Page images
PDF
EPUB

"

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]

having laid before him, the case of my lords of Clancarty and, Castlereagh and Mr. Reding!

-As to the argument, that to adopt the motion, would tend to keep alive the ferment in the public mind; they do, then, perceive, that there is such a ferment? They are right; it is a ferment of the mind'; it proceeds from the conviction of the public mind; and, as LORD ARCHIBALD HAMILTON said, in answer to Mr. Perceval, "the ferment will certainly be increas"ed, and not diminished, if you attempt

" will, by such attempt, most certainly be "still further inflamed. If corruption "does exist, can the Chancellor of the Ex"chequer think that no danger is to be "apprehended to this country? Does he "think that, if such ferment really exists, "it would not be more wise to detect, expose, and punish those abuses which are "so strongly suspected to exist? As to the alarming extent of the powers of "this Committee-they are, it is true, ex"tensive and general, but they may be

[ocr errors]

"had no right to punish.--ANY FAR"THER INQUIRY THEREFORE, HE “SUBMITTED, WAS NOT DESIR-« ABLE. He asked, was it conveni"ent or polític to set on foot an inquiry "into all abuses that might or might not have happened, for the sake of keeping "the public mind in a ferment? (A laugh) "Gentlemen might laugh. He was satis"fied that there were, on the other side, "Gentlemen who would not agree with "him in this opinion. He believed that "these Gentlemen, from no improper" to stifle further inquiry. That ferment feeling whatever, were of opinion that nothing was to be apprehended from "the keeping alive this spirit among "the people. He therefore was not surprised that they should differ rom him. But, he had stated what he believed, that there was no reason to believe that there "were such abuses to be detected as those "which the noble Lord suspected; and he sub"mitted it to the FEELING of the House," if from the expectation of discovering abuses, they would agree to set on foot "an inquiry. He was of opinion it would" revoked at the pleasure of this House. "not be expedient or proper to do so, "With respect to the dangers to be ap" and he hoped the House would consider "prehended from the fermentation in the "before they assented to it. The other "minds of the people-those dangers, I object of the noble Lord was to prevent "will venture to assert, are infinitely less any farther abuses. The House had a "to be dreaded than what must ensue from "note of this already before them-and" the people discovering our unwillingness farther inquiry might only produce fur"ther evidence to the same effect, with"out shewing any new or more extended system of abuse. On this subject, however, there was a Bill before the House, "introduced the day before the recess. He hoped it would be found adequate "to every object which might seem to be required. It was not the punishment of past offences, which we should so ardently seek, as remedies and preventatives of "such abuses. At all events, it was in the power of the House, and of the no"ble Lord himself, to consider how far "it should be extended. He was, therefore, on the whole, of opinion, that the Inquiry proposed would neither be "beneficial nor politic. No particular "statement of delinquency had been brought forward, and to a general "statement the House could not listen, especially after the Parliamentary Inqui"ry which had lately taken place."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"

"to prosecute inquiry into corruption and "abuses. The only way to satisfy the "people, and reconcile them to the endurance "of the enormous burdens they sustain, is to "shew them that we are sincere in our "prosecution of those inquiries that will "lead to a general reformation of abuses.”

LORD FOLKESTONE answered all the other objections of Mr. Perceval, in a most able and satisfactory manner, during which he observed, that, as Mr. Perceval seemed to think, that no further abuses, of any sort, did exist, he, of course, ought to Be the first for a general inquiry, in order to allay that ferment of which he complained.

