SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND)

BILL.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE moved the Second Reading of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill, which, he said, whilst simplifying the administration of justice, did not alter the principle of the existing law. The Bill repealed wholly or partially several Acts regarding summary jurisdiction in Ireland; and undoubtedly it in some degree extended the power of magistrates, but in certain cases the right of appeal was given. No material alteration, however, being made in the existing law, it was not necessary to call attention to any particular point, especially as he anticipated no serious objection to the measure. The Bill had been prepared with great care; it had been thoroughly sifted and examined by a Committee of the House of Commons, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to it.

case, and should be limited to such exigency. He trusted that the defects and omissions which he had pointed out in the Bill would be corrected and supplied in the Committee. If those objections were removed, no one would support the Bill with more alacrity than himself.

The EARL of WICKLOW was in favour of the Bill, and should be loth to have its passing this Session endangered by the proposal of any Amendments. His noble Friend was, he thought, mistaken in the principal objection which he had urged against the Bill. Under Lord Wellesley's Act, passed in Earl Grey's Administration, a single magistrate was empowered to act in petty sessions. From the circumstances of Ireland, and from its circumstances in every part of it, whether distressed or not, it would be impossible to carry on the petty sessions, if one magistrate could not act by himself. He recommended that a proviso should be introduced into this Bill to this effect, that nothing in the Bill should enable a single magistrate to act in petty sessions, except where he was authorised so to act at present. The Bill would be so beneficial to the administration of justice at the sessions that he hoped it would pass with

After a few words from the Earl of GLENgall,

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE said, that there were various parts of Ireland in which, if the other magistrates did not act, or were unwilling to act, and if this provision enabling a single magistrate to act were not carried, they might as well shut up the doors of all the courts of petty sessions in the country.

After a short explanation by Lord MONTEAgle,

LORD MONTEAGLE gave a qualified assent to this Bill, which in many respects was a great improvement on the existing law. It did not, however, embrace all the points on which reform ought to be introduced. The question of trespass was entirely overlooked in it. Besides, it in-out delay. troduced not only a discrepancy between the statute law of England and Ireland, but also a discrepancy in the principles of the common law applicable to both countries. This Bill, for the first time in the history of Ireland, enabled a single magistrate to act in petty sessions. It conferred on a single magistrate all the privileges and all the authority which had hitherto been invested in two or more magistrates at petty sessions; such a provision might be necessary in some parts of Ireland, and for a time, but it ought to be limited to those districts, and to a certain duration, and ought to be considered as made for an exceptional case. As an exceptional case, he would support it. He would not confer on a single magistrate in Ireland power which they would not confer on a single magistrate in England; and he used that expression without intending to cast any slur upon the magistracy of Ireland. He was of opinion that the stipendiary magistrates of that country should not be made its only acting magistrates. This Bill gave to a single magistrate the power of adjudicating corporal punishment on juvenile offenders. Now, such a power could only be justified by the exigency of the VOL. CXIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

The EARL of LUCAN said, this was a most valuable measure; and every one in Ireland ought to be thankful to the Government for it. He quite disagreed with the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) in thinking that one magistrate being empowered to hold petty sessions was an evil; on the contrary, he thought it would be a great benefit. In the unfortunate county with which he was connected, they would frequently not have had a petty sessions at all if there had not been a stipendiary magistrate. Something should be done to let magistrates know that, if they continued in the commission of the peace, they must attend petty sessions. It was the fault of the Government that they had 2 H

not insisted upon the attendance of magis- only two instances since 1836 of any part trates before.

Bill read 2a.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION BILL.

Commons Amendments on the Bill considered; and agreed to as far as Clause 13, with Amendments.

The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY proposed an Amendment on the 13th clause of the Bill as amended by the Commons. This clause, as it passed the House of Lords, kept the common fund and the episcopal fund apart, but the Amendment of the Commons amalgamated them. The most rev. Prelate suggested, in page 6, line 39, of the Bill as returned from the Commons, to leave out certain words in the clause of the Commons, and to insert the following in their stead:

of it being invested in land; and those two instances were cases in which two sums of 1,000l. had been so invested. If these two funds were to be combined, the whole amount would be absorbed in increasing small livings annually; and when they asked for funds to be appropriated to the support of new bishoprics, it would be said that there were no funds, and that would be a just answer. The Amendment of the House of Commons was, in point of fact, neither more nor less than an insidious attempt to prevent the organisation of the Church ever being made more perfect than it was at present, or more adequate to meet the wants of an increasing population.

