Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

he considered this country's great commercial advantages. Still, from the evi dence before him, he must say, that in the Expedition to the Scheldt the means were adequate to the end, and the end useful It was the best diversion this country could make with the least risk. With such impressions he could not vote for censuring his Majesty's ministers.

Mr. Marryat said, that he had attended the whole of the investigation, had heard all the evidence, and had read the whole mass of papers which had been produced. Exercising the best judgment he could form upon the subject, he had no doubt of the propriety of sending a British army to the continent, in order to make a diversion in favour of our allies. After the glorious attempt which Austria had made to oppose the tyranny of France, and when the fate of the war appeared so nearly poised at the ever memorable battle of Aspern, he thought the ministers of this country would have deserved the highest degree of blame if they had neglected to bring forward the whole strength and resources of the empire, in aid of Austria. The noble lord (Porchester) had said, that the time and season were illchosen; but it must be recollected that it came out in the evidence, that there was no material part of the army of this country in a situation for effective service before the period at which the Expedition was undertaken. If a corps had been sent to the North of Germany instead of Walcheren, that corps would neither have been sufficient to cope singly with the force which the enemy could bring to bear against it, nor to protect any insurrection which could be then formed. It would be also entirely deprived of the co-operation of our navy, which was a description of force that was of all others the most terrible to the enemy. The objects of the Expedition were two-fold: the first related to British objects only, and the second to a diversion in favour of Austria. Now as far as related to British objects alone, he thought it must be acknowledged that the capture of a fortified town, with a garrison of 9,000 men, and the destruction of the basin of Flushing, were events of some importance. It was also his firm opinion, that the ulterior objects of the Expedition would have been obtained if it had not been for the very extraordinary state of the wind and weather, which not only detained the Expedition so long in our own ports, but retarded its

progress on the enemy's coast. Although there had been military opinions that this Expedition was doubtful and hazardous, yet it must be recollected that such opinions had been given of other expeditions which had completely succeeded. When the admiral who commanded off Basque Roads was asked his opinion about attacking the French fleet with fire-ships, be replied, " that although it was a most horrible mode of warfare, and the attempt was dangerous and almost desperate, it might possibly succeed." Notwithstanding this opinion, the attempt was made, and it succeeded. He believed, although opinions in almost the same words had been delivered respecting the attack of Antwerp, yet it would have succeeded if it were not for untoward circumstances, which, it was unlikely would occur, and it was impossible to controul. He could not but believe that the Expedition had an important effect as a diversion in favour of Austria.

It was well remembered that at one time Buonaparté considered Austria entirely conquered, and called upon the Hungarian nation to elect a king for themselves. From the admirable and heroic General Orders issued by the emperor of Austria, it appeared that Buonaparté, in the beginning of the negotiation, proposed such terms as would have shaken the very foundation of 'he Austrian monarchy. Very soon, however, after he had heard of our Expedition landing in Walcheren, he lowered his tone, and offered the emperor of Austria such terms as he conceived he might with honour accept. Much blame also had been thrown on ministers for not evacuating Walcheren sooner than they did, but if they had withdrawn the British forces from the continent while the fate of Austria remained in doubt, they would have been justly exposed to the severest censures. Viewing the subject in this light, he could not agree in the propositions of the noble lord, and should consequently support the Amendment.

Sir James Hall condemned the vanity and presumption of certain high born persons in forcing themselves into situations which they were not qualified to fill. However he lamented the failure of the Expedition, he was not for an entire change of ministers, yet he contended that it was necessary some change should take place in the administration. had not any objection to the marquis Wellesley; but, without some partial

2

He

change the country was endangered; he thought the House ought to come to some Resolution, to shew that ministers were responsible.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, amidst a loud cry of Adjourn, and observed, that as he did not suppose the other question (meaning that relative to sir F. Burdett) would occupy much time to-morrow, he would therefore move that the present debate should be postponed to the same day; which was agreed to.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at three o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wednesday, March 28.

[SIR FRANCIS BURDETT-BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.] Mr. Sheridan said that his object in rising was to say a few words on one of the most important matters upon which that House had ever deliberated: he meant the resumption of the adjourned debate on the complaint of a breach and violation of the privileges of the House, alledged to have been committed by one of their own members (Sir Francis Burdett.) He should, therefore, in the first place, move, that the debate on that subject be now resumed by the House.

The Speaker then stated to the House, what was the question before them for discussion, viz. a Resolution proposed as follows: "That a Letter signed "Francis Burdett," and a further part of a Paper intitled" Argument," in the paper called Cobbett's Weekly Register, of March 24, 1810, is a libellous and scandalous paper, reflecting on the just rights and privileges of this House."

Mr. Sheridan then observed, that, though he considered this as a question of the highest importance, he would not, in the view he meant to take at present of it, detain the House above a few minutes. His desire was, as he was persuaded it must be the desire of every gentleman who heard him, that this question should not interfere with the other great subject before the House; and he thought that this must be equally the wish of both sides of the House-it could not but be the wish on all hands, that the discussion relative to the Scheldt Expedition should not be interrupted. But besides that very weighty consideration-if ever there was a case in which precipitancy and rashness

VOL. XVI.

were to be avoided, it was the present. If, indeed, a complaint were made of a plain, a palpable and perfectly evident breach of a privilege, exactly defined and unquestionable, then it might be very proper that the question of privilege should take precedence of all others, unless there were other urgent matters pending which it would be of the greatest consequence to forward. But this was not a case of that description. It was not a plain and simple question, upon which the House could immediately decide. There were two distinct questions involved in it,-1st, as to the right of the House of Commons to imprison. 2d, as to the character of the terms with which the Argument had been accompanied, terms with respect to the precise import of which there might be a difference of opinion. If the Argument itself contained nothing but what had been delivered in the House, then another question arose, whether if there had been any thing in it contrary to the privileges of the House, it was likely it could have passed without notice by the Speaker, who ever presided in that House with dignity and impartiality. But he did not mean to enter into the details of the question now, because his proposition was that further time should be allowed to consider of it. He did not exactly know where the doctrine was to be found, that questions as to breach of privilege were to have precedence of all others, though they should not be of a nature to require particular dispatch. There was not, in his opinion, any pressing urgency in the present case to require the House to come to an immediate decision. He was not aware that such a practice with respect to the precedence of questions of privilege, had obtained in the best times of the constitution. At the commencement of every session, every gentleman must know, that a standing order was past for the appointment of a Committee of Privileges, and regulating the times of its sitting, and, by the order it was specifically directed that to this Committee, were to be referred all such matters as related to breach of privilege; that it was to report from time to time to the House, and that when any such question was agitated respecting a member, he should withdraw, after being heard in his defence, till it was disposed of. This Committee was to sit every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; all members were to have access to

it; they were empowered to call for persons, papers, and records; and, lastly, to deliver their opinions to the House from time to time in reports. (Here the right hon. gent. read the Standing Order.) This he apprehended was not to be considered as a mere formal and barren order. The subject under consideration was a case perfectly calculated for the Committee of Privileges, and he saw nothing in it that required such haste that it should be proceeded upon to the interruption of the other most important business before the House. The hon. gent. who brought the subject forward was bound to shew that great mischief would result from delay that greater inconvenience would arise from suffering the discussion on the new topic to be postponed for a short time, than from interrupting and retarding the other business, on which they were previously engaged. This had not been shewn. The proper and constitutional course, therefore, he contended, was to refer this matter to a Committee of Privileges. It was nothing to him that it had not been usual to refer these cases to a Committee of Privileges. He found a Standing Order commanding that line of proceeding, and the present instance was a most proper one for the reference which he proposed. He called the attention of the House to a case in 1779, relating undoubtedly to a person not a member; but the circumstance of a member being the party concerned made the argument much stronger in his favour. The case was that of a person of the name of Mathews who had published in The English Chronicle, a report of a speech which was held out to be a gross violation of the privileges of the House. The paper was delivered in at the table, and ordered to be referred to the Committee of Privileges. This shewed that the practice of reference to this Committee had not been long discontinued; but that such a reference had been made at no very distant period, in a case very similar to that now under discussion. He concluded by moving, "That the Committee of Privileges should resume its sitting on that day sen'night, and that the paper complained of should be referred to it."

The Speaker asked whether the right hon, meinber moved this as an amendment on the original question?

Mr. Sheridan said, he thought that unnecessary, because he stood on the Stand

ing Order, which must be enforced on the bare suggestion, without any regular motion.

