Page images
PDF
EPUB

to his command. He then adduced the case relative to the Perthshire fencibles; a charge had been brought - against some subalterns, who, after a long and impartiak trial, had reason to expect (and it was publicly expected) that they would have been honourably acquitted, but from that day to this no man could say he had official knowledge of that sentence, for it was totally su pressed, and there was great reason to suspect that that suppression was owing to the great interest exerted on behalf of the, colonel, who had brought the charges, and whose chaFacter would have been seriously impeached in the acquittal of the accused, and the manner of that exculpation. He asked then, if any system so liable to abuse didnot imperion-ly require parliamenty interference to correct and improve it? He submitted then to the consideration of the house, with great humility, the following motion, which had long occupied his most serious attention.. He moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to expedite the issue of courts-martial trials and other military inquiries, and to prevent any undue interference in impeding or delaying the result thereof.

The Secretary, ar said, that as he could foresee no way by which the bill proposed could be rendered less objectionable in any of its subsequent stages, than it appeared to him to be now, he should oppose the introduction of it altogether. Independant of the many objections in de tail, there was one to the principle, that was in itself ime surmountable; the oath injoined by the mutiny bill that was passed but the other day to be taken by all officers sitting on courts martial, not to reveal their sentence till that sentence had been approved of by his majesty and that objec'ion could not be obviated by any alteration or amendment introduced into the mutiny bill, as no such eould be introduced for the space of one year, till the annual revival of that act. After stating this one and insanmountable objection, it would not be necessary to go into any length in reply to the other arguments of the honourable gentleman. There could be no argument drawn from analogy between the navy and the army; they were services of a nature so essentially different. Ile did not see for what end the honourable gentleman had cited the cases which he had submitted to the house. The case of colonel Cochrane Johnstone would not have been bettered if the right of revision had not existed; for if

doubts had arisen in the royal breast as to the propriety of that gendeman's conduct, hose suspicions might have as effectually retarded the professional advancement of that officer. He should certainly oppose the motion.

Sir Francis Burdett said that no such right of revision existed in the navy, and be did not hear any thing like an argument from the honourable gentleman why it should not likewise be dispensed with in the regulation of the army. The honourable mover had giveir to the house several strong cases of great hardship and gross abuse, which had not been attempted to be justified or palliated by the honourable secretary.

Sir Arthur Wellesley said that, in addition to the serious objections founded upon the mutiny act, there was another which gentlemen should attend to, namely; the present bill could not be passed into a law, without an essen tial alteration in the articles of war.

General Fitzpatrick was jealous of any motion that tended to interfere with the right of the crown, in the constitutional controul of the army. He did not think it should be tampered with. There was no analogy between the navy and the army, in relation to their respective regulations; there were, for instance, many regula tions in the army that would not be admissible in the Davy; and, vice versa, many in the navy that would be ruitous in the army. What honourable gentleman would vest in the commander of a regiment, the despotic powers so necessarily submitted to the discretion of a captain of a ship of war? To argue this, therefore, was to argue upon a strained analogy. He should be obliged to resist the motion.

Mr. Lyttleton then shortly replied. He acknowledged he had not been aware of the insurmountable objection stated by the secretary at war. For the present, therefore, he should withdraw the motion. The motion was accordingly withdrawn.

The Secretary at War obtained leave to bring in a bill to oblige certain parish officers and clerks of subdivisions to account for all money received by them in trust, for bounties, fees, and penalties..

On the notion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was ordered that the house, at its rising, should adjourn to Wednesday next.

Sir John Newport moved that the memorial of miss Simmons, complaining of the detention of certain Irish woollen goods at Liverpool, under the demand of a duty contrary to the articles of union, should be printed; and it being obvious that the charge of breach of the articles of union was made good by them, he gave notice that he should make a motion on the subject on Thursday

next.

SUGAR DISTILLATION.

Lord Binning having moved the second reading of the sugar-distillation bill,

Mr. Brand opposed it, on the principle that all political interference of the legislature with the industry and general pursuits of the country was bad. He would al low that particular circumstances might occur which would justify such interference. It might be allowed under well-founded apprehensions of scarcity, or as a measure of temporary policy. He knew, however, of no scarcity either existing or to be apprehended, which called for the present measure. Wheat, which may be con sidered as the principal food of man, was hardly ever known at a more steady, stable price than it has been for several months past. In case, however, that a scarcity should actually take place, he then wished that the crown shuold possess the power to stop the distilleries by a proclamation. At present he thought there was no reason to apprehend scarcity. Wheat had for a long time been at a low price, and a price so low as to be hardly adequate to repay the farmer. He therefore felt it his duty to resist the second reading.

Mr. Marryatt said that as to the general principle of leaving agriculture to itself, and not interfering with it by any legislative provisions, that principle would, in justice, be as applicable to the interests of the West India planters, or to the commerce of the country, as to its agriculture. But it was known that the interests of the West India merchants had, in point of fact, been much interfered with by the legislature. Although by the contract under which our islands were cultivated, the planters were to have the monopoly of supplying the em pire with sugar; yet, when we occupied St. Domingo, we received 100,000 hogsheads annually from that colony, in competition with the produce of our own colonies, and

[ocr errors]

in violation of the contract made with them. Again, when it was represented that the planters held up the price of their sugar too high, parliament interfered, and let in East India sugar in competition with it. At the time that parliament resolved on this measure, he did not recollect that a single country gentleman raised his; Voice against the interference of the legislature with the price of the produce of the West India cultivation. If the principle was good in the one case, why was it not also good in the other? Those country gentlemen, who now laid it down so broadly in their lectures on political economy, never thought of such a principle, until their own interests were touched. One honourable gentleman, a great land proprietor (Mr. Coke, of Norfolk), had on a former occasion, compared the West India islands, ind value, to ozier islands in the Thames. He would tell thehonourable gentleman, however, that the commerce of the West Indies did most materially increase the wealth and prosperity of this country, and that the increase of national wealth and prosperity had increased very much the rents and value of Iris great estates. The country gentlemen who oppose this bill seemed not only to have formed a science of political economy for themselves, but they had formed a new mode of arithmetic for themselves. By the common notions of arithmetic, the more you subtract from a thing, the less remains; but by the arithmetic of the country gentlemen, the more you take away from the stock of corn in the market, the more you destroy in distilleries, or in any other way, the more will be left to secure the country against scarcity. They knew, however, that this was proposed merely as a temporary mea Sure, and that if any practical ill effects should follow from it, ministers would have it in their power to suspend the operation of this act at any time. He thought, that when the measure was brought forward as a West India question, it was brought forward as a British question ;` for he conceived that the planters and cultivators of our West India colonies were as much British subjects as the inhabitants of the metropolis. Although the Atlantic rolls between us and them, yet their interests were united with ours; their habits and feelings were British; they were proud of being governed by British laws. It was in this country that they looked to end their days; their affec tions were turned to Britain, and, they called it their nɔ• VOL. III.-1803.

3 A

ther country. He hoped then that the mother country would not act the part of an unnatural parent, At pre sent there were but about thirty-five thousand hogsheads of sugar at the West India docks, but by October, when the next crop came in, there would be above 300,0007. The average produce of our settlements for many years had been two hundred and seventy thousand hogsheads, and thirty thousand would surely come in from the Danish islands we had lately captured. The consumption of the British empire had never been more than two hundred thousand hogsheads annually, and therefore it was most evident that the planters must be reduced to great distress as long as the accustomed markets are shut against their produce. Against the next year, both the West India. cultivators and the British farmers would know how to calculate the exertions that they should make. The great objects of Buonaparte were, first, to ruin our commerce through our colonies; and secondly, to starve the people of this country into submission. If relief was refused to the West India merchants, it was probable that both these objects would be obtained. The colonies would certainly be ruined, and the first bad harvest might go near starsing the country, as long as there is no place to import from. He thought that the measure would not at all prevent the farmers from getting a fair price for their corn, although it might prevent them from getting a most exorbitant price.

Mr. Eden spoke at some length against the bill.

Mr. Bathurst the ught that the general principle which was laid down about the impropriety of legislative interference, must be applicable only in general cases. The same principle was equally applicable to the commerce of the country as to its agriculture; and yet, in practice, it was found absolutely necessary for the legislature often to interfere in the affairs of commerce. The evils under which we laboured at the present moment were these: we were excluded from importing (as we had been accustomed) the surplus corn of other countries to meet a failure of the harvest, and at the. same time we were prosesd with a glut of West india produce. Those temporary evils could not be remedied by the application of any general abstract principle. He thought the present measure well calculated to relieve the West India planters, and at the same time to diminish the aların which pre

« PreviousContinue »