Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

hon. friend, instead of reading the history of Elizabeth's reign in a book written by a respectable French refugee, had consulted an English work of standard authority, and written by no less celebrated an author than lord Bacon, he would have found that the zeal with which Elizabeth espoused the cause of the oppressed people of the Netherlands and of the French refugees, was dwelt on as one of the greatest glories of her reign. He had thus defended himself and his hon. friends against an attack, which, with whatever skill and eloquence it had been made, must fall to the ground, and "like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck behind."-His right hon. friend had asked, why they should give their support to those who would not take the English constitution as the basis of their liberty; and seemed to think that by that argument, which was quite inapplicable to the present case, he had found out an inconsistency in their conduct. But, the only opinion which he had ever asserted on this subject was, not that the Neapolitan constitution was a good one, but that the independence of nations had been attacked by the flagitious conduct which the allied powers had exhibited towards the Neapolitans. Indeed, it appeared to him, that the allied powers, by their circulars from Laybach, had been guilty of the same attack upon the independence of nations that the National Convention had been, by its decree of July 1792, of which the overt acts were the seizure of Belgium and Savoy. In the same manner that the convention had attacked the independence of the world, had the members of the holy alliance attacked the independence of every nation in Europe, and thus had left the question of peace and war to them only as a matter of policy and prudence.

Sir R. Wilson made a short reply, in the course of which he vindicated the Carbonari from the charge of being the promoters of assassination. He likewise eulogized them for the wisdom with which they had projected, the bravery with which they had executed, and the glory with which they had consummated, their revolution of Naples, and stated that the principles which they professed were so widely diffused throughout Italy that there was scarcely a single Italian who was not Carbonari. The right hon. gentleman d said, that there was a conflict now ging throughout the world between

the monarchical and the democratical principle. He denied it; but he would allow that there was a conflict now waging between the principles of an arbitrary and those of a representative form of government; and from the bottom of his heart he hoped that the representative form of government would prove triumphant. As the letter of sir W. A'Court was written merely for the purpose of informing the Neapolitan government that the British fleet would only be employed in case of any personal outrage being offered to the royal family of Naples, he should beg leave to withdraw it.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, March 21.

AMERICAN LOYALISTS.] The entry in the Journals of the 17th February 1793, of a resolution for an address on behalf of the American Loyalists, having been read,

Mr. W. Courtenay said, that the address which had been just read stated, that it would have been superfluous for the House to express the regard of the nation for every description of men who had, in the cause of his majesty, risked their lives and forfeited their properties, during a long and calamitous war. It was in conformity with the sentiments contained in that address, that he rose to bring before parliament, the case of persons who had so risked their lives and forfeited their properties. The House would see the difficulties he had to meet in bringing forward claims in 1821, which had their foundation so long ago as the peace of 1783. But he hoped to satisfy the House that the lapse of time could not create a bar to those claims. At the commencement of the American war, the legislature of America took every means to prevail on persons of property and influence in that country, to raise what was then called the standard of rebellion. It was, on the other hand, the duty of the government of this country to call on the exertions of individuals in America, who owed allegiance to the king of England. Accordingly, royal proclamations and resolutions of that House were issued from 1776 to 1783, calling upon individuals to join the royal standard. At the peace of 1783, there were two classes of persons who had lost their property in the service of England, and who therefore had claims

for compensation on this country. The House was aware that by several acts of the legislature of America, the persons of the loyalists had been attainted, and their property confiscated. By the 4th and 5th articles of the treaty of 1783 it was agreed that there should be no impediments thrown in the way of the mutual recovery of debts, and that the congress should do all in its power to have restitution made to the loyalists. The persons who had suffered in consequence of their attachment to the cause of England, were persons who had resided in America, and whose property had been confiscated, and English merchants who had lost their property, in consequence of commercial transactions with America. At the time when the address which had been read by the clerk was agreed to by the House, it was the general understanding, that full and complete compensation should be made to those who had suffered in the cause of England. In evidence of this, he might refer to the speeches of the late lord Thurlow, the late chief baron Macdonald, then solicitor general, to Mr. Wilberforce, and many others. By an act passed in 1783, certain commissioners were appointed to carry the treaty into effect, and to ascertain who were the loyalists who had claims upon the country. There was one class of loyalists to whom the commissioners refused compensation, namely, those who had vested their property in America. To those persons the commissioners said, "We will not listen to your claims until you first get from America what you can.' By a treaty which was entered into in 1794, America undertook to make full compensation to British creditors, and to prevent legal impediments from being thrown in their way. In 1789, Mr. Pitt called upon that House to make compensation to those who had lost their lands in America, and also to those who had been ruined in their professions in consequence of their at- Mr. W. Smith said, that these gentletachment to the English interest: the men had for forty years been entitled to House up to the present hour were in the compensation, and now the very length habit of making good that compensation of time during which justice had been by an annual vote. But for the British withheld, was made an argument against creditors no compensation was made, no their demand. When they saw every redress was granted to them-if he ex-day compensation made for the loss of cepted their share of a sum of 600,000l. which, by a treaty entered into in 1811, America bound itself to pay, and which was accordingly paid. It was material to observe, that it never was considered that the sum of 600,000/, was to be taken as

