HC Deb 28 June 1819 vol 40 cc1416-9

The House being in a committee of supply,

Mr. Wilberforce

prefaced his motion for a grant of remuneration to general Boyd, by a short statement of the circumstances on which the claim was founded. That officer, who was a native of the United States, had in early life rendered a great service to the cause of this country in the East Indies, at a very critical period of our affairs there. He was at that time the commander of a corps in the service of the Nizam. A large French force and a small English force being not far distant from each other, the commander of the latter apprehending a sudden attack from the former, applied to general Boyd at midnight for assistance, a request with which he did not for a moment hesitate to comply. The alarm was unfounded, but general Boyd's friendly zeal was handsomely acknowledged by the British government at Calcutta. To himself, however, it proved highly injurious; for the French party at the court of the Nizam were so successful, that he was deprived of a situation from which he was then in the receipt of 9,000l. a year. Having been unable to obtain any compensation in India, he came to this country, and gained permission to take a cargo of saltpetre from Calcutta to the United States; by which adventure it was calculated that he might make 50 or 60,000l. He was also furnished with a special licence to protect him even should a war break out. The committee would, however, hear with surprise, that notwithstanding those precautions, the vessel in which general Boyd shipped the saltpetre touching at the Cape of Good Hope to land some passengers, was there detained, and condemned by the vice-admiralty court. Although thus deprived of the advantages to which he was so justly entitled, general Boyd maintained his original good will towards England; in proof of which, he would read a letter from a general officer in the British service, who during the late war in America commanded on the frontier of Canada, near the spot in which general Boyd had a command on the part of the United States [The hon. gentleman here read the letter in question, which was from general de Rottenburg to W. Mellish, esq. and spoke in high terms of the liberal conduct of general Boyd]. After the conclusion of the war with America, an application had been made on the part of general Boyd to the British government for some remuneration for the loss which he had sustained in consequence of his conduct in India. It was recommended both at the secretary of state's office and at the treasury, that the subject should be brought before parliament, and submitted to the investigation of a committee. That was done, and the committee sat last session. In the committee there were several points of difference, but by far the larger portion of the members acquiesced in the justice of general Boyd's claim, although they did not agree as to the extent to which it ought to be allowed. Eventually, they came to a resolution, recommending the case of general Boyd to the consideration of parliament. He would therefore move, "That the sum of 6,000l. be granted to his majesty, to enable his majesty to issue and cause to be paid to general Boyd, a citizen and officer of the United States of America, in consideration of the saltpetre, exported under the king's licence, as a remuneration for a service formerly rendered to this country in the East Indies, and for the expenses and trouble incurred in the prosecution of his claim; and that the said sum be issued and paid without any fee or other deduction whatsoever."

Mr. Marryat

contended, that general Boyd had no claim whatever on this country. In the first place, on the occasion alluded to in India, general Boyd had not moved from his position in aid of the British; and in the second place, he had endeavoured to magnify his losses with a view to obtain a larger sum than that to which, even were the justice of his claim allowed, he was fairly entitled. If general Boyd had insured his cargo of saltpetre for the sum which he expected to obtain by it, he would have sustained no loss. He was surprised at the interest taken by the hon. member, in an individual, who, at the head of 2,000 mercenaries, had been ready to fight for any power which might think fit to employ him. He could not consent that the taxes wrung from the people should be improvidently lavished; and was satisfied that the claim set up on the present occasion was totally unfounded.

Mr. Wilberforce

said, that if it had appeared to the committee, that any fraudulent attempt had been made to impose on them, they would have flung back the application with disdain and indignation. There was nothing in the evidence to warrant such an imputation.

Mr. Gurney

observed, that the House ought to consider that this was a service rendered by a foreigner. It would have been both the duty of a British subject, so placed, to have assisted his country; but general Boyd had no interest to serve; on the contrary he performed this service at a great disadvantage to himself.

Sir J. Mackintosh

felt it his duty to support the proposed grant. There was no doubt entertained of the extent of the service, or of the justice of the remuneration given by the India Company. This remuneration was, permission to take a cargo of saltpetre to America, from which he would have realized a very great profit. Of this profit he was deprived, by the cargo having been seized by British officers. Having lost the reward given by the India Company, general Boyd appealed, not to the justice, but to the equity and liberality of parliament, for some recompence for his services. If he understood the objections urged against the motion, they were two-fold: first, that general Boyd ought to have protected himself from loss by insuring his cargo; and secondly, because there had been some misstatements relative to the amount of the loss. If the vessel had been lost at sea, or captured by a French privateer, the first would be undoubtedly a good argument against any claim on this country; but here the case was different. How was this property lost to general Boyd? It was lost by the act of British officers, and therefore by the act of the British government. How was he to provide against this? Suppose the compensation had been in money, and that general Boyd had been robbed of it by officers professedly acting under the British government, would it be contended that he had no claim on this country? Undoubtedly not. And yet the principle was the same. This gentleman could not have had an idea that he ought to insure property received from this country against the acts of this country. This was in fact giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The motion was then put and carried.