Star.
London, England, 1821-05-25 00:00:00

men as these pensioned in this manner, than the funds
-were abused, and many illegitimate children in va-
rious parts of this town, placed on them—(Laughter).
He did not mean to contend th lt the pensions which
now existed should he taken away, for there were
many widows and other persons to whom the loss of
them would be extremely serious. He thought, how-
ever, he was not asking Parliament to do too much,
when he called upon it to say that no further pensions
should be granted from these funds—(Hear, hear).—
This was the object of his first Resolution. The ob-
ject of his second Resolution was to refer the Colonial
Acts of the Leeward Islands to a Select Committee,
that they might have the opinion of that Committee
I communicated to the House.
The first Resolution having beer. 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 information on this
subject to the Public; but which were drawn up
either in ignorance, or with an intention to mislead
those to whom they were addressed. He alluded
particularly, o a pamphlet, addressed to the Electors
of Great Britain, which was written certainly in forci-
ble language, but which was a tissue of misrepresen-
tation. In that publication, dated 1820, it was stated,
that the four and a half 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 ie 1820, the net produce of the funds
in question was £2.5,500 ; and of that sum £15,650
was applied to purposes strictly colonial—(Hear).—
The House would thus see the falsehood of the state-
ment in the pamphlet ; and he alluded to it, not for
the purpose of imputing it to the Hon. Gentleman
opposite, but of warning the House against the errors
which it contained—(Hear, hear).—The Hon. Gen-
tleman had admitted that the fund was applied at the
discretion of the Crown for the last hundred years,
and yet he now came fi .rward 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. Gout-
burn) contended, that the fund was given by the Co-
lonists in lieu of a Pcll Tax, and other Taxes, that
originally prevailed in that Island. In 1684, the Co-
lonists made a proposal to his Majesty to commute
this Duty upon them. They offered in lieu of the
four and a half per cent. Duty, an annual sum of
£6OOO, to be paid into his Exchequer in England,
which proved their conviction that the Duty was al-
together independent of fortifications, or any other
colonial purposes. He concluded with moving the
previous question.
Mr. BERNAL said, it was a well known fact, that
in the time of Charles 11. heavy burdens had been
laid on the Colonies, and a rich harvest held out to
rapacious adventurers. Lord Kinnoul made over his
claim is Lord Willoughby de Pelham, who alarmed
the Colonists by the most extravagant demands.—
The case came before the Privy Council, among
whom was Lord Clarendon, whose conduct on that
occasion was made an article of impeachment against
him. A Mr. Campbell. one of the Agents of the Co-
lony, agreed to this Duty, without the consent of the
Colonial Assembly, and much against their inclina-
tion ; but the influence of the Crown carried the
point, and that was the origin of this Duty. The
Ministry of Charles 11. did everyti.ing in their power
to crush the Colony of Barbadoes, when it remon-
strated against the tyranny of the Crown. The Re-
solution of his Hon. Friend went no farther than had
been done by the House in 1701 ; and all that was
asked was, that.the Act should be equally impera-
tive now as it was then.

Mr. BENNETT would consider the policy and
propriety of the application of the funds arising out
of the 41, per cents. Ile denied that any argument
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 submission 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 men-
tioned Mr. Burke, who received, in 1796, no less a
sum than £7,500 out of this fund at one time. He
contended then, that it was time for the house to in-
terfere, and restore the firm) 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, he exhorted the
House to concur in the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. 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 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
xpended on pensions, and accordingly disappeared
from the statements of the Public Revenue. After
a few observations, in elucidation of this statement,
he called upon the House to support the proposition
of his Hon. Friend. He did not wish to deprive any
individual of what he was in the enjoyment of ; let
the principle be conceded, and let the pensions, as
they dropped, be saved and turned to their legitimate
destiny—(Hear).
Sir C. LONG contended that these funds had been
at all times at the disposal of the Crown, and main-
tained that they were included in the public accounts
by mistake. One of the Finance Committees, noticing
the exclusion of them, in the year 1796, from the ac-
count of the Public Revenue, stated that the arrange-
ment was properly made. He stated, further, that
this fund was not included in Mr. Burke's Bill for
regulating the Civil List; and added, as another evi•
deuce of its being considered exclusively at the dis.
posal of the Crown, that offers had been made, at
various times, to farm the duties of the King. In
addressing the House upon this subject, he could not
forbear noticing that, in certain observations upon
those duties, in a published pamphlet, of which he
believed the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Creevey) to be
the author, his (Sir C. Long's) name was introduced
in a manner totally unjustifiable. Whether or not
the pamphlet was written by the Hon. Member he
could not say, but all he begged was,. that if the
Hon. Gentleman had any accusation to bring ag, ainst
him (Sir C. Long), he would state it in that House'
where he had an opportunity of defending himself.
He (Sir Charles) was as anxious as any one in that
House for preserving the freedom of discussion. He