full compensation; if it were, that, indeed, would be a full answer to the claim which he now put forth. It was allowed on all hands, and it was so decided in a court of justice in America, that all the treaties entered into between America and England, subsequent to the peace of 1783, recognized the claims of the loyalists. The government of this country, he contended, was bound to make compensation to them, as from America they had no expectation whatever. It was true a very considerable time had elapsed; still, the House would recollect the material fact, that they had never ceased to put forth their claims. After contending, that the case which he now brought before the House had never been decided upon, and urging, that there was much greater danger of a bad example from refusing, than from granting the claims, the hon. member moved for " An Account of the Dates and Descriptions of all Communications that have taken place between his Majesty's Government and any of the persons styling themselves American Loyalists, or their agents, since the 4th of April 1812, to the present time; together with Copies of such of the said Communications as bear date respectively on or about the 5th of April and 3rd Dec. 1812; the 21st April, 6th and 10th July 1813; 26th May and 2nd Sept. 1814; 31st Jan. and 17th May 1815; 19th June 1817; 8th April 1819; and 1st May 1820."

Mr. Dickinson supported the motion, and contended, that as the claimants had done every thing to keep their claimsalive, they were not to be opposed by a sort of statute of limitation, which was set up in the mind of the chancellor of the exchequer.

He knew no stronger claim upon this country, than that of persons who had sacrificed their property and the interests of their families from attachment to its cause.

offices which those who had lost them had no right to expect to retain, it seemed extraordinary that so great a reluctance should exist to accede to the claims of those who had lost every thing through their attachment to this country. He re

collected the American war, and had differed from these loyalists as to the part they had taken;-nay, he had thought at the time that they deserved punishment; but that punishment would never have amounted to one-fiftieth part of what they had since endured.

Mr. Wilberforce said, if ever any set of men were deserving of consideration, it was these claimants, who had drunk to the very dreg the bitter cup of that "hope deferred," which "maketh the heart sick."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, that men in office were obliged to look with more scrupulousness, and perhaps want of liberality, upon the demands of individuals, than they would be disposed to do if the claim were upon their own private funds. The case made out by the hon. member was unquestionably very strong. He by no means meant to contend that the lapse of time was a bar to the demands now made, because those demands had been unremittingly pressed; but it was high time to come to a final decision whether any thing or nothing should be granted. Neither did he mean to argue that any thing more than a partial compensation had hitherto been afforded to any of the parties. He then proceeded to notice the precise stipula tions of the treaty of commerce with the United States in 1794, and followed it by some observations upon the breach of faith of which America had been guilty with regard to the creditors whose demands she thereby undertook to satisfy. The dispute upon this point had been finally, amicably adjusted; and the total amount of the claims was settled by commissioners, at about 1,450,000l., out of which the loyalists, exclusive of commercial creditors, required 250,000l. He combated the position, that the attorneygeneral for the United States had contended in the courts of the republic, that the claimants were barred in limine by the attainder upon them for their conduct. In illustration, he referred to various documents, and especially to the report of a board of joint commissioners, appointed under the 6th article of the treaty of 1794. He was ready to produce the papers now called for; but he thought it right to state that there were many grounds on which these claims ought to be resisted. To those documents he should beg leave to add others, that would bring the case fully before parliament.

[ocr errors]

It was painful to resist the claims of those who were not only suffering, but meritorious; but he could not separate the case of the loyalists from that of the merchant creditors; and he considered both of them as suffering from the common fate of war.