The BISHOP of OXFORD thought it highly desirable that the funds should be kept separate as heads of account, and "Be it enacted, that from and after the pass-ment should see fit to institute a new then, if in the course of any year Parliaing of this Act all such moneys as shall not have

been applied to the purposes of the said first recited Act, or other episcopal purposes, shall be deemed applicable to the purposes of the common fund mentioned in the said secondly recited Act, and shall from year to year be carried to and form part of such common fund."

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE regretted that he could not concur in the most rev. Prelate's proposition. On the contrary, he perfectly agreed in the Commons Amendment that the joint funds should be made applicable to the wants of the Church at large. If the most rev. Prelate's Motion were adopted, that the episcopal part of the fund should be set aside every year and appropriated to episcopal purposes only, nothing would be left for the promotion of the general efficiency of the Church by the augmentation of small livings.

bishoprick, there would be a fund ready to apply to that purpose. He had heard by the most rev. Prelate, and he trusted no objection to the Amendment proposed that the House would agree to it.

EARL GREY objected to the adoption of a proviso, the effect of which would be indirectly to imply that Parliament was of opinion that an addition should be made to the present number of bishops. He considered that those districts where there was now a want of clerical superintendence— and he knew of many such in his own part of the country-had the first claim on this fund after provision had been made for the existing bishops.

The BISHOP of SALISBURY spoke in favour of his most rev. Friend's proposition.

ment:-Contents 22; Not-Contents 37: Their Lordships divided on the AmendMajority 15.

Leinster
Norfolk

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

The EARL of POWIS said, that their Lordships were now asked to amalgamate two funds which had hitherto been kept separate, and that too with this fact before them, that the Ecclesiastical Commission, Lord Chancellor to which had been intrusted the duty of forming new dioceses, and providing funds for those who presided over them, had never met once for that purpose since the last Parliament was dissolved, and the present Parliament assembled. What chance then was there, if the Amendment of the Commons were approved of by their Lordships, of the performance of the promise made by the Government relative to the creation of new bishoprics? The common fund was already absorbed, and the mode of distributing it was by annual grant. There were

Clanricarde
Donegal

Lansdowne

EARLS.

Besborough

Bruce
Carlisle
Chichester
Devon
Granville
Effingham
Grey

Gosford

Leitrim

Minto
Morley
St. Germans
Scarborough
Strafford
Suffolk
Waldegrave
Wicklow

BARONS.

Bateman
Brougham
Camoys
Dufferin
Elphinstone
Eddisbury

Erskine

Foley
Monteagle
Montfort

Overstone
Saye and Sele
Wharncliffe.

Amendment negatived; other Amendments as far as Clause 16 agreed to, with

Amendments.

lations respecting the immigration of Africans into the West India colonies, and more particularly into Jamaica. By the existing regulations African immigrants could only be bound by contract to their employers for one year, whereas three years were absolutely necessary. In the first On Clause 16 (the Endowment of Deans), year the immigrants were, to a certain exThe BISHOP of SALISBURY moved an tent, useless. They generally arrived in a Amendment, the effect of which was to sickly condition, often covered with sores, leave the arrangement of the salaries of almost always unused to the business upon the Deans of York, Salisbury, and Here- which they were employed, and intractable, ford, as originally proposed by the Bill. and in consequence of their inability to laThe clause as originally introduced had for bour, and the expense of medical attenits object to remove doubts, not only as to dance, he had often known, the employer the present but all future deans; but, as out of pocket for the first year. If the altered by the Commons, the doubts which contract were allowed to extend for three it had been the object to guard against years, however, these disadvantages would would in future cases necessarily arise. He be overcome. He had always contended had therefore prepared an Amendment, that the African labourers were by far the the effect of which would be to restore the best adapted to the cultivation of the soil clause to the state in which it was origi- in the West Indies-decidedly preferable nally sent down to the Commons. If, how-to the Coolies, against the introduction of ever, the noble Marquess would consent to strike a mean between the salaries of the Deans of York, Salisbury, and Hereford, on the one hand, and of Canterbury, Winchester, and Rochester, on the other, he (the Bishop of Salisbury) would not press his Amendment on the Honse.

