Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Company. He mentioned Mr. Arnot's book on the criminal laws of Scotland, in terms of great commendation, and said, he doubted not but that a right hon. and learned gentleman opposite to him (Mr. Dundas) had read it. In that book it was recorded, that the right hon. gentleman's father or grandfather was the man to whom his country stood indebted for the restoration of the inestimable right to trial by jury. That was an honour of which any man might be proud, and he hoped the right hon. gentleman did not mean to follow the example of those who lavish away their family estates, and idly abandon his family honour, by being himself the instrument of taking away the right to trial by jury from the British subjects in India.

Sir James Johnstone said, that he should be always glad to see some plan enforced to bring East India delinquents to justice, which he was sure could not be done in the ordinary course of trial by jury; and he believed the East did not abound more in riches than it did in crimes. He was how ever as much a friend to juries as any gentleman, and joined most heartily in the praises bestowed upon Mr. Dundas, of Arniston, for his good intentions in having been instrumental in introducing the use of juries into Scotland; but it would, he said, have been still more to that gentleman's honour, if he had endeavoured to have adhered more closely to the plan of juries in England. Juries in Scotland were a grievance rather than a blessing. The sheriff chose 45 men not confined to any description, nor possessed of any qualification, but taken wherever he could find them, and out of those the judge chose 15, the majority of whom determined, and those were the legales homines of Scotland: so that it was easy for any judge or sheriff to convict whomsoever they pleased of whatever crimes they chose. He believed he was himself not the most unpopular man in his county in Scotland, and yet he believed a good sheriff and a wise judge would be able to find eight men that should convict him of crimes that he was incapable of committing. Many people traduced the Scotch nation for their slaving principles-but, said sir James, "give us English laws, and we will become Englishmen."

Mr. Pitt declared, that he could not suffer the statement of Mr. Burke on a particular fact to pass unnoticed. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that those

members of the judicature who were chosen out of that House, were, strictly speaking, appointed by the minister. If the right hon. gentleman meant generally to insinuate, that, in every act of the House, the influence of the minister was prevalent, he should not attempt to enter into the question, nor did he think such an insinuation decent or respectful to Parliament. But, with respect to the particular object immediately in the right hon. gentleman's contemplation, he wished the House to recollect for a moment what were the real circumstances of the case, before they suffered themselves to be led astray by the right hon. gentleman's misrepresentations. The fact was, that that House had no other interference in the choice of members for the East India Judicature, than each gentleman furnishing a certain list of names, and every name that was found upon twenty of those lists was sent in one general list to the judges, who reduced that general list to the proper number by ballot; whence it followed, that so far from the minister's having the absolute power of appointing the members of the judicature, it was possible that so small a minority as twenty might have the nomination.

Mr. Burke said, that he could not avoid comparing the right hon. gentleman's manner of correcting him, to his having put his hand into a sack of grain, and produced a sample, to determine by that the goodness of the whole. But the authority of the right hon. gentleman alone, lent his contradiction weight. In effect, the judicature was chosen by the majority, and the majority only. Mr. Burke again resumed his argument against the Bill of 1786; but on the gentlemen of the Treasury-bench side of the House crying out Spoke, spoke,' he said he meant to move a new question, the question of adjournment. tion of adjournment. He proceeded to justify the above question, by declaring that the House in its present temper were not fit to decide on so important a question as that then under consideration. After a few more words to that effect, he again fell into argument on the subject of the original motion, declaring, that the deciding a judgment by a casting vote was in the highest degree indecent and im

[blocks in formation]

The Speaker desired Mr. Burke to confine himself to explanation merely; or if he meant to move the question of adjournment, to point his argument to that motion.

Mr. Fox vindicated the privilege which his right hon. friend had of moving the adjournment. With regard to the objection made against his not having spoken agreeably to order, certainly the same objection was against any other member who had not observed the same rule precisely. He admitted likewise, that if one gentleman conformed to order, it was equally the duty of every other.

The Speaker now said, Heaven forbid that any thing which came from the chair should be partially directed against one gentleman, and not another under the same circumstances. The reason he had taken the liberty to observe what he did was, in consequence of the right hon. member having moved an adjournment of a question without having offered the least argument in its support. This he considered against the received rules of the House, and therefore he had taken the liberty to offer what he had done.

At length a violent coughing took place, upon which

[ocr errors]

Mr. Burke declared, that as what he had said could not be answered, so neither could it be coughed away. He bowed obedience to the chair, but he could wish that it might be understood that the maxim held good Summum jus summa injuria.' He added-I rise in support of the eternal principles of truth and justice, and those who cannot or dare not support them are endeavouring to cough them down. A violent cry of Order, order!' immediately took place, after which

Mr. Dundas said, he did not wonder, as the right hon. gentleman in so extraordinary a manner had insisted on his privilege of moving a question of adjournment, clearly in contradiction to the sense and feelings of the House, that the House should insist on its privilege of coughing. He was not the personal enemy of the right hon. gentleman; if he was, he should have wished him to have acted exactly as he had done that evening.

The question of adjournment was put, and negatived without a division. The original question was then put, and the House divided:

Tellers. YEAS SMr. Dempster

Lord Maitland

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

}21

[blocks in formation]

Debate in the Commons on a Motion for turning the Consolidation Bill into two Bills.] March 21. Mr. Bastard rose, to make a motion for dividing the Consolidation Bill into two bills, the one to contain the clause relative to the Commercial Treaty, the other to be confined wholly to the regulations respecting the consolidation of the duties of Custom and Excise. He remarked, that, reluctant as he should be to impede the measures of Ad- ! ministration, he was relieved from that embarrassment, by having given his support to the two distinct measures comprehended in the Bill; and he had no motive for bringing forward the motion which he meant to submit to the House, but the consideration that it was unconstitutional to blend two separate objects in one bill, and by that means to deprive members of their undoubted right to give their vote distinctly on each distinct measure. He said, that the principle of putting the part of the Bill respecting the Commercial Treaty under convoy of the part of the Bill relating to the consolidation of duties was a principle which ought, in his mind, never to be adopted by a minister, nor submitted to by that House, because it held out a most pernicious example of coupling considerations that ought to be kept separate. In the present case, the consolidation of duties was a measure universally approved; but respecting the Commercial Treaty with France, there certainly was some difference of opinion: gentlemen ought, therefore, to be afforded an opportunity of giving a distinct vote upon each subject, and it was almost treachery to their constituents to submit to the evasion of such separate and distinct vote, by suffering the two objects to be put into one. If it were now submitted to, aprecedent would be established, which might be carried farther in future, and the most atrocious measure might be conducted through, under cover of a good and favourite measure, with which it might be coupled. He was far from meaning to insinuate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been actuated by any improper motive, in putting the two objects into one bill; on the contrary, he was ready to admit that the reasons alleged in debate, the other day, were the true ressons; but he was far from thinking them

sufficiently strong to justify a deprivation | of the privileges of the members of that House, who had not only a right, but were in duty bound to vote distinctly upon each distinct object of debate. He asked, how were the constituent electors of Great Britain to judge of the conduct of their representatives, or to know whether they were worthy again to be sent to Parliament, but by their distinct votes? and how could they tell whether their votes, in the present instance, if the Bill were suffered to remain undivided, were governed by their approbation of the French Treaty, or their approbation of the Consolidated Duties? He concluded with moving, "That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House, to whom the Bill for repealing the several duties of Customs and Excise, and granting other duties in lieu thereof, and for applying the said duties, together with the other duties composing the public revenue; and for permitting the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandize, the product or manufacture of the European dominions of the French King, within this kingdom, should be referred; that they have power to turn the said Bill into two Bills, if they think fit."

Sir William Lemon seconded the motion, and added that his hon. friend had so fully stated his reasons for bringing it forward, that little remained for him to add on the occasion. He had no motive for supporting the motion, but an idea that the members of that House ought not to be deprived of their constitutional right of giving a separate and distinct vote on each separate and distinct object of deliberation. He had been a supporter of both the measures, and it was therefore indifferent to him whether they were carried into effect by one or by two bills; but he thought, as there had been a difference of opinion respecting the French Treaty, that gentlemen ought to be allowed to give a distinct negative to that measure; which they were now deprived of doing, on account of its being coupled with the consolidation of duties, which was universally approved. Sir William professed himself to be a friend to the Commercial Treaty, which he conceived he had a right to say met with the approbation of the country, since no objection had been made to it without doors.

Mr. Vyner could not join with the hon. baronet in praising the Commercial Treaty, notwithstanding his intention to support the [VOL. XXVI. ]

present motion. Having objected to every resolution proposed respecting it, it was impossible for him to take the same ground with the hon. baronet, and declare, that he should vote for the motion because he approved of the French Treaty. He considered the Treaty as a measure highly objectionable, the effect of which was our breaking with all our old allies, and connecting ourselves with a new ally; and that a power which always had been hostile to this country. That alone was a serious ground of objection, and sufficient in his mind to warrant that House in putting a negative upon that part of the Bill. But another objection against the Commercial Treaty and the Consolidation of Duties being blended in one Bill was, that the Treaty was expressly to continue only twelve years, whereas the Consolidation of Duties was general and unlimited. With regard to the Treaty continuing for twelve years, he had no such expectation; he supposed it would be adhered to on the part of France just as long as it would serve for France to get a knowledge of all our manufactures, and to draw over our artificers and manufacturers, and then, at a convenient time for themselves, they would break it.

Mr. Pitt said, that as the present was by no means a fit stage for debating the principle of the French Treaty, he should take no notice of any thing that had fallen from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, as the whole of his speech was confined to arguments against that measure, and contained nothing that could apply to the motion under discussion. With regard to the hon. gentleman who had made, and the hon. baronet who had seconded the motion, and who, he was convinced, had done so from no uncandid or indirect motive, having each of them fully expressed their approbation of both measures in agitation, he was convinced that their only object was to have those two measures carried into execution in a manner most consistent with the forms of Parliament, and the true principle of the constitution, The hon. mover had done him but justice in acquitting him of any disingenuous intention in coupling the two projects in one Bill; for, in fact, instead of securing the accomplishment of the more objectionable, by connecting it with the less, he ran the risk of losing that which, perhaps, every gentleman approved, by uniting with it one from which they were averse; for it was certainly more to be apprehended [s C]

difficult, but also impracticable to proceed in it. Having thus contended that the principle did not, and could not possibly exist, he had nothing more to do than to show the two hon. gentlemen, that by

of which they had expressed their joint approbation, would, so far from being promoted, become very much retarded, and possibly defeated. He made several suppositions of the different methods by which the two plans could be carried into effect separately-first, he supposed that the Treaty was to have the priority, and if that were the case, he observed, there must be made a very considerable reduction in the duties on French commodities, and those duties being already appro priated to particular funds, for paying the interest of the public debt, such funds must necessarily be diminished, by reducing the duties of which they were composed, without providing any equivalent to answer the purposes for which the several appropriations had been made. On the contrary, he put the case, that the plan of consolidation should be first carried into execution-the consequence then would be, that in that measure it would be absolutely necessary to regulate_the duties on French commodities, as well as on others; which would be making regulations, before the grounds of necessity on which such regulations were to be made had been enacted.

that gentlemen would oppose a measure, one part of it being disagreeable to them, and the other not so, than that they should give their support to one that they disliked, in order to insure one to which singly there could be no possible objec-adopting it at present, the very measures tion. And this was an argument by which he wished gentlemen would regulate their practice; for, if any gentleman felt objections to the Treaty, although a friend to the Consolidation of Customs, or, on the contrary, if any gentleman, though approving the Treaty, was yet averse to the Consolidation, it was in that case the duty of every such gentleman to vote against both, coupled as they were, because, by rejecting both, the House would not be precluded from taking up again separately, and by itself, that which was not liable to objection. He must, how ever, combat one position laid down by both those hon. members, that it was unparliamentary and unconstitutional for any two subjects to be tacked together in one bill; for though he admitted, that to submit any two propositions in one and the same resolution to the House, such propositions differing in spirit and effect essentially from each other, and liable to meet with different sentiments and opinions from the House, would be highly improper and objectionable; yet in a bill consisting of the subject matter and result of several separate resolutions, there must almost always necessarily be included variety of matter. To illustrate this statement, he observed, that even if the motion were carried, yet the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman would by no means be established, for still the Bill for consolidating the customs must unavoidably contain as many different provisions as there were different articles of importation, for every one of them was to be the subject of a separate and new regulation; nay, it was not merely to contain a great variety of different duties, but the very principles of those duties were, in many instances, to be different, particularly in the case of ad valorem duties. Would the hon. gentleman, then, wish to to have the Bill for the consolidation of the Customs, divided into as many separate bills as there were articles in the schedule of articles of importation? for unless that were to be done, the principle which had been now attempted to be laid down, must be departed from; and the following such a principle would so multiply and embarrass the business, that it would not only be

Mr. For admitted, that there was something more of difficulty now, than there would have been at first, in dividing the Bill, but that difficulty the right hon. gentleman had himself created. The only point in which he saw difficulty, was in the duties upon such French goods as were not enumerated in the tariff, but he stated how that might be managed. He then proceeded to argue upon the impropriety of having the two objects blended in one bill, and said, he not only perfectly agreed with the hon. mover, that individual members of parliament had a right to give a distinct and separate vote on each distinct and separate subject of debate and legislation, but what was of still more importance, that that House had a right to decide upon each subject that came before them separately and distinctly; and the putting the Commercial Treaty and the Consolidation of Duties into one Bill, clearly deprived the House of that right. Mr. Fox contended against the position, that instead of curtailing the

powers of negativing the Commercial Treaty, by joining it to the Consolidation of Duties, it added to them, and put each measure to a double risk. Not only had their constituents a right to know the reasons that governed their votes upon each separate and distinct measure that came under consideration in the House, but they as representatives had a right that their reasons for voting upon every distinct measure should be known; and in the present case it was impossible for their reasons to go to their constituents. They might, he said, be called upon to vote one day for the Bill, on account of the Consolidation of Duties being approved, and the next day to vote against it, on account of the Commercial Treaty being disapproved. He spoke also of the difficulty in which the House of Lords would be put by the two objects being blended together in one bill; and said, instead of affording their lordships reason to complain of the Commons for having narrowed their grounds both of debate and of voting, the House ought studiously to avoid giving cause for such complaint. The right hon. gentleman had laid great stress on the delay that separating the Bill, and dividing it into two, would occasion, and had at the same time admitted, that if it had been originially divided into two bills, they might by that time have got to the length they had arrived at. With regard to the delay of a fortnight, he saw no force in that, as an objection to dividing the Bills then; and in his mind, a degree of precipitation bordering upon indecency had been used in passing the resolutions.

Mr. W. W. Grenville observed, that the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, had been himself obliged to confess, that there would be a difficulty in separating the Bill, on account of the duties on goods not stated in the tariff; and maintained, that the difficulty alluded to, was of itself a sufficient answer to all that had been urged by the right hon. gentleman, as the whole line of his argument had been inconsistent with the admission of that difficulty. He contended, that Mr. Fox had not reasoned fairly upon what had been said by his right hon. friend, who clearly demonstrated, that the Bill could not be divided into two without manifest inconvenience, and even the risk of the Consolidation of Duties. The right hon. gentleman said, that his right hon. friend had laid great stress on the argument of delay. Now,

he did not recollect that his right hon. friend had laid any stress whatever on delay; certain he was, no improper precipitation had been used in any part of the business of the Commercial Treaty. With regard to the Resolutions that the House had come to, it was essentially necessary, that with all reasonable dispatch the public should be made acquainted with the sentiments of Parliament respecting the Treaty, and therefore the Resolutions had been early moved; but he appealed to the House, whether they had not had a full opportunity of discussing every one of them, and considering them in all their bearings. With respect to the House of Lords, he saw no ground for arguing, that putting the two objects into one Bill, would at all narrow their right of debating or voting. Had the Bills been disinct, each of them would have been a money bill, and consequently the Lords could only have rejected or passed them. But how could it be contended that they had any reason to complain, when by having sent the Resolutions of that House up to the Lords, their lordships had been admitted to a full opportunity of discussing all the topics the Resolutions referred to, and had done so notoriously. They therefore had disposed of their opinions as to the particulars of the Commercial Treaty, and might still reject the whole of the Bill, if they thought proper. Mr. Grenville concluded with declaring, that he should oppose the motion, as he was clearly convinced that it would be a most inconvenient, if not an impracticable measure to separate the Bill and divide it into two.

Sir Grey Cooper observed, that as he had some short time since moved a question substantially the same as the present, and had given the reasons for his opinion on the matter, he would not have presumed to speak again on the subject, if his mind did not continue to be impressed with the clearest conviction, that the keeping the Bill for rendering the Commercial Treaty with France effectual, united, and incorporated with the Consolidation Bill, was a dangerous breach of the forms and rules established by uniform practice, not only for the regularity and order of the proceedings of that House, but in the intercourse between the two Houses in their legislative capacities, and particularly in the mode of passing bills. But the right hon. gentleman had put his defence of the measure of joining those two Bills together (which he admitted,

« AnteriorContinua »