The Sun.
London, England, 1821-03-22 00:00:00

CLAIMS OF AMERICAN LOYALISTS.

Mr. V. COURTEN A Y desired the Clerk; read
from the Journals of the lio-use,- 11.3 Address
agreed to iu the year 1783, which having been
done,
Mr. COURTENAY said that the Address -which
had been just read statod, that it would have
been superfluous for the House to express the
regard of the elation for every description of men
who had, in the cause of his Majesty, risked
their lives and forfeited their properties, duritnz
a long and calamitous war. It was in conformity
with the sentiments contained in that Address,
'that he rose to bring before Parliament, :he
case of persons who had so risked their lives and
forfeited their properties. The House would see
the difficulties he had to meat in bringing for-
ward Claims in 18'21, which had their foand'a-
tiou so long ago as the peace of 17SJ. But he
hoped to be able, to satisfy the House, that the
lapse of time could not create a bar to those
Claims.' At the commencement of the American
War, the Legislature of America took every
means to prttvail on persons of property and in-
fluence in-that Country, to raise what was then
called the Standard of Rebellion. It was, on
the other hand, the duty of the Government of
this Country to call on the exertions of indivi-
duals in America, who owed allegiance to the
King of England. Accordingly, Royal Procla-
mations and Resolutions of that house were is-
sued from 1776 to 1783, calling upon individuals
to join the Royal Standar.i. At the Peace of
1783, there were two classes of persons who had
lost their property in the service of England, and-'
who therefore had claims for compensation on this
Country.' 'The House was' aware that by several
Acts of the Legislature of America the persona of
the Loyalists had been attainted and their pro-
perty confiscated. , By the 4th end ;Ali Articles
of the Treaty of 1783, it was agreed that there
should be no impediments thrown in thts way of
the mutual recovery of debts, and that the Con-
gress should do all in its power to have restitution
made to the Loyalists. The persons who had
suffered in consequence of theirattachwent to the
cause of England, were persons who had resided
in America, and whose property had been confis-
cated, and English merchants who had lost their
property in consequence of commercial trstnsac-
tions %s hit America. At the time when the Ad tl
-
dress which had been read by the Clerk was
agreed to by the House of Commons, it, was
the general understanding, that full and
complete compensation should be made to
those who had suffeyed in the cause of
England. . In evidence of this he might re-
fer to the speeches of the late Lord Thur-
low, the late Chief Baron Alacdonald, then
Solicitor-General, to an lion. Friend of his now
in the House (Mr. Wilberforce), and many
others. By an Act passed in 783, certain Com-
missißners were iippoiiited to carry the treaty into
who were the Loyalists
effect, and to ascertain'
who had claims upon the country. There was
one class of loyalists to whew the Commissioners
refused compensation, namely, those Wife had
vested their property in America. To those per-
sons the Commissioners said, " you are creditors,
try what•vou can get out of your debts—we will
not listen to Your claims until you first get from
America what you can." By a treaty which,
(after three three years negociation) sA as entered
it:to in 1794, America undertook to make full
compensatiou to British creditors, and to prevent:
legal impediments from being thrown in their
In 1789, Mr. Pitt called upon that House,
in a vote, of supply, to make compensatzon to
those vs ho had lost their land in America, and
also to those Who had been ruined in their-pro-
fessions in comequence of. their attachment to the
English interest; the House to the present hour
were in the habit of making good that compensa-
tion by an annual vote. But for the' British cre-
ditors .110 compensation was made, no redress was ,
granted to the:11;1f he excepted their share of a
suko of/006,0001. which, by a Treaty entered into ,

in 181]3 America bound itself to pay, and which
was accordingly paid. It was material to observe
that it never was considered that• the sum of
600,0001. was to be taken s fail compensation ;
if it were, that, indeed, would 'be a full answer
to the -claim which ht pit forth. It was
allowed on all hands, and it was 'so decided in a
Court of Justice in Atnerica, thatall the Treaties
entered into betwe,n2 America and 'England, sub-
. s6quent to the peace• of 1783. recognised, the
claims 'of the LeyeliSts; The Government .of
this country, he contended, Was bound to make
cempensitiovi to them, as from America they had
no expectation whatever. It -Was true a Very
considerable, time had elapsed, still the house
would recollect the material fact, that they had
never ceased to put forth their claims. After
contending that the case- Which he now brought
before the liouFe had never been decided upon,
and urging that - there was much, greater danger
of a Lad example from refusii4,•thaii -freirt grant-
ing the claims, the Hon. Member moved for a de-
scription of, and extracts" from the communica-
tions between the Government and the persons
styling themselves. American Loyalists, together
with copies of some of then), whieh were specified.
Mr. DICKINSON supported the motion, and
contended, that. as the claimants had done every
thing to keep their claims alive, they, were not
to be 'oppesed by a sort of statute of limitation,
which was set up in the mind of the Chancellor
of the:Exchequer. Ile knew no stronger claim
',Ton this country than that of persons •who had
sacrificed their property and time interests of their
families for attachment to its cause. He thought
highly enough of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and the Earl of Liverpool to say, that if
such a claim as they resisted in their psiblic capa-
cities, had been made upon them as individuals,
they could not have laid their heads on their
without making arrangements for satisfying
!)
Mr. AV. S.,evrn said, the length of time which
wag made an obstacle to the claim of the Peti-
totiers, was in itself an aggravation of the hard-
ships of their case. These gentlemen had for
49 years been entitled to- compensation, and now
time very length of time during which justice had
been withheld, was made an argument against
their demand. When Lhey saw every day com-
pensation made for the loss of profits of offices
which those who lost them had no right to expect.
to retain—when they saw these no-claims consi-
dered, it certainly seemed extraordinary that so
great a reluctance existed to accede to the claims
of .those who had lost every thing through at-
tachment to this country. He urged these claims,
though in his early life he had been a political
opponent of the claiinant% He was old enough
to ,remember the American war, and thinking
that it was tht most unjust one in ivimich this'
county had ever been engaged, he almost thought
persons who acted as these' claimants hail done
deserving of punishment. But no punishment
which he then in his prejudice would have
wished to inflict, would have equalled 1-50th
part of what they had since suffered. He had
said to one of the. claimants, that lie wondered
their patience had lasted so long ; to • which the
reply was, in a tone which he had no need to
describe, " there have been several suicides
amongst us already."—(Hear!)
Mr. W 3 LBERFORCE said, the claimants had for-
merly had the justice of their claims recognised
by all parties in the House. If ever any men
were deserving of consideration, they were these
claimants who had drunk to the very dreg the
bitter cup of hope deferred.—(Hear
The CnaNcLeLon of the EXCHEQUER observ-,
ed, that it was one of the unpleasant parts of the
duties of office, to be obliged in a public cape-
city,-to act more rigidly than a sense of liberality
or equity would allow an individual to do—
(Hear I)—lie had once taken a distinction be-
tween time American Loyalists and the merchant
creditors, which on closer examination he did not
feel warranted by time circumstances of the. case.
If he had entangled himself by any premature
expression of his opinion, on that account he was
answerable., but the public interests could not be
involved by his error. Ile had no intention of
meeting the claims by the allegation of length of
'time elapsed, for every thing possible bad been
done to keep time claims alive. ; nor by saying
that they bad accepted the pest payments, for
they had
.only received them in part compensa-
tion. But en a -fair view of their case, he
thought, that though as a question of liberality-
the. case of the, claimants was fair, they had no
claim whatever on the justice Of. the country.
By the Treaty.. of Commerce with America, it
had been pro‘ided that British creditor's should
have no obstacle to the recovery of their debts,
in full value of sterlieg money. This Article of
the Treaty was not carried into effect ; for though
in some of the States-more or lets of these debts
were allowed to be proved, in other States either
the past Acts of the 'America n Government were
pleaded in bar to them, or laws were specially
made to' prevent their being recovered after the
Treaty. This injustice was not confined to the
Loyalists, hut extruded to all sorts of British
creditors. The Loyalists claiming only 250,0001.
(about) out of •1,450,0001. This British Go-,
vernment, on the ground of this injustice, with-
held some of the Western territory from the Ame-
rican, who at last agreed 'by Treaty, in 1794,
to give a fair indemnity to. bona fide creditors.
Before the joint Commissioners (American and
English) appointed under this treaty, the debts
of
,the Loyalists were adniitted, though the
American Attorney-General attempted to make
their attainder an objection. The lion. Movor
was misinformed in supposing,That objection was
supported. It was, unnecessary to state by what

ca:: tnery on the part of the Americans_ that
Cocri7;asion vas prevented from having its full
effect. At last; m America gaVe t. grOsi
sum cif 600,000/; to be divided by the British
GovernMent, of Which the Loyalists had their
share, as well as the Merchant Credit Ors, though
neither or thetas received their parts as fell coin.;
pensafion. 'it was painful' to resist the -claii,ns of
those-who were not only stiffering, 'Mt Merito-
rious ; but he COW not the cases' of the
loyalists from the -merchant creditors, and he
-considered both of them as saffeting fr'orit the
;cot-ninon fate of war, froM which suffering;
.`how-
ever to be lamented, it had • never -been deemed
necessary, in policy or justice,-for t*. 'Governl-tient
to
.grant laden-May.. The Rt. Bon. Cr'entienlnri.
co:kW-4101 with expressing his disposition to at:.
cede to the motion for the Production of papers,
without pledging himself to the SupiOrt of any
motion which might be fotinded upon them.'
Pntmi 31 ic thought Parliament hotind
justice and liberality to satisfy the claims of the
truly American loyalists, bearing' in Mind that
distinction between American loyalists and Ame-:
rican heritors, which ought not to be lost sight of,
according to every just notion of national and'
municipal law.
Mr. Locrotalur said, that he was nn advbcate
for compensation to that deScription of American
Loyalists who,•being domiciled in America, had
a.criftced their property to their allegiance ;
whiie he would protest against any attempt to
indemnify the mere British merchants who might
have Made unsuccessful specttlations by- the
purchase of property, or by any other cora-
mercial transactions in America at the period al-
luded to.

Mr. W. CounusAY, in his reply, said that he
lad no objection whatever to the distinction-

which his ftonoUrable and Learned Friend who
spoke last desired to establish; nathely, that hone
but those who really suffered by their'allegianco
to the British Government should • receive any
compensation, and such -cla;:nants were nOW: but
very few. The motion was 'agreed -to.
mAur TAX.

Mn. WEsTaaN said that his object in rising was
in pursuance. of a notice which he had • given a
long time since, to move the repeal of the hst
Malt tax of is. (2d. per bushel, or 9s. 4d. per
quarter. lie must beg the attention of the House
for a short time ; although the subject would
perhaps not be very interesting in itself-, yetit
was in reality •of the highest interest, inasmuch
as a great portion of the country was looking to
the decision of the House upon this question vkitit
the utmost feeling of anxiety. Ile did think, the
cause he should make oat so strong, that whether
they looked at the real income of the coiintry,
or whether they looked to that industry rind ex-
ertion which was the surest foundation— of its
prosperity, he did think that a course of sound
policy as well as justice would lead them to ac-•
cede to his proposition. Indeed he was- ahnost
sanguine enough to hope. that he might - make
some impression upon the Right Iron. Gent:him-
self. Because be did admit, in the year 181(3,
when 114,;(Mr. \V.) showed the excessiveimpolicy-
of the duties upon Barley, that Otero was a ne-
cessity for decreasing the duties upon that grain,
and accordingly took off the amount of -2s per
bushel. In calling for tho repeal of the Malt
tax, it was not his intention to sugges' any- other
object upon which an equal sum might he raised
by a new tax. That was not his business, neither
did he wish to take the responsibility of any tax
upon hiniself. It was -not his desire that there
should be at one time more than one Chancellor
of the Exchequer. And the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was the person held resp'onsi-
ble to the country for every to that was
imposed. But if it were competent for
.him to do so, he did not desire to, la v- on
another tax, because he world not hesitate to
say, that one of the first objects of his motion
was to reduce-the aggregate amount of taxation.
Ile did not desire to remove the burdens of one
class of the community so as to lay them upon
another. He was not one 9f those who sought
to tax the public creditor. Ile neither sought
nor desired to reduce the pressure upon agricul—
ture, by depreciating any other species -.of pro-
perty, either by taxation, or by rizOdering them
liable to the Poor rates. Ile considered the lat-
ter system to be one fraught with. danger, and
that some plan ought to be adopted for its gra-
dual removal. It was not less injurious .0 the
poorer classes than to all others who came under
its operation.—( Rear,- hear, hear.)—lle wlts tho-
roughly convinced-that if it operated more exten-
sively upon property, the result woold be
increased number of applicants and elaimantro-----
Ile would now call the attention of the house to
the amazing extent of taxation whiCh ,
upon barley. The different annual duties" Upon
malt, beer, and spirits distilled from barley
amounted, for reat Britain alone, to 10,G00,0001.,
In Ireland, the proportion was about equal, but
he should confine himself to the consideration of
Ireland. The' dtitics upon malt atom:toted to 28s.
per quarter. The beer tax was 325. 6d. pe'P quar-
ter, making in the whole a duty Of 2!. per quar-
ter upon•barley for brewing. Upon the quarter
of barley for distillin into Brithlt spirits, there
was a duty of lob 11,, would next.- Proceed to
show the •progress of the different duties since the '
period of 1791.