of involving this country in an universal war. The Lord-Chancellor said, that the bill did not touch in the slightest degree the right of search, as alluded to by the learned Judge, whose opinion the noble Lord had cited. Captains, in time of peace or war, might run the same risk which they would under this bill. How were they to ascertain whether a vessel was privateering or Portuguese without instituting a search? The matter must be left to the discretion of the officer in command, and that was simply what this bill proposed. If the right of search was confined to vessels supposed to be Portu guese, it would in effect legalize piracy, because vessels would take care not to have any evidence to show that they belonged to any nation whatever. The amendment would entirely protect all nations who, by treaty, had a right to say this country had no right to interfere, and allowed an interference with Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, against which a case had been made out, and with pirates in whose favour no noble Lord had spoken. The Earl of Wicklow observed, that the argument of the noble and learned Lord did not answer the objections taken by his noble Friend near him (Lord Ellenborough). This bill gave no right of search which did not at present exist, but it appeared to give a Parliamentary sanction to the Government, exercising a power which the Crown ought to exercise on the responsibility of the Government, and not under the authority of this provision. The great objection was, that the bill did not give a right, but that it sanctioned a practice. He objected also to the amendment suggested in the second clause, because he thought officers guilty of error ought not to be protected even in their own courts of justice. He therefore hoped the amendment in the second clause would not be persevered in. Lord Lyndhurst said, he should persevere in the amendment to the second clause, because he thought, that a captain and crew, acting on the authority of Government, should not be responsible for that act, but that if any act was committed which should be contrary to the law of nations, the matter ought to be left between the two states, and compensation should be made by the state, and not by the parties who had acted under its authority. That was the object of his second amendment. The Earl of Devon should be ready to agree in the amendment of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), if he was first informed of the manner in which it was intended to advise her Majesty to exercise the Royal prerogative, but he objected to the principle which sought to sanction by Act of Parliament an unlimited and undefined right about to be exercised against all the world. No grounds at all had been laid which ought to induce their Lordships to believe, that the Government would do right in advising orders for general search, and for these reasons he objected to the bill as it stood. Lord Ellenborough said, that by the treaty with France, this country was only empowered to employ as limited a number of ships as France in the suppression of the slave-trade; therefore, if any greater number of vessels were employed, those vessels could not act against French ships engaged in that trade. The noble Earl last night appeared to be struck with astonishment because he (Lord Ellenborough) had asked to see the instructions, but, notwithstanding the horror the noble Earl might feel, the very first time any capture under this Act was brought under adjudication, those instructions must be produced, or no adjudication could take place. The Act, then, ought to be in conformity with the instructions, because the officers would be indemnified only according to the instructions. Therefore he did not think it was a very unreasonable thing to ask for the instructions, when they were legislating upon them, for otherwise they might pass a bill which would be totally inapplicable to them. The Earl of Minto observed, that it was perfectly true, that by the treaty with France this country was tied down to the employment of a certain number of ships only in the suppression of the slave-trade. But there was a number of other ships employed in putting down the trade under other flags. The clauses of the bill were amended, and agreed to. House resumed. BIRMINGHAM POLICE.] On the Motion of Viscount Duncannon, the House went into Committee on the Birmingham Police Bill (No. 2). On clause 1, Lord Brougham said, in consequence of objections having been raised to vesting certain powers with the town-council of Birmingham, on the ground that the charter was likely to be set aside, he intended to propose, that every part of the bill should remain precisely as it was, except that part which related to the nomination and appointment of the superin. District Constables. Read a third time:-Militia Pay; Rogue Money Assessment (Scotland); Stage Carriages; Soap Duties Regulation; Dublin Police. tendent of the police, and to give that power jointly to the Secretary of State and the town-council, so that the latter should be at liberty to name a superintendent, subject to the approval or rejection of the Secretary of State. If the town-council should not nominate officer within a certain number of days, then the Secretary of State should at once appoint one. That would provide for the Petitions presented. By Mr. J. Ellis, Mr. O'Connell, and an contingency, if it should arise, of the charter not being valid, and it would meet the suggestion which the noble Duke opposite threw out last night. He thought nothing could prevent their Lordships from agreeing to this proposition but a deep-rooted distrust of the town-council of Birmingham, which had done nothing to deserve it. He was told, that the amount of the salary to the superintendent was strongly objected to. Certainly, 800l. a-year was a large sum; in other places the salaries of superintendents of police ranged from 150l. to 400l. a-year, which last was the highest salary. In Liverpool, a much larger place, it was but 400l., and he did not know why it should be twice as much at Birmingham. But he was afraid their Lordships could not alter that part of the bill, and he only mentioned it as an additional ground for agreeing to his amendment. Viscount Duncannon thought it was not unreasonable, that as the bill was to last only two years, a liberal salary should be given in order to secure a competent person for the office. Lord Ellenborough said, his objection to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord was one of principle. He could not consent to divide the responsibility in the manner proposed. Several clauses of the Bill agreed to. HOUSE OF LORDS, MINUTES.) Bills. The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:-Ecclesiastical Districts; Election Petitions Trial; Lower Canada Government; Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Preferments; Postage Duties; Slave-Trade Treaties; Prisons; Soldiers' Pensions; Stannaries Courts (Cornwall); Custody of Infants; Imprisonment for Debt Act Amendment; Metropolis Police; Militia Ballots Suspen sion; Tithe Commutation Act Amendment; Sheriffs Exemption; Real Estates Liability Extension; Prisons (Scotland); Jurors and Juries (Ireland); Public Works (Ireland); Bankrupts' Estates (Scotland); Shannon Navigation Highway Act Amendment; Highways and Turnpike Roads Returns; Turnpike Tolls; Timber Ships; London City Police.--Read a first time: County and HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:-Duke of Marlborough's Pension. Read a third time:-Corporate Property (Ireland). Mr. Redington, from a number of places, against the Renewal of the Bank of Ireland Charter.-Py Sir R. H. Inglis, from several places, for the better Observance of the Sabbath, against forwarding Country Letters on the Sabbath, and against several of the proposed Postoffice Arrangements. BANK OF IRELAND.] Mr. F. Baring moved, that the House do on Monday next, at 12 o'clock, proceed with the Committee on the Bank of Ireland Bill. Mr. O'Connell felt called upon to say, that such a measure was too important to be proceeded with at 12 o'clock; and on the question that it be then proceeded with, he was resolved to take the sense of the House. Sir T. Fremantle wished to know, if her Majesty's Government seriously intended to go on with the bill? He was sure the House must agree with him that the proceedings which took place yesterday and the day before, were not creditable to the Queen's Government. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not now in his place, had intimated his intention of going on with the bill. That right hon. Gentleman must, of course, be the best judge of whether Parliament ought, at the present season of the year, be kept sitting for such a purpose. If he thought that the Session should be so continued, then surely the Government ought to take the proper means for securing a sufficient attendance of Members. Whatever course Ministers thought proper to pursue, it was essential that there should be a distinct understanding upon the subject. If it were proposed to proceed with the bill as a Cabinet measure, it should have his support; but to go on as they had been proceeding for some time past, was merely giving a daily triumph to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and placing themselves in a ridiculous position. Mr. Ellis regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not then in his place, in order that they might have some clear understanding upon the subject. He had received several letters from Ireland on the subject, complaining that sufficient time had not been allowed for the examination of the bill, and saying that meetings would be held, and petitions for warded, if the parties had any reason to think that there remained sufficient time to produce any beneficial effect. He hoped that, under the circumstances, they would not proceed with the bill. ! i Mr. F. Baring said, that he had nothing to take away from, or add to, what his right hon. Friend had already stated upon the subject. As to their not having made a House yesterday, he could only say that which every person present knew to be the fact, that the sole cause of such an occurrence, was the mistake which had taken place with respect to the commission not having been issued sufficiently early. There were Members enough; they might, if they thought proper, have made a House in Parliament-street. Sir R. Inglis observed, that there was only one member of the Cabinet present when the House was counted out, and of the Members then present, not a fourth pressed on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some of the most importaut measures in which the interests of the public were involved, were discussed in the House when the number of Members present varied from thirty to sixty a-day. He therefore hoped her Majesty's Government would see the propriety of pointing out to the House on Monday next, what they intended to do during the remainder of the Session, because the mode in which the business of the country was carried on, was in the highest degree unsatisfactory. The Solicitor-General said, the only question was, whether they should proceed with the bill at 12 o'clock or at 4. The bill must come on at some time on Monday, and he thought it would be more convenient that it should come on at the earliest period. He therefore hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press his opposition, because it could not answer any purpose. Mr. O'Connell would yield at once, if he saw any disposition to do justice to his constituents. He heard Gentlemen on part were usually supporters of the Go- both sides of the House, talk very flip pantly of the Government not overpowering the opposition to the bill by their numbers. Now he would put it to the vernment. His hon. Friend near him had less he received from a member of the Cabinet a distinct intimation that it was to be made a Government bill, and that it was to be supported with the whole strength of the Administration, he for one should not be at the trouble of coming there to give it a support which would not be of much avail. He thought that they ought to be told whether the measure was to be a bill supported by Government or brought in by an individual. Mr. Gisborne thought the case appeared to be like one of assault, and the question was, who struck the first blow. In his opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had struck the first blow, by bringing in the bill contrary to agreement, and at an unseasonable time; he therefore could not condemn the steps taken to defeat it, and thought counting out the House was a fair proceeding. that way, if it were a question concerning the English people, and what would be said if in a case of that sort, any Irish Member were to get up and say to the Government, "Why don't you bring down your forces, and outvote these English members?" He would certainly persevere in his opposition, and would move as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months. Mr. Kemble observed, that no one had recommended any overpowering of the opposition to the bill; it had merely been observed, that it was too much to expect that a Government measure should mainly depend for its support on Members of that House who were wholly unconnected with the Administration. The question now before them, was a choice between 12 o'clock and 4. He thought, that if the object of the hon. and learned Member was to obtain a full attendance of Members, that attendance was as likely to be obtained at 12 as at 4 o'clock. But it was useless discussing the question in that desultory way, and the House had better Mr. Wakley said, it was utterly impos- The House divided: - Ayes 34; Noes ther when a lay patron presented to a 9. Majority 25. List of the AYES. Adam, Admiral Bernal, R. Broadley, II. Chichester, J. P. B. Donkin, Sir R. S. Grey, rt. hon. Sir C. Hill, Lord A. М. С. Hodges, T. L. Hoskins, K. Howard, P. Η. Hutt, W. Duncombe, T. Gisborne, T. Inglis, Sir R. H. living, the people of the parish had a right to be consulted, and to put a veto, if they pleased, on the presentation? That question was strenuously argued in the court below, and the Court of Session had decided, that the people had no such right. The case had afterwards come before their Lordships on an appeal from that decision. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and himself, had heard the most learned counsel on this question, and Rutherford, rt. hn. A. without any consultation together, in fact Stanley, hon. E. J. without any communication whatsoever Steuart, R. between them on the subject, they came to Surrey, Earl of Talfourd, Sergeant a clear decision, affirming the judgment Troubridge, Sir E. T. of the court below, negativing the right of Pryme, G. Rich H. Rolfe, Sir R. M. TELLERS. Baring, F. T. the people of each parish to decide on the fitness of the candidate, finding, that the patron had the sole right to present, and deciding, that the presbytery were bound to admit on his trials the person so presented. In fact, he had never seen a Somerville, Sir W. M. clearer case. It seemed to be all one List of the NOES. Redington, T. Ν. Scholefield, J. Vigors, N. A. O'Connell, D. TELLERS. Ellis, J. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, August 19, 1839. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a first time:- Corporate Pro way. The only ground raised against the admission of the individual in this case was, that the people had not consented. But their Lordships, by their decision, had negatived the existence of such a right of veto on the part of the people, in accordance with the law of the Church of Scotland, and the law of the land, and, therefore, the ground thus assumed was good for perty. Read a second time:-County and District Con- nothing. Since that decision, however, stables; Bolton Police. - Read a third time:-Birmingham Police; Joint Stock Banking Companies; New South Wales; Slave-Trade Suppression. Petitions presented. By Earl Stanhope, from a place in Cambridgeshire, for Altering the present method of choosing Poor-law Guardians; also from the Society for Preventing the use of Climbing Boys in Chimnies, against that practice. By the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Lyndhurst, from several places, against the Manchester Police Bill.-By Lord Brougham, from the Salesmen of Covent-garden Market, for Including the Approaches to that place in the Metropolis Improvement Bill. CHURCH OF SCOTLAND-AUCHTERARDER CASE.] Lord Brougham said, the subject which he was about to bring under the notice of their Lordships (the proceed a meeting of the General Assembly had been held, at which the Lord High Commissioner was present, on behalf of the Crown. It should, however, be recollected, that the Crown was not considered as the head of the Church of Scotland more than any one of their Lordships. The Lord High Commissioner was never consulted in anyone way. He was merely present, but had no authority whatever. He was merely informed, that the Assembly had adjourned, in order, that he might know when he was to meet them again. The General Assembly, however, ings in the Auchterarder case) was one met. Things were there stated which that was viewed with great interest by a were not according to law, and many obnumber of their fellow subjects in Scot-servations were made, that should not have land. He should, therefore, in order that been made, against the decision that had been pronounced, and the grounds on which it stood. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than such a proceeding. At that Assembly, a resolution had passed, it might be rightly understood, briefly state the leading facts of the case, and then ask of his noble Friend near him a question, to which, he apprehended, only one answer could be given. The case, which, although in terms it professed to which had recently come before their Lord- obey the decision of the House, yet really ships, involved this question, namely, whe. I placed obstructions in the way of its au |