Slike strani

In confequence of the foregoing Letters, General Macleod addreffed the following Letter to the Honourable Charles Yorke.


SIR, St. Alban's freet, July 5, 1796. WO letters, addreffed to you, and bearing the fignature of Lord Balcarras, faid to be copied from the Royal Jamaica Gazette, and which have been inferted in feveral of the London papers, place me in a very delicate fituation. I muft either fubunit to fevere public imputation on my parliamentary conduct and general character, or feem to carry on that deteftable thing, a paper war, against a military officer acrofs the Atlantic. I hope to avoid both thefe dangers by this fingle letter to you, whom his lordship has chofen as the vehicle of his thoughts; and that circumftance only could induce me to trouble you on the prefent


His lordship ftates, that, on the authority of a low private let ter, I arrogated to myfelf the right to call him to the bar of the Houfe of Lords; and that I thereby feemed to have forgotten the principles of the British conftitution. The contents of the letter, which, as a member of the Houfe of Commons, I read in my place as a part of my fpeech, have been fully verified by the Jamaica gazettes, by many other private letters, and by his Lordhip himfelf in his publication to you.

Spanish dogs of the ancient race were fent for, with Spanish hunters, to hunt men in Jamaica, under the command of the Earl of Balcarras. I fear that it is the noble Lord who will be found not to have understood the principles of the conftitution, when he arraigns my conduct in parliament; for you, Sir, must acknowledge, with all your learned profeffion, that every member of the Houfe of Commons has the moft undoubted right to move to impeach, or threaten to move to impeach, before the Houfe of Loids, any perfan or officer employed by the crown. And this accufatory privilege, next to that of granting money, is the most valuable and molt ufeful power with which the Commons are invefted. Sometimes the actual impeachment may be neceffary for punithment and example; and certainly the fear of it may be ufeful to the fafety or honour of the country, by way of prevention. My motion concerning the barbarous ufe of blood hounds against men in the Jamaica war was calculated to ferve the nation in either way, as circunftances might direct, but certainly not with the leaft ideas of individual attack, or of perfonal hoftility to his Lordship.

I appeal to the whole houfe who heard me, whether I did not mention his Lordship in terms befitting him, and befitting me as a man and a foldier. His lordship has committed a very common and pardonable miftake in taking the newspapers as authorities for fpecches in parliament; I never claimed any particular inti


macy, friendship, or connexion with him: I certainly faid that I had the honour of his acquaintance, and that of his family; and my natural statement was, that I could have no malice against a noble and honourable fellow foldier. He therefore has, in his letter to you on this point, been warped by paffion from his ufual candour. If he had confidered for a moment he would have perceived, that however I might refpect his private and public character, the business on which I was speaking was not that occafion on which I fhould peculiarly chufe to boast of his friendship. He is pleased to bring his character and mine into contraft: whether, on a comparison or contraft of our lives and conduct, it will be found that he or I have rendered the moft fuccefsful and effential fervices to the nation, it is neither for him nor me to decide; perhaps I might obtain more fuffrages in the conteft than he is now difpofed to believe; and I fhall not be forry that our actions are comparatively confidered.

. But, Sir, this fubject is now renewed as a public question: when I first mentioned it, Mr. Pitt feemed ftruck with the barbarity of employing dogs against men, the whole houfe gave him credit for the fenfations of humanity which he then difplayed, and he may recollect, that though I am not often difpofed to praife him, I then did him juftice in the higheft fpirit of fairness: his heart then feemed to beat with the faine pulfe that always has animated him in the debates on the slave trade.

On the motion after the notice, Mr. Dundas very truly denied that any order had been fent from government to employ dogs against men, but he stated, that on the firft furmife that fuch a measure had been adopted, orders had been fent to prevent thefe dogs being employed in any bloody way-and that these orders had been fent previous to my firft mention of the circumftance in the house. Of thefe orders I could not be aware; but if they were fent before, I mentioned the bufinefs, it is a clear proof that I have not, in the opinion of his Majesty's minifters, acted improperly, or done any injuftice to Lord Balcarras or the Affembly of Jamaica, becaufe I only blamed them for what our minifters reprobated and forbade.

It is now a matter of doubt whether I am to be a member of the prefent parliament; but whether I am or not, I fhall hope that fome member will bring the whole bufinefs of this Maroon war under confideration. It involves fome of the most material principles of the law of nations, and the conduct which we have obferved may be quoted againft us in a molt important way. Lord Balcarras, or the compofer of his manifefto, has employed the most curious logic. In the first place, confcious of the impropriety of that mode of warfare, he transfers the whole load of blaine to the General Affembly of Jamaica. He fays, "Thefe dogs were brought here at the inftance of the General Affembly,

Gg 2


who fent one of their own fhips to convey them, and were at the fole expence." I have not the leaft doubt of the truth of this affertion; but it fhould be known, that at the period when these dogs were fent for the ifland was under martial law; that all the powers of the affembly were for the time fufpended, and that the governor was then legally the dictator. But if he had never been invefted with thefe extraordinary powers, he was in two other capacities enabled to prevent fo horrible a meafute. He was governor, and therefore had a negative on the Affembly, in the fame manner as our King has a negative on the two houses of Parliament. But he had it not with the fame advantage; the King can do no wrong, though his advifers may. A governor may do wrong, and is amenable in his own perfon. He was alfo commander in chief; I afk, whether the legislative powers of the Affembly could compel the noble Lord, in that capacity, to employ improper weapons, or any means of war contrary to the received ideas of the law of nations? I must therefore contend that it is rather ungenerous in the noble Lord to throw the whole blame on the Affembly, for it was his own act as governor, confenting to that vote of Affembly, and more especially his own act as captain-general and commander in chief of the troops. But the most extraordinary idea, in feveral views, which the earl has advanced is, that it is perfectly lawful and correct to use dogs in defence, but not in offence; and that he himself would use them in Jamaica, but not in St. Domingo. That he had actually refused to fend them to St. Domingo, though he had been offered the most advantageous fubfidy for thefe allies-and all this is feriously stated as principle. Sir, at this statement 1 can only fimile; it does not admit of a grave anfwer, and his lordship's illuftration of it is remarkable: Why," he fays, "do the laws and cuftoms of war authorife a fort to fire red-hot fhot, and deny it to a fhip of war? The reafon is obvious; the one is defence, and the other aggreffion." I know of no convention to this effect than that which arifes from mutual intereft. If two fhips fire hot balls at each other, they rifk, beyond the common dangers of combat, that of perifhing miferably in the flames: therefore it is for the mutual advantage to abftain from that weapon. But a fort compofed of stone and brick, cannot fuffer from that fort of fire, and docs not fcruple to bestow it on enemies in wood: by parity of reafon Lord Balcarras has employed dogs against the Maroons, because he had the power to do fo, and they had not. Thus he has refolved all the principle of right into that of power; and has determined, as far as his example goes, that wherever you are enabled to commit injuftice or barbarity by means which the enemy do not poffefs, you are juftified. His Lordship's propofition, "that, if any of thefe dogs had actually torn to pieces


fome of our fellow-creatures, he fhould have had exactly that compunction which yourfelf might have felt if a murderer had entered your gates, and was torn to pieces by your houfe dog," does merit a little obfervation. Had the planters of Jamaica fent to Newfoundland for their fine breed of dogs, to England for maftiffs, or to the Spaniards for blood-hounds, for the purpofe of ufing them as houfe dogs against robbers or murderers, who could have blamed them? If one or two dogs had been planted in every houfe as a guard, it might have been an ufeful, nay an humane precaution. But is this the measure of which I complain?

I will now make a better defence for his Lordship than he has made for himfelf. The true ftate of the cafe feems to be, that the planters of Jamaica, as appears from their history, have long wifhed to extirpate the Maroons, and that they seized the occafion of the prefent convulfion of principle, and the prefent rage against liberty, excited by our miniftry, to effect their purpose, in which the noble earl, in my opinion, moft wrongfully joined. It perhaps might require higher reverence for man as man, greater knowledge of the law of nature and nations, and a deeper ftudy of the philofophy of government, than generally falls to the fhare of our nobles, to have enabled his Lordship to have refifted the Affembly and the inhabitants in this dreadful fcheme. I impute not inhumanity to him, but weakness in yielding to the cruelty of men who derive their riches and confequence from the mifery of human beings, and I have his own authority for faying, that it was not his act, but their's.

But a charge of a much more ferious complexion is now provoked by Lord Balcarras and the Affembly of Jamaica, than that which I urged in the Houfe of Commons. They have fhewn their admiration of Spanish policy and mercy by the most exact and complete adoption of them. Not fatisfied with fubduing and difarming the Maroons, a free body of men, exifting under the protection of the British crown and nation, they have robbed them of their lands, and have banifhed them from their native country, not individually, but in mafs; men, women, and children. We have had debates on the different forts of exile, of which I think there are three. Perfons may be ordered to quit a country, and fettle where they will: they may be carried to a particular place, and forced there to remain, but with freedom; or they may be made flaves. Thefe unhappy free Maroons had no choice in the place or degree of their exile, and whether they are gone to Botany Bay, the favourite deftination for thofe who truggle for liberty, I know not. Jamaica, in this tranfaction, has correctly copied, on a Gnall feale, the example of Spain in expelling the Moors, and certainly has not the apology of ferving the cause of religion.

It feems to me to be highly worthy of investigation by the legiflature, whether our colonial affemblies and governors have the right of committing fuch an act. It has now been exerted in a moft unjustifiable degree, and may be a precedent for the greatest enormities. If it is allowed that our planters, met in affembly, have a right to condemn to banishment claffes of free blacks, or coloured men, there will foon not exist many free people in our iflands. But I rather think that the governor and affembly of Jamaica have in this inftance greatly exceeded their powers.

If your really great ancestor, the firft Lord Hardwicke, who certainly had not much more affection for the Highlanders of Scotland than Lord Balcarras feems to have for the Maroons, had moved to expatriate them all like the Spanith Moors, he would have not enjoyed his prefent fame; but he was too wife and too enlightened to propose fuch a meafure. I have written more than I intended on this fubject: I fhall therefore declare what must be obvious to every impartial man, that I have never firred in this bufinefs from any other motive than my regard to national honour; that I fcorn the idea of perfonal malice or attack; but that no respect to nobility, or what weighs more with me, individual merit, fhall prevent me from performing my duty to my country. I have the honour to be, Sir,.

Your moft obedient humble fervant,

Anfier to General Macleod, from the Honourable C. York.

To Major General MACLEOD.

SIR, Bath, July 8, 1796. IN yefterday's Sun and Star I perceive that you have done me the honour of addreffing me, in anfwer to two letters which have been inferted in many of the papers, from fome of the Jamaica gazettes, arrived by the laft mail, and supposed to be written by Lord Balcarras to me. Without entering into any controverfy on the points contained in any of the letters, which would be more properly difcuffed in Parliament than in the newfpapers; and contenting myself with faying, that I am certain that Lord Balcarras's conduct, when fairly examined, will appear to have been every way worthy of a Briton and an officer; I beg leave to affure you, that no fuch letters were ever fent by that noble Lord to me, and that I have the ftrongest doubts of their having been written by him. I was accordingly much furprised to fee them in the papers. I fhould think it might have occurred

« PrejšnjaNaprej »