Commons Sitting of 25 March 1823

CAPE BRETON—PETITION COMPLAINING OF UNION WITH NOVA SCOTIA.—
Mr. Humesaid, he held in his hand a petition from a numerous body of the freeholders and others of the town of Sydney, in the island of Cape Breton, which he considered to be most important, involving, as it did, principles not confined to Cape Breton, but applicable to every colony in his majesty's dominions. That the House might better understand the prayer of the petition, it was necessary to recall to their minds that, at the close of the war of 1763, certain colonies were

685
ceded to Great Britain. Among them was the island of Cape Breton, which was immediately placed under the government-general of Nova Scotia, exactly as Dominica, St. Vincent's, Grenada, and Barbadoes, were placed under the government-general of Grenada. By his prerogative the king in council had a right to issue such orders and directions in the case of colonies, obtained either by cession or by conquest, as might enable the government of those colonies to be beneficially carried on, until, either by the king's own act or by parliament, the king became divested of that particular prerogative. This was by no means a doubtful point.—The hon. gentleman here read an opinion of lord Mansfield to the above effect, and added, that when once the king had divested himself of that particular prerogative, he could not interfere, without the sanction of parliament, in the government and regulation of whatever colony was in question.—The case had been gone into minutely in 1774, when a plea was set forth, on the part of the crown, to levy a 4½ per cent duty on Grenada. That colony had been conveyed to Great Britain by treaty in February; and, by a proclamation from his majesty in October of the same year, a separate government was established in it, and a power granted of carrying on the same; by which proclamation, therefore, his majesty divested himself of the prerogative which he had until then possessed of making laws, of levying duties, or of in any other way interfering with the internal government of the colony. This was distinctly established in 1774; when the case was forcibly argued on both sides. By proclamations of that nature the immediate royal authority in Dominica, St. Vincent's, Grenada, and Barbadoes, had been relinquished, and separate governments established in each in the shape of assemblies, who were authorized to pass laws, to levy taxes, and to do every thing that was neccessary for those colonies, adhering to the spirit of the laws of England, and from time to time submitting their acts to his majesty in council; those acts being always subject to their approbation or disapprobation. In consequence of the peculiar situation of some, of those islands, his majesty accompanied every commission issued for their separate government, with secret instructions, directing the governors of those colonies what to do under
686
certain contingencies, and requiring them, if circumstances should render it necessary, to convoke assemblies of the freeholders and other inhabitants, in order that, in conjunction with the governors and councils, such laws should be enacted as might be conducive to the welfare and prosperity of the said colonies. In the year 1784, when governor Parr was appointed to reside in Cape Breton, that island contained only about eleven hundred inhabitants. In the commission to governor Parr, his majesty in council pointed out the general instructions by which he was to guide himself in the government of that colony; and at the same time, in the 23rd article of the instructions to the government of Nova Scotia, it was declared, that no regulations established for the government of Nova Scotia should be extended to the island of Cape Breton, so as in any way to interfere with the regulations adopted in that island. So great were the precautions taken on this subject, that when a duty was laid in 1792, on the importation of British goods into Nova Scotia, a distinction, exclusive from any share in the duty, took place as respecting Cape Breton. All this operated as a great encouragement to settlers; and the population of Cape Breton in consequence increased to upwards of 20,000 souls. Thus affairs went on from 1784 to 1820, when, without any previous notice whatever to the inhabitants, a proclamation was issued by the governor, lieutenant-general sir James Kempt, declaring, that it was his majesty's pleasure that the government of Cape Breton should be re-annexed to that of Nova Scotia, and form an integral part thereof; and that the island should be a distinct county of Nova Scotia. Now, what the petitioners complained of was, that although the proclamation of 1763, the commission of 1784, and every commission since, pledged to them the enjoyment of a separate and distinct government, yet, in defiance of the usage of forty years, in defiance of the original proclamation, by which the king divested himself of the prerogative of further interference with their government, in defiance of the unequivocal opinion of sir James Mansfield on the subject, in defiance of the uniform tenour of all subsequent commissions and instructions to the various governors of the colony, they suddenly found themselves, by sir. J. Kempt's proclamation, transferred to

