HC Deb 24 May 1821 vol 5 cc974-83
Mr. Creevey

rose to make his promised motion respecting the Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Leeward Island duties. He had on a former evening called the attention of the House to this subject. Of its importance no person could express a doubt who felt the necessity of making every just and possible retrenchment. The persons who questioned his law, and opposed his views on this subject, were certain ladies and gentlemen of high rank, who put into their own pockets the fund that should be applied to colonial purposes alone. One would have thought that the guardians of the public purse would have received with satisfaction any suggestion on this head; but when it was considered that many of those guardians themselves received part of this fund, the House would see that he had a difficult task to perform when he attempted to restore it to the purposes to which, in justice, and in law, it ought to have been applied. He would for the present take the case of the island of Barbadoes only. With respect to the law of the case, he would recite the colonial act, dated 12th Sept. 1663, by which the duty of 4½ per cent, on all goods the product of the island, which should be shipped from thence, was granted to his majesty for the purpose of keeping up the honour, and dignity of the government in the Island, and for building and keeping fortifications and other public works in repair. In that act he saw nothing, with respect to pensioners of the Crown; he did not see one single word to authorize the appropriation of those duties to pensions for lords and gentlemen,, and more particularly members of that House, The obvious intention of the act of 1663 was however departed from; and about 40 years after that act had been passed, a petition had been presented to that House from the merchants and planters of Barbadoes, in which they stated that the duties had been applied to other purposes than those pointed out by the act, and that the fortifications were in consequence allowed to go to decay. The petition was referred to a committee, and that committee reported, that the Complaint of the petitioners was a just complaint; accordingly an address was presented from that House to queen Anne, praying that the funds might be restored to the purposes for which they were originally intended. The answer of the queen informed the parliament, that she had given directions that the funds should, in future, be appropriated to the purposes of the colonial act; and in the settlement of revenue on the queen, made in a day or two after, those duties were excepted by name. That exception was made under the eye of lords Somers and Godolphin, men as well able to decide upon the legal appropriation of the fund as the gentlemen opposite. Out of that fund, however, there was an exception of an annuity of 1,000l.. to be paid to lord Kinnoul, who was the representative of the earl of Carlisle, the former grantee of the island of Barbadoes. Under the peculiar circumstances the annuity to lord Kinnoul was not unreasonable; yet when he stated the circumstance the other night, the right hon. gentleman opposite seized upon the fact, as if it afforded an argument for the total misapplication of the fund. The anxiety with which tile right hon. gentleman seized upon this grant to lord Kinnoul, showed how anxious he was, that himself and those who with him received those duties in grants dud in pensions, to sail in the same boat with lord Kinnoul. It was said that the late lord Chatham and Mr. Burke had large pensions chargeable on that fund; he lamented the fact, but custom did not make the law, and he had precisely the same right in 1821, to call for the appropriation of those funds, as the parliament of 1702 had. He regretted that pensions should have been granted out of that fund to lord Chatham and Mr. Burke. It shewed the danger of abuse; for no sooner did these great men accept of pensions out of the fund, than half the illegitimate children at the west end of the town were quartered upon it; between those and peers and peeresses and members of parliament, the whole of that fund was exhausted. In looking to the means of restoring that fund to the object for which it was granted, he could do no more than lay before them the plain words of the colonial act; the address of the House in 1701; and the answer of queen Anne. It was not his intention to deprive daughters and sisters and widows of the pensions chargeable on that fund. However improperly granted, he was willing that the pensions should remain during the lives of those who held them; but in future he hoped that the House would feel themselves, under the circumstances, bound in law and in justice—in propriety and in decency—to make the fund available to the intentions of the act of 1663. With respect to the duties of the Leeward islands, though the words were not so explicit, he thought the law was equally plain. He had no objection, however, that all the colonial acts should be referred to a committee to report their opinion as to the true intent and meaning of these acts. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving,

