Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

which that country was fuppofed to hold out, and which by fome were reprefented as being almost too ftrong for flesh and blood to refift; yet knowing that the confequence of doing fo muft neceflarily be either avowing their guilt, or adding to it the crime of perjury, would be reftrained and prevented. And thus the oath would operate to ftrengthen and confirm their confciences.

The Hon. Gentleman had further complained of the interrogatories that people were to be compelled to anfwer, after they had made a direct oath, and had reprefented it as a new thing, thus to call upon men to acknowledge that they had been guilty in the firft inftance of perjury. But furely if the Right Hon. Gentleman had confidered what were the ufual modes of examining on oath in this country, (for the principal method of fifting a witnefs, in order to afcertain the truth or falfehood of his teftimony, was to cross-examine and put fuch queftions to him, as in fpite of all his artifice and cunning, fhould force him to fpeak the truth) he would find no ground of complaint, either as to the novelty, or hardship of the regulation. He availed himfelf of a hint from the Attorney General, who whispered to him from behind, and inftanced the cafe of bankrupts, who though in matters that might affect their lives, were bound by law to anfwer fuch interrogatories touching their effects as might be put to them by those entrusted in their affairs. On the whole, he faid, he should not give a negative to the prefent motion, because he had himself intended to bring forward one of an exactly fimilar nature, which he did not imagine he could do, confiftent with the forms of the Houle, if it were now rejected-he fhould therefore be fatisfied with moving the previous queftion. Mr. Anftruther complained of the attempt of the Right Hon. Gentleman to take the merit of reforming the errors and mifchiefs of the India Bill out of the hands of his Hon. Friend; which, however, was a plain proof of the obftinacy of the gentlemen on the other fide of the Houfe, in paffing a bill, which now, at fcarcely an interval of more than a year, appeared even to themselves to call fo loudly for alteration and amendment. He was of opinion, that it was by all means more defirable, that the alteration fhould proceed from the immediate motion of that Houfe, than from the clamours that had been raised against it in India; and therefore, whichever of the two gentlemen was

to have the honour of introducing it, he hoped no time would be loft in bringing it to a fpeedy conclufion. He combated the doctrine of the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the oath would operate fo, as to fortify and ftrengthen the confciences of the people in the Eaft Indies, and prevent them from acting in fuch a manner as muft reduce them to the alternative on their return to England, either of adding perjury to their guilt, or of furnishing a fufpicion against themfelves, by declaring the truth. He argued against this doc trine, on the grounds of its being a reftraint only on the virtuous, on whom no fuch restraint was neceflary, and as having no power whatfoever to restrain the wicked and abandoned, who alone ought to be the objects of coercion and restraint. He faid it was alfo unfair and cruel, inafmuch as its operation being poftponed for a long time, would enable thofe who had by rapacity or extortion, or other illegal means, already acquired a fufficient fortune to return home before it should take effect; whereas thofe, who by a different line of conduct had continued in indigence, were obliged to remain till after it was in force, and to become fubject to it. He took notice of the allufion to the bankrupt laws, which the Right Hon. Gentleman had been furnished with by the learned Judge who fat near him, (Mr. Attorney General) and fubmitted it to the candour of the Houfe, whether it was decent or fair to treat British fubjects, laudably ferving their country in India, as common bankrupts, and to talk of them as men, whofe mifconduct or misfortunes had fubjected to the bankrupt laws, before the Houfe had even the fhadow of a proof that they deferved to be confidered in fo humiliating a point of view. He was furprifed that the Right Hon. Gentleman, from the facility with which he recurred to the examples of the army and navy, had not been led to reflect how the doctrine of fetting afide the trial by jury might hereafter be ftrengthened by the precedent now established. It might, on fome future occafion, be thought advifable to extend this fyftem to the Weft Indies, perhaps to other of our poffeffionsnay, to fome part even of this ifland. If any oppofition were then to be offered, how eafily might it be answered-what objection to abolish the trial by jury in this place, when there are fo many precedents in favour of the measure? Is not a trial by jury at an end in the Weft Indies? Is it not fuppreffed in the Eaft Indies?

T

Is it not given up in the army and the navy-How then can you complain of its novelty The Right Hon. Gentleman had by no means eftablished his argument to thew, that the prefent inftitution was equally just and favourable to the fubject as that of trial by jury; for in this the party might be condemned by a majority in the new Court of Judicature, which might confit of fo finall a quorum as feven, whereas a jury must be unanimous; and furely no perfon would attempt to argue, that it was as eligible to be tried by a tribunal, where the condemnation was in the power of four perfons, as where it was neceflary twelve fhould concur in ir.

