§ Mr. Brougham, in pursuance of a previous notice, rose to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the application of the various sums received as Droits of the Crown and of Admiralty." He observed, that when he formerly submitted a similar proposal to the House, it was resisted on various grounds, but principally it was urged that he had not chosen a convenient time for the adoption of his Resolutions, pending a certain contract which was said to have been entered into with the crown, at the commencement of the present reign, for the establishment of the civil list. Such an objection could not now be urged, and from the general result of the debate, the country had certainly every reason to hope that an inquiry of a most important nature would now be commenced, preparatory to a new and general settlement of the civil list revenue. He did not believe that on the previous debate one hon. gentleman had denied the right of the House to examine into the application, as Well as into the amount of this fund, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, that fully conscious of the due employment of these 950 monies, and that not the slightest abuse of them could, by the most strict investigation, be discovered, he should, at the proper time, have courted the most minute inquiry upon the subject. As that proper time was now arrived, in order to give the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of acting up to his professions, that he might shew the burdened nation that they were not the mere hollow pretences of temporary expediency, he now submitted the subject, again to the decision of the House.—He contended, that funds that had been discussed and appropriated by parliament were subject to its controul, and to be accounted for. But how much more ought these funds to be liable to inquiry and explanation, which had never been voted by parliament; which arose out of sources with which they could not intermeddle; and which had never been controlled or canvassed by them? For all they knew of the matter from the papers on their table, was, that certain sums had been paid to certain individuals. It was not necessary for his present purpose even to allege that any abuse existed, or could exist: to shew that the items, of which the accounts before them were made up, were utterly unintelligible to them, was a sufficient ground for the appointment of a Select Committee up stairs, to ascertain their nature and condition. In order to shew that this was the case, he would divide the accounts on, the table into four separate classes, to which he begged leave to call the attention of the House. In this classification, he would keep entirely out of view all sums issued after messages to parliament, and sums actually paid to captors and claimants pursuant to the original design of the fund.
The first class consisted of sums paid, but which did not, on the face of these accounts, appear to have been paid indisputably, to captors or claimants on account of prizes.
The second class, which was smaller than the first, consisted of sums, paid apparently on the same account, but not likely to be so in reality, as might be gathered from the items themselves.
The third class, which was again still smaller than either of the former, consisted of sums paid, for which no grounds whatever were given; and
The fourth and last class was composed of sums issued for services, not having any connection with the original intention of the fund, and not being paid to captors or claimants.
951 On these several classes, he would proceed to state his reasons for contending that further inquiry was necessary, and that a Select Committee ought to be appointed for that purpose. With regard to the first class, he was by no means disposed to deny that large amounts might have been justly paid to persons concerned in prizes, which ultimately had been ascertained to have been illegally made; even to non-commissioned captors they might have been prudently given, but he maintained that in this distribution no preference should be shewn, and where favour was apparent no specification of the various items was supplied to prove that it was proper or necessary. In the account laid before the House in 1810,* under the head, "Special Payments," would be noticed the enormous sum of 269,789l. paid to John Alcock," to be by him paid over to the, merchants, &c. trading to Spain, whose property had been Sequestrated in 1796 and 1797." The amount of 54,921l. was likewise inserted as having been disbursed as, Indemnification to sundry commanders on account of ships carried into cape Nicola Mole, and illegally condemned." Into the particulars of these two large items, surely some inquiry ought to be made, and it was a mere mockery to acknowledge the right of the House for that purpose, and to refuse the Select Committee the nomination of which he now proposed. It might be stated that the accounts had been audited at the Treasury, but would the House delegate its right of investigation to any but to its own members for that purpose by itself appointed, unless indeed, as in many other cases, particularly in that of the American claimants, boards were established, whose particular function it was to make the requisite investigation. He did not blame any individual administration, because, since the time of Mr. Pitt, these abuses had been continued under every government. There were other items in which they were not left so much in the dark, and which were of a very suspicious nature,—not that he meant to impute any censure against particular persons, or the governments under which these grants had been made. These items were of payments to persons for vessels captured and condemned, but afterwards restored; or for vessels not condemned, but taken out Of the hands of the captors.
* See Vol. 17, Appendix, p. Ixvi.952 Among instances of this sort were two" grants of 20,521l. and 18,000l. to lord Keith, (a gallant nobleman who deserved the utmost praise, and who would not have done this had it not been the common practice) because he had detained an American vessel at the Cape of Good Hope, for which an action was brought against him, and he was cast with heavy damages and expensive costs. By such grants cause was given for the complaints against us for the violence of our cruisers (which were greatly unfounded) and for the want of redress in our law courts, which was utterly unfounded, as in them there was not the slightest difference made between an American and an Englishman. But it afforded ground for clamour, however unjust, to protect captors harmless whom the law had decided to have been in the wrong. To justify the government in this point alone a Select Committee was necessary. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Arbuthnot) when placed in a similar situation, had come down to that House, in all the eagerness of conscious innocence, and made a manly and explicit defence; accounting for the sums charged against his name, to the last shilling, and even courting the further probation of a committee. Nearly all the individuals, whose names were inserted in these documents, no doubt felt equally anxious to clear their characters from imputation, and not being able to do it in the House, they had a right to claim a full and fair scrutiny in a committee. Rear-admiral Lewis had been paid a large sum for detaining a neutral vessel, and would not America, and justly too without explanation, ask what security, if she continued at peace with us, she had that her neutral shipping should not be seized, if our officers were apparently rewarded for their capture?The hon. and learned gentleman next noticed a case in which a partiality had been shewn, and that compensation refused to the party which had been granted to others under similar circumstances. This case, on which he dwelt at considerable length, was shortly this: the privateer Daphne, belonging to a Mr. Jacob, in 1799 or 1800, captured the French vessel Circe, worth 30,000l. which was condemned, and a claim to the contrary disregarded. The year and day for appeal having transpired, the condemnation became final, and 15,000l. was shared among the captors. Ten thousand pounds more lay ready to be distributed. At this 953 point of time an information was laid against them for having disregarded the 33d of the King, by which a muster of the crew of a privateer before sailing is enacted. On the letter of this law they were convicted; the 10,000l. stopped, and the 15,000l. recovered, all of which had become Droits of Admiralty. The mere ignorance of the law was not admitted as an excuse: and the result to Mr. Jacob was costs to the amount of 1,700l. and utter ruin. From having been in a respectable trade, be was thrown into gaol, and reduced to poverty. It might be right for the House to be informed on what sort of authority it was that the money paid on account of the capture by the Daphne had been recalled, and Mr. Jacobs and his family reduced to beggary. It was not at the suggestion of a common informer, or of a qui tam attorney, but on evidence procured by a reverend clergyman—the Rev. W. B. Daniels, who had been in confinement for debt, and reduced to the condition of the primitive Christians, after publishing a work on Field Sports, in which he, as well as many of his brethren, were known so peculiarly to excel (hear, hear!) He did not mean to cast any general reflection on the numerous respectable members of the church of England; but certain it was that Mr. Daniels formed no addition to their respectability, for after other trades had failed, he turned a broker in evidence, and procured two men, of the names of Thatcher and Guzman, one of whom had been convicted of perjury, and the other had been flogged at the cart's tail, to swear as much as was necessary to support his charge. For this signal service, the worthy and reverend gentleman had received from government no less than 5,077l. and the first of his witnesses 87l. 13s. 7d. as a "gratuity for evidence given."—The hon. and learned gentleman then contrasted the case of Mr. Jacob with that of sir Home Popham, who had been reimbursed. They had both, he said, embarked in illegal voyages, and both said without knowing that fact: fifty seven members of that House had disbelieved sir Home Popham on this point, and perhaps as many would doubt Mr. Jacob. Sir Home's vessel had been condemned, bat On a report from the King's proctor, 21,610l. was restored to him, while Mr. Jacob, having no interest, was compelled to put up with the loss of his all. The latter had, indeed, smuggled a little tobacco on shore, as the former had foot chests of tea, in 954 which point they were both alike, only that Mr. Jacob was not on board at the time of the transaction, which sir Home Popham was. It would be endless for him to enter into all similar cases, which could not be discussed in the House, and were only fit for inquiry in the Committee he wished to be appointed.
Under the second branch of his subject, he should mention with regret the grant of 932l. to sir William Scott, "for services in deciding upon cases relative to American captures." He was firmly convinced that the wealth of the Indies could not induce that learned judge to condemn a single cock-boat contrary to justice; but the words in which the item was stated were peculiarly disgusting, and implied what there was not the slightest reason to believe. In the United States, however, they would not meet with so just an interpretation, where the natives were already strongly prejudiced against what they termed the unwarrantable and flagrant injustice of the British court of Admiralty.—Other articles, however, thrust themselves forward, that could not be so satisfactorily explained. On the 20th of September 1803, a grant of 2,250l. had been made to sir George Young, of one-third of the Dutch ship Frederick, taken at the Cape. The sum of 2,792l. had likewise been paid to the earl of Dunmore, on an account nearly similar; and on the 17th August, admiral Keppel received part of the proceeds of Spanish vessels captured at Martinique. To the first of these items particular attention was due, because at the time the prize at the Cape was made, sir George Young was serving in parliament as member for Honiton, filled a lucrative and honourable post, and upon failing in a subsequent election; was appointed governor at the Cape of Good Hope—so that the most vivid imagination might be defied to state an adequate reason for this grant. The earl of Dunmore could have as little to do with the capture for which he was remunerated: and indeed the general complexion of many of the items was so suspicious, as imperiously to demand further investigation as to their real character.
The hon. and learned gentleman now came to the third class, in which sums were given, and no account whatever annexed to them. Among these, be noticed a grant of 887l. in the year 1807, to captain Spencer, pursuant to his Majesty's warrant; 10,000l. and 1,900l to William 955 Bourne, and others, as commissioners of Spanish and Portuguese property. He could not see why so much should be expended on this head, and thought it imperiously called for an explanation. He also noticed the payment of 219l. to a Turk, for losses at Constantinople, which he censured, as contrary to the principle on which the Danish sufferers, merchants of Hull, Glasgow, &c. were refused compensation for losses, to the amount of 250,000l. sustained at Copenhagen. There were funds enough to reimburse them, as 575,000l. was still in the hands of the Registrar; but he complained that they were rejected, while the claims of the Ottoman, under similar circumstances, had been attended to.
The fourth and last class related to those grants wholly unconnected with the sources whence the fund was derived. The largest of these were the grants to the younger branches of the royal family. Previously to the augmentation in 1806, of the allowances to the junior branches of the royal family, it appeared that in the course of one month no less a sum than 75,000l. had been granted to them out of the Droits, and subsequently, that no less a sum than 70,500l. had also been granted to them out of the same Droits. But it was a most extraordinary circumstance, that while the Bill for increasing their allowances was in progress through parliament, the sum of 6,000l. was granted out of the Droits of the Admiralty to the duke of Kent. A noble friend of his was minister at that period, and it was but justice due to him that this grant should be satisfactorily explained, which no doubt it could be. When the Bill alluded to was passed, the duke of York was not comprehended in its provisions, on the statement, that from his office as commander in chief, and from other emoluments, he derived an income of 26,000l. Yet, in 1808, when his Royal Highness Mill retained those offices, it appeared that he received out of the droits no less a sum than 20,000l. On the whole it appeared, that to the different branches of the royal family 184,000l. had been granted out of the Droits of the Admiralty; and he could not make this statement without lamenting that those illustrious individuals had not found it possible, in common with the other classes of the community (many of whom were oppressed with burdens almost intolerable,) to keep their expences within their incomes.
956 There was a grant of 7 or 800l. to captain Temple, to defray the expences of a prosecution for the murder of a seaman, of which alleged crime captain Temple had been acquitted; no doubt most satisfactorily. But if this was a proper grant, why not extend a similar grace to others who had equal claims? For instance, captain Tomlinson, a very gallant officer, who was tried for forgery at the Old Bailey, about 18 months ago. No sooner had the case been opened than Mr. Justice Le Blanc declared that he must be instantly acquitted, which he was, therefore, most honourably. Captain Tomlinson's character stood as high, after this service, as ever. He had since been promoted. But he had in vain endeavoured to obtain from this fund the expences, amounting to nearly 1,000l. which he had sustained in consequence of his prosecution. The cases of captain Temple and captain Tomlinson might possibly be quite dissimilar; but this ought to be shown before a committee of enquiry.
