Page images
PDF
EPUB

was thus left to fall on captain Usher,a man in moderate circumstances, with a family, who had been engaged a hundred and thirty-five times against the enemies of his country, and who was called on unexpectedly to perform a very extraordinary and delicate service, and who had performed it to the satisfaction of all parties. This, he contended, was a case of great hardship; he trusted it would be taken into consideration, and that captain Usher would be completely indemnified.

Mr. Croker denied that there was any thing disrespectful to captain Usher, in the supposition that Buonaparté had kept his own table on the voyage. This was commonly done, and it was natural to suppose that it would have been done by Buonaparté for his own accommodation. Captain Usher had never been asked to make out his account item by item, but merely to state the expense incurred, 1, 2, or 300l. When he declined to do this, the Admiralty could do no more than direct the payment of the sum permitted to be paid in the case of a crowned head being conveyed from one place to another, by the

order in council of 1812.

Mr. Whitbread said, the hon. gentleman seemed to think captain Usher would have been right to suffer Buonaparté to pay for his passage. [Mr. Croker said "No." He put it to the hon. gentleman if any officer, or gentleman, could have acted better than captain Usher had done. When it was remembered that no man had fought more bravely, or bled more freely for his country, he trusted some way of remunerating his services would be found without wounding his feelings.

Mr. Croker was anxious, though he had already denied that he wished Buonaparté had been allowed to pay for his passage, more formally to state such had not been his wish. That could not be permitted. No offence to captain Usher was meant, in supposing that, for his own convenience, Buonaparté might have kept his own table. He was anxious to state this, lest improper motives should be imputed to captains, who permitted that to be done, which it had been supposed it might be Buonaparte's pleasure to do. The course taken with respect to captain Usher was the 'same with that pursued, under similar circumstances, with sir R. Codrington, admiral Fremantle, and other officers, without the smallest slight being intended or supposed.

Mr. Barham said, that being a relative

of the gallant officer in question, he might be permitted to say a few words, though he had no idea that the topic would have been brought before the House. It was not so much the matter, as the manner of the refusal that had hurt captain Usher. The circumstance that hurt his mind was this,-that when he stated that he had been at expense in conveying Buonaparté to Elba, an opinion was expressed by the hon. gentleman opposite, that Buonaparté might have paid for his own table. Captain Usher naturally felt hurt at this implied doubt, which was rather increased than softened by being desired to make out his bill of expenses.

Mr. Croker observed, in reply, that captain Usher had received no treatment different from other officers who happened to have a similar service to perform, and who stated generally the expense thereby occasioned. It was not understood that every item should be specified, but merely the expense generally. The hon. gentleman said, however, it was not so much the matter as the manner of the answer to captain Usher's application that had hurt him. Now, it so happened, that he never had the honour of a personal interview with that gentleman in his life. The whole of the transaction took place in the regular correspondence of the Board of Admiralty, and he was quite unconscious of having given any offence to captain Usher.

Lord Castlereagh said, that the only wish. could be that captain Usher should have a proper reimbursement of his expenses. He was most desirous that such a reimbursement should be made; but it would be a great assistance to the judgment of the Government if captain Usher would state in the most general way the sum which he supposed himself to have expended.

Mr. Whitbread felt satisfied, since the question had been put in a point of view agreeable to captain Usher's feelings, that no further difficulty would be found.

Mr. W. Smith conceived, that captain. Usher had thought his word doubted, and therefore refused to comply with what was a very reasonable request. He wished to know why the captain who conveyed marshal Blucher from Calais to Dover, had been paid 600l. It was said the captain was not to profit by his guests, but here he thought 500l. must have been paid over and above the expense incurred. In these things he thought there might be

a great deal of favouritism, as also in the large sums paid to captains of ships carrying out specie. He wished to ask why captains of the navy were paid any thing for the freight of specie on government account? He observed, that captain Farquhar was paid 2,000l. for conveying specie from Portsmouth to Passages.

Mr. Croker in reply, said that the risk was considerable, as the captain was responsible for the delivery of the whole of the specie. He recollected the case of commodore Owen having a freight of specie, and having had some of it stolen, when he was obliged to make good the loss, which not only swallowed up all he received for freight, but also a part of his property. While merchants were glad to pay 21 per cent. for the freight of specie, government paid only per cent.

Mr. W. Smith could not conceive the principle upon which a naval officer should be remunerated at the public expense, for doing that which as a servant of the public he was obliged to do; and as to the idea suggested by the hon. gentleman, he thought it quite a mockery to suppose that naval officers could be rendered responsible for the enormous sums sometimes committed to their care.

Sir Charles Monck noticed the sum of nearly 8,000l. charged for the creation of the late batch of Peers, comprizing so many gallant officers, and among others of 1,500l. for the advancement of lord Wellington to the title of Duke, together with 1401. for the introduction of his grace to the House of Peers. Upon what ground such a sum should be charged to the public, or the fees of such creation should be excessive, he confessed himself quite unable to account.

Mr. Gordon expressed similar sentiments.

Lord Proby said, that the members of the Commissariat were, he understood, in the habit of becoming contractors themselves; and such a practice was obviously calculated to give rise to great abuse.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that if any persons connected with the Commissariat were capable of such a practice, they would be obviously guilty of a gross breach of duty.

Mr. Bankes supported the suggestion of appointing a committee above stairs to examine those accounts, and especially to inquire into the conduct of the Commissariat, for the commission appointed to act upon the Continent was not sufficiently Mr. Baring observed, that it was a novel comprehensive in its powers completely practice to allow our naval officers to to answer the end in view. The practice charge such commission as they thought of frauds in this department was matter of proper for the conveyance of the money public notoriety, which the return of alof merchants from foreign ports, no such most all the commissaries with large forpractice having prevailed during the for- tunes from the Continent seemed to place mer American war. The hon. gentleman beyond dispute. It was obvious that animadverted upon several items in the such men could not accumulate such foraccounts on the table, with regard to our tunes from their mere pay and allowances; colonial expenditure, in which profusion and he trusted that the Chancellor of the appeared to run riot, especially in the Exchequer would see the necessity of Commissariat. This profusion he illus- complying with the public wish by institrated by referring to the case of the Cape tuting an inquiry upon this subject. If of Good Hope, in which the allowance to any gentleman should bring forward a Mr. Hill, of the commissariat, for the cur- distinct motion for the institution of such rent year, was 173,000l., although for the an inquiry, the motion should certainly last year it was only 69,000l., and for the have his decided support, and he could preceding year 43,000l.; also to the cases not conceive that ministers had any inof Ceylon, Goree, Sierra Leone, and the terest in resisting it. Leeward Islands. The allowance to Mr. Damerum, for Jamaica, for the present year, was 426,000l., although for the last year it was only 160,000l., and for the preceding year 58,000l. These cases he thought sufficient to show the necessity of inquiry by a committee above stairs; and concluded by observing, that if our colonial expenses should be thus enormous, it would be quite impossible for the country to support the system.

Mr. Newman rose to express his entire approbation of what had fallen from the hon. gentleman; and being unaccustomed to trouble the House, he only begged leave to add, that he had so frequently heard of the very profuse expenditure of the Commissariat, that he hoped a committee would be appointed for the purposes proposed by the hon. gentleman. He should not have trespassed on the time of the House, but from a sense of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

duty to his country, in which the interest and character of the Government were materially concerned.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion that any committee appointed for the purposes mentioned by the hon. gentleman, would interfere with the proceedings of those who were appointed to audit the public accounts in the Peninsula. With respect to the large fortunes which had been accumulated by individuals, they were the natural consequence of the very large expenditure which had taken place; but he did not believe they had arisen in any degree from official abuses.

Mr. Baring contended, that the exa. mination would not interfere with the auditing of the accounts; and intimated his intention of moving for a committee on some future day.

Lord Proby said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would compare the expenses of the French and the English Commissariat, especially in the article of transport for troops, he would see good grounds for a serious inquiry.

The Resolution was then agreed to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer next moved, that six millions be granted on account of Army Extraordinaries for the year 1815.

Mr. Tierney objected to this grant: he thought a delay necessary to examine into the accounts, for the purpose of preventing the confusion of both years. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not press this Resolution to its full extent now, after a vote of twenty-one million, as if he had caught the House in wind, and presumed that, after such a vote, 6,000,000l. were nothing.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the nature of those accounts, and their connexion with the vote of credit, also the great difficulty of making them completely out, parts being still unreturned from Spain. He however had no objection to take a vote of three millions at present, and to defer the remainder.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, April 11. PETITION OF MR. JAMIESON.] The Petition of Mr. W. Jamieson, one of the writers to the Signet in Scotland, and now confined in the Cannongate gaol, complaining of the circumstances under which he was imprisoned, having been read,

