Sitting of 11 May 1819

PETITION OF GEORGE CROOK COMPLAINING OF HIS HAVING BEEN RUN, AND THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS WAGES.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, he rose to draw the attention of the House to a petition of a person of the name of George Crook, late a seaman on board one of his majesty's ships, complaining of severe oppression. The allegations contained in the petition called into question the conduct of a very gallant officer in the naval service, and, at the same time, disclosed circumstances which were of infinite importance to the rights and interests of every man in the navy—since all those who were connected with that service, were liable to receive the same description of treatment as that of which the petitioner complained unless he procured redress. He had the petition for some time in his hands, and would have presented it much sooner, but he was desirous, in the first instance, to have some conversation with sir William Hoste, the gallant officer to whom it referred—but he understood that he was out of the kingdom, and was not expected to return for some time. The statement of the petitioner lay in a very narrow compass, although the points which it contained were of the most important nature. He conceived it right to state, that having had much conversation with the petitioner, the impression on his mind was, that he was not a person of bad character—a conclusion which was borne out by the certificates of several respectable individuals, under some of whom he had served in the navy, who spoke of him as a correct and well-behaved man; but, whatever the character of the individual might be, whether good or bad, it had nothing to do with the justice of the case. He stated, that, without any charge being exhibited against him, he was confined on board the Mutine, the ship in which he was serving, for five or six weeks; and that, when the vessel touched at Malta, he was ordered to receive six dozen of lashes by sir W. Hoste, without any court martial having been held on him. After this, he and another man were put ashore, and left to shift for themselves as they could. It was worthy of consideration, that the petitioner was a pressed man; and, having served for a considerable time, pay and prize money were due
304
to him, to the amount of 550 l. when he was forcibly driven from the ship, and marked in the books as a deserter, which destroyed his claim to that which he had fairly earned. Immediately after that occurrence, he had been taken into the service of an English gentleman travelling on the continent, of the name of Dowdswell, and since that period, of several others, all of whom were ready to bear testimony to the goodness of his conduct. Whatever his fault might have been, it was extremely hard that he should be deprived of his wages. He understood it was a general rule, where a seaman deserted from the service, to stop his pay and prize-money. It appeared to him to be a very severe rule, that a man, who had been forced into the service, and had remained there for many years, should be deprived of the money he had earned, because he left his ship without leave. The petitioner, however, stated that he did not desert, but was sent from the ship. On what ground, then, could his pay and prize-money be withheld, as it was at the present moment? He hoped steps would be taken, in the proper department, to explain this transaction, or he should -be obliged to institute some proceedings on the subject. He should now move "That this petition be brought up." He had a second petition, signed by many respectable persons, who knew the petitioner, commiserated his situation, and called on the House to attend to his statement and grant him relief.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, that this petition had been put into his hands, a few days ago, by an honourable alderman, but he refused to have any thing to do with it, because he understood that the petitioner had been detected in some improper practices with a person of the name of Grimaldi, when on board the Mutine, which occasioned his desertion. Seventeen years had elapsed since the conduct he now complained of had taken place, and, during that long period, this man had never laid his case before the admiralty. Doubtless he had considered himself well off not to have been hanged for the offence he had committed.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it was very true the petition had been placed in his hands, but he did not think he was justified in presenting it. He made many inquiries on the subject from the gallant officer opposite, and from him he understood that a correspondence had passed

305
between the admiralty and different officers under whom the petitioner had served, and also that sir W. Hoste was likely to return to England very speedily. As he knew that the petitioner could bring his action against sir William, when he returned to this country—as his petition was in the hands of a respectable solicitor who would do every thing in his power to serve him—and as the man with whom the petitioner went away stood in a very suspicious situation—he conceived it better to give up the petition, as he did not think he could render the petitioner any service.
Sir I. Coffinobserved, that the subsequent testimonies to this man's character, which the hon. baronet alluded to, had nothing to do with the antecedent offence.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, the practice regularly adopted in the navy was this:—the ship's company were mustered in the presence of the officers once in every week; the names of those who did not appear were dotted;—and, if three dots were affixed to a sailor's name, it was distinguished by the letter R., signifying that he had run from the ship. After this, he would not be paid his wages without an order from the Admiralty, and his prize-money became the property of Chelsea hospital. That hospital having a vested right in such prize-money, it would be the height of injustice in the Admiralty to attempt to take it away. Now, it was must extraordinary that the petitioner, who was described to be a needy man, having this large sum due to him, never applied to the Admiralty from the year 1801 until 1817. The hon. baronet endeavoured to account for this delay, by stating that he was travelling on the continent with his master. It was not, however, to be supposed that he had been travelling for sixteen years. When he applied at the Admiralty to have the R. removed from his name in the year 1817, captain Hoste was referred to. Captain Hoste's answer, which he then held in his hand, was couched in these terms:—"I have to acquaint you, that I perfectly remember Crook's desertion from the ship at Naples or Malta, and I recollect also the desertion of the other man who was found in the hammock with him." The petitioner stated, that this man had received his wages. In consequence, the Admiralty caused inquiries to be made at the navy board, and they discovered that
306
Grimaldi had also run—that he had not received his wages—and that, in fact, he had not applied for them. Crook, finding he could make nothing of this proceeding in 1817, waited till sir W. Hoste was out of the way, and made the present application to the House. He had, it appeared got the lieutenant to say that he did not run, but was turned out of the ship. Captain Hoste, however, would, he had no doubt, persist in his statement that he had deserted. Unfortunately the other 16 signing officers were dead. Looking to all the circumstances, he was inclined to attach more credit to the statement of the captain than to that of the lieutenant. The circumstances, taken together, made strongly against the petitioner; and, after considering them, it would be for the House to say, whether the petition should or should not be brought up.
Mr. Bennetinquired whether any proof of a criminality had been adduced against the petitioner. If there was not, it was not right that he should be deprived of his wages.
Sir G. Cockburnanswered, that the officer who had been applied to, said the petitioner was found in an indecent situation with another man, and had in consequence been turned ashore. The argument seemed to be, that he must have his wages, although his character could not be restored.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, the petitioner's statement was, that a drunken man came to his hammock in the night, swearing that it was his own. The petitioner resisted, and the intruder cut him down, by which he was severely wounded in the head. There never was a charge of the kind now insinuated brought against him; much less was any inquiry instituted with respect to it. Added to this, many persons came forward to give him a good character, amongst whom were several officers under whom he had served. He did not think the gallant admiral was treating the petition with fairness or candour, when he met it with an unsupported allegation of this kind. It was a base insinuation to throw out against any man; and such a course of proceeding rendered it more particularly necessary for the House to examine the merits of the case. The lieutenant said, the petitioner was put on shore—that he was compelled to quit the service. If he had committed any crime, that was not the mode which

307
ought to have been pursued with respect to him. He should have been punished, instead of being forcibly obliged to leave the ship in a state of distress and indigence. Afterwards, in order to cover an act improper in every point of view, the letter R. was affixed to his name. The memory of capt. Hoste, whom he respected as a gallant officer, did not, at all times, appear to be equally clear on this subject, He had seen letters of his, written to the petitioner in 1816, in which he did not speak positively, but said, "if you have been marked R. on the books of the Mutine as you say, I presume it is so." This was at best a doubtful evidence as to the fact of the petitioner's having deserted.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, the accusation against the petitioner did not rest on mere surmise. The letter said, that Grimaldi was seen coming out of the petitioner's hammock. There was no mention made of the hammock having been cut down. Though an officer might, at a considerable distance of time, suppose that the petitioner was sent out of the ship, the probabilities were, putting all the circumstances together, that he had deserted.
Mr. Lytteltonsaid, he knew not from what source the hon. baronet had drawn he expression of indignation which he had directed towards his hon. friend and kinsman, because he stood forward to rebut the serious charge that had been brought against a gallant officer. He did not know that gallant officer; but he certainly felt very strong indignation, when he beheld the character of an honourable man attacked on the slight and unsupported surmises of an infamous person, for such he considered the petitioner to be. The hon. baronet complained, that the petitioner had not been brought to trial; now, as the petitioner had deserted, what opportunity was there for trying him? But, in a case of this kind, was it not more prudent in the commander of one of his majesty's ships to punish the individual, and not to notice the fact farther, instead of proclaiming it to all the world? If the petitioner had not been conscious that he was charged with some offence too scandalous to bear the light, would he not have brought the matter to issue, in some way or other, during a period of sixteen years? Now, the circumstance was brought forward, when, of necessity, the best evidence that could be adduced must be defective. The worthy alderman, to whom the petition was first
308
intrusted, appeared to have formed a proper estimate of it, and had acted very properly in rejecting it. It would much better become the hon. baronet, if, before he presented petitions, he would inquire into the verity of the facts they contained, instead of coining down at once, without the smallest particle of conclusive evidence, and indulging in declamatory statements about justice, when there was no proof whatever that any injustice had been committed.
Mr. Crokersaid, the accusation levelled at the petitioner's character was not gratuitously introduced. It was stated by sir William Hoste, that this man, to whom a large sum of money was said to be due, had run away. It was asked, "Why did he desert—it is not likely he would do so, when so much wages and prize-money were due to him?" The answer was, because he was detected in indecent practices. It was necessary to sir W. Hoste's case that he should show some paramount and overwhelming reason in the case of this man, to account for his conduct. He could not agree that this petition should be received. It was not in the power of the House to grant to the petitioner his wages. He had his action at law; he might bring an action against sir W. Hoste for having cast scandalous imputations on his character, or for improperly causing the letter R. to be affixed to his name, by which he had lost his wages. Unless by law he established his character, or showed that the R. was improperly placed against his name, he could not get the money which he claimed. When the courts of justice were open to him, to them the petitioner ought to apply. It would be a bad precedent to receive such a petition as the present.
Mr. Ommanneydefended the conduct of sir W. Hoste.
Sir F. Burdeltwished to mention two or three of the testimonials to the character of Crook [A cry of spoke! spoke!]. If the House were in such a state of impatience as to prevent it from doing mere justice to an oppressed man, he was quite willing to drop this and every other subject. Admiral Hardy bore testimony to the good conduct of the petitioner while on board the Mutine, and this was confirmed by the lieutenant; independent of which, the surgeon spoke to the propriety and regularity of his general deportment. The real question was, whether the House was not bound to inquire into the abuses

309
of power by naval officers of high rank? The subject could no where be taken into consideration so well as before a committee: if it was there discerned that the petitioner had no claim, the decision would be satisfactory to the country; but at present the House had no information on which it could act in putting a negative upon the demand.
Dr. Phillimoresaid, it was most extraordinary, that the hon. baronet, in the different interviews he had had with the petitioner, should never think it necessary to ask him why he had suffered 17 years to elapse before he made his complaint? The hon. baronet had produced testimonials in favour of the petitioner's character, dated in 1797, 1798, and 1801. Was it OR evidence such as this that the House were to be called on to assail the character of sir W. Hoste? The silence of the petitioner for the last 17 years was evidence that his claim was not a just one. Were he alone in the division, he would oppose the reception of a petition, assailing on such grounds the character of such an officer as sir W. Hoste.
Colonel Wodehousesaid, that every one knew sir W. Hoste's public achievements; and he would add, that of all men with whom he ever had had the slightest intimacy, that gallant officer appeared to him to be the most unlikely to commit an arbitrary act of power.
The House then divided; For receiving the Petition, 2; Against it 206: Majority 204.

List of the Minority.

Palmer, C. F.

TELLERS.

Pryse, Pryse.

Burdett, sir F.

Harvey, D. W.

GRAMPOUND BRIBERY.
Lord John Russellsaid, he felt very much encouraged to bring forward the motion he was about to submit to the House, by the spirit shown in the House last night. He should be sorry, indeed, if there prevailed any disposition in the House to encourage or to protect such disgraceful corruption as that to which he was about to call their attention. By the general spirit shown last night, it was evident there was no such disposition in the House; on the contrary, he was convinced that the House entertained a strong desire to free its character, and the character of the country, from the stain which unchecked corruption would attach
310
to it. He did not mean to throw the least slight on the judgment of the election committee which tried this case, nor was it his wish to question the decision of that committee. But convictions in courts of law were grounds for proceeding on in that House, as well as the decisions of election committees. It was well known that convictions in courts of law often induced the House to expel its members, and to institute other proceedings, as well as the decisions of election committees. The noble lord then proceeded to state to the House the proceedings at, and previous, to the late elections for Grampound and Barnstaple, and of the convictions of sir Manasseh Lopez and several electors of those boroughs, at the assizes for Devon and Cornwall. No practice was more to be reprobated than that of men who employed their property like sir M. Lopez, in going from borough to borough, for the purpose of purchasing the voters, and afterwards disposing of their influence. It was no doubt easier for a member to acquire consequence in that House by supplying an administration, pressed with difficulties, with five or six votes, than by distinguishing himself by studying the laws and institutions of his country. It would appear that this individual had been long engaged in the purchasing of boroughs in the counties of Devon and Cornwall; he was every where carrying on a vast and extended campaign against the English constitution. It appeared that sir M. Lopez, and the voters convicted along with him, were not yet brought up for judgment. It was competent to the House to direct the attorney-general to take steps that these persons be brought up for judgment, and then they might proceed on the convictions to order an investigation into the state of the borough of Grampound. He wished that the question should be taken up in some shape or other, and he brought the subject now before them, in order that they might determine as to the most advisable course of proceeding. The country would be justly indignant if a subject of this nature were passed over without notice. If they did not endeavour to wipe away every such blot on the constitution, they would assist the efforts of those obscure and miserable men who were endeavouring to destroy our constitution. The noble lord concluded with moving for the production of the records of the conviction of sir Manasseh Lopez for bribery at the late

311
assizes for Devon and Cornwall, and of the conviction for bribery of a number of individuals concerned in the elections for Barnstaple and Grampound.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, the records of the convictions would be voluminous documents, and suggested, that it might be adviseable to obtain the necessary information respecting them in a more convenient shape for the House.
Mr. Scarlettsuggested that it might be sufficient if the clerk of the assizes or of the Crown sent extracts of the material parts of the proceedings.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that it was competent for the House at once to enter into an inquiry into this subject, without being delayed by the proceedings of courts of raw.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that he happened to know that at present the record had been taken out of the hands of the associate by the attornies for the party, Messrs. Lamb and Hawke, by whom it should have been lodged in the Crown office. They had, however, not done this, and he feared the motion of the noble lord would thus not be productive of the end proposed. He suggested the calling to the bar the associate.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the order of the House would of course be imperative on any public officer.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, the misfortune was, that the record of the conviction was not in the hand of any public officer.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that if the record had been delivered by the public officer to any private person as a receipt, the House must still consider the document to be legally in the custody of the officer. There would of necessity be some officer whose duty it was to preserve it.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that the associate was obliged to deliver the record to the attorney, who had to return it to the Crown office.
Mr. Scarlettsaid, the original must have been kept in the Crown office. A copy called the nisi prius record was sent down to the assizes, which was lodged with the associate to be returned with the postea. Copies of the material part of the original might therefore be obtained at the Crown office, and the fact of the conviction, if not obtainable from the nisi prius record, might be ascertained by examination of witnesses.
Mr. Denmanthought the House could
312
only receive information of the conviction regularly through the nisi prius record.
Mr. Wynnconsidered, that it would be enough for the House to issue its order to be served on the proper officer. If that officer made a return, that he had delivered the record to another, the House could take steps to obtain it. It was not their business to anticipate a difficulty.
Lord John Russell consented to withdraw his motion, and shortly after moved for extracts of the material parts of the several indictments, whereon sir M. Lopez, and several other persons, were tried and found guilty of bribery, at the late assizes for Devon and Cornwall; which motions were agreed to.

MARQUIS CAMDEN'S TELLERSHIP BILL
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the motion which they had just heard was calculated to maintain the constitution in its strength, by maintaining the purity of that House, he had now to make a motion, which would not be less beneficial, by throwing lustre on the body of its nobility. His motion was for a bill to enable the public to accept the magnificent sacrifice of the marquis Camden. The right hon. gentleman then entered into a summary of the origin and nature of the office of tellers of the exchequer, the causes of the increase of their emoluments, and the measures taken in 1780 for restricting them after the death of the then existing holders as reversioners, to 2,700 l. a year. The marquis of Buckingham and the marquis Camden, the holders of the unreduced tellerships in 1813, when these offices produced to each of them, on account of the large public expenditure, as much as 17 or 18,000 l. a year, voluntarily gave up to the public service, during the remainder of the war, all the surplus beyond the income regulated by Mr. Burke's bill. The public was soon after deprived of the services of the marquis of Buckingham by death but from the donation of the marquis Camden in this shape, as well as former contributions from his, office and his private fortune, the country had derived 45,000 l. After the conclusion of the war, the marquis Camden made a farther sacrifice of the surplus, which the public was enabled to accept by an act which passed to authorise contributions on the part of his majesty's ministers and other public officers. That act bad ex-

313
pired, and the noble marquis was now desirous to be enabled to give up to the public, for the remainder of his life, the surplus of his official income beyond the sum paid to the tellers more recently appointed under Mr. Burke's bill. This surplus, in years of peace, amounted to about 9,000 l. a year. Doubts had arisen whether this contribution would not be considered illegal as a benevolence, and whether, therefore, it could be accepted by the exchequer, unless it were authorised by parliament. Whether these doubts were or were not well founded, there was no question that the proceeding by an act of parliament was the more proper and more dignified way, and he had no doubt but that the House would receive the proposal with the honour and attention which so signal an instance of patriotic munificence merited at their hands. [Hear, hear!]. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of certain Fees arising there from."
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that his object in rising to second the motion of his right hon. friend, was simply to give expression to what he was sure must be the feeling that pervaded the House in contemplating this transaction. The extent and nature of the sacrifice made by the noble marquis had been already stated. It was right, however, that the House should be apprized, that during the three years previous to the peace of Amiens, he had sacrificed to the public no less a sum than 24,000 l.., which added to the sum of 18,527 l. during the last two years of the war, and what had been since contributed on the reduced scale, raised the sum total already relinquished to 61,740 l. He made this great sacrifice, out of deference to the feeling with which, it appeared to him, the last unregulated office was regarded. The effect of this present offer was to surrender for the term of his future life, a sum which in time of war exceeded 18,000 l. per annum, and was during peace not less than 9,000 l. It was not claiming too much credit for such an act voluntarily performed under all the Circumstances which attended it, to say, that a more splendid sacrifice of private right to the public service was never heard of in any state. As a patent office, it might fairly be considered a legal estate, and had been always so considered by that House. It should be remembered also, that it was an office which had not been
314
conferred as an act of grace or favour on the noble marquis himself, but which he had inherited from his father, to whom it had been granted, by way of compensation for giving up the high and dignified appointment of chief justice of the Common pleas, in order to enter into the political service of the country.
Mr. Tierneyprofessed the most sincere satisfaction in contemplating the occasion which had been afforded for the present discussion. He had always felt, and frequently expressed, his regret, that the conduct of marquis Camden in this instance should be passed over with so little public observation. He could assure the House, that he wanted words to express his admiration of this princely sacrifice of private fortune. It was a magnificent donation to the country, made under circumstances which greatly enhanced its character of nobleness and generosity. The House had a few years since, on occasion of a motion brought forward by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Creevey), recognized the principle, that the emoluments of the office in question were private property. To that principle he had given his support, conceiving it to be founded in reason and justice. Were he now to mention the nobleman who in his opinion stood the highest in this country, he should certainly name Lord Camden, whose attachment to his country must be truly strong, to induce him to abandon what had been earned for him by his illustrious father [Hear, hear]. He trusted that a motion would be made for placing some memorial on the journals of the House of so singular an example of disinterestedness. There were precedents for such a proceeding, and no occasion could be fitter for recording the sense of parliament than this great pecuniary sacrifice [Hear].
Lord Carhamptoncould not accede to the proposition, that the grants of the Crown were equivalent to fee-simple property, and could not be re-modelled by parliament. With regard to the case under consideration, he highly admired the generosity of the noble marquis.
Mr. Tierneyexplained. He had only meant to say, that there was a vested interest which could not be forfeited except by abuse of the office, and had never contended that to correct this was beyond the competency of parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred in the principle as laid down by

315
the right hon. gentleman. The noble marquis had an interest, which, although not equal to a fee-simple, amounted to a legal estate for life.
Mr. Bankesagreed, that patent offices were in the nature of freehold property. With respect to the case before them, he believed that no previous example of such munificence could be found. The admiration which it had called forth ought to be expressed amplissimis verbis, in the preamble of the bill they were about to pass. The office in question was derived from a father equally distinguished for talents and integrity, a man venerable as one of the most learned and constitutional lawyers that ever adorned the seat of justice. The present marquis was one of his earliest private friends, and he hoped the House would allow him to suggest the words by which their sense of his magnanimous conduct should be testified to posterity.
Mr. Wilberforcewished also to bear testimony to this zealous and noble instance of disinterestedness and public virtue, and to join in that tribute of respect which had been so handsomely rendered by the right hon. gentleman on the floor. He regretted with him, that the sacrifice already made should have been hitherto suffered to pass with so little notice, and he felt himself bound to declare, that the manner in which it was made indicated a truly generous and noble mind.
Mr. C. Longbore testimony to the cheerful and unostentatious manner in which the noble marquis had performed this act of munificence.
Mr. Bankessaid he should propose the insertion of the words he had mentioned after the second reading.
Mr. Martin, of Galway, said it was the duty of the county to meet this generous proposition with something as magnanimous, and he should propose that they should refuse the gift [A laugh]. Gentlemen of narrow incomes might put their circumstances en gene by following so dazzling an example.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

OPHTHALMIC INSTITUTION.
Mr. J. P. Grantrose, pursuant to notice, to move for certain papers relative to the expense of the Ophthalmic hospital and contingencies, now introduced into the army estimates for the first time. He brought this motion forward, because the expense appeared to him perfectly of a
316
novel nature, in order that it might be ascertained whether such expense was necessary or not. The noble lord connected with the war department having said he should have no objection to give every information on the subject, he was much surprised to learn, on laying his motion before him, that the papers it called for were such as the noble lord declined to grant. From the information which he (Mr. J. P. Grant) had received, the case was this. The ophthalmia having prevailed to a considerable extent in our army, an hospital had, during the war, been established at Bognor for the cure of that disorder; great cures of it had been effected; and the disease was found of late years to have happily abated in the army. Notwithstanding this, in a time of peace, and at a moment when public economy was so much talked of, not only a new establishment was formed, but a gentleman (Sir W. Adams) was placed at the head of it, who never had been in the army; and who had therefore no claim to military patronage; who was in fact, an oculist of this town, and who, though he was not even now in the army, was placed over the heads of many eminent men who had devoted their lives to the service of their country, and who were now receiving half-pay. The services of these men might, it appeared to him, have been very properly called for when such an institution was thought necessary. Of the professional talents of the gentleman who had thus received the appointment, he knew nothing, he had heard that they were very respectable, and he believed it; but however that might be, he could not see why any gentleman, no matter how able in his profession, should have been selected in preference to many skilful and meritorious military men. The formation of the new establishment might be a right or a wrong measure; and, as to ascertain that was his only object, he should avoid unnecessarily entering into minute details. The hon. member concluded by moving for copies of all letters or communications that had passed between the Commander in Chief, the Secretary at war, and the army Medical Board, relative to the soldiers or Chelsea pensioners affected with the Ophthalmia, since the appointment of the present director of army hospitals. He also moved for copies of all reports or representations made from Chelsea college respecting Chelsea pen-

317
sioners under the care of sir W. Adams; and for various other papers connected with the same subject.
The motion having been seconded, and the question put,
Lord Palmerstonrose and said, he was far from being sorry that this opportunity had been afforded to him for explaining the nature of the Ophthalmic institution; and he hoped, he should be able, before he sat down, to convince the House that it was not one undeserving the support of the government. During the war, the ophthalmia had made an alarming progress in the army; an hospital for the treatment of the disease had, in consequence, been established; but the practice there certainly did not turn out so successful as could have been wished. He said this without meaning at all to reflect on the head of that establishment (Dr. Vetch), from whom, he believed, the hon. gentleman had received most of his information on this subject, and who, he understood, had been of opinion that he ought to have been made the superintendant of the new establishment, instead of sir W. Adams. It was the anxious wish of his royal highness the commander in chief to ascertain the best mode of treating ophthalmia. Sir W. Adams was said to have introduced a new and improved system. To make a certain trial of its effects, a number of pensioners afflicted with the disorder were placed under his care, and the result was, that a rapid and important improvement was observed to take place among them. The treatment of these poor people gave the highest satisfaction.—Sir W. Adams succeeded in rescuing many of them from a state of utter hopelessness and misery, and enabling them to become useful to themselves and to society [Hear! hear!]. This was not all, for in 1814, sir William's practice received the decided sanction and approbation of a number of medical gentlemen expressly appointed by government to examine its merits. To show the weight to which their opinions were entitled, he had only to mention the names of Sir H. Halford, Dr. Baillie, and Messrs. Home, Cline, A. Cooper, and Abernethy. The noble lord then quoted the following passages from the opinion of Dr. Baillie:—" I think he has the merit of introducing a practice which is likely to be highly useful in a particular chronic state of ophthalmia." And again—" His mode of
318
operating by a knife of his own invention promises to be much more efficient, and to be more expeditious in accomplishing the cure, than that of Mr. Saunders, and likely to preserve the eyes of many individuals, which would otherwise have been lost." He also read extracts from the opinions of some of the other gentlemen alluded to, which were of a similar purport. Accordingly, the foundation of a new institution for the exclusive treatment of pensioners belonging to the several departments of the public service was resolved upon. But the new mode of treatment had been invariably opposed by the army medical practitioners, so that it was useless to think of associating Sir W. Adams with them; and the only way of rendering his system generally available was, to place himself at the head of the establishment.—In 1817, a part of York hospital was appropriated to the purpose with two medical officers assigned to act under sir W. Adams, and up to this time, the establishment had continued on this footing. The York hospital being found inconvenient, and moreover in the way of some improvements which lord Grosvenor, to whom the ground belonged, was about to make, an arrangement was made with an architect, who engaged to take a lease of some crown lands in the Marylebone fields, adjoining the Regent's park, and to build an hospital at his own expense, on condition that the public should rent it for seven years. The rent then of the building was the only expense that would fall on the public, while a tenant was secured till the expiration of the lease. It was due to sir Wm. Adams to state, that he stipulated for no compensation whatever for his services; that he had been on the establishment now for a year and a half, attending with the utmost zeal and assiduity, without having received any remuneration whatever; leaving that to the consideration of government, to be estimated according to the success of his system.—What he had now said was in part an answer to the objection on the score of expense, because, if any military man had been appointed to preside over the new institution, he would have expected to be paid in proportion to his trouble and responsibility; and therefore the proposition being assumed, that an hospital for the treatment of ophthalmia and its effects, ought to have been erected, his statement showed, that, as to expense

319
for medical assistance, it had been established on the most saving plan. It would be tedious to go through the various objections successively raised against sir William Adams's practice. First, it was said not to have been successful—but that objection was overcome by the success attendant on repeated public experiments. Then it was alleged that the ophthalmia had been eradicated; while it appeared, on incontrovertible evidence, that at the very time whole regiments were labouring under a most severe inflammation in the eyes, which, let it be called what it might, terminated in blindness. Next it was urged, that if the disease were not extinguished, the surgeons of the army were as competent to cure it as sir W. Adams. To which the latter replied, "it may be so, but your competency appears five years after you have availed yourself of the improvements which I introduced." [Hear, hear.]—This indeed was the fact, for sir W. Adams had cured many persons who had been under the care of the army surgeons without obtaining any benefit. He (lord Palmerston) had himself inspected a number of the cases treated in the new institution, and he could assure the House, that never in the course of his life had he enjoyed a greater gratification. He had found that, in various instances, relief had been afforded to the patients to a degree that he could not have thought possible—[Hear.] He should not trespass much longer on the time of the House—but he should beg leave to describe one or two of the cases with which he was acquainted from his own personal knowledge. Wm. Hill, a soldier in the 63rd regiment, was admitted into the hospital in July, 1817; his eye-lids were villous with opacity and vascularity of both cornea; Hill himself described his state of vision at that time to be such, that he could not distinguish a post or a tree. He was discharged in January last, the villosity of the lids and opacity and vascularity of the cornea having been removed, and the opacity of the left cornea nearly so. With the right eye Hill could read the smallest print of a newspaper fluently; with his left he could read moderately sized print, tell the minute and second marks on a watch-dial; and he said he could, on a clear day, discern large objects at the distance of a mile. Charles Smith said, that on his admission in June, 1818, he could not see his fin-
320
gers at arm's length; he was discharged in January last, at which period he could read very small print, write, and work at his trade of a shoemaker, having, in fact, worked several weeks at the hospital previous to his discharge. Gavine Young, on his admission, could only distinguish light from darkness. He was admitted in July, 1818, and discharged in Jan. 1819, being able to walk any where with perfect ease and security, read small print, and tell the hour by a watch. Another pensioner, who had been 30 years afflicted with disease in his eyes, and describing himself as unable to distinguish one object from another, left the hospital in a condition to resume his trade as a goldsmith.—Me begged pardon for going into these details, and should mention but one case more. It was that of John Silver, a soldier of the 89th regiment, who was forty-eight years of age, and who for the preceding seventeen years, was so much afflicted, as to be able merely to distinguish light from darkness. This man, within less than four months, after being placed under the care of sir W. Adams, could walk any where alone, and by the assistance of a glass, could tell the hour by a watch. Having himself examined this as well as the other cases, he could testify to the facts he had stated, and to the accuracy of the late report from the Ophthalmic hospital. Nothing could exceed the delight and gratitude with which these poor soldiers described the benefits they had received from sir Wm. Adams's treatment; and it was one of the most pleasing sights that had ever fallen to his lot, to witness the gratifying effects of that treatment.—He had already stated, that there was a great opposition and prejudice against sir W. Adams among the medical gentlemen of the army. He should now produce a remarkable instance of it, but was unwilling to mention names. Two men of the 64th regiment were taken from Chatham and put under the care of sir W. Adams in the Ophthalmic institution. After undergoing treatment there, they were inspected by the Staff surgeon of York hospital, and considered so far recovered as to be reported to be fit for foreign service, and they were ordered, as a preparatory step, to the Isle of Wight. The surgeon at that place disagreed with the Staff-surgeon, and pronounced the men unfit for foreign service. Accordingly they were kept at the York hospital, doing garrison duty

321
from September till November, and then sent back to Chatham. Among the other charges against the new practice was this, that persons supposed to be cured of the effects of ophthalmia were liable to a relapse, and of this it was thought, these two men would furnish an example. With a view to produce such an example, a medical officer in town had written a letter, a copy of which he begged leave to read to the House. This letter was dated, London, 18th February, 1819:—"My dear—;I was much disappointed at the two men of the 64th regiment not having been sent to the last Chelsea board, as I had arranged matters in such a manner that they were to have gone to the board, and the Attention of the commissioners was to have been directed towards the state of their eyes; and all this was done quietly, without any person connected with sir W. A. knowing any thing concerning the business. I would recommend you not to mention their names in any correspondence you may have here, at all events till they are snugly lodged in the York hospital. I hope you have not meddled with their occhi, and that you will not prevent their getting drunk, so that they may have proper vascular cornea. I this morning saw two of my old patients from Chatham, who had passed the Chelsea board about a fortnight ago, and who were taken, with several others, into the Knight's hospital; Gorden and M'Gee. The former has already been dismissed from the hospital without any thing having been done to his eyes, and the poor fellow complains of having been prevented going home and detained here. The latter, M'Gee, did himself the honour, as he termed it, to call upon me to-day to pay his respects, and to thank me for my attention to him when he was under my care. I examined his eyes minutely, and everted the lids, not however with the elevator, as I do not carry such an instrument (although I am informed that you do). His eyes are looking remarkably well, and the linings are perfectly smooth. I cautioned him particularly against drinking lest he should induce a relapse, and he promised faithfully to obey my injunction I also saw Burton of the 86th regiment, one of the same batch whom be had taken into the hospital. I take it for granted you recollect the man's case perfectly. He was likewise an old friend of mine. There was, when I saw him (about a week ago)
322
a large vessel running from above downwards, over the cornea of the right eye. The left appeared to be very well. I had not an opportunity of examining him particularly, but I shall take an early opportunity of doing so, which I shall the more readily accomplish as I have just heard that the poor knight fell from his horse yesterday, and received a severe injury of the knee, but I have not learnt the particulars."
This letter having been addressed "On the public service," and sent from the medical board, it was attempted to forward it free through the War-office. But the examining clerk, whose duty it was to read all letters before they were franked, lest the privilege of the office should be abused, discovering that this was a private letter of a peculiar nature, very properly submitted it to his (lord P.'s) view, and he felt it his duty to take notice of it. Letters sent to the War-office to be franked were usually sent open, as this letter was, but although the office had by law the power to examine such letters before they were for warded, he (lord P.) had reason to believe, that it was pretty generally supposed in the army this power was rarely if ever exercised. This, however, was a great mistake, as, to his knowledge, for some years that duty was regularly executed according to law; a clerk being specially appointed for the purpose. Whether this duty was neglected, and the public revenue defrauded through an abuse of the privilege of the office at other times, he could not pretend to say; but since his accession to the appointment which he had the honour to hold, he had taken special care that no such neglect or fraud should take place, and that the prescriptions of the law should be strictly enforced. It would be seen from this insidious letter, that while the writer was anxious that the patients of sir Wm. Adams should be allowed to get drunk, in order that they might have a relapse, or, as he so classically termed it, "a proper vascular cornea," he very particularly enjoins his own patients not to get drunk, lest they should induce a relapse. But what would the House think of the disposition and principles of this writer, when informed, that at the very time he wrote this letter, he was making the strongest professions of friendship for sir William Adams, when he was soliciting for an appointment in the new establishment, and, that sir William was actually

323
endeavouring to promote his views? The House had, he admitted, a right to decide whether the establishment ought or not to be kept in existence; but he deprecated its making, itself a party in the contest on the pretensions of professional adversaries. He wished those he addressed, to visit the institution—to examine it in every part, and on the decision they might then come to, as to its value, he would cheerfully risk its fate. But he had only to entreat that they would at the same time recollect the magnitude of the privation, and the extent of the calamity it was instituted to alleviate. The whole expense would not exceed 1,500 l. a year, and if it restored even a few veterans to that degree of vision, that they would be less a burden to themselves, and be enabled to spend the evening of their days with a greater degree of comfort, he could not believe the House would withhold this valuable relief from the poor disabled soldier or sailor when purchased on such easy terms [Hear, hear]. He said again, that he was willing to stake the existence of the hospital on a personal inspection of its visible and actual effects. Let gentlemen go there and judge of it by questioning the men themselves: let them ask them what was their state on entering it, and see their state previous to being discharged; but he could not consent to the production of the papers, as he thought they would not contribute to real information, or lead to useful discussion. It would indeed be obviously improper to make that House an arena for medical controversy, which would be much better carried on through the press, and more properly left to the judgment of the public.
Sir J. Mackintoshremarked, that the noble lord had said the papers ought not to be laid before the House, as they would only make it acquainted with one side of the question. But the noble lord spoke on one side of the question; why then object to let the House be made acquainted with the other? The noble lord said, the merits of the parties opposed to each other on this occasion ought to be left to the discernment of the public. Right! He would agree to this, but the expense of the new establishment ought also to be left to be decided on by the discernment of the public. The House owed it to that justice due to the medical officers of the army, a body of men who had distinguished themselves as much as any other part of the service during the war; and
324
who in the judgment of all Europe had contributed eminently to the advancement of their art, to institute the fullest inquiry into the reasons of their being superseded on this occasion by an individual not connected with the army at all. They could not but feel hurt at being passed over in this manner. The noble lord had dwelt much on the letter he had read; now that letter had been produced either as a specimen of the general conduct of the army practitioners, or as an exception, to it. If the latter, it all came to nothing; but if it were exhibited in the former view, the noble lord ought in fairness to have given, and he now called upon him to give, the name of the writer, that it might be disavowed, and that a whole body of respectable men might not suffer in character for the act of an individual. The true question was, whether there was any such superiority in the gentleman appointed, as to justify the putting him above all medical officers at the end of a protracted and arduous war, in the course of which they had rendered the greatest services to their country. He wished to ask the noble lord, if, since the Report in favour of sir William Adams, which he had mentioned as having been made in 1814, one of a different nature had not appeared? If he were not grossly misinformed, some of the greatest medical men in the world were decidedly adverse to the system of sir William Adams. To visit the establishment, as recommended by the noble lord, would be useless, unless those who did so had an opportunity of comparing the patients under the care of sir Wm. Adams, with the same number of similar cases under the care of the medical officers of the army. He did not mean absolutely to affirm, that he differed in opinion with the noble lord, that the gentleman in question was not properly selected, or that the course pursued was wrong or unjust,—but he did say, that what was due to a large body of gentlemen, required that their opinions, stating the grounds on which they differed from that individual, should be laid before the House. The very circumstance of his treatment being made a secret had something suspicious in it, and was completely opposite to the uniform practice of enlightened men. [The hon. and learned gentleman was here interrupted by lord Palmerston, who declared he had not said a syllable of sir Wm. Adams's practice being kept secret, that practice being, on

325
the contrary, made completely public]. He should sit down expressing his decided opinion, that the House would not deal fairly, if they did not cause the papers to be produced.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that the noble lord was entitled to great praise for his exertions to eradicate one of the most painful and afflicting of disorders. It had been his lot, from circumstances not necessary to detail to the House, to see many an example of the melancholy and grievous effects of ophthalmia, and from all he saw and knew on the subject, he thought it well worthy the attention of the noble lord to make every effort, and institute ever experiment with a view to eradicate that disorder. Would to God that it were eradicated, but melancholy and convincing proofs to the contrary were too easily discovered! The hon. and learned gentleman who opened this debate had laid two grounds in support of his motion: first, that the disease was already eradicated; secondly, that the new institution was putting the country to an unnecessary expense. As to the first, no one would rejoice at such a consummation more than himself; but it was a truth not to be disguised, that cases of the existence of ophthalmia were of every day's occurrence, not only among the military, but in civil life—and it behoved the House to guard itself from being led astray by such a delusion. With respect to the expense, he thought 1,500 l. a year, the estimated charge of the new establishment, very properly laid out, even on an experiment for the eradication of ophthalmia. The hon. and learned gentleman who had spoken last, had made a most invidious statement as to the implied superiority of sir W. Adams over the medical officers of the army. He was ready to acknowledge that they were a class of men who had performed distinguished services to the nation, and to whom it was very deeply indebted; but, on the other hand, he thought that if the noble lord (Palmerston) had discovered, or thought he had discovered, any thing attended with greater success in the mode of treatment observed by the gentleman he had mentioned (a gentleman the most celebrated as an oculist, and of whose astonishing success and wonderful cures every member who heard him must have known instances), he was fully justified in availing himself of his assistance. It appeared that previous to his employment at the head of the institu-
326
tion, patients had been placed under his care who had already been treated in vain by the army surgeons. He had produced many cases from these where a total cure, or material benefit, was effected by his practice; and this made a very strong case in his favour [Hear]. He wished sir W. Adams to have a fair and full trial, and if his practice should realise the hopes entertained in founding the institution, it would be more than an ample return for all the charge incurred. Such expense was indeed quite insignificant when put in competition with the object it was meant to accomplish. The noble lord, in his opinion, was right in refusing the papers. He was always ready to support any motion for inquiry upon proper grounds, but he could not consent to load the table of that House with voluminous documents containing ex parte statements, all indeed presenting the mere effusions of professional jealousy or private pique against the character and conduct of an individual. On the whole, he conceived that the grounds taken by his hon. friends near him did not bear them out in the remarks which they had offered on the motion, which they pressed.
Mr. Barhamthought the noble lord fully justified in withholding his consent for the production of the papers, and that for two reasons; first, because they were not necessary to enable members to form an opinion on the merits of the new institution, as, if the hon. gentlemen who supported the motion had taken the trouble to make inquiries, they would have found that there were other documents easily obtained, which were fully sufficient for that purpose, without having recourse to any others; and, secondly, because the papers moved for were not fit to be produced, and would be of little use, unless the House were prepared to go into the whole of the contest. His hon. and learned friend, the mover, had been misinformed if he thought that the ophthalmia had totally disappeared in this country; for but two years ago thousands of our soldiers were labouring under it—and at this moment the country was paying pensions to 5,000 persons totally blind from its effects, the aggregate of those pensions amounting to 92,000 l. The question was, would the good likely to be effected by the institution overbalance the expense of supporting it? To consider, this, by a reference to facts, what was-the good done by it in the last thirteen months? He held in his hand

327
the first annual medical report of the cases treated in the ophthalmic institution, York hospital, from which it appeared, that a number of soldiers who had been pronounced incurable by army medical officers, and therefore allowed pensions, were completely cured and restored to perfect vision under the skilful care of sir W. Adams. Such were the results of the establishment in the last year! The total expense of the hospital, independently of the charge of building and other items, which ought not properly to be included, was not more than 331 l. during the same space of time; so that making a calculation on die number cured last year, it appeared, the average expense of restoring a blind man to sight was only 4l. 10 s. [Hear], The generosity of the country would not take away the pensions already granted; but if in future only two soldiers were to be restored to sight annually, this institution (putting all considerations of national gratitude and humanity to the defenders of her rights and liberties out of the question for the present) would actually effect a saving to the nation. The pension allowed a blind man was 20 l. a year; taking the average value of this at twelve years purchase, as many of the pensioners were young men, two such pensions cost the country 480 l.; so that if only two patients were saved from blindness every year at the hospital, that would effect an annual retrenchment to the public of above 100 l. [Hear]. If the controversial papers between the two parties were laid on the table, probably the House would be less able to form a correct estimate of the merits of the institution than before. Unquestionably, so much heat, violence, and injustice, arising out of professional jealousy, had mixed itself with the subject under consideration, that if the House were to examine what had been written, they would, be both grieved and surprised; and he did not wish to inflict on himself the disgusting task of disentangling the truth from such a weight of partiality and prejudice. Sir W. Adams had, in the outset, made a very fair proposition to the army surgeons: he had said "give me some of those patients whom you have given up as incurable, and let me try what I can do with them." This was rejected, and he was obliged to apply to the commander in chief. After encountering an infinity of trouble and opposition, his proposal was at length acceded to—several men were
328
taken from the depot at Bognor, where they had been undergoing treatment by the medical officers without deriving any sort of benefit, and transferred to the care of sir W. Adams. Of these some had no eyes to admit of cure; but of the rest, a large proportion were either perfectly cured, or materially benefited, and were now walking about, and attending to their business [Hear]. He had himself performed the very useless duty (a laugh; of visiting the ophthalmic institution at York hospital; he had gone there with his noble friend behind (lord Ebrington) very recently, and he could assure the House, that never had he derived a more pure gratification from any spectacle. He had found fifty or sixty patients there; on asking them what their state was when they came to the hospital, he was informed by some of them that they could scarcely distinguish light from darkness, and by most of them that they had been led up by a guide. And to his inquiries respecting their then state of vision, they replied, that they could walk without a guide, or work at their trades, or read [Hear]. "How long," continued Mr. 13arha:n, "had you been afflicted with disorders in the eyes?" The answer was "eight, nine, nay, eighteen years" "Had you undergone medical treatment before?" "Oh yes" [Hear]. He therefore besought gentlemen who doubted of the utility of the hospital, to go and. judge of its effects with their own eyes. Something had been said by one hon. and learned gentleman about secresy in sir W. Adams's practice. He did not know what could have given rise to such an opinion, because, in point of fact, from first to last, that gentleman had offered to disclose all his discoveries and improvements to the profession at large; discoveries and improvements, he must insist, he had made; for if the army surgeons had possessed as much skill, why, he asked, had they not cured those pensioners who were now recovering under the care of sir W. Adams? He should not trouble the House any farther except to observe, that he thought the noble lord (Palmerston) deserved the greatest credit for resisting the cabal raised by a body of men against a meritorious individual.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of declaring what came within his own knowledge and observation concerning the institution under the superintendence of sir W. Adams. He

329
should not do justice to his own feelings did he not express in his place his decided conviction of its merits. The gentleman at the head of it he had not known, indeed he had never seen, till within the last few days. He thought the noble lord (Palmerston) also entitled to praise for the laudable perseverance he had displayed, in supporting so humane and well-conducted an establishment, in opposition to the prejudices that were endeavoured to be excited against it. In consequence of a report of the cases treated in the institution having been put into his hands, he had resolved on convincing himself of its effects by ocular evidence; and never had any sight afforded him greater pleasure and satisfaction. He saw a variety of patients, some totally blind, many incapable of distinguishing light from darkness when they had been admitted, and having nearly all been led up.—advancing in different degrees to a recovery—enabled by sir W. Adams's treatment to walk about alone, to perceive objects distinctly, or even to read very small print [Hear]. Under these circumstances, though he should be the last person there to resist putting the House in possession of useful information, or to screen any ministerial abuse; he could not vote for the production of the reports of the medical board (of whom he wished to speak with respect) because he did not think the House would gain much knowledge by examining the opinions of men, who, it was known, had opposed the commencement and progress of the ophthalmic institution throughout.
Lord Castlereaghthought the hon. and learned gentleman who brought forward this motion, sought to lead the House of Commons out of its peculiar province, which was the exertion of a due vigilance on the expenditure of public money into an interference with the executive in the exercise of one of its prerogatives, namely, the appointment of officers in a military department. He might as well propose at once, that the House should take the control of all military appointments. But he (lord C.) thought the good sense of the House would hardly allow them to adopt such a principle. But it was obvious, from the sentiments of gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, that this was a question not very generally thought fit for discussion. Two hon. and learned gentlemen were strenuous for the production of documents, and disposed to resist the establishment in question,
330
while two other gentlemen, usually in the habit of voting with them, were of a different opinion, and highly approved the institution, and bore testimony to its utility. He had no doubt, therefore, that? the House would see the propriety of supporting his noble friend.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, he had merely proposed investigation upon a subject on which he could obtain no authentic information by any other mode. The institution was mentioned amongst other incidental charges in the army estimates, stated altogether at a sum of 9,000 l. He, therefore, felt it necessary to inquire what part of this charge was appropriated to the ophthalmic institution. He disclaimed any motive of partiality for or against sir W. Adams, or in favour of the gentleman at the head of the military medical board, Dr. M'Gregor, whom he now understood to be his countryman; but he thought the noble lord should have named the author of the letter he had produced, and sincerely hoped, whoever was the author, that he should no longer be attached to his Majesty's service, of which, whoever he was, he had proved himself wholly unworthy.
The motion was negatived without any call for a division.

CEYLON.
Sir W. De Crespignysaid, that in rising to bring forward his motion on the war in Ceylon, he was aware the House did not wish to enter into a long discussion; but he hoped a feeling of humanity would procure him their attention for a few moments. He wished the question had been taken up by the other side of the House; but as it had not, he felt it his duty to institute an inquiry into it. The affairs of Ceylon were not, he feared, well known in this country, but it was well known that the late king of Candy was of a most cruel and sanguinary disposition, and that his severity was such as to cause his subjects to revolt against him. His first minister having deserted, his family was murdered by order of this tyrant. This induced the minister to apply to the British governor of Ceylon, and after some delay he was allowed the assistance of the British forces, who, assisted by the Candians, succeeded in dethroning the king. On this occasion a treaty was signed by the British authorities on the one hand, and the chief officers and ministers of Candy on the other, by which the latter were vested with the civil government of

331
the country. This treaty, however, had been violated, and the "conduct of the British authorities, in appointing a particular class of persons, detested by the Candians, to fill civil offices, disgusted them so much as to cause them to revolt against our government in that island, and the consequence had been a protracted, sanguinary, and expensive war. The British army, in their several marches, obliged the natives to carry their baggage, and to hold flambeaux before their palanquins and horses. The disgust excited by this conduct was such as to induce the governor to desist from it, but it was too late, the blow was struck, and it would be difficult to describe the scene of misery and wretchedness which followed. He wished to ask one question of the hon. member opposite, relative to the minister of whom he had already spoken, and who he understood had been beheaded. If this was true, he wished to know whether he had been previously tried by a court of justice or a court martial? It was the duty of parliament to see that the law was duly administered in all countries under our protection. He concluded by moving, for a "Copy of Proclamation by his Excellency General Robert Brownrigg in Council, given at Columbo, 11th January, 1815; also, Proclamation and Treaty in the Palace of Candy, March 2nd, 1815, between his Excellency General Robert Brownrigg on the one part, and the Adigars, Dessaves, and other principal Chiefs of the Candian Provinces, on behalf of the inhabitants."
Mr. Goulburndid not mean to oppose the motion, but the hon. baronet would find, on the production of the papers, that his information was not exactly correct on this subject. In answer to the question which had been put to him, he could assure the hon. baronet, that the adigar, or minister, about whom he inquired so solicitously, was, according to the: last accounts from Ceylon, enjoying a perfectly sound state of health [a laugh]. The mistake arose, he supposed, from the similarity of this minister's name to that of another officer, who had revolted, and who having been taken in arms, was tried and sentenced to be executed.
Mr. Forbeswas sorry to see the motion treated with so little attention. Ceylon had for a considerable time been a scene of warfare and destruction, and it was surely worth the attention of the House to inquire into the cause of this war. If
332
the Candians were left to themselves, we should have some chance of retaining possession of the sea coast; but we could never expect to keep quiet possession of Candia. We might do so for a few weeks or for a few months, but when the sickly season set in, it would be found impossible. This war had cost England immense sums of money, and a great number of lives: so great was the mortality, that one regiment had lost 400 men. This surely was sufficient to call for the investigation of parliament.
The motion was agreed to.

THE FLORIDAS—EXECUTION OF ARBUTHNOT AND AMBRISTER.
The Marquis of Lansdowne, in pursuance of the notice he had given at an early period of the session, and since postponed, now felt it his duty to call their lordships' attention to the transactions which had taken place on the occupation of the Floridas by the American forces; and with a view to that object, he intended to move for copies of
288
the communications which passed between his Majesty's government and the government of the United States, with respect to the invasion of the Floridas, and more particularly the trial and execution of British subjects by the general commanding the troops of the United States. It was unnecessary for him, after what had passed at the beginning of the session, to enter into any explanation as to the motives which induced him to delay bringing forward this subject to so late a period. That explanation relative to the transactions between this country and the United States which the noble earl opposite had promised to give, had in the first instance induced him to abstain from pressing the consideration of the subject; but any silence which had taken place 'either on his part, or on that of parliament, could not be construed into a disposition to acquiesce in what appeared to be a departure from the law of nations, and the introduction into warfare of a barbarous practice, subversive of the principles of humanity, by which civilized states were governed. He was most unwilling to cast any reproach whatever on the government of the United States for the occurrence of the transaction, which he could not but characterize as one of the most atrocious that could be committed. He was far from attributing to that government any disposition to encourage or countenance that act. He had too high a respect for the character of the distinguished individual who filled the first office in the government of the United States, to believe that he, or any one connected with him in that government, would approve of the proceedings of general Jackson, In moving, therefore, for the correspondence which had passed between the United States and the Prince Regent's government, he was in hopes to find that proper explanations had been given.—He should now briefly state the origin of the transaction to which his motion referred. In the winter of 1817, in consequence of disputes which had arisen between the United States and the Seminole Indians, a war was commenced by the latter, who were charged with the commission of most flagitious outrages on the citizens of the United States. General Jackson, who was intrusted with the direction of the military operations against the Seminoles, thought fit to carry the war into the neutral territory of Spain, under the pretext that the Indians might make themselves

289
masters of the forts, as the Spanish force was unable to resist them. How far this ground for the invasion of a neutral state was justifiable, it was not his present purpose to inquire, though it would be impossible for him not to call their lordships' attention before he sat down to the final cession of the Floridas by Spain. The invasion at the time it occurred, however, was, he admitted, a question solely between Spain and the United States. The circumstance to which he wished particularly to call their lordships' attention was, as he had already said, the trial and execution of two British subjects under the authority of the American commander, He thought the invasion of the Spanish territory was in itself an act of violence; and he believed it would be felt by all the world, that if state necessity was made the ground of so extraordinary a measure, those who had the conduct of the operation ought to be careful to avoid every unnecessary act of inhumanity. For instance, when Copenhagen was, under the pretext of state necessity, taken possession of by our government, it would have been an act of great aggravation, had the British general, intrusted with the command of the expedition, proceeded to try and condemn to death the subjects of neutral powers found in the Danish capital. General Jackson was, however, no sooner in possession of the Spanish territory than he proceeded to bring British subjects before courts-martial, and try and condemn them to death for pretended offences against the United States. There was some difference in the situation of the two individuals who had undergone this melancholy fate. Ambrister, it appeared, had undoubtedly borne arms against the United States; and he was not prepared to say, that there did not exist a right, according to the laws of war, in the commander of an army to refuse to regard the subjects of a neutral state taken with arms in their hands as regular prisoners of war. This might lead to a denial of quarter; but it was a most unjustifiable extension of the principle when it was applied to the case of Ambrister, who was not taken in arms. The principle was in itself one of great cruelty, and it never could be the interest of any nation to apply it in a way which would establish a practice so repugnant to all the feelings of humanity. Ambrister was only proved to have borne arms in opposition to the invasion of the Floridas, but was not found
290
under arms. These circumstances he stated from the published account of the court-martial. With respect to Arbuthnot, the facts were materially different. Neither in the evidence produced, nor in the finding of the court-martial, was it pretended that Arbuthnot was found bearing arms, either at the time of the invasion, or in Fort St. Marks, in which he was taken. There was no proof of any connection between him and the Indian chiefs, except a letter which was spoken to by one witness; and nothing to make out the charge of his having instigated the Indians to hostility. It appeared that he had supplied the Indians with articles of merchandize, among which were some small quantities of lead and powder. This was a kind of transaction very common in war, and the property of the neutral merchant, when taken, had generally been held to be forfeited; but in no case was it ever before heard of, that he should be condemned to pay also the penalty of his life. But it was not only the sentence of the court-martial which was in this case calculated to excite indignation, the subsequent conduct of the American general was still more revolting. One prisoner was condemned to death; the other to the punishment of a severe imprisonment. General Jackson took upon himself, not the right of mitigating the sentence, but of aggravating it. He ordered the punishment of death to be inflicted upon Ambrister, who had been condemned by the court-martial to imprisonment only. Could these transactions be justified on any principle of the law of nations, or in any way by the plea of necessity, which had alone led to the invasion of Florida by the American army? But suppose that general Jackson was authorised in proceeding with severity against Ambrister and Arbuthnot, he ought to have felt that, from the analogy of punishments enacted by the laws of the United States, he could not inflict on these men the penalty of death, and that they could, in fact, be liable to nothing more than fine and imprisonment. The noble marquis referred their lordships to an act of the United States, a clause of which he read, by which citizens carrying en correspondence with a foreign power at war, or acting as commissioners or agents for such power, were liable, on conviction, to the penalty of 1,000 dollars, and one month's imprisonment. Thus it appeared, that citizens of the United States, guilty of

291
the same offence as that with which Arbuthnot was charged, with the aggravation of violating their allegiance to their own government, could only be fined and imprisoned; and yet, with this act of the Congress staring him in the face, general Jackson had taken upon himself to sentence a British subject to death. He did more; after the sentence was passed, he proceeded to carry it into execution, in defiance of one of the articles of the American military code, which provides that no sentence of a court-martial affecting the life of an individual shall be carried into effect until it has been communicated to and approved by the president of the United States. To demand an explanation of such a transaction was a duty incumbent on this government; but its disavowal was not so much called for by the honour of this country as by that of the United States. That it was disapproved by that government was a hope which he cherished in common with those friends of humanity who looked to the American States as the means of diffusing over that part of the world the spirit of freedom and love of justice which they inherited from their ancestors, of planting in that continent all that was most noble in this. But how could such a hope be entertained, if this atrocious transaction should finally prove to be sanctioned by the government of the United States? He should not trouble their lordships further on this subject; but it was impossible for him not to advert to that event which had so materially changed the situation of this country with respect to its colonial power in the West Indies. He meant the cession of the Floridas. He could state without fear of contradiction in that House or elsewhere, that no colonial cession so materially affecting the interests of this country had ever before taken place. It was his anxious wish, and, he believed, that of all the country, that the peace now enjoyed should be of long duration; but neither their lordships nor those who administered the government were justified in overlooking the prospect of a renewal of hostilities at some period or other. Should a war take place the relative situation of this country would be essentially changed. He could without the slightest hesitation assert, that the acquisition of the Floridas would place a great part of the commerce of this country with the West Indies at the mercy of the United States. In the case of hostilities, our homeward-bound fleet
292
could not pass the Gulf of Florida without the greater part becoming the prey of gun boats and small privateers of every description. Another injurious consequence to this country was, that the possession of Florida gave the United States a commanding influence over the present black governments, or any which might hereafter be formed in the West Indies. He was for from supposing that the noble lords opposite were insensible to the importance of this cession, but the event was strangely inconsistent with the commanding influence which it was supposed British councils had obtained by the late adjustment of the affairs of Europe. That settlement had often been the subject of congratulation on the other side; but with all the titles which it gave this government to influence, it was extraordinary that a transaction so inimical to our interests should be the act of the country which, owed us the greatest obligations. How did it happen that ministers had been unable to prevent this cession? Why was such an event not guarded against by the treaties concluded at the peace? This neglect was the more remarkable, when it was considered that at the peace of Utrecht—a peace concluded by persons not much complimented for attention to the general interests of the country—it was provided by a specific article, that Spain should not cede any of her colonies to another power. Any one would think it impossible that such a security should not have been asked at the congress of Vienna; and yet from the treaties it appeared that nothing had been done there in the way of security, no provision introduced to guard against so momentous an occurrence as the aggrandizement of another power, in such a way as to completely subvert our influence in the West Indies. It had been stated, he understood, by high authority in another place, by the secretary of state for the foreign department, that the silence of the treaty of Vienna respecting the cession of the Spanish colonies was unimportant. When asked why no provision to guard against such cessions had been introduced the noble lord answered, that although the treaty of Utrecht was not referred to, the omission was unimportant as the treaty of Seville, signed in 1729, and which remained in force, confirmed the provision in the treaty of Utrecht. Thus it was asserted that complete security was obtained; but ought it not to have occur-

293
red to the noble lord, that with regard to that part of the American continent the cession of which was most dangerous to us, this security could by no means apply? Florida at the time of the treaty of Seville, having been ceded to this country it was quite impossible that treaty could confirm the article of the peace of Utrecht, so as to prevent the late cession to the United States. But, independently of any renewal which might have been expected of the article contained in the treaty of Utrecht, it was surely not too much for this country to expect, from Spain and from the influence the government was said to have obtained in the councils of Europe, that ministers should nave been able to avert an occurrence, the prevention of which was so important to our interests. He had thought it his duty to call their lordships attention to this subject, but it was not his intention to move for any papers relative to the cession of the Floridas. On the other point, however, he was desirous of obtaining official information, in the hope of preventing the recurrence of transactions of a nature so violent and unjustifiable, and which tended to establish principles which, if if admitted, would produce, a change in the law of nations most unfavourable to humanity. He concluded with moving an address to the Prince Regent, for copies of all communications between the government of the United States and his majesty's government, relative to the proceedings which took place on the invasion of the Floridas by the troops of the United States in 1818, and more particularly with reference to the trial condemnation, and execution of two British subjects by order of general Jackson.
Earl Bathurstsaid, he would not follow the noble marquis through all the particulars into which he had entered regarding the cession of Florida to the United States. He was certainly the less called upon to reply to the noble marquis on that point, as the papers for which he had thought fit to move contained no allusion whatever to it. He could not, however, refrain from noticing the notion of the noble marquis, that to prevent the cession of the Floridas was a duty to be expected from his majesty's ministers. He would not go the length of saying, that cases might not occur in which it would be proper for one government to oppose cessions by another: but how dangerous would it be to establish it as a principle,
294
that no state could make a cession to another without becoming responsible to this country. Nothing could be more inimical to the preservation of peace than to lay it down as a principle, that the ministers of this government should go about from court to court with the pretension of dictating or regulating all the arrangements that might be allowed to take place between our country and another. With regard to what had been said on the subject of the treaty of Utrecht, he should only remark, that at the time that treaty was concluded the Floridas were not in the possession of Spain. Leaving with this remark the subject of the cession of Florida, he should proceed to make a few observations on what had fallen from the noble marquis in support of the main object he had in view. The noble marquis had misunderstood what his noble friend had stated at the commencement of the session. He did not say he would take an opportunity of re-stating all that had passed in the communications with the government of the United States. What he said was, that he would take an opportunity of stating the general principles which had guided his majesty's government in their communications with respect to the transaction to which the noble marquis's notice referred. Their lordships were doubtless aware that what had passed in the communications between the two governments on this subject was matter of great delicacy; and he was confident that their lordships would not think fit to call for a disclosure, unless they should be of opinion that the case was such as required this country to demand from the United States reparation by the punishment of the individual who had committed the offence. Now it appeared to him that there was not sufficient ground to induce their lordships to adopt this opinion. It was true that two British subjects had in the course of military operations been taken on a neutral territory by the American troops, and tried and executed; but it was well known, not only that this act of violence and cruelty was not done by the order of the American government, but that it had been committed without any knowledge or participation whatever of that government. The act which had been committed formed, indeed, a charge brought on the part of the American government against their general: what might be the result of that charge, it was not necessary to inquire: all that their

295
lordships were called upon to consider was, whether the case was one for which retribution ought to be demanded. Now, their lordships could not fail to recollect, that the occasion which justified a demand of reparation ought to be one which rendered the right and the policy of such a course of proceeding unquestionable. If reparation were once asked, it became necessary to enforce it at all hazards. The demand once made, it must be supported to the utmost extremity. But before such a course was taken, their lordships would doubtless pause, and ask, whether the case was one which would justify the involving the two countries in war. Above all, their lordships would doubtless feel that this was, of all others, a most unfit time to embark this country in a dispute for the protection of British subjects who might engage without the consent of their government in the service of states at war with each other, but at peace with us. Any British subject who engaged in such foreign service without permission, forfeited, he conceived, the protection of his country, and became liable to military punishment, if the party by whom he was taken chose to carry the rights of war to that cruel severity. This was a principle admitted by the law of nations, and which in the policy of nations had been frequently adopted. It was obvious, therefore, that if it were to be maintained that this country should hold out protection to every adventurer who entered into foreign service, the assertion of such a principle would involve us in interminable warfare. With respect to Ambrister, it became a question from what appeared in evidence, whether he was not a person engaged in foreign service without the consent of his government; and whether, having thereby forfeited the protection of his own country, he could only claim that of the power which he served. That he had not received the permission of this government was certain; and however cruel and atrocious the conduct of those who condemned him might be, the whole merits of the case depended on his having borne arms against the United States. Of Ambrister he had no previous knowledge whatever; and the only knowledge he had of Arbuthnot was from his name appearing to a despatch of the Indian chiefs; but it appeared merely as testifying the accuracy of the translation. The application for arms, which was the subject of this despatch, was made to the governor of the
296
Bahama islands, who very properly re fused to supply any assistance whatever, observing, that the application ought to be addressed to his majesty's government. Whether or not he had acted so as to forfeit the protection of this country, depended on the nature of the transactions in which he had been engaged, and the proof of the facts. In considering this question, it was to be recollected, that he states, in his own correspondence, that he had armed a body of negroes against the United States. If the facts were made out, it would appear that the fate of these unfortunate men formed a question to be settled between the government of the United States and its commander, and not between the two nations. As to the conduct of general Jackson in setting, as the noble marquis bad said, the laws of the United States at defiance, that was an offence for which he was accountable to his own government. Such conduct in a military commander certainty would not be passed over in this country, nor did he suppose in any that pretended to freedom. The case of Arbuthnot was in many respects different from that of Ambrister; but it had been much misunderstood. It appeared that the Indians had applied to the Spanish commander of St. Mark's, and threatened to take forcible possession of the place; and when the fort was taken, Arbuthnot was found with two Indian chiefs among the garrison. In his defence he said he was a British merchant carrying on trade between the Bahama islands and the Indians; and had he done nothing more, had he been engaged in mercantile speculations only, though found in the fort, he would doubtless have been entitled to protection. The circumstance of the kind of trade in which he was engaged could not deprive him of a right enjoyed by British subjects. He would even go farther and say, that however partial the interest which he might have taken in the affairs of the tribes with whom he traded; whatever services he might have done them short of having joined in their wars; however much he might have desired their success, and endeavoured to promote it without identifying himself with their government, he would not have rendered himself liable to the tribunal on whose authority he was condemned, nor have forfeited the protection of that state to which be owed allegiance. But if his trade was merely a secondary consideration—if his cha-

297
racter as a merchant was subordinate to his capacity as a political agent—if he did not content himself with the profits of commerce, but engaged in the transactions of war without consent of his own government, then undoubtedly he forfeited British protection. The noble marquis had gone too far in saying, that there existed no evidence on the trial to convict Arbuthnot of any political connexion with the Indians. Though nothing else existed but his own correspondence, its contents would appear sufficient. The signature of the letters imputed to him he had not disavowed; he did not deny that he wrote them, nor did he give any explanation by which their tendency could be eluded. In them there was an evident reference to his formal appointment by the Indian tribes as their agent. So much did he identify himself with their cause, while he maintained his support of British interests, that he was supposed to be a British agent employed to assist and support them. This was not the case. He was an agent of the Indian tribes for the purpose of making communications between them and the British government, and not of the British government for communicating with the Indian tribes. Nor did he confine himself to this commission. He not only professed to be the channel of communication between the Seminoles and us, but between these tribes and the government of Spain. Here, therefore, not only was British protection renounced but the British character was entirely thrown off. Throughout the wholes of his correspondence he identified himself with the tribes whose cause he had espoused. In his letters were perpetually recurring such phrases as, "we think so and so, we intend so and so, it is our right," &c. These letters he had not disavowed, and therefore they were to be taken as conclusive evidence that he was a political agent of the Indians. There was a communication of his to the governor of the Bahamas, in which he distinctly called himself a political agent of the tribes. Trade formed the least part of his connexion with them, and the capacity of a merchant was that in which he was least known. Under these circumstances, he would ask their lordships, whether Arbuthnot was not to be considered rather as a political agent of the tribes among whom he was found, subject to the responsibility which such a character imposed, than as a Bri-
298
tish merchant trading in a neutral character, and entitled to British protection? It only remained for him to state, that Arbuthnot, considered in the character of an Indian agent, had not suffered otherwise than those with whom he acted. This was a material part of the question. Now it appeared, that two Indian chiefs taken in St. Mark's along with Arbuthnot were executed, and that he was not exposed to greater severity than those with whose cause he identified himself. In offering these observations to the House, he trusted that he should not be considered as defending the conduct of general Jackson, or as approving of the sentence by which our countrymen had suffered. There was not, he believed, an individual among their lordships in the House, there was not a man in the country, there was not a humane or impartial citizen of America, who would not unite in condemning his atrocious and unjustifiable acts. He only begged leave to say, that in the proceedings for which these two British subjects were tried, there were discoverable such grounds of justifying the punishment by which they suffered, as exempted the government of this country from the necessity of embarking in a demand of reparation, which must have led to a war if persisted in, and from which we could not have retreated with honour.
The Marquis of Lansdownereplied. He was happy to think that the public opinion in America as highly disapproved of the conduct of general Jackson as it did in this country. When he stated his sentiments with respect to that conduct, he had studiously abstained from expressing any opinion regarding reparation. He had not said that the conduct of the individual in question would justify a war. All that he wished was, to obtain any papers containing a disavowal on the part of the American government of the act of their military agent, and an official declaration that no instructions were given him to warrant his proceedings; so that they might never be drawn into a precedent on any future occasion. He could not conceive how the government of the United States for which he entertained the greatest respect, could hesitate to declare, that transactions so objectionable had never met with its concurrence. With the idea, therefore, that such a declaration might easily be obtained, and that such a consequence would result from it, he had submitted his present motion.

299
He would not again enter into the two cases, or the reasons on which the treatment of the unhappy individuals had been defended. He could not help, however, stating a second time, that he did not see how the conduct of Arbuthnot brought him within the range of responsibility to the American general. He was not proved to be engaged in any military transactions. All that was established against him, allowing the fullest credibility to the evidence on which he was convicted, was, that he had allowed himself to become the channel between the Spanish government and the Indians. He was found in the fortress of St. Mark's; he was proved to have traded with the Indians; to have supplied them with articles used in war: he was charged with being their agent, and with negotiating in their behalf; but nothing was alleged to have been done by him in a military capacity; and yet it was only in a military capacity that he could have been condemned by a court martial.—He would now say a few words regarding the cession of the Floridas, on which he had received no satisfactory answer from the noble secretary. The noble earl had said, that the two questions were not necessarily connected, and had therefore declined to give the information which he had expected. The noble marquis was sensible that he might have made a separate motion for papers, and thus have brought the subject before the House in a formal manner; but he thought that he could accomplish the object as well by giving an opportunity of explanation, which might prevent the necessity of a distinct inquiry. The noble earl, however, instead of explaining how far the interference of this government had been exerted to prevent the cession of the Floridas to the United States, had taken the extraordinary course of declaring the principle of interference unjustifiable and mischievous. He had not said that it was ineffectual in this case, but he had laid down a doctrine, by which its application would soon be destroyed in every other. The defence that was formerly set up for not requiring a guarantee from Spain that 6he would not cede any of her colonial possessions to another power, was, not that the principle of establishing such a security was improper, but that it was unnecessary, because the provisions of the treaty of Utrecht, which had been confirmed by the stipulations of the treaty of Seville, were still in force, and
300
formed a sufficient security. He admitted that the treaty of Seville could not afford a sufficient guarantee against the cession of the Floridas, because they did not belong to Spain at the time that was made. Some stipulation therefore, he thought, ought to have been introduced into the treaty of Vienna, to accomplish this object. It had never before been contended, that a security of the kind ought not to exist; and as it did not exist before the congress at Vienna, it ought then to have been established. The doctrine of the noble secretary, that no interference could be justified, would destroy the principle on which the balance of power rested, which it had hitherto been the custom to rely upon as our security. At the congress at Vienna in 1814, a stipulation could have been easily procured from Spain, for whom we had done so much, and would not have been objected to by the other powers of Europe. Our influence was then great, and could have procured this reasonable security.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that he would not have troubled the House, had he not been so pointedly alluded to by the noble marquis, and had not what he had said on the first day of the session been somewhat mistaken. His noble friend had explained that mistake. He had not said that he would lay papers on the table to explain the transaction; but that he would be ready at a subsequent period of the session to show the principle on which this government had acted. There were two aspects of this question, which were often confounded, and from which great mistakes had arisen—he meant its morality, or rather immorality; and the political ground that it had for demanding reparation. Looking at general Jackson's conduct in the former view, he did not hesitate to say, that it exhibited acts of as violent and as outrageous a nature as could be found in history—acts for which he was responsible to God and his country, and yet, considering the distinction he had made, they might not be of a kind, to justify a demand of reparation from this country. He was free to say, that the British government had not overlooked the acts in question; that they had had various, communications on the subject; and that it was after the most mature deliberation that they had adopted the course which they now followed. When a question arose regarding the act of a foreign state, it was their duty to weigh well the nature of the

301
first step in demanding reparation; a demand once made, if unattended to, must be pursued even to the extremity of a war. The question was, then, did those men suffer so unjustifiable a punishment at the order of the American government, as to render it imperative on us to make it a ground of national interference? He would say, no; and he would defend himself on the following grounds:—If an individual voluntarily embarked in war against any state with which his own government was at peace, he exposed himself to all its dangers and liabilities, without having a right to the protection of his own country. He might bring, as a proof of this, the provisions of a treaty concluded between lord Grenville and Mr. Jay, in 1784; it stipulated, that the subjects of neither state should engage with any power in a war against the other, and that if they did they should be left to the treatment to which the subjects of the third power were liable. This stipulation he had no doubt had a reference to the Indian wars. He did not say that this justified the conduct of general Jackson, as regarding his own country; but it justified us in not demanding reparation. If a volunteer engages in the wars of another state, against the sovereign of a state with which we are at peace, any severity inflicted on him is directed, not against the government to which he owes allegiance, but to that of which he holds the commission. If reparation is demanded, that state may say, "You are our friend, he has become our enemy; he has, therefore, no longer a title to your protection, and in punishing him we offer no indignity to you." Now, however unjustifiable general Jackson's conduct was, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, as being volunteers, and as exposing themselves to danger without any authority from their own government, had no right to appeal to their own nation for protection. The case of Ambrister was indeed allowed to stand on that ground. He was taken aiding the enemy; and though general Jackson's conduct was most atrocious in inflicting upon him a capital punishment, contrary to the sentence of the court-martial, that was an affair merely between the general and his government. The case of Arbuthnot stood on different grounds: he was not taken in arms, but he was proved equally to have aided and assisted the enemy. Would the noble marquis contend, that political and civil servants should be
§
302
exempted where military agents were punished? The question could only be therefore, "did Arbuthnot assist the Indians?" and on this head he thought no doubt could remain. He had petitioned the British government to be allowed to interfere: he had gone to reside among them when he knew that another British agent had been discouraged, and his services in the cause of the Indians had not been denied. Much evidence he was willing to allow, had been produced in court which did not deserve the least attention; but there was a letter of his which was written with his own hand, and which he had not denied, asking arms and ammunition, expressly for the purposes of the war. He had, therefore, placed himself in the same situation as though he had taken up arms. With regard to the commutation of the sentence on Ambrister, and the infliction of a severer punishment when the court had awarded a minor, it was impossible to speak of it without horror. No general in this country, no officer, however exalted his rank or eminent his services, could have dared to have set aside the judgment of the court, and to have substituted another, without exposing himself to the severest punishment. It was not here a question what might be done in the heat of passion; but when the laws are once appealed to, it has been observed, that the greatest tyrant would be content with its decision. This was all he felt it necessary to say upon the subject. Upon the other subject, touched upon by the noble marquis, he would say a very few words. If by the faith of treaties Spain was bound to make no cession of the Floridas, it would be inconsistent with every principle of justice and generosity (if justice and generosity were not here the same) in the existing state of that monarchy, to call upon Spain to exercise such a guarantee, unless we were prepared to make common cause with her in resisting the cession. To call upon a country not to give up what it was for her interest to cede, but what it was much against our interest she should surrender, was a principle than which nothing could be more ungenerous, more unfit, or more improper. What consequences this cession might have on the fate and destinies of the new nations, it would be out of place here to inquire. As far as the interests of Great Britain were concerned, this was not a case in which this country could be justified in interfering.—The motion was negatived.