Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

Mr. Whitbread said, that, from an expectation that the committee would have much longer time to continue their investigations than he found was afterwards permitted them, and knowing, as he did, that owing to his mind being otherwise engaged at the commencement of their sitting (upon the impeachment of Lord Melville, he was supposed to mean), he was unable to attend at the first of their investigations he therefore did not think fit to attend the committee during the latter part of their sitting, but waited until they should have made a report, intending then to join them on their entering upon a fresh subject of inquiry. For this reason he agreed with the honourable member who spoke last, and on the ground which had been by him stated, it was right that his (Mr. Whitbread's) name should be omitted in the list of members to form the present committee.

Mr. H. Addington was of opinion, that the committee ought to be precisely the same as if no dissolution had taken place. Unless it was fairly proved, that some distinct blame attached to them, the omission of any name would, in his opinion, be casting a most unmerited stigma on the character of such as should have their names omitted on the re-appointment of the committee.

Lord Cochrane declared, that he did expect that the same regulation would have been adopted on this occasion, as that which had been agreed to with respect to private bills. Besides this, from their actions he judged, that the last committee was better than any new one that was likely to be appointed.

Colonel Shipley declared, that the former committee had the entire confidence of the country, when what he felt himself entitled to call the unjustifiable conduct of ministers, the dissolution, deprived the country of the further benefit of their labours. For this reason he thought that ministers owed it to the individuals who composed that committee, they owed it to the House, and they owed it to the country, to reanimate (now they had an opportu nity of doing so) that virtuous body whose vital powers the pestilential breath of ministers had for a time suspended.

Mr. Stuart Wortley asked an honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes), "whether the report was regularly drawn up before him, or with his approbation as chairman of the committee, and ready to be delivered at the bar of the House when the dissolution took place?

Mr.

Mr. Bankes answered, that that was the only day on which he was absent from the committee. He understood, however, that the report was drawn up, approved of by the committee, and ready to be presented at the bar of the House. As he had already stated, the committee had come to the resolution of relating the facts, and pointing out the remedy at the same time, but such a resolution was very fairly alterable according as circumstances might suggest to the committee; of such circumstances the dissolution was certainly one.

Mr. Huskisson observed, that the committee bad adjourned to two o'clock on Monday; consequently they had not time to have prepared such a report as that which was spoken of, before the dissolution took place.

Mr. H. Thornton declared that he was of opinion that the statement of facts and the remedy proposed for these evils ought to be given together; the committee was of the same opinion; but the resolution of the committee, he thought, was repealable, as circumstances might appear to them to justify it; and, for his own part, he was of opinion, that it would be much better that a naked report of such facts as had come to their knowledge, should be given to Parliament, than that the report should be entirely lost, and the committee deprived of the power of stating what they knew, by the dissolution.

Alderman Combe assured the House, that, in conse quence of the absence of their chairman, another gentleman was called to the chair. The report was distinctly read, and he never saw or heard any act of any committre of that House meet with more unanimous approbation, than the report which was now mentioned.

Mr. Sharpe acknowledged, that he felt the full force of the two compliments which had been paid him. To his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes) he was extremely thankful for the very handsome manner in which he had mentioned his name. To the gentlemen on the other side, he had also reason to express his acknowledgment of the kindness which they had done him; for he considered it to be as high a compliment as those gentlemen could bestow, when they thought proper to express their objection to him by the omission of his name in the new list. There was one fact, however, with which he thought it right that be should acquaint the House, that was, that if he should not be again chosen a member of the finance committee, and

should

should those that were to be the ehosen people of the new ministry, attempt to suppress any stateinen of evidence that had already been entered on, it was some consolation to him to have it to say, that he had in his own hands a number of extracts and mintes from the intended report, which he pledged himself to bring forward whenever he should see any necessity for doing so. But in point of fact, he had much rather that he should not be again apa pointed to serve in the finance committee, as he would now stand in a very different situation from that in which he formerly acted.

The Honourable William Lanthe declared, that he took on himself his full share of the responsibility which was attached to the framing of the report and pledged himself to state the full necessity there was for making such a report, whenever he should be entitled to do so consistent with the forms of the House.

Lord Archibald Hamilton added his testimony to that of his noble friend as to the necessity which there was for the formation of the report, and took also upon himself his full share of the responsibility which was attached to it.