Mr. Vanfittart faid, as the Hon. Gentleman who made the motion, had particularly called on thofe Members of the Houfe who had ferved in India, he role to take fome notice of one part of his fpeech; he meant that part alluding to the claufe of the act of 1984, refpecting the obligation on gentlemen to make oath of the amount of their property on their arrival in England from the Eaft Indies. Mr. Vanfittart faid, as that was deemed a hardship by gentlemen ferving in India, he had no objection to give his confent to the repeal of it. With regard to the new Court of Judicature, Mr. Vanfittart declared he could not agree with the Hon. Gentleman; he thought it a fair, impartial, and safe tribunal for any man to appeal to, and fuch a tribunal as no honeft man would fear to face.

Major Scott faid, he fhould not have rifen if the Hon. Gentleman who opened. the debate, had not pointedly called upon all the gentlemen who had ferved in India to deliver their fentiments. He had voted for every part of the bill as it now food; but he was perfectly ready to declare, that there was one part of it which he earnestly wished to fee repealed he meant that which compelled a declaration of fortunes. He could not agree with the Right Hon. Gentleman on the floor, (Mr. Dundas) as far as his information went, that there was a difference of opinion in India upon it. From all the letters he had feen Oreceived from India, he was led to conclude, that it was deemed a peculiar griev ance, and therefore he earnestly wished the repeal of it. But he trufted gentlemen would recollect, that though he did vote for this obnoxious claufe, yet he had invariably oppofed, both in and out of the Houfe, all the ill-founded clamour that had been raifed refpecting the enormities

committed by British fubjects in Indiathat he could affirm, and always had affirmed, there was in no part of the world, if they were taken collectively, a more refpectable set of men than the gentlemen ferving in India, or men who had deferv. ed mole of their country; but the clamour having been raifed, he conceived fuch a claufe, which would have proved how very unfounded it had been, might have proved how much the people of England had been mifled, and he had no perfonal objection to it. It had, how:ver, occa. fioned general diffutisfaction, and he hoped it would be repealed. With refpect to the judicature, upon the fulleft and moft deliberate confideration, he did avow his complete approbation of it; and he thought if crimes were committed in In. dia which afterwards came to a trial here, it was impoffible to find a purer or a better court before which any man could wish to be tried; for offences committed in India, could not, he thought, be tried by a jury in the common modes of trial. There was one thing mentioned by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dundas) which had given him very great pleasure indeed. From what the Right Hon. Gentleman had thrown out, he trufled fuch a firm and efficient government was to be estab lifhed in India, as would render the propofed judicature totally useless, for he was convinced that a steady and ftrong government abroad, would be fully compe, tent to correct every abufe that might exift there. The Hon. Gentleman who had opened the bill, had dealt in panegyric and invective. He had mentioned Sir Elijah Impey, who was not prefent to defend himself; but if the Hon. Gentleman had been difpleafed with Sir Elijah Impey's decifion, an appeal lay open to him.

Mr. Francis fpoke to order, and faid he had been entirely mistaken by Major Scott, who faid he was glad to be corrected, and would take fome other op portunity of replying to the Hon. Gentle, man's panegyric.

Mr. Jolliffe obferved, that it feemed agreed on all fides, that the bill brought in by the Right Hon. Gentleman for the regulation of the government of India was defective, and required amendment; that fome thought the government at home improper; that others objected to the government abroad, but that all feemed in this to agree that it was capable of confiderable amendment. The Hon. Gentleman near him, Mr. Francis, had moved for

46

leave to bring in a Bill for this purpofe; it was therefore exceedingly ungenerous in the Right Hon. and learned Gentleman to refift that Motion hy a previous queftion, when he declared at the fame time, he propofed to make the very fame Motion himself; this was taking all the merit from his Hon. Friend; this was faying, “I agree with you entirely; but because you have brought forward that which every body approves, you fhall not have the merit? I have the frength in my hand, I will wret the honor and reputation from you of ferving your country. With respect to the government at home, Mr. Jolliffe obferved, he was of opinion that the B of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox) was the moft calculated to produce good, for it gave to the State the goverminent of the territory, which every body admitted was the property of the State, and which that Houfe had voted to be to, and it left to the India Company the management of their trade

this was all they could claim. With refpect to the government in India, he differed from his friend (Mr. Francis ;) he thought the government abroad, in the hands of one, was more confiftent with an operative executive government, than divided among a number, who, in all probability, would difagree upon the manner in which the various operations in government fhould be conducted. By being in one perfon, the country knew where to look to for refponfibility, and it was much easier to remove one perfon and appoint a fucceffor, than to difplace a body of men, or to felect out of a number one or more at fuch a diflance, whofe condu&t might be variously reprefented, and with respect to whom there might be much difficulty in judging. Having argued this forcibly, he faid the chief caufe of his rifing was to enter his protest against the new adopted mode of trial: he confidered the trial by jury as the great paladium of the conftitution of this country; as the only fecurity Englifhmen had for their lives, their liberty, or their property; as the great barrier for the people againt the power of the Crown, or the influence of the Ariftocratic part of the country; every innovation on this right, every the finalleft alteration of it should be watched and attended to with the minute care. How much therefore fhould the alarm be taken at, not the deviation from this mode of

trial, not an alteration in point of form, or in matter of evidence, but an abfolute fubverfion of it, by appointing a new, unheard of, unconftitutional fyftem, which if admitted to be proper in the trial of the delinquents from India, would equally hold applicable to any other part of the dominions of Great Britain, and it might be argued as proper to extend to offences committed in the Weft Indies, in Ireland, or even in Scotland. No man could fay if the principle was once admitted, to' what it might not be argued as proper to be carried. The Right Hon. and learned Gentleman was fo fenfible of this, that he had endeavoured to shew, but on the fallet grounds, that this mode of trial was in fact a trial by Jury. He defired to. af, in what refpect it refembled it! A Jury confified of twelve perfons, this was an indefinite number, from thirteen to feven; a jury must be unanimous, a majority here determined; a jury mafi decide before they could feparate; this Count might adjourn de die in diem as long as they pleafed; a jury could have no

tercourte whatever with the parties; thefe might have any communication they pleafed, with any or all of the parties; a jury were to determine t'e fact, and not the law, thefe were to determine both faft and law. There was, in truth, he faid, no one thing in which they relembled a jury, except that they were fworn; but the greateft abfurdity was, that as a majority of feven might determine, thofe who heard the trial might not be the fame as thofe who gave the verdict; out of thirteen, feven might hear part of the trial, three might be ablent, and three others hear another part; and at left, fix 'fresh attend and decide upon the whole, with out having heard one word of the merits. The judges could not declare the law, for they might be overuled by ten, or by feven or by four of the other members; fo that what is not law may be determined to be law against the declared opinion of thofe, who are appointed to declare the law in every court in the Kingdom; The rules of Evidence, one great fecurity to juftice, may in every inftance be departed from, and the judges fit by fpectators, unable to prevent fuch a violation of the first principles of the law. In a Court of Law, the Judge is answerable for the law he lays down, that it fhall be the law of the land, but in this Judicature no man was anfwerable for his conduct. This,

Mr.

Mr. Joliffe faid, he was fure, need only to be known to be reprobated; it required only to be divulged and understood, to call the univerfal voice of the country for its repeal.

Mr. Henniker immediately before the previous question was put on Tuesday evening, rofe (upon an idea fuggefted, that thofe who voted for the previous queftion were pledged to fupport the intended amendment propofed by Mr. Dundas) to fay, that the grounds on which he fupported the previous queftion were, that on a competition between Mr. Francis and Mr. Dundas, to propofe that amendment, he was thoroughly fatisfied that the perfon who had a great share in the form ation of the Bill was the most proper to move for its amendment, and, that when the whole was brought forward, he fhould be then more competent to determine on the intrinfick merit of the mode of Indian Government. But that he difclaimed the idea of pledging himfelf to vote for Mr. Dundas's amendment, unlefs fupported at the time of its production by the conviction of his own fentiments.

The previous question moved by Mr. Dundas was carried.

Upon bringing up the Ordnance Report on Tucfday,

Sir John Miller moved, that this Report be now recommitted. This he faid he did to the intent, that after he fhould have ftated his reafons for voting against the late extenfive Syftem of Ordnance Fortification on Monday laft, he might fatisfy the Houfe, that his objections to that ¡yftem did not in any degree go to the more immediate and neceflary accommodations and fecurities of the dock yards of Portf mouth and Plymouth, which he confider, ed as of the highest importance to this country? and in order that the House might not be unapprifed of the object of his motion, as well as to economife their time, their trouble, and their attention; he should now ftate to them the motion with which he intended to clofe his obfer. vations and opinions upon the fubject of our fortifications. He then read his propofed motion, which was to the following effect. "That the fum of 50,000l. grant ed in a former feffion, to be employed in fortifying our dock yards, be now applied in the following manner, viz. in bringing fresh water to the dock yard of Plymouth, in building and furnishing gunboats, agrecable to the unanimous approbation of them, by the fea and land officers in their Report now on the table of

this Houfe, as expedient for the defence of our dock yards? and for erecting fuch bomb proofs and cafements within the faid dock-yards as fhall be judged moft immediately neceffary, as well as most effectual for preferving ammunition, provifions, and ftores, from the fudden irruption of an enemy. And alfo for the erecting certain ports and cftablishing certain flations for fignals, as recommended in the fame Report."