"That it appears to this House, by an act of the colonial assembly of the island of Barbadoes, bearing date the 12th of September 1663, stating, amongst other things, 'that well weighing the great charges there must be of necessity in the maintaining the honour and dignity of his majesty's authority here, the public meetings of the sessions, the often attendance of the council, the reparation of the forts, the building a sessions-house arid prison, and all other public charges incumbent on the government, did, in consideration thereof, give and grant unto his majesty, his heirs and successors, for ever, the following imposts or customs, that is to say, upon all dead commodities of the growth or produce of this island, that shall be shipped off the same, shall be paid to our sovereign lord the king, his heirs and successors, for ever, four and a half in specie for every score;

"That it appears to this House, by reference to its Journals, that on the 16th day of March 1701, a petition was presented from the agent, planters, and merchants of Barbadoes, stating that the said duties of 4½ per cent, which had been granted by the said colonial act of 1663, for the reparation and building of fortifications, and defraying all other public charges incident to the government there, had been collected, by officers appointed by the commissioners in England, and applied to other uses; and praying that the said duty of 4½ per cent. Might be applied to the uses for which it was given:

"That on the 24th of March following, an humble address was voted from this House to her majesty queen Anne, praying that the said duty or impost of 4½ per cent, arising in Barbadoes and the Leeward islands, subject to an annuity to the earl of Kinnoul (which earl of Kinnoul was the representative of the earl of Carlisle, the former grantee or patentee of the island of Barbadoes), might be applied for repairing and erecting such fortifications, and other public services for the safety of the said islands, as her majesty should direct, and that an annual account how the said duties were expended should be laid, before the House of Commons; and further, that on the 30th of March following, Mr. Secretary Vernon reported to the House, that her majesty had, been pleased to say she would give directions that the duty of four and a half per cent, should be applied in the manner prayed for, and that an annual account should be kept of the same duties:

"That, notwithstanding such specific appropriation of the 4½ per cent, duty, by the colonial act of the island of Barbadoes of 1663, confirmed as it was by the proceedings in this House in 1701, above referred to, the said fund at present, though amounting, according to the last return, to 22,000l.. and upwards, is nearly exhausted in pensions granted by the Crown to different persons in this country, whilst a sum' of 7,500l.. has been voted this year out of the public money, for repairing the fortifications, and other public services, in the island of Barbadoes.

"That, under all the circumstances above referred to, this House is of opinion, that the duty of 4½ per cent, imposed Upon the island of Barbadoes by the colonial act of 1663, is a fund, duly, strictly and legally, applicable to defraying the expenses of fortifications, and other public purposes in the said island; and that more particularly, in the present distressed situation of this country, it is the bounden duty of this House to see this fund so applied, and to prevent it from being exhausted in" pensions."

Mr. Goulburn

was not surprised at the hostility which sortie hon. gentlemen felt towards this fund, as they were evidently unacquainted with its real history. Many publications had of late issued from the press, which professed to give a history of it, but which proceeded from linen who either knew nothing of the subject, or who intended, for purposes which he would not mention, to mislead those for whom they were writing. To this class belonged an address which had been published to the electors of Great Britain. That address, in giving a history of this fund, had made several observations regarding its origin which were totally unfounded; and though the hon. gentleman had not fallen into the same errors, he had fallen into some scarcely less material. The hon. gentleman had read the preamble of the colonial act to the House, from which it appeared, that the fund was granted for various purposes, though he had chosen to affirm, that it was only granted for the repair of the fortifications in the Leeward islands. Now, this was not the fact, as the funds in question had been granted in 1663 to the Crown, for the renunciation of certain rights which then belonged to it. That those funds had never been intended for the repair of the fortifications was clear from this consideration, that in the years 1665, 1666, and 1681, sums of money had been raised by the colonial legislature expressly for that object. That those funds were intended for the sole use and benefit of the Crown was established by another fact; namely, that in 1684 the colonial legislature had offered to pay into his majesty's exchequer in London, to be at his majesty's own disposal, the sum of 6,000l.. annually, as a commutation for the duties levied in the island. These points being established with regard to the light in which this fund was contemplated by the colonial legislature, it next became his duty to consider how it had been viewed by the British parliament. Now, in the reign of king William, parliament had taken, and by name applied it to the civil list. What connexion there could be between the civil list and the purposes to which the hon. gentleman had said the fund ought to be applied, he could not well see. The later proceedings in the time of queen Anne clearly demonstrated to his mind, that the then parliament conceived its predecessor to have acted improperly in appropriating to such purposes as it thought proper funds which belonged absolutely and without control to the Crown. At the commencement of the reign of George 1st, this 4½ per cent, fund was mentioned in the Civil List act, for the ex- press purpose of placing it on the same footing as the funds belonging to the duchy of Cornwall. Its history from that period there was no occasion for him to repeat, as in each succeeding reign it was considered as of a similar nature with the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall. So much for the light in which parliament contemplated the funds in question. The hon. gentleman had stated, that they were distributed amongst lords and ladies and members of parliament, and that no part of it was applied to colonial purposes.' On that head he was also much mistaken, as in the year 1818, 15,000l.. out of 25,000l.. which it produced, was applied to the use of the colonies. He defied any lion, member who read the acts of the Leeward islands relative to this fund, to entertain a doubt regarding the construction of any of them; and yet the hon. gentleman wished to refer them to the consideration of a committee. He concluded by stating that the 4½ per cents, were expressly granted by the colony to his majesty, because he had given the island a constitution; and by moving the previous question.

Mr. Bernal

entered into an historical review of the government of the island of Barbadoes, and adverted to the rapacious measures pursued towards the colonists in the reign of Charles 2nd. At that period the earl of Carlisle obtained a proprietary grant of the revenues of the island, and afterwards consigned the interest for a limited period to the earl of Pembroke, from whom it passed to a merchant on the island. The second earl of Carlisle at a subsequent period leased out his interest to lord Kinnoul, who again transferred his right to lord Willoughby; and these successive persons conducted themselves with so much rapacity, that the colonists were under the necessity of claiming the protection of king Charles. They begged permission of that unprincipled monarch to try at law the validity of the letters patent under which the exactions had been carried on; but the king, instead of granting this request, referred the matter to certain lords of his council, of whom the earl of Clarendon was one; and the conduct then pursued was among the grounds of charge adduced in the subsequent impeachment of that earl. This duty of four and a half per cent, was first proposed to the colonial council, by a colonist named Kendall, who had acted without the authority of the people of Barba- does. The duty was strongly resisted, at the time, by the local legislative assembly; and the governor sent home some of the inhabitants, under charges of mutiny and high treason for that resistance. Thus, the act of 1663, instead of being a voluntary act of the assembly at Barbadoes, was one which had been extorted from them by the oppressive power of the Crown. But even then the stipulation made by the government was, that the public burdens of the island should be alleviated out of the duty—the governor's salary, for instance, as well as lord Kinnoul's incumbrances were paid there from. A sessions-house and other improvements were to be made at the same time, not one of which conditions was carried into effect according to the original stipulation. The government also broke faith with the colonists, in not exempting from the duty, according to the terms of the express stipulation, a spot comprehending 10,000 acres of merchants' land. So completely was the violation of the treaty apparent, that, in 1701 precisely the same proposition was made which his hon. friend had now submitted to the House. Why not, then admit in 1821, the same under standing upon the subject of that compact, which had been sanctioned by the legislature one hundred and twenty years ago?

Mr. Bennet

said, he was not surprised that the hon. member opposite should endeavour to get rid of the force of the colonial act, by saying that the colonists had subsequently submitted, and acknowledged the error into which they had fallen. They had indeed submitted; but to what? To the encroachment of the strong—to the arbitrary plundering of an oppressive government. He expressed his concurrence in the construction of the acts, as they had been quoted by his hon. friends, and contended that the act of George 1st. threw back the produce of these 4½ per cent, duties to their original design, namely, the maintenance of the local government at Barbadoes. For a long succession of years that appropriation had actually taken place, and it was not until 1796 that a different system grew up, and pensions were assigned from this fund. At first they were comparatively small; lord Auckland and sitGrey Cooper received 1,200l.. or 1,300l.: a year out of it: soon after, however, I the duke of Gloucester was assigned 9,000l..a year from it; but the fund falling Short of the incumbrance in the year 1787, the duke of Gloucester's pension was transferred to the consolidated fund. But when this colonial revenue was afterwards augmented, the pension was not recharged upon it as it ought to have been; and government proceeded to give largesses out of it which altogether alienated the fund from its original destination. This was one of the most disgraceful acts of Mr. Pitt and his successors. In 1796, Mr. Burke received 7,500l.. out of this fund; and he and his heirs had ever since enjoyed a pension of 2,500l.. a year from the same source. This sort of alienation ought to be permitted no longer. The fund ought to be applied in reduction of the local expenses of Barbadoes; and whatever surplus remained, ought to go, not to the Crown, but to the general credit of the public expenditure. The Crown had already ample means for granting pensions. It had 300,000l.. a year independent of parliament for that purpose. Thinking that the motion was founded both in law and expediency, it should have his decided support.

Mr. Hume

observed, that with respect to the 4½ per cent, duties, there had been no return of their produce or application laid before the House since the year 1818. These duties had always been credited to the public, and formed part of the public revenue, up to 1778. Until 1796, indeed, some portion of this fund was returned as part of the public revenue; when it disappeared altogether, having been exhausted in pensions granted by his majesty. But, as the individuals to whom those pensions were granted happened to fall, it was surely fair that the surplus should be appropriated to the use of the public. That was the object of his hon. friend, and in this object lie called upon the landed gentlemen to support him.

Sir C, Long

read extracts from two reports of the finance committee on this subject; and from these he inferred, that the committee had recognised the right of the Crown to the 4½ per cent, duties, and that they formed no part of the public revenue. He also noticed that Mr. Burke's bill did not at all interfere with the fund in question, though the attention of parliament had been particularly called to the subject, and contended that the grant to the earl of Kinnoul was just as illegal as any of those subsequently made. In conclusion, he adverted to the anonymous slanders circulated against him on this subject. If the hon. mover was the author of the pamphlet alluded to, he hoped he would in future attack him openly and fairly in the House, where he should be ready to answer him.

Mr. Creevey

shortly replied, relying upon the act of 1663, and contending that his case was unshaken by anything said in answer to his motion. He asked for the relinquishment of no pension, but merely that the matter in future should be put upon a clear, fair, and intelligible footing.

The previous question being put, the House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 73. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion, 21.

List of the Minority.
Bury, lord Moore, A.
Boughton, sir W. R. Maxwell, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G. Martin, J.
Brougham, H. Maberly, J.
Blake, sir F. Newport, sir J.
Calvert, C. Ossulston, lord
Chaloner, R. Ord, W.
Denison, W. J. Parnell, sir H.
Ellice, E. Phillips, G.
Fitzroy, lord C. Palmer, C. F.
Fergusson, sir R. C. Russell, lord J.
Forbes, C. Robinson, sir G.
Guise, sir W. Ramsbottom, J.
Gordon, R. Robarts, col.
Gurney, H. Rumbold, C. E.
Heron, sir R. Ricardo, D.
Harbord, hon. E. Smith, hon. R.
Hume, J. Scarlett, J.
Hobhouse, J. C. Sebright, sir J.
Hornby, E. Taylor, M. A.
James, W. Western, C. C.
Lennard, T. Wilson, sir R.
Lockhart, J. J. Wilson, T.
Lester, B. L. Williams, W.
Milton, lord Webb, col.
Macdonald, J, TELLERS.
Monck, J. B, Creevey, T.
Bernal, R.
Mr. Creevey

maintained the correctness of the assertion which he had made, that the 4½ per cent, duties were exhausted in pensions to members of parliament and their connections. He was in possession of the names of members of that House who received pensions to the amount of 13,000l.. a year from this fund. He concluded with moving, "That it appears to this House, there is a duty of 4½ per cent, accruing to the Crown upon certain produce from the island of Antigua, St Christopher, Nevis, Montserrat, and Tortola; and that these duties, though considerable in amount, are nearly exhausted in pen- sions granted by the Crown to different persons in this country, whilst large sums are annually voted from the public money for the protection and defence of the said islands; and that this House is of opinion, that the different colonial acts creating the said duties of 4½ per cent, ought to be referred to a Select Committee, for their examination and for the purpose of reporting upon the same to this House."—The motion was negatived.