These were the various grounds on which he called upon the House to appoint a committee. He asked it on the part of the individuals who seemed lo be placed in suspicious circumstances; he asked it on the part of the different administrations, who appeared to have lent themselves to the purposes of those individuals he asked it on the part of the country, as the relations of Great Britain with foreign powers was implicated; and he asked it on the part of the constituents of that House, who were entitled to know the exact appropriation of the public money. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the application of the various sums received as Droits of the Crown and of Admiralty, and to report on the same to the House."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas sure that the House would not think that the paper which had been produced on the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, exhibited a sufficient appearance of abuse to warrant the appointment of the proposed committee. Most of the cases alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman had nothing in them, and the hon. and learned gentleman's observations arose from the state of ignorance in which he candidly professed himself to be on the subject. But was it a just ground for a committee that an hon. member did not happen to know what he was talking about? He 957 would explain to the House briefly, and from recollection, the circumstances of some of these cases. The first was the sum of 269,789l. paid to Mr. Alcock for the merchants trading to Spain. Nothing could be more easily explicable. Various merchants trading to Spain had their property sequestered there. By the treaty of Amiens, the Spanish government consented to make good their claims. War, however, broke out before that could be done, a war originating in the capture of some Spanish frigates: and out of the proceeds of those identical frigates it had been thought just by government to satisfy the claimants. Another item to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded, was the sum of 54,921l. paid" to several commanders, for ships that had been captured and taken into Cape Nicola Mole. The facts were these: a court of prizes had been erected at Cape Nicola Mole, which was composed of captains of the navy, which considering itself legal, condemned certain prizes brought in there. On an appeal, however, to this country, the court was declared illegal and the sentences null. Of course no condemnation took place, and this grant was for the purpose of repairing to the captors the loss which they would otherwise have sustained. Was this an abuse of the fund?—The next case was that of lord Keith. Had the hon. and learned gentleman been at that period a member of the profession, he would have known that the detention of the American ship by lord Keith was a subject that involved as much legal disquisition as any that had ever occurred. Lord Keith thought he had a good right to detain the ship "at the Cape of Good Hope. The captain being sullen at his detention, took no care of her, and she was totally lost. A suit was commenced against the underwriters, who were cast; they, in turn, obtained damages from lord Keith, and government very properly determining that lord Keith should not be ruined by this transaction, gave him the sum which appeared in the paper. With respect to the grant to the clergyman who had given information of the inadequate force of a privateer, it was well known that the law considered it a grave offence, punishable with a fine of 1,000l. and a year's imprisonment, for the captain of a privateer not to have a force equal to that for which he had contracted with government in his letters of marque. In this case the privateer was so circumstanced; not only, 958 therefore, did the capture belong to the crown, but the captain was also in the state of a culprit. The person by whom the information was given, was assuredly entitled to the reward which had been assigned him. There was one point adverted to by the hon. and learned gentleman, the exact state of which he wished the House distinctly to understand. It was, the grant of 932l. to sir William Scott, for deciding certain causes. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, that this might go over to America, and that it might there be supposed, however unjustly, that this money was paid to sir William Scott, for the purpose of influencing him; in his decisions. The fact was, that these were not decisions in the high court of Admiralty; but that they were decisions by reference of a vast variety of cases of American claims, so referred, for the purpose of saving the claimants trouble and expence. Sir William Scott was the British referree, and his hon. and learned friend near him the American referree; the latter had been paid by the Americans, the former, by the grant which had called forth the hon. and learned gentleman's animadversions. With respect to the Portuguese commissioners, he was sure the House would feel from the peculiar circumstances of the case, that those expences could not be paid out of the property. As to the Danish claims, no doubt they were cases of considerable hardship, as all those must be in which individuals suffer by the wars in which their country is engaged. On investigation, however, it appeared that these claims were not of a nature which would justify the required satisfaction, and to show that government had no sinister view on the subject, every shilling of the droits accruing from the expedition to Copenhagen had been given to the captors.—He was sure that the House would not coincide with the hon. and learned gentleman in the view which he took of the grants that had been made out of the droits to the various branches of the royal family. This fund, being under his Majesty's controul, his Majesty had thought proper to apply it to relieve those branches from embarrassment when required. It was merely a case in which a parent exercised a disposition to assist a child out of a fund belonging to himself. If that did not appear justifiable to the hon. and learned gentleman, be would have quite as much ground to argue on the subject at present, as if an inquiry 959 were gone into upon it.—Next came the case of captain Temple. This circumstance occurred the year before he came into government; but he had no doubt that the grant was made to captain Temple, because the circumstance which occasioned the expence, grew out of the discharge of his duty. But did it follow that the claim of captain Tomlinson, or of any other officer, must necessarily be granted in the same way? The hon. and learned gentleman said, that at the opening of captain Tomlinson's trial, the judge declared that a verdict must be found of acquittal. This struck him differently from the mode in which it seemed to strike the hon. and learned gentleman. From all his experience in courts of justice, it appeared to him that captain Tomlinson must have been acquitted, not on the merits of the case but in consequence of come detect in the indictment. Let that, however, be as it might, if the alleged offence was not supposed to be committed in the discharge of his duty, captain Tomlinson's case was not at all analogous to that of captain Temple. He would not refer to sir H. Popham's case, because on that parliament had already pronounced a decision. But it was whimsical to hear the hon. and learned gentleman, who condemned the grant made to sir H. Popham, instance a case of claim, which he described as nearly similar in character, and then condemn government for not having attended to it! This was a kind of double-handed stroke which the hon. and learned gentleman had made: 'You have granted, you are wrong—You have not granted, still you are wrong.'—He had now gone through most of the cases touched upon by the hon. and learned gentleman, and shewn that the charge of a misapplication of the fund was wholly unfounded. If the hon. and learned gentleman wished for further information in the shape of papers, he had no objection to their production; but he was persuaded that the House would agree with him in thinking that no grounds had been laid for the appointment of a Committee. The House of Commons had abundant business without the multiplication of unnecessary committees, the increase of which in late years had already become a most serious evil.
§ Mr. Brougham, in explanation, distinctly disclaimed the slightest intention of imputing to sir William Scott the least impropriety of conduct; but he blamed the mode in which the item was described in 960 the paper. With respect to the conduct of government towards sir Home Popham and the other individual whom he had mentioned, all he had said was, that as their cases were the same, it ought to be explained why their treatment was different.
The Attorney Generalstated the facts in the case of lord Keith in the same way as that in which they had been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He then proceeded to the best of his recollection, to detail those in the case of captain Tomlinson. Captain Tomlinson's vessel had been repaired at Dartmouth. The person by whom it had been repaired, a man of the name of Tanner, became a bankrupt, and by his books it appeared that his charges were much less than those made to the Admiralty. It was discovered that these last were forged. Two bills of indictment were in consequence found, the one against Tanner, the other against captain Tomlinson. On opening the prosecution against Tanner, it appeared that the forgery had not strictly been committed in the county in which in the indictment it was laid to be committed. The consequence was that the judge directed the acquittal of Tanner, and the indictment against captain Tomlinson being under the same circumstances, his prosecution was also abandoned.
Mr. Herbert, of Kerry, bore the highest testimony to the character of capt. Temple, than whom a more humane and honourable man did not exist. On his trial, there did not appear the slightest ground to suppose, that the man of whose murder he was accused, had died in consequence of the punishment inflicted upon him. A fever was the evident cause of his death, and the judge in this case directed the immediate acquittal of captain Temple.
§ Mr. Crokerobserved, that the hon. and learned gentleman declared that captain Tomlinson had been most honourably acquitted. Without giving any opinion on the merits of capt. Tomlinson, he must say that the hon. and learned gentleman's statement was altogether fallacious. Capt. Tomlinson had commanded one of his Majesty's ships, which it became necessary to repair at Dartmouth. The bill made for the repairs done was utterly false, being enormously higher than the expences actually incurred. This bill, it was alleged, that captain Tomlinson had countersigned, by which it was rendered payable at the Navy board. When presented 961 by the shipwright, after the lapse of a considerable period, it was found to be either a forgery or a fraud. For this offence, the shipwright and captain Tomlinson were indicted in Middlesex, as having committed it in Middlesex. The shipwright was convicted: but' on the opening of the trial of capt. Tomlinson, the judge observed that there might have been a collusion in Devonshire, but asked if there were any proof of a collusion on the part of capt. Tomlinson in Middlesex? When told that capt. Tomlinson had countersigned the bill in Devonshire, the judge directed his immediate acquittal. Whether if capt. Tomlinson had been tried in Devonshire he might or might not have been acquitted, he would not say; but unquestionably the hon. and learned gentleman had no right to call the result of the trial at the Old Bailey an honourable acquittal.
§ Mr. Brougham, in explanation, observed, that the statement of the hon. gentleman differed very much from that of his right hon. and learned friend. His right hon. and learned friend had said that there was no conviction whatever; the hon. gentleman asserted that there had been a conviction. He repeated that capt. Tomlinson was a very respectable officer, and had been promoted since the circumstance alluded to. In a private statement circulated by capt. Tomlinson, he declared that he had been acquitted because there was no evidence against him, and in nowise on account of any flaw in the indictment. He added, that the person by whom the vessel had been repaired, happening to have a sledge hammer in his hand, desired another person to sign for him; a practice very common with that individual.
§ Mr. Crokerdid not pledge himself to the fact of the conviction of Tanner but with respect to capt. Tomlinson, he was unquestionably acquitted in consequence of the flaw in the indictment, and not upon the merits of the case. It was true that he had been promoted, and that the promotion had taken place after the occurrence alluded to, but before it was discovered.
§ Mr. Broughamwished to know whether capt. Tomlinson had not been lately appointed to a command of the Sea Fencibles?
§ Mr. Crokerreplied, that not only had no such appointment taken place, but that there had been no Sea Fencibles for the last two years.
§ Sir R. Bickertonstated, that at the trial, capt. Tomlinson's case was not entered into.
§ The Motion was then put and negatived.