Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

to the commons; and, being rejected in conformity to the ufage of that houfe, which did not admit the the lords to make amendments in a money bill, was again introduced as a new bill, and pafied into a law.

The fubject of the alteration of the mutiny bill, which had been made in the preceding year in or der to include officers by brevet in the operation of military law, was revived as a topic of debate in the prefent year, and received an ample difcuffion in both houses. It was now acknowleged, that officers on half pay were not intended to be included, the contrary of which was reprefented by oppofition as refulting from the strict conftruction of the claufe; and it was argued, that there was no juft ground of diftinction between them and brevet officers. The claufe was oppofed in the house of commons by colonel Fitzpatrick, fir James Erkine, Mr. Jolliffe, Mr. Francis and Mr. Fox; and was defended by fir Charles Gould, fir George Yonge, and fir George Howard. Upon

a divifion the numbers appeared, ayes 73, noes 25.1

It was argued by lord Thurlow in the houfe of lords, that the claufe did not in reality amount to an alteration of the mutiny bill. Previoufly to the opinion, lately delivered by the judges in the cafe of general Rofs, martial law had been understood to extend to officers holding commiflions by brevet. The bill therefore did nothing nore, than declare that exprefsly to be law, which had been under. ftood to be the law before. Lord Loughborough controverted this pofition. In the cafe of general Rofs, no man could have flown a ftronger with to have his conduct inveftigated; and who had started

the difficulty? Not general Rof, not any member of the long robe; but the members of the court martial themselves. Their knowledge of the customs and ufage of their own profeffion fuggefted the difficulty, and upon that the question had come before the judges. As one of them, he had delivered his opinion, the unanimous opinion of all; and, after he had delivered it, he had heard from an infinite number of officers, that they should have been exceedingly furprised, had the decision been other than it was.

The claufe was oppofed by lord Stormont, lord Portchefter, and lord Rawdon; and vindicated by lord Sydney, lord Hawkesbury, and the duke of Richmond. It was carried without a divifion.

On the twenty-fixth of March lord Rawdon called the attentionof the houfe of lords to the convention with Spain of the fixteenth of July 1786, and moved, as a refolution, that it did not meet the favourable opinion of that house. The article, upon which he ani madverted, was that, by which the British poffeffions upon the Mofquito fhore were furrendered, in exchange for a small tract of land upon the bay of Honduras. He afferted, that we certainly could have made a better bargain, than to have ceded to Spain a tract of land, at least as large as the whole kingdom of Por. tugal, which yielded us cotton, indigo, logwood and fugar, in exchange for a liberty to cut logwood, and a fcanty fettlement of twelve miles in extent. Indeed it was not only injurious and degrading to the nation, but it was an act of ingratitude to the British fubjects there, to whom we had long afforded protection, and from whom we had received in return every mark of refpect and affiftance they could

give. Thefe inhabitants were delivered up to their old implacable enemy, who had, it was true, promifed, that he would not punish or maltreat them for their patt friendfhip to Great Britain; a wretched return of gratitude on our part, to a people, that we were bound to fupport by every tie of honour, and every principle of juftice. He added, that minifters would have exhibited a much founder policy, if if they had fent our tranfported convicts to the Mofquito fhore, than by adopting the brilliant and romantic fcheme of fending them to the antipodes, where they could be of no ufe at all.

The marquis of Carmarthen in reply to lord Rawdon obferved, that he was the minifter most particularly and perfonally refponfible for the convention, nor would he fhrink from any blame that could justly be imputed to it. He added, that he could eafily exhibit a strong and fufficient ground of juftification, it the difcretion, due from men in high executive offices, did not teach them, rather to risk their own character, and to be contented with a confciousness of their innocence, than to refort to a disclosure of facts, which it was neceffary to the na-. tional fafety, and to the continuance of the public tranquillity fhould be kept concealed. Lord Carlifle could not agree, that it was right to contend in that houfe for the value of the trade carried on through the Mofquito fhore, if it were really, what he feared it must be acknowledged to be, nothing more than a fmuggling trade upon the Spaniards and their fettlements. There was alfo fo much to be faid for the difcretion, which minifters were bound to exercife in relation to fome parts of their conduct, that, where that was feriously pleaded,

93

he thought credit ought to be given them for the having had other, and much fronger reafons for what they had done, than appeared upon the face of the tranfaction. But there was a part of the convention, that by which the inhabitants were deferted, and furrendered without their confent into the hands of their enemy, which he conceived to be a juft ground of cenfure. There could be no fecret reafon for fuch a mortifying facrifice of the fpirit of this country, and on that ground he fhould vote for the motion.

Lord Thurlow had expected mor accuracy of defcription in point of geographical character, in a debate of this nature. The Mofquito

fhore had been talked of as a tract of country, extending between four and five hundred miles; without the leaft mention of the fwamps and moraffes with which it was interfperfed. With regard to fettlement, it had poffeffed neither a regular government, a formal council, nor eftablished laws. A detachment of foldiers had been landed from the ifland of Jamaica, who erected fortifications, which were afterwards by order of the government at home, given up and abandoned. He inftanced the tranfactions upon the fubject in the peace of Paris of 1763, when governor Littleton prefided at Jamaica, and obferved that we had given a frefl proof in 1777 of our having renounced all claim upon the country, when lord George Germaine fent out Mr. Lawrie to the Mosquito fhore, to fee that the ftipulations with Spain were fully carried into execution. Lord Thurlow concluded, that the Mofquitos were not our allies, or a people, whom we were bound by treaty to protect; and that the number of Bri tifh fubjects, according to the last

report,

report, had amounted only to a hundred and twenty men, and fixteen women. The motion was farther fupported by lord Stormont,

and oppofed by the duke of Richmond; and the houfe having divided, the numbers appeared, contents 17, not contents 53.

CHAPTER VI.

Determinations on the Scottish Peerage. India Affairs. Motion for a Repeal of the Teft. Infolent Bill. Inquiry into the Poft-Office.

H

AVING related in the two preceding chapters thofe tranfactions of the prefent feffion, which originated in the meafures of government, that which remains for us is a view of thofe questions of policy, whether fuccefsful or otherwife, which were brought under the confideration of parliament by perfons not connected with, or forming a part of adminiftration. The topics, which fall under this defeription, are both numerous and important, which is partly to be afcribed to the uncommon ability, affiduity and fpirit of thofe perfons, who took a lead in the prefent oppolition.

On the thirteenth of February a question was fubmitted to the confideration of the houfe of lords by viscount Stormont, originating in the creation of peers during the preceding fummer, when the earl of Abercorn and the duke of Queensberry, peers of the kingdom of Scotland, had been called to the dignity of the English peerage, by the titles of viscount Hamilton and baron Douglas, notwithstanding which they continued to fit as reprefentatives of the peerage of Scotland. Lord Stormont laid it down as an incontrovertible pofition, that the

Eftablishment of the Prince of Wales.

right of reprefentation had been given to the Scottish peers, as a confideration for the lofs of an hereditary feat in parliament. Thofe, who no longer fuffered the lofs, could therefore no longer be entitled to a fhare in the compenfation. He read a refolution of the house of lords voted in January 1709, by which it was declared, that a peer of Sco land, fitting in the parliament of Great Britain by virtue of a patent paffed fince the union, had no right to vote in the election of the fixteen peers of Scotland." The two noblemen in question confeffedly stood in the fituation to which the refolution applied; and he who had not a right to vote, a fortiora, could not be elected. Lord Stormont expatiated upon this determination, which, he faid, was as folemn and deliberate, as any which stood on the records of parliament. It paffed at a time, when all that related to the union was fresh in the memory of every man, and when the true meaning and intention of that great treaty was generally known. It paffed in the prefence of many, who had been commiffioners on both fides, actors in that great fccne; and the journals fhewed that

there

there was not a fingle proteft. It had been conftantly acted upon, nqueftioned and unfhaken, for fourfcore years. Such a precedent had all the weight and authority, that could belong to any precedent; and powerful indeed would be its authority upon the mind of every man, who knew the mischiefs of fluctuation, and the numberless benefits which arofe from certainty of law, and uniformity of decision. Lord Stormont examined the cafe of the duke of Athol, upon whom an English honour had devolved in 1736, and who had continued to fit in parliament as duke of Athol and baron Strange. He obferved, that there had never been any decision, or even the fmallett difcuffion upon the fubject. It probably was thought a thing of little confequence, as there was very little chance, that a fimilar cafe, that of an old English honour devolving upon a Scottish peer, fhould ever happen again. The peerage of Scotland was then fmarting under the wound, which the rafh and violent hand of party gave in the cafe of the duke of Brandon in 1711. But the cafe was different now; the Scottish peers had lately been reftored to their rights, and the royal favour might flow as freely in that, as in any other channel. He was perfuaded, that the fame fairness and liberality of fentiment, which had governed upon that occafion, would now with equal force plead the justice of the cause.

. Lord Stormont concluded with an appeal to the honour and the feelings of the house. He hoped they would keep in conftant remembrance, that, before an event so beneficial as the union could take place, the peers of Scotland had great difficulties to conquer. For the attainment of that defirable end

they had made as large a facrifice, as ever was made by men. Had they retained their hereditary seat in parliament at the expence of half their property, they had made a happy and a noble exchange. No man deferved an hereditary feat in the great council of a free nation, who did not consider it as the first of all rights, the moit valuable of all poffeffions. That right, that ineftimable poffeffion, for reafons of public utility their ancestors had been contented to forego. They did that, which had ever been counted a mark of exalted virtue. They chofe rather to be little in a great fate, than great in a fmall

one.

Deciding on the rights of the defcendants of men fo circumftanced, the houfe would be dif pofed, rather to extend, than to diminifh them. But they afked no extenfion; all they defired was, that the houfe would not, in contradiction to the clear and obvious meaning of the agreement, abridge their rights, and curtail the flender compenfation allotted them, for the greatest lofs that men who had any dignity could fuftain. Lord stormont then moved, "that the earl of Abercorn and the duke of Queensberry, who had been chofen of the number of the fixteen peers, having been created peers of Great Britain, thereby ceafed to fit in that houfe as reprefentatives of the peerage of Scotland."

The bishop of Landaff declared, that, had the question appeared to him to have been of nice legal difcuffion, he would not have prefumed to trouble the house with any fentiments of his upon the subject; but he was fatisfied, that a moderate portion of plain common fenfe was equal to its comprehenfion. The king had been pleafed to bestow English honours upon

two

two Scottish peers. This he conceived to be an infraction of the treaty of union; but then it was an infraction on the part of England, as the honours were Englifh. Scotland confequently could not find fault, nor did he mean to complain. On the contrary he thought it extremely right, that the fovereign fhould call up to that houfe peers of Scotland, defcended from old and honourable families, and who could add the luftre of ancestry to their other eminent qualifications. For, whatever might be faid of ancestry, no man defpifed it, but he who had none to value kimfelf upon, and no man made it his pride, but he who had nothing better. Doctor Watfon entirely coincided with the arguments of lord Stormont, and put an ex. treme cafe, in order to remove the pollibility of a doubt. He afked, if the queen, when the act of union was firit paffed, had chofen to create the whole fixteen peers British dukes, was there one inan, who in that cafe would have denied, that the fpirit of the act of union was visibly fuperfeded?

Lord Thurlow conjured the houfe to confider, how much their honour and their character depended upon their prefent decision; and called to their recollection the degree of ranknefs and corruption, to which the tribunal of the houfe of commons had arrived, previously to the paffing of Mr. Grenville's bill. In his opinion they were not to lifen to arguments, grounded on the fuppofed or real inconvenience, that would refult to this or to that fet of men, nor were they entitled to confider, what the act of parliament fhould have been, but what it was. They were bound to abide by the letter, and religiously to comply with its res

quifitions. Lord Loughborough · maintained, that this strict mode of conftruction was not to be applied but to penal ftatutes. In all other cafes the fpirit and the intention of the law were guides to the true interpretation. The motion of lord Stormont was farther opposed by lord Morton, and fupported by the earls of Hopetoun and Fauconberg. Upon a divifion the num bers were, contents 52, not contents 38.

A fecond debate upon the fubject of the Scottish peerage was occafioned by the election of the earl of Selkirk and lord Kinnaird to reprefent the peerage of Scotland, in the room of the duke of Queensberry and the earl of Abercorn. Upon this occafion the dukes of Queenfberry and Gordon had given their votes as peers of Scotland, which was contrary to the tenour of the refolution of the house of lords of January 1709. The fubject was brought forward as a topic of dif cuffion on the eighteenth of May by the earl of Hopetoun, by whom it was moved, that a copy of that refolution fhould be tranfmitted to the lord register of Scotland, as a rule for his future proceedings in cafes of election.

The motion was oppofed by lord Thurlow. He exhorted the house not to proceed precipitately and fuddenly, to decide a question of much greater importance, than at first fight it might appear to be. A refolution of either house of parliament, however unanimously car ried, did not conftitute law. Nothing was entitled to that defcrip. tion, but what had paffed both houfes in the exercise of their legiflative functions, and received the affent of the crown in the form of an act of parliament. The house was now called upon in their ju

« AnteriorContinua »