Dr. Phillimore considered the case made out by the hon. and learned mover as strong a one as ever came before the House. The chancellor of the exchequer had, in his view of the question, been led into a confusion of the rights of the loyalists with those of the American creditor. But, according to all national law, the two were quite distinct, and their claims rested upon a very different foundation.

Mr. Lockhart said, that he was an advocate for compensation to that description of American loyalists who, being domiciled in America, had sacrificed their property to their allegiance: while he would protest against any attempt to indemnify the mere British merchant, who might have made unsuccessful speculations in America at the period alluded to.

Mr. Courtenay said, he had no objection whatever to the distinction which his hon. friend had desired to establish. The motion was agreed to.

REPEAL OF THE MALT TAX.] Mr. Western rose to move for the repeal of the late additional Malt tax, and maintained that upon every consideration of feeling, justice, and policy, that motion ought to be agreed to; for no tax existed which was so injurious to the comforts of the people or to the interests of agricul ture. ture. He protested against the idea generally held out, that any member who called for the repeal of a tax was bound to propose a substitute, for that would imply that he who discovered the oppres sion or injustice of a tax was not entitled to complain unless he were disposed to become a second chancellor of the exchequer, whose peculiar duty it was, to provide for the financial exigencies of the country. But he the more objected to this idea, because he was an advocate for the reduction of the aggregate amount of taxation. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood, that he did not desire this reduction, by the exemption of the agriculturists, or any particular class, from the general pressure. He was not one of those who would tax the funds for the support of the poor-rates, or who would recommend any violation of the

faith pledged to the public creditor. | The amount of the poor-rates was undoubtedly a subject requiring the attention of parliament; but he would not embarrass his present object by any reference to that subject. The purpose of his motion was, to produce the removal of a tax most oppressive in its operation, and in consequence comparatively unproductive to the revenue. In order to show that the tax was unproductive the hon. gentleman then entered into a detailed comparison of the tax upon malt, the growth of barley, and the extent of produce and consumption from the year 1791 down to the present day, showing that in England, Ireland, and Scotland, the produce of barley, and the consumption of malt had diminished, as the tax upon the latter had been advanced. Hence, he concluded, that this branch of the revenue had been egregiously mismanaged. He thought some means might be found to remedy the evil of excessive importation, without infringing upon the spirit of the act of 1815. As to the speculative opinions which had been broached upon the subject of free trade, gentlemen might as well talk of the abstract rights of man as of the abstract principles of free trade. To constitute a free trade, the British agriculturist must possess the same advantages as the foreign grower, but if he started with such a load as the aggregate amount of taxation in this country, while the foreign grower laboured under no such disadvantages, this was any thing but a free trade. Another great source of pressure upon the agriculturist, and indeed upon all classes of the community, was, the operation of the act passed in 1819, vulgarly called Mr. Peel's Bill. He was aware that it would be considered almost profane in that House to call in question the wisdom of that measure, but without impeaching the wisdom of the act, or the abilities of the persons who advised it, he must be permitted to declare his firm conviction that it would never be a permanent act. He called upon the House, as it regarded the principles of justice and policy, and as it valued the prosperity and morals of the country, to agree to the measure which he had the honour to propose. He concluded by moving for the repeal of so much of the act of 1819 as imposed the Additional Duties on Malt.

Mr. Mackenzie said, that the extent to which illicit distillation had been carried

in Scotland in 1816, had occasioned the act to establish small stills for the express purpose of consuming the inferior grain raised in the remoter districts of Scotland. In consequence of this change of system, a great increase of the quantity of spirits distilled had taken place up to the period of imposing the additional duties on malt, when the inferior species of barley was rendered perfectly unsaleable, because it was only barley of the best quality which could afford to pay the duty. The barley in the greater part of Scotland was of an inferior quality, and the consequence of imposing the additional duties was, that almost the whole of this barley was thrown into the hands of the illegal distiller. The duty on ten gallons of English spirits was 3l. 5s. 6d. and in the northern districts of Scotland the same quantity of illicit spirit could be purchased for 27. 10s. It was almost unnecessary to say any thing more in order to show that this was a premium on smuggling, and that such a policy affected the revenue no less than the morals of the country. With regard to the effect of this tax in reducing the consumption, it appeared that on the quantity of spirits made in Scotland during the last year, there was a diminution of 100,000 gallons, as compared with that of the preceding year. He believed he stated the uniform sentiments of the magistrates of Scotland, when he said, that there was no increase of revenue to be purchased by this tax, which was not more than counterbalanced by the evils which it brought upon the country.

Mr. Ellice said, that if he could reconcile to himself that the tax might be dispensed with, without injustice to the public creditor, or injury to the wants of the state; and if there could be any rational hope, that the distress of the landed interest could be relieved by the repeal, he would support it; and he could do so with the more consistency, as he had reprobated its imposition in 1819; when the other measures then determined upon with respect to the currency, rendered the country less able to bear the additional 3 millions of taxes. Now, with respect to the expediency of repealing any tax, he had often stated his opinion, that, under the peculiar circumstances in which we were placed, and with a view to the permanent benefit and security of the fundholder, if the country was really able to wade through the difficulties

of our situation, that it would be both just and politic to relieve the present pressure to the extent of the supposed sinking fund-looking to the effects of such a measure, and the future prosperity which was anticipated in some quarters, to cause us hereafter to establish a more efficient fund for the redemption of debt-and as his hon. friend had stated that the additional taxation on malt had considerably reduced the consumptionthis was to him an undeniable proof that the present tax was excessive and injurious, both to the grower and consumer; and he had therefore no hesitation in saying this was a case in which we were justified in commencing our reduction of the public burthens. He would put it to the House, whether the sinking fund, as it was now managed, was really a fund for the benefit of the stock-holder. All his hopes on this subject had vanished, when the necessities of the country required the great inroads already made upon it. The nominal amount was said to be now between 2 and 3 millions, and appeared more to be viewed as a fund to satisfy the extravagant exigencies of a profuse government, than as applicable to the object under pretence of which it was drained out of the pockets of the people. What was the necessity for so much intricacy and complication in our accounts relative to the sinking fund? An account was laid on the table, by which, in various sums, and under different denominations, about 17 millions of money appeared to pass and repass between the commissioners, and the Bank and Exchequer, of which, last year, according to the admission of the chancellor of the exchequer, only about a million and a half was applied to the reduction of debt; and, according to other accounts, not above half that sum. What was the meaning of all this complex operation-merely to keep up useless establishments and sinecure offices? He had another objection to the accounts as they were now kept-that the country was represented as owing a third more than, bad as was our situation, the debt amounted to. Why not at once cancel the redeemed debt;-and, if there was really a surplus at the end of the quarter, apply that simply in reduction of the arrears of the consolidated fund; or, in the further redemption of such stock, as it appeared most beneficial to the country to purchase? The truth was, that nothing tending to economy could be expected

from the administration; and all this machinery was, to keep out of sight the jobs and waste of the ruinous system on which the administration of our affairs was conducted. Would the House believe, that the same amount of excise and customs duties-for the collection at the two periods was nearly equal,-34 millions cost in 1807 1,100,000.; and in 1820, 2,400,000l.? Part of this difference might arise from the abolition of fees; but that could not amount to a million; and, in fact, if there was no surplus on the sinking fund, he thought the repeal of this tax was desirable, to force on government the absolute necessity of retrenchment. The House ought now to make the experiment, how far a limitation of means might affect the object which all parties appeared to desire. He could not coincide in the opinions of the exclusive pressure with which this tax bore on the agricultural interest. It was mainly felt, until our arrival at a diminution of consumption, by the consumer, at which point it began to press on the producer. There were many better reasons for its repeal, but none more cogent than the effects to be apprehended from them, on the moral habits and comforts of the agricultural labourer; but he was content to ground his vote on the occasion, on his hon. friend's showing on this part of the case, and upon the statement generally, that the agricultural petitioner selected this tax, as that from the repeal of which, at present, they expected some relief. His hon. friend had talked of rendering the act of 1815 more effectual for the protec tion of the home grower. He had thought, on the contrary, that the useful experience which the agriculturists had hitherto had of that system, would have induced them now to be the foremost in praying for its repeal; and if he could venture to recommend to gentlemen so tenderly alive to their own interests, the measure most likely to promote them, he would suggest to the committee up stairs, the repeal of that law as peculiarly adapted to that purpose. What good had the advance of the price of corn to 80 done in 1817, 1818, and 1819? It had oppressed the consumer, for the temporary advan tage of the grower; and this last, in his turn, was still more grievously oppressed by the forced importation, from the temptation which a double price held out, not only of all the surplus corn of other countries, but by our creating a

« AnteriorContinuar »