The Speaker observed, that the Standing Order was imperative only so far, that the Committee should sit at stated times, and not that any particular case should be referred to it; whether any particular case should or should not be sent to it, was a matter for the decision of the House, and the right hon. gent. might raise the question by moving it as an amendment.

Mr. Sheridan adverted again to the Order, and still contended that it was mandatory not only as to the appointing of the Committee, but also as to the referring to that Committee all matters of privilege. The words were, "they are to take into consideration all matters," &c.

The Speaker again said, that in the way in which the Order had been understood, the House was to pronounce whether any particular case should or should not be referred to the Committee.

Mr. Sheridan then moved, That the Committee of Privileges should sit on Wednesday next.

The Speaker said, that this must be moved as an amendment on the original question.

This

Mr. Adam rose to order, and begged before the question should be put in a regular shape upon the amendment, to suggest to his right hon. friend another course, by which he could more conveniently but not less effectually get at his object. In addition to the case which his right hon. friend had mentioned, there was one which occurred in 1701, respecting a letter written to the Speaker by a person of the name of Culpepper. had been referred to the Committee of Privileges, which decided upon it in the first instance and reported thereon to the House. But then subsequently the House took the matter into its consideration and finally decided upon it. The best mode of proceeding, according to his view of the case, would be, that his right hon. friend should withdraw his motion for the present, and allow his hon. friend near him (Mr. Brand) to move an adjournment, which he understood his hon. friend meant to do. If the adjournment for several days should be carried, then the reference might be made to the Committee, and its report laid on the table before the termination of the adjournment, when the question might undergo a full and deliberate discussion in the House.

If a debate should arise on the proposition for an adjournment, he trusted he should be allowed to give his reasons for the course of proceeding which he had recommended.

Mr. Brand rose, when the Speaker observed, that at present the debate rested on the merits of the original question, unless the amendment was distinctly put.

Mr. Brand then proceeded. It was his intention to move the adjournment of this debate, after previously stating such reasons as appeared to him satisfactory and conclusive as to the propriety of some further delay. If the hon. gent. who had brought this subject to the notice of the House, had been aware of the interruption which it was calculated to give to the other important question now pending, he was convinced the hon. gent. would not have lent himself to any such purpose. (Hear! hear!) It was obvious that no mischief could result from any farther circulation of this paper, and therefore there was no cause for precipitation from any apprehension of that kind; whereas there was great danger of serious inconvenience from interrupting the discussion on the Scheldt inquiry, as the public attention would be diverted from a subject in which the interests of the nation were most deeply concerned. But from that subject the public attention would be diverted, and very naturally, if this question was suffered to intervene. Great and import ant, however, as he thought that question to be, still he would acknowledge, that he considered every question in which the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and the liberty of the subject were concerned, to be of the first rank in the scale of importance, and to be more interesting than twenty questions on Expeditions to Walcheren or to any other part of the globe, and their consequent failures and disgraces. But the question to be now discussed was not so much as to the right of the House to commit for breaches of privilege in certain cases, but as to how far the exercise of such right extended; what were its limits, and whether it applied to cases where redress might be had in the ordinary course of law. On these points, which were most important in their nature and consequences, there might be much difference of opinion. These were not, therefore, questions to be determined upon in a rash and even impetuous manThough he was not called upon to say whether he agreed in the Resolution.

ner.

that had been submitted to the House; yet he had no hesitation in saying, that there was one passage amongst those pointed out by the hon. member (Mr. Lethbridge), which he considered as falling under every definition of a breach of privilege, and with the amendments and alterations which he should propose, he would vote for that determination; but, when he was called upon to say, that a paper laid before the House, was a libellous and scandalous reflection upon the just rights of the House, he must have time to consider what those just rights were. He had, as yet, hardly had time to look over the elaborate argument of Mr. Hargrave on this subject. On a point of so much importance it was absolutely necessary for the due discharge of their duty that they should have time to resort to all the sources of intelligence which they could discover. Sir Matthew Hale had said, that no offence ought to be decided upon in that House, where a remedy was to be had in a court of law. A remedy for libel was open in the ordinary course of law. Mr. Reeves had been prosecuted by the Attorney General for a libel at the instance of the House. So far he referred to the great constitutional questions which would arise upon this paper. As to the passages marked, there was one, as he had already said, which might be soon decided upon; but the rest, he thought, required very grave and serious deliberation before gentlemen could pronounce a dispassionate and just judgment upon them. For instance, it must be first very maturely considered how far a member was entitled to tell his constituents what he had stated in that House. He could not immediately make up his mind on that point-a point, the determination on which would involve many important consequences. Was a member not at liberty to tell his constituents what he had uttered in that House unreproved? Many of the points contained in the paper upon the table had been expressed by the worthy bart. in that House; nay, had even been enlarged upon, and supported by other members. If the worthy bart. had a right to give to his constituents what he had stated in that House, and laid down to be good constitutional doctrine, then in the commencement of his letter he had not gone too far in the following paragraph: "Gentlemen-The House of Commons

[blocks in formation]

"and the laws of the land, I think it my "duty to lay my sentiments thereon be"fore my constituents, whose character "as freemen, and even whose personal "safety depend in a great degree upon "the decision of this question-a question "of no less importance than this, whether "our liberty be still to be secured by the "laws of our forefathers, or be to lay at "the absolute mercy of a part of our fel"low-subjects, collected together by "means which it is not necessary for me "to describe?" If he had a right to convey to his constituents all he had stated in that House, in thus adverting to what he had openly complained of, and what had been admitted on the other side of the House, and defended only on the ground of its universality, it was abstinence and moderation in the hon. baronet to say no more. If a member was to be permitted to tell his constituents what he had said in that House unreproved, where was the breach of privilege in that passage? Upon this supposition the allusion had been made in language which evinced great forbearance and moderation. He could not help considering it as astonishing that this should have been so readily made a matter of complaint after the manner in which a celebrated charge of his hon. friend (Mr. Madocks), had been received, and after the charge had been dismissed, upon the ground that the practice was universal. The passage which he himself considered as a breach of privilege, was that in which it was stated that the members of that House" inflated "with their high blown fanciful ideas of "Majesty, and tricked out in the trap"pings of royalty, thought privilege and "protection beneath their dignity-as"sumed the sword of prerogative, and lorded it equally over the King and "people." This he conceived did amount clearly to a breach of privilege. [Hear, hear, from the ministerial side.] He knew not how exactly to take that cheer, but he had stated this fairly, because he was apt to be sincere. But with respect to other passages, there was not a word in them but what was synonymous with what the worthy baronet had said in discussing the question of Reform, both in that House and to his constituents. There was no point of view therefore in which time was not necessary, in order to arrive at a calm, just, and dignified conclusion. If he were a friend of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he meant a political

friend-he would most strongly recommend to him to grant time, for all must think, as the matter was at present managed, and he himself most certainly thought, that this was a sop thrown out to an attentive House and an indignant people. [Loud cries of Hear! hear!] He really had some hopes that the hon. gent. who introduced this subject would, upon better reflection, second the motion of adjournment and he was convinced that the hon. gent. would regret afterwards that he had pressed the matter at this period. He concluded by moving as an amendment on the original question, "That the debate be adjourned till to-morrow se'nnight."

Mr. Lethbridge then rose and said that he should not second the motion. (A laugh.)

The Speaker informed the hon. member that the amendment had been seconded.

Mr. Lethbridge again rose and said, that, as the mover of the Resolutions before the House, he could not consent to the proposition for adjourning the debate. He had most certainly, at the time when he brought forward the Resolutions, been sensible that he was entering upon a grave and serious subject; and it had never been in his contemplation to proceed in it with precipitancy. That had not been at any time his wish, and he conceived he had placed himself in the hands of the House, and that the House had determined for him. Further than that, he had nothing to do with the course, which had been pursued. But the argument of the hon. gent who had brought forward the amendment, appeared to him to answer itself, as it furnished the strongest ground against agreeing to it. The hon. gent. had stated that this question was of graver and greater importance than twenty expeditions, such as that to the Scheldt, or to any other part of the world. In this sentiment of the hon gent. he perfectly coincided; and if no other argument could be suggested for proceeding immediately with the discussion, he should, upon that alone, refuse his assent to the adjournment. He should not follow the hon. gent. through the various statements he had gone into, nor the able arguments, as he conceived them to be, which had been urged by him. He had but one word more to add, and he hoped the House would believe him as sincere in the declaration, as he believed the hon. gent, to be in all that had fallen from him. The hon. gent. had stated, previously to his making his motion, that

« AnteriorContinuar »