Thursday, August 8, 1850. MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.-For Lambeth, William Williams, Esq.

whom he had always set his face. The state of the labouring population in Jamaica was deserving of the serious and paternal attention of the Government. He did not come there claiming protection, but he thought that as a West India proprietor he was entitled to ask the Government to assist in regulating the supply of labour; and he feared that if the consideration of that question was delayed much longer, the most lamentable consequences would follow.

MR. HUME said, the statement of his hon. Friend, he was sure, was too true. The neglect and want of attention of the colonial authorities had brought on those evils. He was ready to state, on the part of the people of Trinidad, that they wanted no favour; they only wanted that the same laws which affected vagrants in this country should be carried out there. They wanted labour to be free; at the present moment it was restricted. He could not see why labourers should not be imported from the coast of Africa. They were slaves there, but the moment they got to our co

PUBLIC BILLS.-2a Crime and Outrage Act (Ireland) Continuance (No. 2); Transfer of Improvement Loans (Ireland); Lough Corrib Improve-lonies they would be free, and if three years ment Company Compensation (Ireland). Reported.-Deanery of St. Burian Division. 3a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Customs.

contracts were necessary, he thought they ought to be allowed. The labourers would be under the protection of magistrates paid by this country, and they would have all the rights of freemen. There was a prejudice against importing slaves from the coast of Africa, which he thought had just grounds when slavery existed in our colonies, but he could see no ground for it now. Unless something was done for the colonies,

they would soon become like St. Domingo, | terested in property in the West Indies, of no value either to any one there or in that unless labour were obtained under the mother country. He had often said, longer contracts, it would not be found why should they not be allowed to have beneficial to the employer. Under these labourers from the coast of Africa? The circumstances his noble Friend had sancchange would be decidedly beneficial to the tioned contracts for a term of three years labourers. They were slaves in Africa, in British Guiana. But in Jamaica at this but the moment they set their foot on our moment the law limited the contract to one shores they would be free men, and would year; and if anything was to be done to be placed under the protection of magis- extend the term, as respected that island, trates paid by this country. If the Govern- it must be done by the local legislature, ment wished to preserve the colonies-if and not by the Secretary of State in this they wished the produce of the colonies to country. His noble Friend, however, supply our markets, and our manufactures having sanctioned three years in British to be sent to the colonies, they should en- Guiana, would of course be quite prepared courage the supply of labour. to sanction it also in Jamaica. The same thing had been done in Trinidad. His hon. Friend the Member for Rochester had said that the only species of immigrants that would be useful in the West Indies were African labourers. But there was this difficulty with respect to that class of immigrants, that by existing treaties the Africans were considered as free subjects, and it would be contrary to those treaties if liberated Africans, upon being landed in our colonies, were compelled to enter into a three years' engagement. But they might be employed for a period of one year, and if after that they chose to enter into a three years' engagement no objection could be made to it; but it must be a free contract, and not compulsory upon their landing in the colonies. His hon. Friend had also said, that the importation of Coolies would not be useful in Jamaica; but he (Mr. Hawes) must remind him that that was not a universal impression in Jamaica. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose upon the supply of labour generally, he begged to say that there was nothing to prevent the importation of free immigrants into the West India colonies. What his hon. Friend wanted was that merchants should be permitted to go to the coast of Africa and buy them from the hands of slavedealers, and to take them to the colonies, where, upon their landing, they would be declared free. But his hon. Friend seemed to have forgotten the internal state of Africa; that those labourers to whom he referred were brought down to the coast as slaves; that they had been either taken in war, or had been stolen for the purpose. To suppose that the people of this country would sanction the supply of labour to any part of the British empire by slavedealers, was out of the question. They would never sanction such an iniquitous proceed

MR. HAWES should be exceedingly sorry if the House imagined that the Colonial Office was indisposed to attend to the observations either of the hon. Member for Rochester or the hon. Member for Montrose on this subject. Both of them had paid great attention to it, and the hon. Member for Rochester had considerable experience and an intimate knowledge of the state of our colonies. He fully admitted the distress which prevailed in the West Indies, and he greatly deplored it. He thought the proprietors entitled to every sympathy which the Legislature could extend to them, consistently with the principles of commercial policy which he believed were now firmly established in this country. The observations of the hon. Member for Rochester had been almost entirely confined to the nature of the contract which ought to be sanctioned between the employer of labour and the labourer. The observations of the hon. Member for Montrose related to a totally different subject, namely, the general supply of labour. He proposed, in the few observations which he intended to address to the House, to keep these two subjects quite distinct. The hon. Member for Rochester said, he was convinced that a contract of three years was absolutely necessary. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Officeand he (Mr. Hawes) shared the feeling with him-did not rely with any confidence upon long contracts of that kind, because it was quite in the power of the labourer, if he was unwilling to work, to make the contract a burden instead of a benefit; and there was nothing they could do to enforce the contract without resorting to means which would be justly objected to by a large portion of the people of this country. He was aware that there was a prevailing opinion among the planters and others in

ing.

But the Colonial Office had given | reference to another Bill. Some time ago every possible facility to the planters to the noble Lord the First Minister of the get free labourers from the coast of Africa. Crown declared that it was not his intenA Government vessel had been fitted out tion to proceed with the Landlord and for the purpose of conveying them to the Tenant Bill which the Government had incolonies, and that House had voted a con- troduced. On the faith of that statement siderable sum towards the scheme; but the a great number of Irish Members on the experiment had failed. What greater pos- Ministerial side of the House had gone to sible assistance could the Government have Ireland to attend to other duties. In their given? Many representations had been absence a Bill on the same subject, conmade to the Government in favour of the taining the obnoxious clauses of the Gorenewal of Coolie immigration. He was vernment Bill, with all the clauses which happy to say that arrangements were being might be considered remedial struck out, made to comply with that request. He had passed the other House, and had been might state that arrangements were also introduced into the Commons by the hon. being made for the introduction of Chinese Member for the University of Dublin. He immigrants into Trinidad. When Dr. Gutz- thought they had a certain claim upon the laff was in this country, he (Mr. Hawes) good faith of the Government, that since had had communications with him on that they were not to legislate generally on the subject, and also with a gentleman con- subject this Session, they would not connected with Trinidad, and the result was nive at partial legislation. He wished to that arrangements were in progress for the know what course the Government meant importation of free Chinese immigrants to pursue with respect to that Bill? into Trinidad.

Bill read 3o.

SIR G. GREY said, that the fact of Government finding themselves unable to proceed with a Bill on the general subject, would by no means justify them in resist

On the Question that the Bill do pass, MR. HUME repeated his complaint of want of free labour in our West India co-ing a salutary improvement of the law lonies. He had always contended that limited to a particular case. He confessed, they never could put down slavery in Bra- however, that he could not have supported zil and Cuba until they could make free the Bill as it came down to them from the labour cheaper than slave labour. If, Lords; and, even with the alterations which therefore, they refused to assist our colo- had since been introduced into it-though nies to procure free labour, so as to enable it had thereby been rendered very different them to reduce the cost of their produce, from the Bill which had come down to and undersell the Brazilians and the Cu- them from the Lords-he felt that it would bans, they must be considered a party to be impossible to agree to it. It had been the perpetuation of slavery. Was it not alleged, that the practice of clandestinely better to buy a slave on the coast of Africa carrying away crops by night was a great and make him a free man in our colonies, evil, and involved a much more serious than to allow the Brazilians and Cubans to penalty than the parties would be liable to buy him and continue him in a condition in this country. The Bill had, been comof slavery? It was said that Exeter Hall mitted pro formá; and the hon. Gentlewould not permit such a thing. Pooh, man the Member for the University of pooh, for Exeter Hall! Exeter Hall had Dublin, who had charge of it, had abandone too much evil already, and he hoped doned some of its most obnoxious provithe time was come when less attention sions; and it was now a very different would be paid to the ignorance and pre- measure from the Bill which had come judice which emanated from that quarter. from the Lords. Still it was one which he thought it impossible for the House to agree to even in its amended form. Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire of an Amendment in Committee, applying to Ireland the law in England against parties clandestinely carrying away property under the value of 501. If they were to legislate at all on the subject, that would be the safest mode in which they could legislate; and that would involve a very serious alteration.

Bill passed.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE ACT (IRELAND)

CONTINUANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second
Time."

MR. MOORE wished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with