they had done, but for what they intended to do. It had been supposed that there existed no right to booty, except on the capture of a fortified place. So far was this from being specified, that in one copy of instructions relative to booty, mention was made of what might be taken in a settlement, and in another the general case was put of a conquered country. Even in instances of capitulation a certain right of booty had been reserved to the sovereign and the troops; and in cases of storm a larger proportion had been allotted to the soldiers, because they, on such occasions, were necessarily exposed to a greater degree of fatigue and danger. Mr. Grey here quoted from history, examples of the practice to which he alluded. An hon. gentleman had mentioned what had taken place at St. Eustatius as a precedent of no good authority, and not very likely to be popular with the country. He had said, that if an hon. gentleman (Mr. Burke), no longer a member of that House, who had brought forward the conduct of the commanders at St. Eustatius, had been present, he should not have been under the necessity of coming forward. He was reminded, indeed, that the hon. gentleman who complained of the conduct of lord Rodney and general Vaughan, had after the 12th of April dropped all proceedings, and even handsomely said, that "if there was a bald spot on the head of lord Rodney he would cover it with a laurel." Would he then, after the brilliant services performed in the WestIndies, have been the person to have come forward with a charge of crimination against the commanders at the head of the expedition? So much for the word ing of the proclamation. He would next examine how far it had been acted upon. The moment that it had been known to the commanders that it occasioned discontent and dissatisfaction, or had in the smallest degree been considered as oppressive, it had immediately been annulled. As it was impossible to lay down a precise rule where there was so much room for the exercise of discretion, it was impossible to say whether the proclamations were right or wrong, except some method could be contrived to take into consideration all the circumstances of the country at the moment in which they were issued. It had been said, that the contents of the proclamations were in direct opposition to the declaration of the 1st of Jauuary. It must first be necessary to show that the [VOL. XXXII.] declaration had been accepted. It was said that the terms held out in that declaration were either protection or removal; protection to those who submitted themselves, and removal of such as should be found refractory. If gentlemen, however, read the conclusion of that paper, they might perhaps find another alternative. The conclusion was this: "All such persons as in contempt of his majesty's benevolent intention, shall dare to oppose this declaration, shall be treated as enemies, and remain exposed to all the evils which the operations of war cannot fail to bring over their persons and property." Did not this in the plainest manner point out confiscation, and all the other consequences authorised by the rights of conquest? The paper was intended to contain an inducement to submission. Though the motion was confined to Martinique, an hon. gentleman had thought proper to travel into St. Lucie for facts in order to support it. It was material to be ascertained whether the inhabitants of Martinique did not resist, in direct opposition to what had been asserted. He would prove that they did generally resist; that they had not aided the progress of the British troops, even by intelligence: he would prove it by the evidence of the whole army: he would prove it by facts themselves. An hon. gentleman had gone so far back as the expedition of general Bruce; but what had he proved by his statement, but that the great majority in Martinique were decidedly attached to the Convention; and that the others who had sided with the British, had been since expelled, or massacred?-He would proceed to examine the curious memorial and affidavit which had not been permitted by the House to lie upon the table. Taking the memorial from its contents, not knowing Mr. Thellusson, by whom it was signed, whether he was a member of that House or another of the same name, he had formerly asserted what he should again repeat, that it was a series of falsehood from beginning to end, and that the affidavit upon which it was grounded, was an instance of the grossest perjury. If, as he understood, the gen tleman by whom the memorial was signed, was a merchant of eminence, it would well become him to consider what he was doing, and to examine the public dispatches, before, upon the evidence of one, who is declared to be a notoriously good man, but, who is so notoriously good, that the gentleman who thus characterized him, [F] said, that the courts of law were full of complaints against the conduct of the commanders. He had communicated with the solicitor in order to ascertain the fact, and had found that no claim had been exhibited, but that of Mr. Malespine. As to what had been said of no notary public having dared to draw up a remonstrance while the commanders remained in the West Indies, he defied gentlemen to produce a single instance in which any complaint presented to those