LORD HENRY PETTY (the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, observe: observe that well) joined Mr. Perceval in objecting to the motion, as being too general and sweeping.MR. WHITBREAD Supported the motion of lord Folkestone. He said, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has ac

[ocr errors]

knowledged, that, if inquiry should be in-I shall leave the reader to make his "stituted, abuses might possibly be traced. own remarks upon the words chance and "This fact, I take it, he has admitted-I happen, as applied to the purchase and sale "shall, however, at any rate, myselfassume of Offices, and of low agents misrepresent- "it. Whatever may be the sentiments in ing themselves as acting for men in high

this House, there can be no doubt, that out station; and, this I may safely do, after "of it there is an universal feeling of the

[ocr errors]

66 6

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

"PEOPLE, that various mal-practices
"would be brought to light by the insti-
"tution of a general Inquiry, such as that
"which has been moved for by the Noble
"Lord. But the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has argued, that even admitting
"abuses to be discovered, he should think
"the appointment of a Coinmittee useless.
"It is not,' says he, the punishment
of past grievances which we should so
ardently seek, as remedies and pre-
“ventives of a repetition of such abuses.'
Against this, he tells us, it is the
very
object and foundation of his Bill to pro-
"vide.-But, much as we know, I must
"be allowed to question the possibility
"of his framing any Bill on this subject,
"which shall be effectual in its provisions,
"unless we shall first be informed of much
"more than has hitherto come to our
knowledge. And here I conceive the
argument which was made use of by the
"Noble Lord, to be unanswerable. How
"can you tell, says he, in what manner
"to frame a Bill to prevent the repetition
"of abuses, the nature and full extent
"of which are yet undiscovered? The
Chancellor of the Exchequer has told
"us that before the Investigation which
"has occupied so much of our time and
"attention, he was informed of certain
"nuisances in the city. He had heard of"
"the office of Messrs. Pollman and Key-

[ocr errors]

66

66

[ocr errors]

"

lock, who were able to dispose of an ex"tensive patronage, for the most corrupt "of all things, money, the grand source "and medium of all corruption. Now "when the existence of that office was "first mentioned in this House, it was re"ceived with universal levity, it was laughed "at on all sides of the House. But the right hon. gentleman on that occasion, "so far from betraying the least consci"ousness of the existence of any such office, did not even countenance the possibility that the representation which was then "made could have the slightest foundation; " and he laughed, with the rest, at a statement "which was so generally received us improbable. That these gents. Messrs. Pollman and "Keylock, had carried on this sale of patronage for years, was very well "known--and no attempt was made to put a stop to practices so nefarious-no inquiry was ever instituted-till at length "when the investigation took place, it sug"gested itself to the right hon. gentleman "to put a stop to that species of traffic, by "the introduction of his promised Bill. "Now will any gentleman pretend to say, « that these negociators of patronage may

46

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"not, somewhere or other, have connec-
"tions either in the army, or the navy, or
"in the civil departments of the State;
"for their negociations it seems were al-
"most universal, which it is highly desira-
ble for this House to know. When it is
"considered what facts have come to light
"with respect to East India Patronage,
"when we reflect on the names that have
"come out on the inquiry into that sub-
'ject-can the right honourable gentle-
"man affect surprize that the public mind
"should be in a state of ferment?"-
Mr. TIERNEY, formerly a member of
the " Society of Friends of the People,"
next spoke, and he opposed the motion of
Lord Folkestone. He said, that the motion
went to arraign the whole of the govern-
ment of the country, through all its depart
ments; whereupon, the reporter says there
was a loud cry of" hear! hear !” from the
ministerial benches. He declared, that he
had no wish to screen delinquency, and
should have no objection to an inquiry
into specific cases. "He differed," he said,
"from the gentlemen opposite in many im
"portant political subjects, but neither with
respect to them, nor with respect to any
"man, could he agree to this vague sort of
"motion. HE HIMSELF HAD BEEN
"IN OFFICE; he knew the responsibility
attached to the situation, and was ready
"to meet any accusation if fairly stated.
But this motion extended back-how far
nobody knew-and was calculated to put
"all those, who, for a great number of years
"back, had been employed in public sit-

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

ations, upon their trial-many of whom "were precluded, in the course of nature, "from giving those explanations that might be necessary to defend themselves against charges, or to prevent suspicion."