Mr. Rofe faid, this was not a proper time to move for fuch recommitment, unlefs for the purpofe of diminishing the amount of the fum now reported.

Mr. Sloper and Lord Maitland infifted that the Hon. Baronet was founded in his motion to recommit the Report.

The SPEAKER alledged, that the House was afked from the Crown for the value of the Ordnance Eftimates, that it was the right of Parliament to reject it in toto or to diminish the fum applied for by Government. But that upon a Report of money granted as in the prefent cafe, nothing but an intention of refufing or diminishing the fum already granted, which he did not ap prehend, and which indeed he faw by the motion which had been flated to be no part of the Hon. Baronets intentioncould juftify the prefent recommitment of the Report; upon which the bulinefs was dropped.

[blocks in formation]

It was ordered, that any five of them fhould be a quorum, and that they fhould fit notwithstanding any adjournment.

MR. HASTINGS'S IMPEACHMENT.

Mr. Francis obferved, that he was inftructed in Mr. Burke's abfence to move for the printing of certain papers relative to Mr. Haftings's impeachment. He then made a motion to that purpose.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was of opinion, that fuch a motion tended to the printing of a partial felection of papers; he therefore thought it would be better not to urge it.

Mr. Francis faid, that it was the bufinefs of thote who fupported the accufation of Mr. Haltings, to move for what papers appeared to them neceffary; and that those who oppofed them from a conviction of that gentleman's innocence, might move for what papers they imagined would operate in his defence.

Major Scott opposed the motion from an idea of its partiality, and that it might ferve to fix a prejudice in the minds of gentlemen.

The motion then was put, and carried without any further oppofition.

CREW'S BILL.

Mr. Marsham remarked, that in confequence of the notice given a few days ago, he now rofe to move for an extention of Mr. Crew's Bill, relative to Elections, the falutary confequences of which had been univerfally admitted. The Bill now mentioned, he obferved, comprehended a prohibition of votes at elections to all concerned in the Custom house, Excife-office, and feveral other offices under government. This law was highly laudable; but he wished it to extend ftill further, and to include thofe concerned in the Navy and Ordnance Offices. He did not intend, as had been reported, to deprive gentlemen who ferved in the Army or Navy of their right to vote at Elections. What he meant was, that Mr. Crew's bill fhould comprehend an exclufion at elections to all thofe connected in the civil departments of the Navy and Ordnance. Such a regulation would invigorate that fpirit of liberty which ought always to be cherished by us, as confonant to our excellent conftitution. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill to the effect already mentioned.

Mr. Honeyvood feconded the motion, and bestowed many encomiums on Mr. Crew's bill.

POL. MAG. VOL. X. MAY 1786,

The question was then put by the Speaker, and the motion agreed to. Adjourned.

HOUSE

OF COMMONS,

Friday, March 10, 1786.
MILITIA.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rofe to correct an inaccuracy of language in one of the claufes; and faid he should take that opportunity of delivering his fentiments at large upon the general fubject of the Bill. It had been attempted to caft an imputation on him as hoftile to the inftitution of the Militia, because, when an honourable gentleman had applied to him for his opinion relative to one part of its regulation, he had declined at the moment to give an anfwer, wifhing to fufpend his judgment, until he had the advantage of hearing thofe gentlemen who, from their being perfonally interested in the service, were moft competent to the decifion.The injuftice of fuch a mifrepresentation of his principles was fo glaring as fcarcely to require an anfwer, for he had not given the fmalleft opportunity to any gentleman to fay that he had expreffed a doubt of the benefits and valuable tendency of the Militia itfelf; he had only hefitated to confider whether, by a material faving to the publick, the Militia could be equally made beneficial to what it had been on its former establishment, with a view as much as poffible to reconcile that great conftitutional defence of the kingdom, (which no man could value higher than he did,) to the principles and practice of economy.-He had made every enquiry in his power upon the fubject from gentlemen better qualified than he could be, how to accomplish fo defirable an object, and he found that it was the general opinion that the Militia ought to be called out every year. Yet, notwithstanding their being annually embodied, a confiderable faving might be effected without any danger, as he apprehended and had been advifed, to the fervice, Still, if it appeared to gentlemen, many of whom were more capable of confidering it in a military point of view than he was, that the mode he fhould fuggeft would be the means of rendering the Militia lefs effective as a national defence, he would cheerfully give up his opinion: for, however anxious he 3 M

Was

« ПредишнаНапред »