687
Nova Scotia, and forming a part of that colonial province. What could be a more serious infringement of the rights of any colony than that the king should, by a simple declaration on the part of a governor, assume the power of annulling its former independence? Such a proceeding was calculated to produce all sorts of evils and absurdities. Among others, one anomaly which it occasioned, he would mention. In Cape Breton the laws respecting the descent of property were much the same as in England. The law of primogeniture, for instance, was the same as in England. In Nova Scotia, on the contrary, as in France, a division of property took place. Now, in what a situation was the property of the inhabitants of Cape Breton, hitherto subject to laws similar to those of England, placed, by the annexation of that colony to Nova Scotia! There were other great differences in the laws respecting property of Cape Breton and those of Nova Scotia; so great, that it was almost impossible for the inhabitants of the former now to know what was the actual condition of their property. There could be no higher question for the consideration of parliament. Property which before sir J. Kempt's proclamation was worth 10,000 l. had in consequence fallen in value to 3,000 l. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that, at least, if parliament in its wisdom should, for any important purposes of state, determine to sanction the arbitrary proceeding of depriving them of the right which they had so long enjoyed of a separate and independent government, they should grant them some compensation for the serious injury which their property had sustained, and allow them to remove with their families to the United States, or elsewhere, where they would live under the protection of known and fixed laws. Such unsteadiness of legislation as the case which he had described manifested, was seldom exhibited, even in a canal or a road bill. He really trusted that no such principle as that which it involved, would ever he seriously recognized by parliament. To show that there could be no possible mistake as to the right of the colony of Cape Breton to separate and independent assembly, the hon. gentleman read extracts from the secret instructions sent, in the first instance, to the government of Halifax and Nova Scotia. Agreeably to these instructions, no duty had been imposed
688
on British manufactures in the ports of Cape Breton. In 1792, a tax of 2½ per cent was imposed on all British manufactures imported into Nova Scotia. This continued to be levied until 1820; but not a farthing of it at Cape Breton. This was a proof that the governments were considered distinct and independent. How surprised, therefore, the inhabitants of Cape Breton must have been to find themselves subjected to a duty on British manufactures, notwithstanding the sacred pledge which they had received of exemption from any such duty! The proclamation of 1820 assumed a fact which never existed. It declared, that Cape Breton should be "re annexed" to Nova Scotia. Now it never had been annexed to Nova Scotia. It was always independent of Nova Scotia. The proclamation, therefore, was erroneous. In Nova Scotia a debt had been incurred before the junction of that colony with Cape Breton, to pay which the people of Cape Breton were now taxed. A false paper money had also been issued; not receivable at the Treasury for some time, and therefore subject to depreciation. In consequence of this, the bullion and coin had left Cape Breton, and they were subjected to all the inconveniences of this depreciated paper currency. For the various injuries which the petitioners complained of, only one plea had been alleged—economy! Now, there were ample funds collected in the colony for the support of its government, which had never been more than 2 or 3,000 l. a year; and if there had not been, the inhabitants would willingly pay not only this expense, but such further expense as might be rendered necessary by the calling of an assembly. The petitioners prayed the House not to pass any bill to sanction this union of their colony with Nova Scotia, and to remedy the steps already taken, unless such great commercial advantage to the empire at large rendered the measure necessary; in which case they prayed to be indemnified for the injuries suffered, and to be allowed to remove to some other colonies, where they might have the benefit of their old laws.
Mr. Wilmotobserved, that if; as the hon. member had stated, this petition involved a great constitutional question, it would have been better to have given notice of a specific motion, than to have entered into it at such length on presenting the petition. He thought, however, he should be able to convince the hon.