Earl Stanhope observed, that he did not intend to offer any opinion upon the subject of this Petition. From its nature, however, he thought it due to justice, and to the petitioner, to have the documents to which it referred laid before their lordships, with a view to have the matter investigated. Were he, indeed, a member of the Court of Session, he should be anxious to become acquainted with such an accusation, and to have his conduct explained. It was his intention, therefore, to move that a copy of the Petition be transmitted to the Court of Session, accompanied, however, by an order, that the documents connected with the accusation should be transmitted to their lordships. In thus proceeding he was governed by the precedent of Judge Fox's case, in which that judge being accused, and being properly alive to the protection of his character, petitioned himself for a copy of the accusation. He trusted that the Scotch judges equally valued their reputation, and would be desirous for an opportunity of vindicating themselves against a charge of this nature. If the course of proceeding which he proposed were deemed objectionable, and that any other noble lord should suggest a better course, the noble earl expressed his disposition to accede to it.

The Lord Chancellor thought it impossible to comply with the noble earl's notion. The petitioner appeared to have been committed for a contempt of court, and he presumed their lordships would not be disposed to interfere with such a committal. Indeed, he should conceive it inconsistent with the dignity of that House, and the respect due to the Court of Session, to interfere at all upon this subject. No grounds were stated to justify such an interference; and he hoped the House would recollect the difficulty in which it was involved in Judge Fox's case, when, after proceeding to a certain extent, it was found that it could not go on with effect. The first question in this case was, whether there ought to be any proceeding at all; and he deprecated an interposition of this nature with the conduct of judges, not so much for the sake of the judges themselves, as for the sake of suitors, whose interest must always be affected by the entertainment of charges upon light grounds against those who were appointed to administer the justice of the country. If a judge really deserved accusation, he ought, in his view, to be

proceeded against in a much more formal and grave manner than the noble earl proposed.

known to many members of that House, that at this moment there were numerous persons in prison for debt in various parts of this kingdom, who were spending their substance in the most luxurious extrava

The Earl of Lauderdale thought the better mode would be to move for all the acts of sederunt with regard to the peti-gance, and who bid defiance to those cretioner, because it appeared that the petitioner was committed by an order of the Court of Session, and not by that branch of the court to which he had appealed, and which was competent by the late statute to commit him, had he been guilty of contempt. The petitioner's committal, therefore, did not afford evidence of contempt. But he was anxious for some inquiry respecting those acts of sederunt generally, because he understood that great abuses of power were connected with

them.

any

After a few further observations from the Lord Chancellor, who urged the propriety rather of a distinct motion to settle the law respecting the acts of sederunt without connexion with this case, and of lord Melville also against the motion, with a remark from lord Lauderdale that the petitioner did not make out a case to warrant the interference of the House, the motion was negatived, as was a motion also of earl Stanhope for copies of the acts of sederunt with respect to Mr. Jamieson.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, April 11.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.] Mr. Serjeant Best rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws respecting Insolvent Debtors. His intention, in bringing in this Bill, was first, to force persons who were possessed of property to give it up to their creditors, and next, to punish those persons who had become insolvent through their own profligacy or vice. The first object which he had stated he had no doubt would meet with the general concurrence of the House. The proposition which he should submit was founded upon an Act passed so early as the reign of George the 2d, by which it was enacted, that persons imprisoned for debt should be obliged to deliver up their property for the benefit of their creditors, under the penalty of transportation. The provisions of this Act, however, only extended to persons having incurred debts under the sum of 1001., and his desire was, to extend its operations to debts whatever might be their amount. It was, no doubt, well

ditors whose ruin they had promoted, by
becoming largely in their debt. To give
creditors the power of forcing those per-
up their property was,
sons to deliver
therefore, the first object he had in view;
and all the deviation he should make from
the Act of George the 2d, was, to extend
its operations in an unlimited manner.
The other part of his Bill, which was to
increase the punishment of persons who
from their own acts of folly and impru-
dence had become insolvent, he was ap-
prehensive would not meet with so general
an assent as that which he had just stated;
yet he trusted the explanation which he
should give would tend to remove any
difficulties that might arise. His principal
and most anxious wish was to distinguish
between the unfortunate and the fraudulent
debtor; because he was aware that there
was a species of credit that was absolutely
necessary; and was far from thinking,
that those whose only crime was poverty
should be punished. In certain cases,
punishment ought rather to fall on those
who think proper to trust, than on those
who apply for credit. Yet an excess of
credit was a public injury; and the effect
of the last Bill went to destroy that credit
which was highly necessary to the public
welfare. Amongst the middle classes, for
example, there were persons who could
not exist without it. Men in public offices,
officers on half-pay, and others similarly
situated, whose salaries were received only
by the quarter, and then not precisely to
a day, would be in the utmost distress but
for this accommodation; but the present
Bill had tended to withdraw this necessary
credit. The reason was, that no tradesman
could know whom it was safe to trust,
when any man, after getting in his debt,
and being pressed for payment, had only
to warn him not to proceed against him,
as he should in that case, give him a bill
upon lord Redesdale at three months.
This state of things went to destroy the
credit that was necessary, as well as that
which was improper. A tradesman might
find himself utterly unable to carry on his
business, if he was expected to examine
most minutely into the circumstances of
every body to whom he gave credit. It
was no doubt familiar to the House that

the Bill which was called "lord Redesdale's Bill" had given rise to many serious objections. It in fact gave the same facility to the dishonest as the honest debtor, to obtain his liberty at the expiration of three months imprisonment. He was willing to admit that the judge who should have to discriminate between these cases would be placed in a very trying situation. In fact, the only way of separating the honest from the dishonest debtor, would be to introduce some sort of scale by which the claim to the advantages of the Act might be regulated. Such a scale he had prepared for the consideration of the House. He had to propose, that if the debtor was found in a condition to pay 15s. in the pound, he should be entitled to his discharge at the expiration of three months. If he should from the improvident management of his affairs, be only in a condition to pay 10s. in the pound, then he thought his imprisonment should extend to a longer period, namely, to twelve months. Again, if the debtor, by expending that which he must know belonged to others, was unable to pay 10s. in the pound, such a man, he thought, ought to be imprisoned two years, twelve months of which, should be passed within the walls of a prison, and not as at present; in what were called the rules. And lastly, if a man was entirely insolvent, and without the hope of paying any portion of his debts, he considered it was but proper that he should be kept within the walls of a prison for two years. It would naturally occur, that there were many cases in which a prisoner might be in no condition, from misfortunes not originating in his own vices, to pay any thing in liquidation of his debts. To such an individual he by no means wished the scale which he had stated to apply; it should, therefore, be open in all cases for the debtor to prove by his own oath, supported by other satisfactory evidence, whether his distresses were attributable to imprudence or misfortune, and if he was able to establish the latter, then he should extremely lament his detention in custody beyond the time that was necessary to prove the fact. It was likewise his intention to provide, that the Judge of the Court should first decide whether a debtor was a fit person to be discharged, and that then a majority of his creditors should sanction that discharge before it took place. It had been remarked, that creditors often, from being at a distance from their debtors, would not be at

the expense and trouble of opposing their discharge, and under this impression, many persons got themselves removed by Habeas Corpus, from Northamptonshire, and other distant counties, to the prisons of the metropolis, by which means they escaped all scrutiny whatever. To obviate this practice, he should insert a clause, by which, at the desire of a majority of the creditors, such persons might be removed down to the place where their debts were contracted, so that they might be opposed with effect, and without those enormous expenses which, by the present system, must be incurred, if opposition was to be made. The policy of these amendments to the Bill now in force, he was convinced, would strike every member in the House; and he trusted, if he was allowed leave to bring in the Bill, that he should be able more clearly to establish their necessity. The learned Serjeant concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to Insolvent Debtors."

Mr. W. Bathurst said, it was impossible for those who had fully investigated the effect of the Bill known by the name of

lord Redesdale's Bill," not to observe that it was injurious as well to public credit as to public morals; by exciting on the one hand a lawless extravagance, and on the other by creating distrust, and destroying that useful credit which was essential to the existence of the country as a commercial nation. He did not wish to advert to the law as it existed before the passing of this Bill, yet he most fully subscribed to the necessity of bringing forward some measure by which a distinction might be made between the unfortunate and the fraudulent debtor; and with this feeling he cordially seconded the motion of the hon. and learned Serjeant on the floor, than whom he thought no man more competent to the performance of the task he had undertaken.

Mr. Horner said, that from the reading of the motion which he had just heard, he had been released from the uncertainty in which he was placed from the form of the notice of the learned serjeant, as it stood on the order-book, as it was there stated that his intention was to move for the repeal of the Insolvent Act altogether. He was glad to find that he was mistaken, and that the object of the learned serjeant was only to amend the Bill in question. It was not his intention to follow the hon. gentleman who had spoken last, in his

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »