The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

ISLAND FUND.

Mr. CREET EY rose, in pursuance of notice, to
submit his motion to the House concerning the
Four and a Half per Cent. Barbadoes and Lee-
ward Island Duties. He referred to the objec-
tion which, he made on a former evening to a
vote for the repair of the fortifications in those
islands, because his opinion was then, as it was
now, that those islands had supplied a fund
themselves, which was applicable to these pur-
poses. He Was aware, indeed, that this opinion
was opposed as bad law, by those Ladies and
Gentlemen in the country who derived their pen-
sions from this fund ; he would nevertheless con-
tend, that the four and a half per cent. supplied
by Barbadoes was applicable, among many other
charges, to the building and repair of the fortis
fications of that island; and he grounded his ar-
gument on an Act passed by the Colonial Legis-
lature, dated 12th September, 1663. He saw
nothing in that Act
_which authorised the pay-
ment of that fund, or any part of it; to any Ladies
or Gentlemen in this country, particularly such
Gentlemen as were Members of this House.—
(Hear !)—The Journals of the House shewed,
that in 1702, an Address was presented to
Queen Anne to restore these funds to their
original purposes, they having been taken as
part of the heredity y revenue of the Crown
for some years previous to that -time. The
Queen did restore them, in pursuance of the Ad-
dress ; and he contended, that though since
then a contrary custom had grown up, yet that
custom did not affect the law of the question
at all. The opinions of Lords Godolphin and
Somers were. in favour of the view which he took
of the Colonial Act. It was true that Lord
Chatham and Mr. Burke bad,,in the last century,
large pensions from these funds, but that did not
make the misapplication of tlfern law. And here
was seen the force of bad example, for no sooner
were such great men as these pensioned in this
manner, than the funds were abused, and many
illegitimate children in various parts of this town
were placed upon them.—(A la-ugh !)—He did
not mean to contend that the pensions which now
existed should be taken away, for there were
many widows a►ni other persons to whom the loss

PRICE SEVENPENCE.

of them would be extremely serious. lie thought,
however, he was not asking Parliament to do too
much when he called upon them to say that no
further pensions should be granted from theso
!)—This was the_ object of his first
Resolution. The object of his second Resolu-
tion was to refer the Colonial Acts of the Lee-
ward Islands .to a Select Committee, that'they
might have the opinion of that Committee com.-
municated to this House.

Thefirst Resolution having been read,
Mr. GOULBURN rose, and said that the history
of these funds was very much misrepresented.—
It was not long since he had seen publications
issuing from the press, which affected to give in-
formation. :on ails subject to the public ; but
which were drawn up either in ignoranCe or with
an intention to mislead those to whom they were
addressed. Ile alluded particularly to a pam-
phlet, - addressed to, the Electors of Great Bri-
tain, which was written certainly in forcible lan-
guage, but' which was a tissue of misrepresenta-
tion. In that publication, dated 1820, it was
Stated, that the 41 per cent.•fund was applied
exclusively to pensions, which were said to have
been bestowed on Members of. Parliament and
their wives Now, with respect to that particular
statement, he had to say that in 1820 the nett
produce of the funds in question was 25,5001.,
and of that sum 15,6501. was applied to purposes
strictly colonial.—(llear, hear o—The House
would thus see the falsehood of the statement itt
the-pamphlet,'and he alluded to it, not for thn
purpose of imputing it to the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, .but of warning the -House against the
errors which it contained.—(llear, hear !)-7--
The Hon. Gentleman had admitted that the
fund was applied at the. discretion of the Crown
for the last hundred. years, and yet he now came
forward to call for a total change in the practice
which had so long remained undisturbed. It was
stated that the Colonial Act constituted this
fund for the building and repairs of fortifications
among other purposes. He (Mr. G) contended
that the fund was given by the-colonists in lieu
of a poll tax and other taxes that originally pre-
vailed in that Island. In 1684 the Colonists
made a proposal to his Majesty to commute this
duly upon them. They offered in lieu of the 4
per cent. cent. duty an annual sum of 6;000/. to he
paid into his- Exchequer in, England, which
proved their conviction that the duty was altoge-
ther independent of fortifications or any other
colonial purposes. lie concluded with moving
dig previous question.

Mr. BEIINL, supported the motion. The Hon.
Member recapitulated the historical facts which
had led to the Grant of the 4f per cent. Fund
on the part of the island of Barbadoes to the
Crown of Great Britain. It was a consequence
of the troubles in which that island wasinvolved,
from the rapacity of the English Nobles about
the time of the reign of Charles the Second, who
encouraged and seconded adventurers Of every
description to try their fortunes in acts of force
and aggression against the West India Islands.
This island was in a worse condition than any of
its neighbours, and in that dilemma- applied to
Charles the Second for his in terposition to arrange
its affairs. That ungrateful and unjust Monarch,
instead of obeying the call -of distress,: converted
it to a means of enriching himself by plundering
these unfortunate islanders. He appointed a
Committee of that House to consider of the mkt.-
te.r, and Lord Clarendon was Chairman of it, and
his conduct on that occasion was one of the ar-
ticles of his impeachment. The consequence 'of
this application to the English Monarch was, that
this duty or tax of 41per cent. was extorted from
the reluctant Colonists. He cared not about the
law of the case,-he wished it to' be looked at iu
faii• constitutional point of view.
Mr. BENNET would consider the policy and
propriety of the application of. the funds arising
out of the 4- per cents. He denied that any ar-
gument could be drawn from the concurrence of '
the Assembly of Barbadoes in the application
of those funds to the -use of the Crown—because
he contended that this concurrence was the sub-
MisSiOn of the weak to the strong. He then traced
the apPropriation of the fund at different periods:
and among the individuals, whose pensions were
charged upon this fund, he mentioned Mr. Burke,
who received in 1796 no less a snm than 7,5001.
out.of this fund at one time. lie contended, then,
that it was time for the House to interfere, ad-d
restore the -fund to its original destination, and
let the surplus be transferred to the use of the
public. The Crown had resources enough to
supply its, pensions. Being of • this opinion; 'lve
exhorted the House to concur in the motion •of
his-Hon. Friend. • •

/dr. Hume complained that no returns had
been given of the state of the fund, except for
the year 1818, though- they had been moved for
by him. It was remarkable that the 4-1 per
cents. were credited to the public as part of the
Revenue from the year 1715 to 1796. In that
year the fund began to be expended on pensions,
and accordingly disappeared from the statements
of the public Revenue. After a few observa-
tions in elucidation of this 'statement, he called
upon the House to support the proposition of his
lion. Friend. Ile did not seek to 'deprive arty
individual of what he was in the enjoyment of;
let the principle be conceded, and let the pen-
sions, as they dropped, be saved and. turned to
their legitimate destiny.
Sir C. LONG read two extracts from reports of
the Finance Committee on this subject ; and from
these he inferred that the Committee had recog-
nized the right of the Crown to the 4+ per cent.
duties, and that they formed no part of the pub-
lic revenue. lie also noticed that Mr. Burke's
Bill did not at all interfere with the fund itt

ques(ion, though the attention of Parliament had
been particularly called to the subject, and con-
tended that the grant to the Earl of kinnoul
whi just as illegal as any of those subsequently
made. In conclusion he adverted to the un-
founded and anonymous slanders circulated
against him (Sir C. Long) on this subject ; he
hoped that if the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Creevey)
were the author of the pamphlet alluded to, he
would in future attach him openly and fairly in
Pie House, where he should be ready to answer
hitu. If, however, he pursued the course he had
begun►, he (Mr. Creevey) would certainly have
the advantage, as he (Sir C. Long) would meet
him with uo reply.
Mr. HUME said a few words regarding the
precise contents of the Reports. of the Finance
Committees.

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

footinz.

The House then divided, and the numbers were=
• For the previous question
Against it -
Majority against the previous question
which; of course, disposed of the original motion.
Being re-admitted to the gallery, we found
Clt EEVEY moving the following Resolu-
fion :—" That it appears to this House that du-
ties to the amount of 41 per cent. have been rais-
ed on goods imported into. Antigua, St. Christo-
'pher, Nevis, Tortola, and Bahama ; and that the
'duties so raised have been exhausted in pensions
by- the Crown, whilst large sums are granted
'early for the protection of those Islands. Re-
solved, therefore, that the Acts creating the said
duties be referred to a Committee of that'llouse,
to report their observations on the same."—The
Resolution was negatived.

76