689
mover, that he had completely misunderstood the case, and that the union of the two colonies was in no way unconstitutional. When the hon. gentleman said that the petition was numerously signed, he was mistaken. The petitioners were 250 out of a population which the hon. gentleman had himself stated at 20,000. Up to the present time, not a single remonstrance had been sent from the colony to the colonial department, though the union had taken place in 1820; and, if the authority of a governor might be taken in opposition to the petitioners, he said on that authority, that the colonists found the union beneficial rather than not beneficial The petition, too, was got up in a manner which added nothing to its weight. The gentleman who had attempted to get a petition signed, had not been able to obtain any signatures, and had at last only obtained authorities to affix signatures. He understood that the petition had not been drawn up in the colony in its present shape, but that the signatures had been affixed to it in consequence of the authority he had mentioned. As to the constitutional question, the hon. gentleman had totally mistaken the proclamation of 1763. That proclamation divided the colonies, which had been ceded by France, and which did not then possess legislatures, into four separate governments—Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada. In neither of these governments would the hon. gentleman contend that Cape Breton was included. The proclamation then proceeded, "We have thought fit to annex the islands of Cape Breton, &c. to our government of Nova Scotia." Nova Scotia, it was to be observed, then possessed a constitution; so that it was impossible that the promise of separate legislatures, which was held out to the above four governments, could apply to Cape Breton, which was by that very same proclamation annexed to another government. In 1766 two members were returned from Cape Breton to sit in the assembly of Nova Scotia; but, because there were few or no freeholders in Cape Breton at that time, the election was declared informal. An act of legislature had also passed in 1766, for the better recovery of his majesty's dues in Cape Breton, which, after reciting the union of that colony with Nova Scotia, declared that the dues should be payable there, as in the rest of the province of Nova Scotia. No doubt, from the year 1784 a change had taken place; and in
690
consequence of the small number of inhabitants in the colony, the governor was allowed to make regulations for the government. But the instructions to a governor were not to be allowed to overlay the constitutional right of the colony to a share in the representation of Nova Scotia. The measure taken in 1820 was, therefore, rather a restoration of a right. Since that time, the people of Cape Breton had sent representatives to Nova Scotia; and in the case of one of those representatives, a Catholic, who was a favourite of the people of Cape Breton, the test oaths were altered to enable him to take his seat. The people of Cape Breton had derived various advantages from the union. For example the reduction of the tax on coals; and, if some individuals were displeased with it, there was not the least evidence of the measure being generally dissatisfactory.
Mr. Bernalstrongly urged the claims of the petitioners to the attention of the House. It could not be contended, upon the proclamation of 1763, that Cape Breton was put on a different footing from the other ceded colonies. It would be quite as legal to deprive Grenada of its separate assembly as to unite Cape Breton to Nova Scotia. The hon. secretary had said, that the people had no grievances to complain of. Was it no grievance to be taxed for the debt of Nova Scotia; that their metallic currency should be withdrawn, and that they should be inundated with a depreciated paper currency? Was it no grievance that the laws of inheritance were altered? If the colonists had made no communication to the colonial office, it was probably because they thought that representation in that quarter would be of no use.
Mr. Brightsaid, that this was a question which involved the interest of all the colonies. The treatment of Cape Breton was one of extreme injustice. That colony was important from its situation; it was one of the fortresses of England; it commanded the entrance of the Great St. Lawrence and the fishery Newfoundland; and it was, therefore, an obvious matter of policy to see that the inhabitants were attached to Great Britain by justice and by kindness. The rights of the colonies should be protected, whether they were founded on English law, or on long usage.
Mr. Humedefended the colonists from the charge of delay. A meeting of the inhabitants had taken place at Sydney,

691
in April, and, after deliberation, they had appointed a committee to employ an agent in London, to ascertain what legal measure could be resorted to. An agent had been appointed, who had however neglected the business, and in filet lost the papers entrusted to him. This was only known to the colonists in June, 1822, and then a gentleman had been sent over here to ascertain what could be done on the subject.
Ordered to lie on the table.

FRANCE AND SPAIN—GUARANTEE OF THE BOURBON THRONE.—
Lord John Russell,adverting to the war which was apparently about to commence between France and Spain, observed, that it was highly important the House should be informed of the true situation of this country, with regard to the approaching contest. He therefore begged to ask the right hon. secretary, whether there were any stipulations, in any treaties, by which this country guaranteed the throne of France to Louis the 18th, and his successors?
Mr. Canningreplied, that in a matter of a nature so grave, he would not return a positive answer, as he could not recall to his memory all the treaties, with all their stipulations, which might exist. There was, however, a stipulation in existence, by which any attempt made to resume the crown of France by any members of the family of the late usurper was to be resisted by all the great powers of Europe. There was also a stipulation, that, in the event of a rebellion breaking out in France, Austria, Russia, and England, should meet, and concert the measures necessary to be taken.
Lord John Russellsaid, he considered that the invasion of Spain by the Bourbons totally altered our relations with France. After Great Britain had spent, it appeared fruitlessly, no less than a thousand millions, in the hope that the re-establishment of that family would secure the blessings of peace to Europe, it was now incumbent on the government of this country to clear itself of all stipulations which might involve it in still further expense for the support of that family.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, he had formerly put a similar question to a late noble lord, and had received from him a positive assurance, that we had not guaranteed the throne of France to the Bourbons. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would
692
not take on himself an odious responsibility, which his predecessor had declined
Mr. Canningsaid, he had been asked as to a fact, and had not given an opinion He had observed, that in case of an attempt to restore the family of the usurper, the allies were bound to act in concert against it; and he had further stated, that in case of rebellion or other revolutions, the allies were only bound to meet and consult together.

CIVIL LIST—FOREIGN EMBASSIES.—
Mr. Lennardrose to bring forward his motion relative to the Foreign Embassies. Similar information to that which he now meant to move for had been before laid on the table of the House. His intention was to ground a motion upon it for further reduction in the third class of the civil list. If a report which was in circulation was true, the mission to the Swiss Cantons was about to be reduced. This proved the benefit of public discussion. That gross job would never have been abolished but for the notice taken of it in that House. The sum voted for this branch of expenditure was greater than all the secret service money. He would, therefore, move, "That there be laid before this House, a Return of any decrease of expense, since the 2nd of May, 1822, that has taken place in the Third Class of the Civil List; and stating whether such decrease, if any, has been occasioned by a diminution in the number of persons employed on Embassies, or by an alteration of the rank of persons so employed, or otherwise."
Mr. Secretary Canningtrusted, that the grounds on which he should oppose the motion would appear satisfactory to the House. The hon. member was aware, that any saving which might be made in this branch of expenditure was by law directed to be carried to the account of the consolidated fund. It necessarily followed, that the amount of that saving appeared, in due course, in the papers laid before parliament. He fully admitted the right of the House to watch over the expenditure of the crown; but he thought it would not be a wise exercise of that right to call upon the crown to state every specific appointment, and in fact the grounds of every alteration, in the arrangements of this, department. This, indeed, would be put the House in the place of the executive. He was ready to admit, that certain changes were

693
meditated, with respect to our foreign missions, and that this change would include the mission to the Swiss Cantons, and occasion a reduction of not less than one-half, in point of expense. His objection to the motion, however, was simply because it was not the usage of parliament to interfere with these details. If mismanagement or corruption were imputed, it might undoubtedly be proper to call for information; but where neither of these was imputed, he thought there could he no reason for the interference of parliament. But, even if either of these was imputed, he did not say that he should consent to such a motion, unless a case were laid before the House fairly calling for information. In the present instance, his objection appeared with a better grace; because, by the hon. gentleman's own statement, the conduct of government had been, not only blameless, but, as far as it went, meritorious.
Lord John Russellsupported the motion, and contended that the House would act inconsistently in not agreeing to it, as it had agreed to the motion of last year, which had called for the return already before the House. He was glad to hear that the embassy to Switzerland was to be reduced. When that subject was discussed last year, the minority were few in number; but the projected reduction proved, that a minority were sometimes in the right.
Mr. Humetrusted the right hon. secretary would not press his opposition to this motion. His predecessor in office had not refused a similar return. If the right hon. gentleman really wished for a fair discussion of the motion to be hereafter made by his hon. friend, he would not refuse the required information. Without it, his hon. friend, in arguing upon the expense of any particular embassy, might he met by a statement, that that embassy had been reduced, since the papers now before the House had been presented. If he persisted in refusing the information, the House would know what it had to expect from the candor of the right hon. gentleman in future.
Mr. Huskissonobjected to the motion. A report would hereafter he laid on the table of the House, which would enable them to judge of the reductions and of the savings which had been made. By law, these savings were all carried to the consolidated fund. It had been a principle laid down by Mr. Fox, that the
694
House should not interfere with the expenditure of the civil list. Before interference could be justified, there must be some good reason for complaint. In this particular case, no such complaint had been made. Unless a case of misapplication had been made out, parliament never had been accustomed to interfere. The very ground on which the hon. member called for this information was the ground on which the House ought to refuse it. Was there any other branch of the civil list with which the House was called on to interfere? Gentlemen confounded two things which were quite distinct—the amount of the expense of the third class of the civil list, and the amount of contingent expenditure; the latter being granted yearly by the House. With the expenses of the civil list, it was not the custom of the House to interfere; but of the disposal of this latter sum it was properly jealous. Gentlemen, who complained so much of this expenditure, would find that the sum granted for the French embassies far exceeded the sum granted for ours. It was between seven and eight million livres.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that as prophets had no honour in their own country, so great men were rarely quoted till after they were dead, and then they had generally the misfortune to be misquoted. He could not say exactly what Mr. Fox had stated, but he was quite sure he never could have laid down the principle attributed to him by the right hon. gentleman. What Mr. Fox had said was probably this—that it never had been customary for parliament to interfere with the private expenses of the royal family. The present question had no other object but to procure certain information respecting one branch of our enormous expenditure. On this subject, there seemed to be something like sympathy between our government and that of France, to which our ministers always appealed when they were endeavouring to justify their own extravagance. But what must be thought when, after all this enormous expenditure, this country seemed deprived of all influence abroad? Was it not time to call on parliament to examine how these sums were employed? This was a part, of the civil list over which the House ought to keep a most watchful eye. It was the duty of that House, and particularly at the present moment, when the character of the country had been so de-

695
graded by his majesty's ministers, to look closely into every department in which a saving might be made. Whenever parliament was called upon to enforce economy in the expenditure of the public money, they were sure to be told that some prerogative of the crown was endangered. The motion was perfectly unobjectionable, and ought to be complied with.
The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 50.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Lushington, S.

Bennet, hon. G.

Martin, J.

Bernal, R.

Ord, W.

Blake, sir F.

Palmer, C. F.

Bright, H.

Philips, G.

Burdett, sir F.

Poyntz, J.

Davies, col.

Ricardo, D.

Denison, W.

Rice, S.

Fergusson, sir R.

Scott, J.

Glenorchy, lord

Sykes, D.

Grattan, J.

Wood, alderman

Hartopp, G.

Hobhouse, J. C.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Knight, R.

Russell, lord J.

CASE OF COLONEL HOME.—
Mr. Grey Bennetsaid, he rose to move for Copies of the Proceedings of a Court of Inquiry on colonel Home, of the Third Regiment of Guards. The case of that officer was, in his opinion, one of great importance; and, though he might despair of succeeding in the application which he felt it his duty to make to the House, he did not despair of the success, which would arise from the impression which that officer's case could not fail to make upon the public. Having obtained information, which he believed to be correct, he felt himself called upon, in justice to the character of that injured officer, and to the institutions of the army, to bring his case under the consideration of the House. It was necessary to premise, that this officer was not undistinguished in the military history of the country. He entered the service in 1803, had served in the Peninsula, in Germany, and wherever his regiment was engaged; and in the last great conflict at Waterloo, had conspicuously distinguished himself, in that post which was technically and emphatically called the key of the position—the post of Hogoumont. This officer, when he returned home, had the misfortune to engage in an unprofitable mining concern, relying upon representations, which sub-
696
sequently turned out to be false. After engaging in this speculation, in the spring of 1814, he was ordered to the continent, where he remained until after the peace of Paris. Upon his return to this country, he found the concern in which he had engaged in a ruinous state, and that he had been grossly and scandalously imposed upon. The hon. member proceeded to read some letters from the brother of colonel Home, who had gone down to inquire into the state of the concern, with a view of showing the shuffling and evasive conduct of the parties by whom he had been prevailed upon to embark in this trading transaction. From these letters, it appeared to be the opinion of all the other partners, that it would be better to submit to the first loss, and put an end to the concern, than to suffer it to remain under the management of Mr. Salisbury. Colonel Home would have been glad to withdraw himself from the concern, at the expense of all the capital he had embarked in it; but, as the partners declined, he consulted respectable lawyers, who advised him to get bills drawn upon him, and to accept them in the name of the firm, with a view of compelling the partners to come to an equitable settlement. Shortly after one of these bills had been presented for payment, some scandalous placards were stuck up in the town, casting the grossest and most unfounded aspersions on the character of colonel Home. As soon as colonel Home was informed of this circumstance, he took measures to repel the aspersion, and a person was employed to meet the brother of colonel Home to investigate the whole transaction. This person, who, it should be observed, was an agent of the opposite party, admitted that nothing could be more honourable than the conduct of colonel Home. That officer subsequently received a letter from lieut.-colonel Hill, in which he was informed that a court of inquiry would be held to investigate certain transactions in which he was said to be implicated, with the firm of Salisbury and Co. On requiring a specification of the charges, he received another letter from colonel Hill in which the principal points of charge were stated to be his accepting various bills from which he was restrained by the articles of partnership; his swearing by affidavit in the court of Chancery, that he was ignorant of the existence of those articles, when it could be proved, that

697
they had been delivered to him: and his persuading quarter-master Weston to personate him, and receive in that character the injunction of the court of Chancery, restraining him from accepting bills. The court met on the 26th Jan. 1818, and on the 30th, came to certain resolutions, which he had no hesitation in declaring to be most loosely, vaguely, and illegally drawn up. They were directly contradicted by the evidence, and, if this were a civil case, would justify a motion for a new trial. The first resolution stated, that colonel Home was a partner in the firm of Salisbury and Co.; but this fact had never been proved to the court. He did not mean to deny, that colonel Home was a partner in the concern; but still it was material that he had not been proved to be a partner. Besides, the time at which the partnership commenced, which was another material point, was not stated.—The second resolution of the court stated, that colonel Home had in a letter expressed himself perfectly satisfied with any arrangements which might be made by the managing partners of the concern. There was not the slightest truth in this statement. The letter inertly stated the colonel's readiness to agree to any purchase which might be made, for the benefit of the concern. There was a great difference between the words "arrangement" and "purchase;" for though the colonel was ready to agree to any special purchase which might be made, it did not appear that he was ready to agree to any thing else. Another resolution declared, that colonel Home had drawn bills to a large amount, in violation of an agreement entered into with his copartners; and a fourth resolution charged him with taking measures to avoid the lord chancellor's injunction, by prevailing upon quarter-master Weston to receive it. Col. Home subsequently received a letter from col. Hill, in which the latter officer stated, that he was commanded by the duke of Gloucester to inform him, that after the proceedings of the late court of inquiry, he could not remain in the service, unless his conduct were cleared by a general court-martial. The letter further gave him the option of abiding by the decision of a court-martial, or of selling his commission. Col. Home immediately demanded a court-martial. Every thing was going on in the train, by which alone an accused officer could clear himself from any charge that might be brought against his character and honour. The
698
whole of the evidence was submitted to the advocate-general, whose duty it is on such occasions to draw up the charges. On the 10th Feb. 1818, the judge-advocate came to this conclusion: "that colonel Home had been induced to enter into a commercial speculation by persons whose honesty and fair dealing there was strong reason to suspect; that he had been recommended to accept bills drawn upon the firm in order to bring the, partners to a general settlement, and that it was by no means clear that the partnership concern was not liable for these bills." This was a question, therefore, involving civil rights, which ought by no means to be made the subject of a military investigation. With respect to the allegation, however, that colonel Home had denied having received a copy of the agreement upon which the partnership was founded, that charge, undoubtedly, affected his character as an officer and a gentleman; but, upon this point, the evidence was by no means clear. On the contrary, he had sworn, in answer to a bill filed against him in chancery, that he had never received a copy of such an agreement; and that allegation must be taken to be true, since, if it were false, the colonel was liable to be indicted for perjury. With respect to the charge of his having prevailed upon quarter-master Weston to receive the injunction of the court of chancery, there was no evidence that col. Home had received any notice that such a process would be issued against him; and the allegation itself was contradicted by the quarter-master. Upon the whole, it appeared to the advocate-general, that justice could not be done to col. Home by a court-martial, but that a court of inquiry, where the proceedings were less precise and formal, and where more weight was given to opinion, than to rules of evidence, was in this case a much more satisfactory tribunal. Hear this, ye lawyers, exclaimed the hon. gentleman, if there be any lawyers in the House, and wonder while ye hear! A court-martial was bound to administer justice on oath, to examine witnesses on oath, and was not governed by opinion, but by evidence; whereas a court of inquiry was not sworn to administer justice, had no power to summon witnesses, or to call for documents, and yet this very distinction, that its proceedings were grounded upon opinion, and not evidence, was that on which the advocate-general founded his

699
opinion, that it was a more satisfactory tribunal! There was no term of reprobation which it did not merit—no epithet which was severe enough for it. He would entreat the House to bear in mind the consequence, if such courts were allowed to decide on such matters. This officer complained, that he had been placed in a situation which was unpleasant in the extreme. He had been tried by a tribunal that could not do him justice. It was monstrous to state, that if he could not get justice from a court-martial, he would get it from a court of inquiry. The case was this: did colonel Home, when he drew the bills, or when they were drawn, do it as a consenting party to the terms which had been agreed to in 1813? He would say, that he did not; that he had never received intimation of these terms, and did not, in fact, know of their existence.—Here the hon. gentle man detailed, and commented upon the evidence which had been laid before the court-martial in 1818, and from that he contended, that col. Home was not aware, that in accepting the bills he was acting contrary to any terms of agreement subsisting between the partners; that in procuring quarter-master Weston to receive the injunction he did not wish that gentleman to personate him; that in the whole case he had acted by the advice of his legal agents; and that consequently he must have concluded, that the whole of his conduct was legal. This had been proved by the testimony of the evidence against col. Home, and he challenged the noble lord opposite to point out a tittle of evidence upon which the case rested. Was it to be indured that a gallant officer, who had served his country so well for 18 years, should have, upon such a charge and at the suggestion of such a court, been stript of his rank? It should be borne in mind, that the court had been instituted for one purpose and used for another. He did not mean to enter into the question of courts of inquiry. When considered in the same light and used for the same purpose as grand juries, they might have their advantages; but, as courts of decision, they were illegal; and he would appeal to any man, whether he would wish to have his fortune at the mercy, he would say the caprice, of a court, where the judges and the witnesses had no responsibility He had no acquaintance with col. Home, beyond an introduction for the purpose of this mo-
700
tion. He hoped he had contributed to set up the character of a man who had been oppressed, and that for the future he would continue to bear the same manly front, as he had been wont to do to the enemies of his country. He would only add, that it was his opinion, that this was the most illegal, unjust, and harsh decision, ever come to. The hon. member concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Minutes of the Court of Inquiry, and all the Documents laid before it, in the matter of Colonel Home, late of the third regiment of Guards, in the year 1818."
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he would leave the military character of colonel Home out of view, as it had really as little to do with the present question, as that question, in his opinion, had with parliamentary inquiry. The case was as plain as it was brief. Colonel Home had entered into a certain mercantile speculation; and, when he found that speculation was not likely to be profitable, he had attempted to withdraw his capital, by means which had been thought unjustifiable. He had become a partner by purchasing shares; and that he was ignorant of the terms of the co-partnery, would have been no excuse for his conduct, seeing that he ought to have informed himself of the grounds upon which he had invested his capital. Finding that the speculation was not likely to turn out well, he had attempted, in the manner which had been stated, to withdraw his capital. The whole capital was 27,000 l., and of this the sum which had been advanced by the colonel was 3,100 l. Now, from this, it was evident, that not the colonel, but his partners, would have had to bear the greater share of the loss. Still he had authorized his brother to draw bills upon him, and these bills he had accepted in the name of the company, and had thus made his partners liable. This liability had been stated on the opinion of a court of law; and, the bills being drawn by colonel Home's brother, was much the same as if they had been drawn by himself. The bills had been accepted for no value; and peculiar channels had been chosen to put them into circulation. They were in the hands of makers of combs and umbrellas, and sellers of cloth. Now, upon what ground could the colonel think himself justified in doing this? Had he entered into the business voluntarily; or had he entered in to it blindfolded? Though

701
the speculation which he had entered into voluntarily had not turned out profitably, that was no reason why he, the smallest partner, should be the first to withdraw all his capital; and not all his capital merely, but even more; and that in a manner which could not be reconciled with honourable proceedings. When the parties who were the holders of these bills found that other bills to an extent greater than the sum which the colonel had in the concern might be drawn, they applied for an injunction to the court of Chancery. This injunction the gallant colonel requested a captain Drummond to receive for him; and when the captain refused, he had applied to the quarter-master. This could not be a casual receiving, and was no evidence that the nature of the paper was not known to the colonel. The commander-in-chief's attention had been first attracted to the subject, in consequence of placards having been posted up in various parts of the metropolis, charging col. Home with gross misconduct. How were these charges answered? One might judge a little of the character of an individual from the manner in which he set about defending himself. A person wholly free from reproach would hardly plead so directly to a charge as to post bills on dead walls and in bye-corners. He held in his hand one of the counter placards, in which colonel Home had replied to the charges posted in other bills.—[Here the noble lord produced one of the placards.]—He contended, that the course which the colonel had originally pursued was incorrect, and the manlier in which he had avoided a process of law was discreditable to him as an officer. At first the commander-in-chief had intended to bring colonel Home to a court-martial; but such a proceeding it was thought would so interfere with other interests, that it could not be adopted with justice to the parties. This opinion had been given by the judge advocate, and it had been borne out by the result. Twice colonel Home had applied to courts of justice, with a view of commencing proceedings, founded on the minutes of the court of inquiry; but chief justices Abbott and Dallas had decided, that they could not order the production of the minutes of a military court of inquiry. The noble lord proceeded to show, that courts of inquiry were of no recent date. It had been common to have recourse to them from the middle of the lest century;
702
and even at an earlier period. Chief justice Abbott had described a court of inquiry to be different from a court of justice; but he conceived it to be that which his majesty was competent to appoint; and he held it to be a very gracious mode of dealing with an officer, whose conduct had been called in question, to submit the case to the consideration of his brother-officers, before he was brought to a public trial. He thought, upon the whole, that there were ample grounds for removing colonel Home from his command, as he had been removed. He had not been dismissed the service, but was allowed to sell the whole of his commissions. It was said, that he had acted on legal advice, If so, he was sorry that he should have been misled; but a man must be responsible for his conduct, although acting under such advice. After the facts which had been proved, colonel Home could not, with propriety, be suffered to remain in the command of his regiment; and he, therefore, saw no grounds for interfering on the present occasion with the exercise of the undoubted prerogative of the crown. On the same principle upon which the courts of justice had refused to interfere, he thought the House bound to negative the motion
The motion was negatived.

NEWFOUNDLAND LAWS BILL.—
Mr. Wilmotmoved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws in Newfoundland. It was his intention to have the bill printed, and to take the debate upon the second reading. The bill had three general objects; first, the amendment of the laws respecting the fisheries; second, the improvement of the courts of justice; and lastly, the institution of a local power to make bye laws under certain circumstances.
Sir J. Newportconsidered the proposition to be of a novel nature, since it went to supply an improved system of judicature, while it left that which was defective to exist at the same time.
Mr. Brightthought, before they proceeded to legislate on this subject, that more information, as to the state of the colony, ought to be afforded.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, there never had been a colony, so neglected as that of Newfoundland. He wished to know whether the details, of a measure which affected the concerns of 60,000 persons,

703
had been first submitted to the consideration of the inhabitants.
Mr. Wilmotsaid, that the measure was brought in upon the responsibility of government.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he felt deeply for the interests of Newfoundland, and would rejoice at the introduction of any measure likely to tend to her prosperity; but he thought the root of the evil which was destroying that colony had been laid in the last treaty with America; which; by allowing the Americans to fish in the waters and to dry their fish on the coast, had occasioned the loss of almost the whole trade to Newfoundland, as the Americans, by their local advantages, were enabled to undersell the British merchants.
Mr. Humethought, that a bill which went to change the internal economy of the settlement, ought not to have been proposed but upon information adduced before a committee. If the people of the colony had made complaints of the existing system of law, those complaints ought to be laid on the table; and if they had not complaints, he did not see what necessity ministers had to legislate in the dark, in a case which affected the interest of a population of 60,000 souls.
Mr. Tulkdescribed the island of Newfoundland to be in a state of absolute ruin. A measure so important as the present, ought not only to be made well known to those connected with Newfoundland in this country, but time ought to be afforded to make the inhabitants acquainted with its provisions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the trade of Newfoundland was ruined by the last treaty concluded with America, he was the guilty person; as he had signed that treaty. He alluded not to the treaty of Ghent, but to that of 1818. He did not consider the effect of that treaty to be such as had been described. The House, however, ought to bear in mind the circumstances under which it was concluded. A question of great delicacy and importance was then under discussion, which was this, whether the fact of a declaration of war having since taken place, altered the rights which had been given to America by the treaty of 1783? On the part of America, it was contended, that the re-establishment of peace between the two countries, ipso facto, restored all the rights which they previously enjoyed. It was soon seen that this was a question
704
which could only be settled by compromise or war. He had not thought it wise that this country should go to war on it, and had therefore advised a compromise. This had taken place accordingly. America conceded some of the rights which had been given to her by the treaty of 1783: and we, in consideration of this, gave them the privilege of drying fish on part of the coast of Newfoundland. He did not know that what had been conceded had proved prejudicial to the trade of Newfoundland, and he was confident that such was not the case; for that privilege which had been considered most dangerous, the Americans had availed themselves of to a very limited extent: indeed, not at all, till within the last year or two. At present, we supplied the south of Europe with fish to the exclusion of America, as much as at any former period. The measure now proposed to be introduced, he maintained, was necessary for the good government of the country. Ministers were often blamed for throwing on committees that responsibility which they ought to take upon themselves. Now, they were censured for preferring an opposite policy.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

FORGERY BILL.—
Dr. Lushingtonrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws respecting Forgery. He wished to correct certain defective enactments, but did not propose to alter the punishment of the crime. He did not wish to inflict capital punishment where it was not at present inflicted, nor to take it away from those crimes to which it was now applied. He proposed, however, to make certain offences penal which could not be punished at present. The destruction of a will was one of these. That offence was not properly provided against at present; yet the crime was not one of rare occurrence. His intention was to bring in the bill, in order that it might stand over to next session. The learned member concluded by moving, "for leave to bring in a bill to consolidate, amend, and declare certain general provisions relating to the crime of Forgery."—"—The motion was agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION BILL.—
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that after the able report of the commissioner of inquiry, but remained for him, offer on the subject

705
of the bill which he was now to move the House for leave to introduce. The boards of excise and of customs in England, Ireland, and Scotland, were at present distinct, and consisted altogether of 39 persons. They were all under the general superintendance of the Treasury; but being totally distinct from each other, there was no uniformity in their practice—a defect which every one must see was calculated to give rise to great inconvenience. In order to simplify this machinery, and get rid of the defects, and he might say abuses, which had arisen under it, he was desirous to adopt the recommendation of the commissioners, by consolidating the customs and excise boards, in Great Britain and Ireland. Under this regulation the whole of the business would be done by 34 persons, instead of 39, as at present. There would always be resident commissioners in England, Ireland, and Scotland. The plan would be attended with a considerable saving of expense, and would prepare the way for other important alterations with respect to the levying of duties. He then moved, That leave be given to bring in a bill to consolidate the several Boards of Customs, and also the several Boards of Excise of Great Britain and Ireland."
Sir J. Newportexpressed his satisfaction at the prospect of a change, which he was confident would be attended with great advantage both to the revenue and the merchants.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.