- Lord Howick began by expressing his reluctance to de tain the attention of the House at that late hour, but there were some points in the debate upon which he could not forbear to offer a few observations. Before, however, he proceeded to these points, he begged to say, that there seemed to be some misunderstanding among the gentlemen on the other side, with regard to the report of the finance committee, which was ready to be presented on the day of dissolution. If gentlemen were not yet recovered from their heat upon this subject, he thought it might be easily satisfied that the conduct of the committee alluded to, was strictly correct and impartial; that they had done no more than their duty, nay more, that they would have violated their duty, if they had not acted as they had done. The honourable gentleman who acted as chairman of that committee, had resolved not to report, until a statement of the evils they discovered, should be accompanied by a description of the remedy to be recommended. But that resolution was revocable, and the honourable gentleman admitted that the committee had completed their inquiries (Mr. Bankes nodded assent). Then, observed the noble lord, in what situation was the committee placed? They

had

hed materials to report upon, and in fact, if he was right ly informed, the committee were in daily expectation of the honourable gentleman coming down as chairman, with a report prepared for their consideration. But the report of a sudden dissolution, being communicated to the honourable gentleman, that honourable gentleman (and he did not mention it for any purpose of blame) thought proper to leave town in order to preserve another object, where he had reason to expect a contested election. The other mem bers remained in town; andhaving the prospect of a speedy dissolution, he would put it to the flouse and the coun try, he would put it to all candid men, whether they were not warranted, having an important transaction to make known, upon which transaction, with the imperfect know ledge that he had of it, he would not attempt to pronounce any opinion, whether, he would ask, they were not bound to take care that the fruit of their laborious investigation should not be lost? With a view to guard against that, and with the pros cct before them, the committee were, he contended, perfectly right to proceed as they had done, although, owing to a little dexterity, the attainment of their. object was prevented for the moment. That, however, this committee had, on the whole, acted a most meritori ous part; that they had been active and diligent in their inquiries, and that, in the conclusion of their labours, they had done what their duty required, he would be ever ready to maintain. But this committee was not to be revived as it stood before, because, as the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated, it was necessary to introduce into it a different set of men, of a different party in politics, which change that right honourable gentleman declared to be necessary with a view to impar iality. For, according to that right honourable secretary's declamatory strain of observations, there was no chance of obtaining impartiality, but through what he called a collision of opposite opinions, and that, too in a committee of inquiry. Now, for himself, he would say, that he was now, and had always barn, a party man, and for these reasons: first, because he thought a party connec ion was the most effectual way to promote any public object; and secondly, because, to say the least of it, he could not think from what he had seen in that House,, or heard out of it, ihat men who disclaimed party, were the most remarkable for independence and purity. But much as he preferred a party connection,

and

and was convinced of its beneficial operations for the pub lic, still he would deprecate the idea of it if he thought the attachments it engendered were likely to stifle inquiry, or to conceal the public malversation of a party man. Sure he was, that among that party with which he had the honour to act, there existed no such disposition; and yet, unless the gentlemen on the other side entertained such a suspicion, he could not conceive a reason for the manner in which they prepared to new-model this committee. Among the names of those members of the former commit, tee whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought proper to exclude, he desired to have one pointed out to whom any suspicion could reasonably attach, of being influenced by party attachments in the examination of public delinquency. He would take, for instance, without any dispo sition to particular preference; he would take an honourable friend near him (Mr. Whitbread). Would the gentlemen on the other side object to his independence, after the swelling compliments which the House had heard some time since applied to this honourable friend's manly inde pendence by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs? He meant upon the discussion of the conduct of the negotiation. He would ask of these gentlemen, whether they could suspect that his honourable friend would, if appointed to this committee, attempt to screen even him, were he guilty, from the consequences of any malversation? (cry of hear! hear!) Upon what ground, then, was the name of his honourable friend excluded? and he might put the same question as to any of the other gentlemen on his side of the House, whose names were omitted; but it was the resolution of the gentlemen on the treasury bench, for the purpose of a fair collision of parties even in this committee, to construct it of an even balance of opposite parties. The House, however, would judge of this proposed fairness when it was understood, that out of the twenty-five mem bers, no less than fourteen were selected from among the connections of the ministers (hear! hear!).

With regard to the charges and insinuations thrown out against the conduct of the last administration, he should in the first place answer their accnsers by saying, that he only desired inquiry. All he should ask of the House and the country would be, not to adopt any opinion, not to come to any conclusion, not to pronounce any judgment, upon the accusations loosely thrown out by

the

« AnteriorContinuar »