66

-MR. HUTCHINSON, MR. T. FOLEY, and MR. PARNELL, gave their decided support to the motion. MR. CHARLES W. WYNN opposed the motion, and said, that "he

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

had heard, that there might be cases brought forward, which had taken place "in Ireland, previous to the Union; cases that might affect Lord Cornwallis and "Mr. Put, who were in their grates.”Let us stop here, to make a remark, or two, upon this objection.Is it not something new, reader, to hear, that delinquencies should not be exposed, because some of the parties are dead? What should we say of the man who objected to a trial for robbery, upon the ground that some of his associates had died previous to the trial? Besides, what harm can any inquiry do to Lord Cornwallis or Pitt?

(6 may, I do assert and maintain, that he is "not an honester public man than I am, nor " do I see the smallest reason why I, or any other member of this House, should "hesitate for one moment to repel this un

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

They are safe under ground, pressed hard down by big heaps of stones, that we have paid for to be placed over them in the shape of monuments of honour, voted by this very House of Commons; and shall we be refused a general inquiry into abuses, lest" merited and general stigma. My consomething should come out about these men, who have cost us such immense sums, dead as well as living? "What good" can it do? Why, very great good indeed; for, it will enable us to form a correct judgment of the character and the deeds of these men, who enjoyed so much power, and for opposing whose measures and attacking whose characters and conduct so many of the people of this kingdom were so severely punished. There are, moreover, enough and enough living, and these, too, men in great power, who were actors with them; who participated in all their public conduct; and, because the former are dead, are the latter to escape the effects of inquiry? Inquiry may redound to their honour; but, why object to it then? -There is no occasion to say any thing more about it. The thing is too plain to be misunderstood by any but downright ideots.

[ocr errors]

66

"duct has already proved, in numerous in-
"stances, that in all matters of public eco-
nomy
and reformation of abuses, I am
disposed to go as far in the protection of
"the people against extravagance and
"abuse as any man in this country-and
I am still disposed to persevere in that
"conduct, which I conceive to be only a
"faithful discharge of my duty to the pub-
lic.
But to the motion now before the
"House I cannot agree."--No; Mr.
Ponsonby; no, we do not, indeed we do
not say, that you are all knaves and
rogues alike." There is not a man in
the whole nation, who, as far as I have ob-
served, has ever said any such thing. In-
deed, Sir, you must have been misinform-
ed; and, I really wonder how any one
should have induced you to believe any
such thing, when the people, in all parts
of the kingdom, are passing Resolutions,
thanking 125 of the members of the House
of Commons for their fidelity to their trust.

-SIR JOHN ANSTRUTHER, the late Chief Justice in India, opposed Lord Folkestone's motion, as did also MR. GEORGE PONSONBY, a part of whose speech, as given in the Statesman news-paper, is too interesting to us not to be inserted here. After stating his objections, upon the ground of the general and loose tendency of the motion, he said: "I find it impossible, on the occasion of so extraordinary a proposition, to con"tent myself with a silent vote, and more "especially when I see a disposition in some persons, not in the Houst, to charge every public man in the kingdom with corrup"tion. This is a charge of a most serious "nature; and particularly when it is con"sidered how readily and with what avi"dity every thing that is charged against "this House is received out of doors. The people are even industriously told in some places that there is no distinction whatever "-in this House, that we are all knaves and "rogues alike (Hear! hear! hear!) "that it does not signify in what hands the government is placed; for, provided they "are Parliamentary, the country can expect nothing but corruption. (Hear! hear! hear!) These, Sir, are most foul, impudent, barefaced, and infamous calumnies; "for, I will venture to maintain, that there "are in this House, men as honest, as upright, as uncorrupt, and possessing as great integrity as those who make these gross and "unfounded charges. And, be he who he

