Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

though he admitted the conduct of lord Chatham to be wrong and unconstitutional, he did not wish to go so far as to put it in the power of the House to exercise its discretion. He could wish, therefore, that a precise degree of guilt should be fixed, and then he would have the punishment somewhat moderated. Without something done by the House, after what had been shewn of the transaction, their proceedings would appear very extraordinary. The second resolution he would therefore wish to see modified. He had drawn up a few lines, not with any intention of moving them himself, but for the purpose of submitting them to the consideration of the House, for any honourable member to adopt who might approve them.-He then read his modification, to the following purport:-"That the House saw, with regret, that any such communication as the Narrative of lord Chatham should have been made to his Majesty, without any knowledge of the other ministers; that such conduct is highly reprehensible, and deserves the censure of this House."-This was what he had taken the liberty to suggest to the House, as conformable to his ideas of the subject. The course proposed to be pursued, of getting rid of the business altogether, was what he could by no means agree to. He should, therefore, conclude at present by declaring that he should give his vote against the previous question.

earl was not made out. The charge itself was too vague, undefined, and general; and it was not proved, that advice had been given. If lord Chatham had given any advice which had been acted upon, it could only have been acted on through the medium of some responsible adviser.

Lord Castlereagh said, that this was a question on which he felt it most painful to speak; and it was therefore with considerable reluctance he rose to address a few observations to the consideration of the House. As it was his wish that the enquiry should be complete and perfect, it would ill become him to interpose by any proceeding of his between the House and inquiry. Although he was perfectly prepared to admit that the manner in which the noble lord (Chatham) had answered some of the questions was fairly liable to remark, yet when he considered the limits which the situation of a privy counsellor imposed upon him, and the privileges he felt as a peer, he thought the answers he gave should not be so much a matter of surprise; and that they did not naturally afford a presumption that there were papers which the House was bound to solicit his Majesty to grant them copies of. As to private communications with his Majesty, he could conceive many such communications, which would yet not be of such a nature as that the House could properly have the right to enquire into. As, however, a paper so communicated had now been laid before the House, they must consider the question in such a manner as was consistent with the constitution, and becoming themselves. For his part, he from his heart discharged lord Chatham of any ungenerous or unjust motive in presenting this Narrative. was evident that if he could have had such a motive, he had most wretchedly executed his purpose, in giving in this paper in the manner in which it had been communicated to his Majesty, indeed in giving it in at all. It was, therefore, some mitigation of the pain he felt in expressing his sentiments on this question, that he could look at it in a dry constitutional view. He did not wish to go a step be

It

Mr. Bathurst said, that he also would have wished, that the resolutions proposed had been more qualified in their expressions. He, however, felt it his duty to vote for them such as they were, but he would never be a party to making them a foundation for any criminal proceeding. Short of that, he, however, felt it his duty to vote some censure. The ground upon which he principally rested was this, that the commander in chief of an expedition, availing himself of the access which he had to the royal person, as a peer and privy counsellor, did present a narrative reflecting on the other branch of the service; and that this statement was not communicated to his colleagues, but kept a profound secret. Such conduct did ap-yond what the best principles of the conpear to him to be an abuse of the noble lord's access to the royal ear, and unconstitutional. He was, therefore, perfectly prepared to vote a censure, but not to institute any further proceeding.

Mr. Owen contended, that the charge which had been brought against the noble

stitution required; and he could not think of any crimination beyond an expression of the sense of the House upon the act itself. He could have no hesitation in pronouncing the act itself to be unconstitutional, and to be such an act as, if brought into precedent, might produce

most

most serious mischiefs.

He

sir R. Strachan; but, though he allowed
it was highly improper, he could not
agree that it was unconstitutional.
saw no reason for concluding that the se-
crecy was to be indefinite, nor did he
think the paper contained a charge against
any person, unless as far as an attempt to
exonerate himself, on the part of the noble
lord, might be supposed to imply blame
in others. As to the proposition of the
right hon. gent. opposite, it did not ap-
pear to be particularly lenient. All who
had already spoken upon the subject,
seemed to have over-looked the best ex-
cuse that could be offered for the noble
lord in not communicating the Narrative
to his colleagues, in the first instance.
The excuse ought to have been, that, from
the situation of the government at home,
he did not know who his colleagues were,
and under that impression, went to the
fountain head. He would vote, however,
for the motion of his hon. friend.

As to the sentiment which had this night been delivered by an hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) that a cabinet council was a thing unknown to the constitution, he must say, that although it was a doctriue he had heard before, it appeared to him to be giving up the substance of the constitution for the shadow. When the hon. gent. himself gave his support to an administration, he knew that the responsibility of the measures of the administration lay principally with the members of the cabinet; and every body knew that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a much higher degree responsible for the measures of government than the generality of privy counsellors. This was a responsibility which was perfectly understood, and which, he was convinced, the members of the cabinet would not shrink from. It appeared in the case under discussion, that on the 15th of January, lord Chatham had delivered in his Narrative The Chancellor of the Exchequer exto the King, not as commander in chief of pressed great surprize at the conclusion the Expedition to Walcheren, but in the of the right hon. gent.'s speech, as his arcapacity of a peer and privy counsellor, guments were all on one side, and the and that he did in that capacity advise vote that he said he would give was on his Majesty to keep it secret. A conse- the other. It was most surprizing to find quence that did result from this advice him ready by his vote to record a censure was, that the other ministers of his Ma- on the Journals against lord Chatham, jesty knew nothing of this Narrative, and whom, by the whole tenour of his speech, his Majesty was advised to state in the he appeared to be defending. As to the speech to his parliament, that he had di- secrecy imputed to the noble earl, he was rected papers to be laid before them, convinced that publicity and not secrecy which he trusted would be perfectly sa- was his object when he gave in that Nartisfactory. Now, however innocent the rative. In writing that Narrative, it was intention of the noble lord might be in unquestionably his intention to make it presenting this Narrative, and giving the public at some period; although from advice to his Majesty to keep it secret, some particular circumstances at the exist yet it was not to be supposed that the resting moment, he wished it for a short time of his Majesty's ministers would have advised such a speech to be made to parliament, if they had been aware of that circumstance. He never did understand the paper as meaning to throw blame upon the navy; and he only objected to it, as keeping back from his Majesty's confidential servants a matter that they ought to have been informed of. Although he agreed with the right hon. gent. below him (Mr. Canning) that the most moderate expression of the sense of the House would be best suited to the present occasion, yet, in the discharge of a constitutional duty, he could not avoid voting in favour of the first resolution.

Mr. Windham thought the conduct of the noble lord wrong towards his colleagues in office, and still more so towards

VOL. XVI.

to be kept a secret. This Narrative was, undoubtedly, written as his statement and defence. It had appeared to many gentlemen who had spoken, that the offence was unintentional and venial. If so, the justice of the case might be as well satisfied without calling for a judgment, and by adopting the previous question, which would imply that the offence was of a nature so slight as not to call for a serious judgment. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had considered that a question of this nature, hanging undecided over the head of lord Chatham, might tend greatly to prejudice the general inquiry. It appeared to him, however, that if this question was decided by a vote of censure, that would do a great deal more to prejudice the noble lord upon the inquiry, than the leav

B*

[ocr errors]

ing it undetermined by agreeing to the previous question, would prejudice the rest of his colleagues. His official character and honour would certainly be deeply affected by a vote of censure on the present occasion. He by no means considered the present as a case of crime, but as a venial error, from which no practical inconvenience had occurred. If lord Chatham hrad merely delivered his Narrative to the king without requesting secrecy, he would contend, that there was nothing in it which was in the least degree illegal or unconstitutional. He, however, did conceive, that it was unconstitutional to make this direct communication with the charge of secrecy. He did not see that otherwise there was any thing improper in his direct communication with his Majesty. Although he was directed by his instructions to correspond through the secretary of state when he was abroad, yet when he returned to England, those instructions could certainly not interfere with that access to his majesty to which he was entitled as a peer and privy counsellor. If the contents of the Narrative had been communicated to his Majesty in a verbal conversation, nobody could have said that it was improper or unconstitutional. The only thing that appeared to him to lead to inconvenience was, that a cabinet minister employed as a general, united in himself the situations of master and servant, and afterwards,when he approached the Sovereign and presented this Narrative, he appeared to unite also the opposite characters of judge and party. He could not, however, agree, that no person would be responsible for the advice given in this manner by lord Chatham. Although the minister who signed any instrument was primarily responsible, yet he was always ready to allow, that every minister who concurred or consented to any act was also responsible for it to the public. He conceived, that all those who did not think any farther proceeding should be instituted if the Resolutions were carried, should vote for the previous question.

thought the House and the country ought not to be so kept in suspence. Ministers appeared to wish for the shabby shelter of the previous question, and were content still to appear the disjointed ministers of a disjointed cabinet, which had too long misgoverned the country. Some hon. gentlemen had said, that they could not vote for these Resolutions, unless it was intended to follow them up. He had expressly told the House, that if they were carried, he should have another Resolution to submit to its consideration. There was another hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) whom he had heard this night with amazement, and he believed the House participated in the feeling. He had supposed that no gentleman's edition of the constitution was more correct than his; but for the future he must consign that hon. gent. to the same class of guardians of the constitution, as exhibited themselves in such abundance on the other side of the House.

It was said however by the gentlemen on the other side, that publicity was the noble lord's object, and that he was determined that an inquiry should take place. This determination could not, however, be collected from the answer to the city of London. When lord Chatham said in his evidence, that he had no copy of the narrative he first sent in to the King, he hoped that he did not believe, at that time, that he had the origi. nal itself in his possession. If having the original, he answered in such a manner, it would be more against the character of the noble lord than even the unconstitutional act of which he complained. If that proceeding was intended to influence his Majesty, and that influence remained undiminished, he called upon the House to record the fact on their journals. For his part, he considered, the whole proceeding of such a nature-he thought the conduct of lord Chatham so extraordinary-so hostile to the genius and spirit of the constitution, that in order to mark his sense of it, he would propose to carry these resolutions to the foot of the throne, but withMr. Whitbread rose to reply. He ob- out any unusual form or ceremony, leaving served, that lord Chatham had been ar-it to his Majesty to act thereon as he raigned by him for unconstitutional con- might think best. But if he was not able duct, and had not found a single defender in to effect that, he trusted that at least he the House. Those who spoke most strongly should succeed in so recording the proceedin his favour admitted, that his conducting, as to prevent a possibility of the rewas erroneous; but they would not allow that it was unconstitutional. As for keeping the question undetermined by Voting for the previous question, he

currence of the offence. An hon. and learned Member (Mr. Stephen) on the opposite bench, had endeavoured to assimilate the conduct of himself and

[ocr errors]

his friends to that of the O. P.'s; but the O. P.'s had the laws on their side; so had he and his friends, and he trusted they would carry the question. The hon. member had great suavity of manners, a brilliant imagination, and great power of argument; but yet instead of applying these to the substance of the question, and endeavouring to exculpate lord Chatham, they were employed to shew that this motion had less for its object the censure of lord Chatham than the removal of ministers. His continued cry was you want to get them out; you want to get them out" why so he did, but he found it impossible. Repeatedly as they were knocked down still they got up again. He could kill a man, but he could not kill this phantom of an administration. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought to his recollection a scene in a Neapolitan puppet shew, where a duel takes place between Punch and his antagonist. Poor Punch is run through and through the body. His friend comes, and with great signs of grief, applies his mouth to his ear, and ask him, " son e morte," on which the latter springs up and cries "Bah." So with the right hon. gent. on the other side, notwithstanding the repeated defeats he has sustained during the session, at the very moment that you expect to hear nothing more of him, up jumps the little fellow, and says, "I am alive."-Lord Chatham, in one part of his examination, had stated that the Narrative was transmitted to his Majesty to meet the Narrative of sir R. Strachan; and yet in answer to a question afterwards put to him, he admitted it was within his knowledge that that gallant officer had presented no Narrative. There were other inconsistencies which it was not now necessary for him to dwell on, as they had been so clearly pointed out by his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby.) When, therefore, he saw the noble lord give such inconsistent testimony (which, if given without that bar, instead of inside of it, the House would be bound to take notice of it) testimony that they would not have passed over in any of the persons that appeared at their bar last year, was he not justified in calling on the House to assert its own dignity, and to mark its sense of those shuffling and unconstitutional proceedings? Much had been said of the purity of lord Chatham's intentions. With that the House had nothing to do; they were to form their decisions only from the facts

| before them.-He had been condemned for the contrast he endeavoured to draw between the conduct of the late earl of Chatham and the present. He was asked, will you be so inhuman as to tear the stones from the monument of the father to bruise the head of the son? He could appeal to those who had opportunities of judging of his habits and feelings, whether in private life he was capable of violating any of those social affections that bound man to man. But there he was not his own master; he would discharge his duty as an honest and independent servant of the people, and hold up the proud, noble, and constitutional conduct of William earl of Chatham, as a glaring contrast with the suspicious, clandestine, and unconstitutional conduct of John earl of Chatham. He would maintain, that the right hon. gent. had not answered one of his arguments, and it was to him an auspicious omen that he should carry the question. He could assure the House, that he did not act in a spirit of vengeance, but in the spirit of a representative of the people. Advocates of lord Chatham, there were none; but he stood there the advocate of millions of the people of England, who insisted on the principle of responsibility, and who wished to make ministers or others answerably for whatever advice they should give the Sovereign. He must again repeat, that he trusted the House would not suffer the right hon. gent to take refuge under the shabby shelter of the previous question, and give the country an opportunity of saying, that parlia ment dared not do its duty. Should the first resolution be carried, it would then be time for the House to consider whether they would adopt the amendment of the right hon. gentleman.

General Loft vindicated the conduct of lord Chatham, and assured the Houre the noble lord had expressed to him his readiness to come back and answer to any points in his evidence that were supposed to want explanation.

General Grosvenor maintained, that lord Chatham was perfectly justifiable in presenting the Narrative to his Majesty, which was merely a simple recital of the military operation in which he was employed, and did not contain a single word of advice from beginning to end. He under stood that sir R. Strachan had been desired to prepare and transmit his Narrative early in October. When lord Chatham came home, at the end of September, he

found the whole country, men, women, and children, inflamed against him. What did he do? Why, he wrote a history of his conduct, and presented it to his Majesty; not for the purpose of throwing any blame on the navy, but to convince his Sovereign that he was not deserving of the public indignation and the calumny that was so profusely heaped upon him. As to the inconsistencies in the noble lord's evidence, he had hoped that he had satisfied the hon. member in the conversation he held with him at the bar, that there was nothing contradictory in his answer. His lordship gave his evidence one of the days, he could not recollect which, under the disadvantage of indisposition. He was fatigued by the length of it; in fact he was quite done up.

After several explanations from Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Canning, Mr. Banks, and others, the House became clamor ous for the question, strangers were ordered to withdraw, and a division took place on the previous question :For it 188. Against it 221. Majority 33. Strangers were not afterwards admitted; but we understand Mr. Whitbread's first resolution was carried, and he waved the second. Mr. Canning then proposed the amendment mentioned in his speech; and Mr. Whitbread seconded it.

Mr. Whitbread next moved, That the Resolutions agreed to be laid before his Majesty by such members as were of his Majesty's most honourable privy council; upon which some members exclaimed "By the whole House." This proposition called up Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. B. Bathurst, both of whom concurred in the wish that nothing of heat or personality should appear upon the preceedings of the House. The main object had been obtained by recording on the Journals the sense the House entertained of the transaction in a constitutional point of view, and proceeding any further would not be for the dignity of the House.-Mr. Whitbread coincided in the propriety of this observation, and declared himself perfectly satisfied in having carried the constitutional question, which was all he had at heart. He should therefore cheerfully, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion; which he did accordingly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, March 6. [OFFICES IN REVERSION.] Mr. Bankes rose and said, that from what had fallen

from his honourable friend on a former night, he could collect that some opposition was intended to his motion; before, therefore, he proceeded to any observations in support of it, he begged to remind the House of the manner in which it had disposed of a similar motion on the 10th of August, 1807. He theremoved, that the Resolution of that date should be read.-The Resolution was then read by the clerk, as it was recorded to have passed nem. con. "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased not to grant any places in reversion, or to two or more persons with right of survivorship, until six weeks after the then next session of Parliament." The resolution he had to propose in this instance was precisely the same with that which had been read from the Journals; and he should leave it to his right hon. friend, and to those gentlemen who supported or agreed to the former resolution, to shew what distinction there was between it and the resolution now proposed. A Committee of that Ilouse had been appointed to examine the Lord's Journals for any proceeding respecting a bill for preventing the granting places in reversion, lately sent up from that House. The Committee had performed that duty, but found no trace of any proceedings upon the Journals of the House of Lords upon the subject of reversions. There appeared, indeed, two proceedings with respect to bills for preventing the granting of places in reversion-one, the bill lately sent up from that House; the other, a bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords, and was precisely the same as a bill which had passed that House in a former session without a dissenting voice. Both these bills had, as appeared, been negatived on the second reading; but the Committee could discover no trace on their Journals of the grounds upon which the House of Lords was induced not to pass either. This led the Committee to consider what could have been the reasons which influenced the decision of the House of Lords, but in so doing, they were left altogether to conjecture. It occurred to him that it might have entered into the head of some acute and cavilling special pleader, that it was a solid objection to the bill, that it was to render perpetual a bill for suspending the power of granting places in reversion. Though he could not perceive the distinction, yet there might be persons who

« AnteriorContinuar »