commanders had been rejected. The disavowal of the proclamations could not be contended to be useful, since they had already been virtu claiming that disavowal, it was intended to wound the feelings, and to injure the fame of commanders who had rendered their country the most eminent services, and had in consequence received the thanks of that House, he could have no hesitation in giving it his decided negative. would not undertake to support his allega- | tion upon oath; before, upon such evidence, he ventured to attack the character, and to wound the feelings of respectable commanders. This Mr. Malespine states, that when the town of St. Pierre received the first summons from his majesty's commanders, the white inhabitants were so absolutely at the disposal of the negroes and people of colour, that they could not manifest their desire of surrendering. The town of St. Pierre had at no time been disposed to the British cause. Why, then, should Mr. Malespine have taken refuge in a town which had been the source of all the troubles in Martinique, when by re-ally reversed; and when by the motion maining in the open country, he might at least have shown his pacific dispositions, and, if so inclined, have afforded assistance to the British arms? Mr. Males pine states, that after the proclamation was issued, the inhabitants took the oath of allegiance; just as if the oath had immediately followed the date of the proclamation. The impression intended to Mr. Secretary Dundas said, that it was be produced by this mode of statement, his intention to oppose the proposition was sufficiently obvious. He would next brought forward, and to move another in proceed to the statement of facts, in sup- its stead. He meant no disrespect either port of which he could produce the evi- to the mover or seconder; but they cerdence of a number of respectable officers, tainly had not kept to the question, and who were attending near that House, if the letters which had been read, appatheir testimony should be required. These rently written from motives of animosity were the officers who had commanded in and malice, he considered as perfectly the different divisions who had made their extraneous. They had grounded all attack on several parts of the island, and their complaints and fears upon the papers who had not experienced the smallest as- before the House, while they had not atsistance or support from one white inhabi- tempted to prove that any thing in the tant. With a view to injure the fame of proclamation issued by the commanders the commanders, the service had been at- gave just foundation for the alarms they tempted to be depreciated. It had been had so industriously circulated. Did said, that the conquest had cost only 28 what had taken place at St. Vincent's days; when in reality it had taken up proceed from those proclamations; or, from the 6th of February to the 25th of was it not from the insurrection of the March; and that only 84 men had been Caribs, aided by Jacobin principles, that lost, when it would be found from the re-devastation had followed in that island? turns that the number of killed and wounded amounted to between 2 and 300. As it might be deemed too late in the session to enter into the inquiry, he would read the report of the officers in their own words. He here read the report of the officers who commanded the different divisions in the attack on Martinique. The report went, in the plainest and most direct manner, to contradict all the facts alleged in the memorial and the affidavit. Mr. Grey stated, that he had received voluntary offers of testimonials to the same purpose, from almost every officer who had served under the commanders.-It had been The same might be said of Grenada; and no possible case could be made out, which would prove that the proclamations in any manner occasioned the misfortunes which those islands had lately suffered. Another thing with regard to those proclamations was, that, having been notoriously annulled and abandoned before any proceedings had been had upon them, it was impossible that any actual grievance could be complained of, with justice, on that account, no property of any description having been taken from the inhabitants in consequence of the proclamation. He was quite at a loss to know what was the object of the address moved | Sir William Scott said, he objected to the original motion; first, because the House was thereby called to decide on the general principles of the laws of nations, and he could not help thinking, that for the House to decide on abstract laws of nations, was unwise: 2dly, because it went to censure the proclamations, without the aid of any real evidence: and 3dly, because the questions both of law and fact were now depending in the competent court. The law of nations had provisions to regulate the mode of war or self-defence. The rights of war were of a delicate nature, depended on particular circumstances, and must bend to those circumstances, and be directed by the Sir William Scott, the king's advocate general. wisdom of the executive government. General principles were laid down in a strong manner by writers; but it was on government that we were to rely for a prudent application of them. The rights of war were harsh, but yet they were rights that existed: happy would it be if the state of humanity, in that respect, was altered, and war existed no longer; but this was a point more desirable than attainable. It was not possible to make an innoxious or a peaceable war. The very intent of war being to compel people, by a sense of suffering, to do what otherwise they would not do. The general principle of the law of nations was, to make the private property of the subjects of the hostile countries, amenable to the rights of war; and its effect was, to make every man that was the subject of one state in hostility, the enemy of every subject of the other. The property of every individual in the state composed the property of the state itself, and was subject to the rights of war. This was the law of nations as it existed; sorry should he be if it was to be enforced vigorously; but if the House were to come to a decision on the point, they must necessarily come to one as harsh as that. For the enforcing and dispensing of those laws, this country had proper courts; first, the court of admiralty, and next, the court of appeals. The decision of those courts was as binding as those of any court of law; indeed more so, for the legislature had an unlimited power over the municipal laws of the country, while its authority over the law of nations was not of such extent. In the case of St. Eustatius, the same principles as those broached that night were laid down in that House by gentlemen of the first talents; but the court of admiralty, and the lords commissioners of appeals, attended by lord Camden, and other respectable judges, determined that the universal principle was, that the private property of individuals was subject to confiscation. To punish error or inadvertency in the application of the general principles of the law of nations, on the part of commanders, would be to subject them to a responsibility too rigorous for any officer to incur. In the proclamations there might be expressions which, on mature consideration, and better advice than could be expected in actual service, it would be desirable to correct; but this was not the criterion by which the House ought to judge. They would judge by the intention and the manner in which the proclamation had been acted upon. The affidavits would not be held sufficient evidence in the admiralty courts for a decision in any single case; much less could he consider them as evidence for the House to found a vote upon. All the questions, both of law and fact, were now at issue in the proper courts, whose decision, where there appeared no public ground for the interposition of the House, was to be preferred. For these reasons, he should vote for the previous question, concurring, as he did, most heartily in the proposition for referring to the testimony already given by the House to the merits and services of sir Charles Grey and sir John Jervis. Mr. C. Dundas, as the strongest proof of the integrity of sir Charles Grey, read extracts of several letters from sir Charles to general Dundas, on the conduct to be pursued in the conquered islands. In one he said, "with respect to booty, I wish there was no such thing; I am heartily sick of it. We must take care that nothing be done to tarnish the glory of the brilliant actions performed by you and the brave troops:" in another, regretting the same difficulties, that "contributions, in lieu of booty, had been settled with the consent of the several islands:" and in a third, that "the advisers of violent measures ought to be listened to with great caution; that as most of their information came from Frenchmen who had been emigrants, it was to be received with distrust; and that such of them as were disposed to violence, should be permitted to quit the islands." Sir W. Young said, that the proclamations contained principles directly in the teeth of the law of nations. "Do as you would be done by," was, in these enlightened times, applicable to a state of war. The exercise of the right of conquest was limited by state use. "Quando hostis in mea potestate est, hostis esse desinit." It was the duty of the House to take from an extension of the right of conquest, the weight of British authority. An army ought never to levy money for itself. The force of the proclamations, although not acted upon, was not done away by the letters from the secretaries of state. If those letters were inserted by order in the Gazettes of the several islands, he should be satisfied. If it was to be laid down, that resistance of invasion was to incur the penalty of contributions and confiscation, what planter would take up arms to oppose the enemy? Mr. East said, that if the commanders had been led into an error by misinformation, the House was called upon to correct that error in a stronger way than the secretary of state proposed. He was therefore against the previous question. Colonel Wood entered into a defence of the proclamations. He should have preferred giving a decided negative to the proposition; but as the right hon. gentleman had moved the previous question, he would vote for it. So far from thinking the conduct of the two gallant and meritorious officers deserving of censure, he would join most cordially in expressing the same sense of the importance of their services, which was acknowledged by the House twelve months ago. Mr. Sheridan complimented Mr. Dundas on the fair and manly manner in which he had come forward in defence of gallant officers, whom it was the duty of ministers who employed them to protect. The country at large would rejoice to hear, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the aspersions that had been so long circulated against the characters of sir Charles Grey and sir John Jervis. Alderman Lushington said, he would console himself for the loss of the original motion, by the general admission, that the proclamations contained things very objectionable. Mr. Fox would have preferred meeting the motion with a direct negative, but as the previous question had been moved, he would vote for it. He objected to the original motion, because to condemn a proclamation, without specifying the precise principles condemned, was to lead others into error, as one might think it was condemned upon one principle, and another upon a principle very different. To move a vote of disapprobation on the proclamation, and to enter into various allegations of fact not to be found in the papers before the House, without allowing, by a motion of inquiry, a fair oppor tunity of repelling those allegations, must be construed into a direct attack upon the characters of most meritorious offi cers. The capture of Martinico was one of those instances of prompt decision, mixed with prudence, which characterised the military conduct of sir Charles Grey, Mr. Dundas then moved, "That the inhabitants of the French islands not having availed themselves of the Proclamation of the 1st of January 1794, the said proclamation cannot be considered as having formed a general rule for the conduct of the commanders of his majesty's forces, by sea and land, respecting the persons and properties of the inhabitants of those islands." Upon this the House divided: Yeas, 64; Noes, 13. Mr. Dundas next moved, "That the Proclamations of the 10th and 21st of May 1794 not having been carried into effect, it is unnecessary for this House to give any opinion thereupon; and that this House retains the cordial sense which they have already expressed, in their vote of the 20th of May 1794, of the distinguished merit and services of sir Charles Grey and sir John Jervis in the conquest of the French islands." And an objection being made, that the said motion contained a complicated question; the motion was, by consent of the House, divided into two questions, the first part ending with the words "to give any opinion thereupon." And the question being put, That the Proclamations of the 10th and 21st of May 1794 not having been carried into effect, it is unnecessary for this House to give any opinion thereupon ;" The House divided: Yeas, 57; Noes, 14. Then the question being put, "That this House retains the cordial sense which they have already expressed, in their vote of the 20th of May 1794, of the distinguished merit and services of sir Charles Grey and sir John 66 Jervis in the conquest of the French Islands," it was carried in the affirmative. Debate in the Commons on the East India Budget.] June 16. The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Annual Accounts presented from the East India Company, Mr. Secretary Dundas rose and said; -The accounts to which I request the attention of the committee are as usual numerous and important; but being made up with great care and attention, they are so free from perplexity, that I hope to be able to give an explanation of those particulars which appear to require it, and to collect from the whole a general statement, in one point of view, of the affairs of the East India company, without trespassing long on the indulgence of the House. In doing this, I shall first state the amount of the Annual Revenues at the several settlements in India, and of the various charges, to the payment of which they are immediately applicable, in order to show the capital thence obtained for carrying on the Company's trade, or towards liquidating their debts in India: I shall then advert to the extent of that trade, and the state of the Company's affairs at home, as arising both from their trade and revenues. From the whole of these statements I shall draw a general result, to show what variations have taken place in the affairs of the Company abroad and at home, collectively, since the dates of those accounts on which I had the honour to offer my observations to the committee of this House last year. And first as to BENGAL. In the first three columns of the account No. 1, are stated the amounts of the revenues of this presidency, for the three years, 1791-2 to 1793-4, the average of which is 5,425,317. Which is 111,8277., more than the average of the three preceding years. The next account to which I refer is No. 3, being a comparison between the estimated and actual amount of the revenues and charges of Bengal for 1793-4. The estimated amount of revenues was 5,432,7681. The actual 5,871,946/., being an excess above the estimate of 439,1781. The mint and post-office collections exceeded the estimate in a small sum; but the principal articles in which the above excess arises are the land revenues and the produce of salt and opium. The adoption of the new system for letting the lands on permanent |