86

66

66

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

No, Sir, indeed we do not say, or think (God forbid we should!) that all members of parliament are alike; but, I will tell you what we do say, what all of us, except those who share in the corruptions, say, and believe, and shall continue to say and to believe; that to us-ward, both PARTIES are as much alike as two peas, or two drops of water; that the promises and pledges, which the late ministry and their adherents, made to us, while they were out of place, they not only for got the moment they were in place, but laughed us to scorn for expecting that they would fulfil them; that they, who had gained the support of the people by deprecating a waste of the public money, the making of sacrifices for the king's foreign possessions, an employment of foreign troops in the heart of this kingdom, the heavy weight of taxation, and the predominating influence of the crown; that these very men, of whom you were one, did, during the very first session of parliament after their elevation to power, bring in a bill, which bill was passed into a Law, to enable Lord Grenville to hold the Office of Auditor of the Exchequer, a sinecure of 4,000l. a year, along with the place of the First Lord of the Treasury, at 6,000l. a year; that they settled large pensions upon Mrs. Fox! and her daugh

ters; that they declared, that they would, advise the king never to make a peace, of which the restoration of Hanover to him should not be a condition; that they augmented the then large numbers of German and other foreign troops; that they, who had so solemnly protested against the Income Tax, made its weight upon us nearly double what Pitt had left it; that they screwed up the assessed taxes to the highest degree, and that they attempted to send an exciseman into the house of every creature in the kingdom who had the means of brewing a cag of ale to make merry at the christening of a child; and, that they closed their career by withdrawing from parliament, a Bill which they themselves had brought in under a solemn declaration of its necessity to the tranquillity and safety of the kingdom, and which they withdrew for the reason, openly avowed, that the said bill was not approved of by the king.Now, Sir, these facts are undeniable. They admit of no palliation. And, with these facis before us, can we be blamed if we despise those, who would still persuade us to have confidence in party?-Sir, in 1804, when there was a sort of coalition intrigue going on for the purpose of jostling the Addingtons out, I sat up part of a night (a thing which I have not done ten times in my life) to write a Letter to warn those with whom you have since been in power, of their danger, and of the danger to the state, which would arise from any unprincipled compromise. In that letter, which was shown to Mr. Fox, Mr. Francis, and others, I pointed out the consequences of a failure, on the part of that party, to fulfil the public expectations. I remember saying: if you go on, or attempt to go on, in the old Pitt track, George Rose and Huskisson will beat you hollow. I remember those very words, or words nearly the same. And, was not that the case? Did they not beat you hollow, sir? Did they not laugh at you? Then, I said, that, if such a thing was attempted, it would disgust the people, who would lose all confidence in both parties, and who would very soon see the necessity of flying for protection to other men; very likely to Sir Francis Burdett, and to many men not yet known in the political world. I appeal to Mr. Francis, who told me that he had read the letter, whether it did not contain almost these very words. ---I mention this to shew, that I have not bean capricious in my opinions. I, in that onterer urged the absolute necessity of a Change system. How anxiously I did la

bour to make converts to my doctrine! but, alas! I laboured in vain. Well; the consequences are now come and coming thick and fast. A sincere and radical reform then would have prevented what has taken place now; and, a sincere and radical reform now would prevent what, without that reform, will take place at no distant day, as sure as this is ink, wherein I am placing my opinions upon this paper. Now, Sir, as to your own character and conduct, of which, if the reporter be correct, you thought proper to speak, I have never heard, or said, either harm or good of you; and, in fact, all that I know, relating to you, is, that you were for about fifteen or sixteen months, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, since which time you have received, out of the taxes, and are to continue to receive for that service, a pension of four thousand pounds sterling a year. Frankly I tell you, that I am discontented at this; that it is one amongst the many many charges, which, I think, we ought not, at any time, and especially in times like these, to be obliged to bear; that, seeing that the late ministry did, in their going out, as well as in their coming in and during their abidance, in power, act, towards the people, just as the present ministers do, I like one set of ministers just as well as the other; and that, unless a change of system were to take place with a change of men, I even dread a change of men, because, at every change, under the present system, new and heavy burdens in consequence of such change, are invariably laid upon the people.

MR. CANNING's speech and the account of the division must be reserved for my next. That speech was in the strain of MR. TIERNEY's; but, it merits particular notice.-There are also some observations yet to be made upon that part of Mr. Perceval's speech which contains the very novel doctrine, that, in order to prevent future crimes past crimes are not to be punished. In the mean while, I cannot refrain from inserting, below, an admirable article from the TIMES news-paper of the 19th instant, upon the subject of this debate.

Botley, 20th April, 1809.

have been obligingly sent me, from different places, shall be regularly inserted as fast as I can find room.

N. B. All the RESOLUTIONS, &c. which

FROM THE TIMES, 19th APRIL, 1809. "The decision upon Lord FOLKESTONE'S motion is one of the most politic, funda

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

mentally (though for different reasons" and therefore examine into the grounds than those which were alledged), that could possibly have taken place. A general inquiry, rigorously conducted, into the disposal of offices, might perhaps have led to several unpleasant discoveries, which it was therefore by all means useful to avoid; and both parties seemed to be very strongly impressed with this idea. We heard no more of courting inquiry of challenging publicity; one sacrifice has been unluckily made to this bragging humour, and that will serve as a warning to those who remain-But the principle upon which the proposed inquiry was ostensibly smothered, seems to be a very singular one, and to most apprehensions might with greater reason have been urged in favour of the prosecution of it. "General suspicions of the integrity of "men in power are every where prevalent; and therefore we will not institute "a general but a specific inquiry." Now this does appear to us to be much the same kind of reasoning as if a ship-captain, having great reason to suspect the universal sea-worthiness of his vessel, should still chuse to examine only this cable or that anchor. The fact is, and it is stated by both parties, that suspicions are indeed, general enough: Mr. CANNING says, that public men are represented" as having nothing in view but the "emolument of office," and that there is a "persuasion alive in the public mind, "that rottenness and corruption exists in every part of the state." But if such is the allowed persuasion, how is it to be eradicated? By prohibiting inquiry into the truth of it? No! this is only increasing the suspicion, and rendering improvement hopeless. That the emoluments of office Something, too, has been said of the have some influence over the minds of malignity with which public men are asthose who accept them, is clear; because sailed; but do public men never assail we see them, upon their very acceptance, others with malignity? Who first applied Jargaining for lucrative resignations, for the odious term of infamy to an hypotheaccessory sinecures, for pensions for their tical failure in proving an honest accusamothers, sisters, sons, and nephews; and tion? A public man. Who branded his to say that this love of the public money fellow-subjects with the accursed appellais so nicely circumscribed that it will tion of Jacobins? A public man. Who only tempt men to do dirty actions, but cheered him with applauses, that might can in no case prevail on them to commit be heard from Westminster to Guildhall? lishonest ones, seems to be drawing a very Public men. And what has been the ice line of distinction. Besides, who consequence? that the expressions "unre they that tell us that the public suspi- "worthy of confidence," "corrupt," ons are altogether unfounded? Why," venal," have been re-echoed upon pubte very men who assured us that there lic men from Guildhall to Westminster. Wre no abuses in the Commander in Chief's Who they are that have suffered most by Oice and look how much this illus- this foolish warfare, they too well feel that thus person has been injured by them. first complain. That there is a consideraImis case, say they,spicions exist, ble ferment in the public mind, it is im

"of them: you cannot make the Inquiry "too public." But now observe how their tone is altered, and how much wiser they are become by experience: "Suspicions," say they again, "exist, and therefore "don't enquire into them at all; it only keeps alive the public ferment." Yet surely if an experiment was to have been made, a less exalted personage might have been chosen as the subject of it; and such we believe is the loyalty of this kingdom, that most people will regret that his wings have been singed, on finding that those who thrust him into the flame are resolved not to come within smell of the smoke. But these are among the misfortunes that attend men of no party. It was a grievous damage that his ROYAL HIGHNESS suffered by that detested pamphlet published in the course of last summer. And while we are speaking of the dangers which thus attend men of no party, we shall venture to add further, that if Colonel WARDLE, who possesses that character, had six months ago confessed himself to have offered East India patronage for a seat in Parliament, such would have been the virtuous indignation of that Assembly, that he would never have sat long enough therein to have preferred his charges: nay, if under an imputation of this kind he had ventured to hint the slightest suspicion against any man in office, there would have been such a cry raised against him, as would have stunned us all; so that he had better look to himself in future.

"

"If they can catch him once upon the hip,
They will feed fat the ancient grudge they bear
"him."

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »