Page images
PDF
EPUB

judicial to the public service, and insulting to the House, and the nation at large, for Lord Melville any longer to continue in his Majesty's councils, or to hold any place of trust, profit, or honour, in or under the government; and that they conceive all other persons who may be implicated in, or have connived at, such abuses, to be incapable any longer of serving the country with honour of advantage, and ought equally to be brought to a severe account; and therefore praying, that the House, taking these matters into their serious consideration, will vigorously promote and prosecute those inquiries, and cause the powers of the said Commissioners to be prolonged and extended, and other measures to be adopted, in order that such further inquiry may be made into the receipt, management, and expenditure of the public money, and the conduct of the public offices, as may lead to the detection of all abuses and the punishment of all offences, and that such a system of vigilance and economy may be established, as may effectually guard against the recurrence of such flagrant abuses.

PETITION AGAINST LORD MELVILLE presented to the House of Commons on the 25th of April, 1805, from the Mayor and Corporation of the City of Salisbury, setting forth

That the petitioners have perused, with much concern and interest, the resolutions of the House of the 8th and 10th days of this instant April, with concern, that any charges of the nature therein implied should attach upon any individual in high official situation, and with interest that the representatives of the nation have, under the circumstance of such charges, marked such individual with their censure and reprobation; and that the petitioners beg leave to state, that, in comfon with the nation at large, they have to lament the weight of the burdens to which the legislature has found it necessary to submit them, but they claim for themselves, in common with the nation at large, the merit of having borne them with patience, readiness, and equanimity, trusting that what had been granted liberally would be applied faithfully; But when a suspicion is gone forth, under the authority of parliamentary commissioners, and that suspicion apparently adopted by the House, that peculation has been hard at work, the petitioners take leave to call upon the national representatives for redress, reminding them that it is of little consequence as a public grievance, of little consequence in point of official morality, whether the actual peculation be by men of great authority and power, or by their deputies and subal

terns under their permission and connivance and therefore praying the House to continue such commission of inquiry as has already discovered such abuses, and to institute any new commission which may be necessary to ascertain whether in any other department of the state the national finances have been misapplied, and also to devise such legal proq ceedings upon those instances of misapplica tion already before the public as may satisfy the general cry for justice, by bringing all persons concerned to a strict responsibility.

SUMMARY OF POLITICS.

Many important subjects, which belonged to this head, have, during the last four or five weeks, been unavoidably omitted. I say unavoidably, because there was not time, and, in some instances, not room, to introduce them, without excluding part, at least, of that which has been inserted relative to the Tenth Report and matters connected therewith; and; which exclusion I could, in my own mind, have found nothing to justify convinced as I have all along been, and as I still am, that, compared with the danger to be apprehended from an alienation of the people from the government, all other dangers, though some of them in themselves very great, are of trifling importance. To see the powers of the Continent, from whom co-ope ration was expected, shrinking from our touch'; to see our West-India islands, submitting, one after another, to contributions demanded by an enemy, of whose maritime force the ministerial writers have constantly been speaking in terms of contempt; at this day to hear of the bustle of preparation to enable our admirals to face the combined fleets of France and Spain: either of these circumstances is sufficient to cause deep regret in the mind of any man attached to his country; but, neither of them, nor even all of them put together, is a thousandth part so much to be dreaded as the loss of the hearts of the people. To secure these the House of Commons has taken one important steps and, it is the duty of every man to make use of all the constitutional means in his power to induce them to pursue, to a satisfactory termination, the excellent work they have begun.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LORD MELVILLE The history, somewhat disjointed indeed, of these proceedings was, in the foregoing sheet, p. 672, brought down to the 30th ultimo, when it was determined, in the House of Commons, to form a select conte mittee, in the manner described in po 670, to inquire, as far as related to the conduct of Lord Melville, into the circumstances. Des specting the diverting of the naval money

[merged small][ocr errors]

to other purposes, alleged by his lordship to be of a public nature. The Commons have, since the formation of the select committee, sent a message to the Lords, requesting that bord Melville may be ordered to appear be fore the committee, the Lords have taken the request into consideration, and this paper will, probably, be printed before their decision be known. In the mean time a very impor tant and most satisfactory step has been taken by his Majesty, who has resolved to strike Lord Melville's name from the list of his Privy Council. The reader will remember, that the vote of censure having been passed on the 8th ultimo, Mr. Whitbread, upon the next meeting of the House, which took place on the 10th, was prepared to make a motion for an address to his Majesty to remove Lord Melville from his royal presence and councils for ever. Mr. Pitt objected to this; and, it was finally agreed, simply to lay the resolutions of the 8th before the King, leav ing it to the ministers to advise his Majesty as to what further steps should be taken." This done, on the 11th, the House adjourned to the 25th. When it met again Mr. Whitbread inquired, whether his Majesty had been advised to dismiss Lord Melville from. his councils, to which Mr. Pitt replied, that he had not; and, added, that, until he should be further instructed by the House, he should not think it right to advise his Majesty to command such dismission. Whereupon Mr. Whitbread gave notice that he should, on a future day, make a motion for an address to His Majesty upon the subject; which motion was brought forward on the 6th instant. But, a debate and division were prevented by Mr. Pitt's stating, that, having FOUND it to be the opinion of the majority of the House, that Lord Melville should be dismissed from the Privy Council, he had adVised His Majesty to dismiss him!There will offer a future occasion to remark more circumstantially upon this part of the proceedings. At present I must beseech the reader's attention to some circumstances relating to what remains to be done with respect to Lord Melville; for, when we consider former punishments, whether of little or great delinquents, whether we consider the case of HAMLIN, or of the Lords Bacon and Macclesfield, we must perceive that much yet remains to be done to satisfy the demands of justice, and to furnish a useful example. As to the grant of certain re venues recently obtained in the name of Lady Melville, Mr. Bond's declaration, without any comment, may suffice for the present; but, with respect to Lord Melville's annuity and his office and income as Keeper of the vom layou Sud 10 gl

Privy Seal in Scotland, some suggestions have been offered me, which should not, for a moment be suppressed. In answer to a question, put by Mr. Fox, on the 6th instant whether Lord Melville held any place of profit during the pleasure of the Crown, Mrg Pitt is said to have answered, Norie but "for life," which is probably true, if the Letter of the Grant only is considered; for we know of none he continues to hold, but the annuity of 1,5001., granted in July last, and the office of Keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland. But whether either of them can be considered as legally granted, and held for life, is a new and a curious question, which the rapacity of Lord Melville will probably cause to be agitated. An annuity, or pension, payable out of the King's pri vate revenue, or the Civil List, is usually granted, I believe, during His Majesty's pleasure. Can the Sovereign go further; and, by his grant, charge that revenue for a period which may exceed his own life; or charge the revenue of his successors? That is one view; but what will be said, if it turns out, upon the investigation proposed by Lord Henry Petty, that this annuity of Lord Melville is charged on the public re venue of the country, without the authority of Parliament? Again, as to the office of Keeper of the Privy Seal. Does it not sound somewhat odd, that the King should be advised to commit the custody of his seals to a person for life? What should we say, if the Privy Seal or the Great Seal of England were given in that way? The Privy Seal and Great Seal of Scotland are precisely analagous, though of less importance... Nor does the incongruity stop here... The grant of that office to Lord Melville is either il legal, or it must be maintained that the King may, by law, commit the custody of the seals of his successor to any person he pleases; he Duy chuse the great officers of that successor. If that is unconstitutional; if common sense revolts, aric, then the grant to Lord Melville, though it purports to be for his own life, ran at the utmist, stand only dus ring the life of the Sovereign whognveit→→ Precedent may be reported to Will-prece dent support what is radically, asentially, and constitutionally had heredis just one precedent, in the case of Lord Melvibe stimmo diate predecessor. and Melville formerly held another of the kings eats in Scotland the Signet, a very derisoffice, atow held by his Son, uponabis résignation. That like wise was granted to hirfor life, contrary to all precedent, and in repugnance to the na tare of the office, The Signetts, I believe the Seal, corresponding to that, which the -izore bita batugab liens vd so gewog Sus

Secretaries of State in England was. The office of keepers of the Signet was accordingly attached to that of Secretary of State for Scotland, an office which subsisted till about the year 1745, when the name was dropped, but the keeper of the Signet is in fact the Secretary. Is it not monstrous to say a person may be appointed Secretary of the King for life, that the King renounces the power of changing his Secretary; and still more, that the King may name the Secretary of his successors? These are some of the points, to which it is to be presumed Lord Henry Petty intends to call the attention of the House; and that they are well worthy of its attention, will not, I think, be denired by any one, who entertains a disinterested regard for the monarchy, and who considers how important it is, that the King should be afforded, upon occasions like the present, every fair opportunity of showing, that the Crown not less than the House of Commons is the guardian of the rights and interests of the people:

MR. PITT'S CASE... It will be remembered (see p. 670), that the principal object of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, now sitting, is to inquire into the conduct of Mr. Pitt, relative to three points; to wit; 1. the obtaining a writ of privy seal, whereby to excuse Lord Melville from paying the balance of 24,000l. due from him to the public on account of Mr. Jellicoe's defal'cation; 2. the knowledge which he had of certain sums of naval money having been drawn from the Bank of England contrary to law, and lent by Lord Melville to other • branches of the public service; 3. whether, or not, Mr. Pitt was informed, or knew, that Messrs, Dundas and Trotter drew the naval money from the Bank of England and applied it to purposes of private advantage.

and let by Lord Melville to other branches of the public service; with regard to this point, the ministerial. paper, the COURIE of the 8th instant, has the following curios remark: " From the examination of Mr.

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

Pitt, and Mr. Long, before the Select "Committee, it has, we understand, satis "factorily appeared, that the money ad "vanced by the Treasurer of the Naty to the Board of Treasury, in 1790, was applied to the prevention of great publié calamity; and, after averting the most perilous commercial distresses, was. cor"rectly repaid to the department from "which it had been borrowed on this m "tional exigency."--This paragraph, let it be observed, was inserted, word for word, in the other ministerial papers, the ORACLE, the Su, and the MORNING HERALD; and, in the remaining paper of that description, the MORNING POST of the gth, the persons," who are taking such uncommon pains to prepossess the public mind, and who may easily be guessed at, thought proper to ventore to speak out a little plamer; as thus: Mr. "Pitt and Mr. Long have been twice exa "mined before the Select Committee of the

[ocr errors]

66

Hottse of Commons, upon the subject of some temporary assistance afforded to the "house of Boyd end Benfield, to enable them to make good an instalment of the Imperial "Loan; a measure deemed necessary for "the maintenance of the honour and credit of "the country.". What! is this, then, the great public service? Was this the way, in which Mr. Pitt and Lord Melville scred the nation? Surely, this never can be true. What! Boyd and Benfield! The famous Messrs. Boyd and Benfield of the no less fa mors Messrs. Pitt and Dundas! Paul Benfield? Mr. Dundas's Paul Beufeld? The Nabcb of Arcot's Paul Benfield? Really, f this should prove to be the case; if it should prove that, in order to support Boyd an Benfield (for whose sake, be it remembered the Bank of England was thrown in the shade), sums, already raised upon the rule, were lent to these loan-jobbers, in order to enable them to lend the public i's own woney, for which interest and a bonus wete paid by that public to them; if this should be proved, it would be a libel indeed upra the House of Commons, it would be to ìmpute corruption to the whole of the govern

-The reader must be aware of the gross impropriety of attempting to state, in point, what has come out before the Committee. As in the ease of Lord Melyille, however, the ministerial papers having begun their endevours to anticipate the report of the Committee, and to prompt the public to a premature decision, I think it right just to point out these endeavours, and to caution my readers against the snare which this venal tribe is laying for their judgment.Touching the transaction relating to the writ of privy seal, they have, as yet, said nothing.ment, to insinuate that any of the person But, with regard to the second point, the knowledge which Mr. Pitt had of the with drawing of certain sums of naval money from the Bank of England, contrary to law,

concerned in such a crime, such a profligate defiance of the law, such a fagrant act of public robbery, would escape condign penishment. The subject shall be revived in migrext.]

Printed by Cox and Baylis, No.75, Great Queen Street, an I published by R. Bagshaw, Bow-Street, Chect Garden, where former Numbers may be had; sold also by J. Budd, Crova and Mite, Fall-Maliv

VOL. VII. No. 201

'LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY, 18, 1905. *o

{PRICE MOD... I have Luft before you, Mr Speaker, I think with spicient cleartress, the connection of the Ministers "with Mr. Arkinson de the general election; I have laid open to you the connection of Atkinson and " Benfield; Thave shown' Benfield's employment of his wealth, in creating parliamentary, interest, to prozprę a ministerial protection; 'I have sex before your eyes bijɔ large concern in the debt of the Nabob "of Arcot, his practices to hide that concern from the public eye, and the liberal protection which he has received from the minister. If this chain of circumstances does not lead you necessarily to concludé,' that "the minister has paid to the avarice of Benfield the services done, by Benfield's 'connections, to his “ambelón, 1 do not know any thing short of the confession of the party that can persuade, you of his f' 'guile."——ByrKE. Speech on the Nabab of Arcot's debts, 28th Feb. 1785.

7051

TO MR. CANNING,

THE PRESENT TREASURER OF THE NAVY. LETTER II.

Sig.In restuning the discussion, be guy in the foregoing Letter (p. 689), we must bear in mind, that the cause, whence I was induced to address you, was, a threat against all persons concerned in conducting the Press of this country, bidding the Editors thereof to "take notice and receive warning, that a great change has now taken place in the * system of forbearance hitherto adhered to, and declaring that a new era has now begun" which threat was conveyed to the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[706

mencement of the new æra," announced in the Oracle? But, to prevent this," a very important step is previously necessary; to wit; to prevent the printing and publishing of those speeches'; for, unless that were done, to prevent the printing and publishing of comments on the speeches would be to make every member of parliament a licenced libeller. A man would, in such case, have nothing to do but to obtain a seat for a few days, just long enough to give him time to make three or four motions and speeches, and he might, with perfect impunity, send forth, all over the world, and put upon record for ever,

public in a printed paper, in the Cracle, pur-charges of the most infamous nature against

porting to be a speech delivered by you, in the House of Commons, on the 2d instant. The author, or publisher, of the several articles, of which the last-mentioned was the nust remarkable, having stated, as the ground of the threat, that Mr. Grey and other gentlemen of the Opposition had complained of the publication of a libel on the House of Comarons, it behoves us, as was proposed in p. 684, to inquire into the nature and tendency of the libel, published in the Oracle and complained of by Mr. Grey, compared with publications in general touching upon the proceedings in parliament; whence we shall be able to judge of the propriety and derency of proclaiming the commencement of a new rd," merely because the publisher of that he had been brought, before the House, imprisoned a few days in the chambers of Westminster Hall, and then released with a reprimand from the Speaker.

It is hardly intended, in this "new æra,”, entirely to prevent the press from comment-. ing upon the proceedings in parliament; because such prevention would, of course, exten to all the bills introduced and all the arts passed; and, if the press must not make resentations of the evil tendency of bills and acts, to boast of the liberty of the press, to call that liberty the palladium of "free taen," is only to expose ourselves to ridicule and contempt. Is it the speeches, which We are not to comment upon, affer the com

every one, whose reputation he might wish to destroy. Am I told, that a person so defamed would have the law to avenge him? Avenge him on whom, and how? On the printer and publisher, not on the maker of the speech, who is protected from all inquiries as to what he may say in parliament.. And, how is such injured person to be avenged? Will the punishment of the printer and publisher avenge him? Will that afford him redress? Will that destroy the effect of the defamation? Where, then, is he, in such case, to seek for protection to his character, except through the same channel, which has conveyed to the world the libel against him? Yet, if the doctrine, that it is unlawful to comment upon speeches of members of parliament, be maintained, if this be the doctrine to be adhered to in the "new ara," a person so defamed must not make use of the press even to defend his character, because, in the case supposed (und-such cases have frèquently arisen), he could not do it without commenting on the speech of a member of parliament. But, why seek any case other than that now before us? Mr. Stuart is ins stted to pablish an 'infamous libel on the House of Commons; complaint is made against him by the members of the Oppos tion; he is imprisoned and reprimanded, and, because of it, he,, under the form of a speech of yours, most crossly irults the cont ductors of all the public prints in England;

bidding them, and that, too, in the most assuming and offensive manner, to "take no"tice and receive warning" of the cessation of forbearance, and of the commencement of new æra." And, merely because this threat is published as the speech of a member of parliament, must none of us, the parties threatened, comment upon it? Must we hang our heads, slink about as if we were guilty, seeming to acknowledge that we exercise our profession, and even that we wear our ears, by mere indulgence? Do I, then, contend for the right of calling members of parliament, to an account for what they say in their places, of criticising every word that drops from their lips, and thus preventing them from freely speaking their minds? No such 'thing. It is not what they say in their places, but what is printed and published under their names, that I claim the right to comment on, to criticise, to praise, to ridicule, or to censure. Am I told, that such publications are neither made nor authorized by the persons, under whose names they ppear? Sometimes they are not. But that circumstance can have no weight. The pub*lication is made, and, being made, I may, without at all offending against the privilege of parliament, make on it any remarks that I choose. Will it be said, that, then, two conductors of public papers, one by publishing a report of the speeches, and the other by commenting on them, when reported, may, with impunity, represent as fools or knaves, any of the members of parliament, against whom they may, for whatever rea sons, choose to combine their mischievous talents? Not with impunity, Sir. No; the parliament as a body, and its members individually, have, at all times, in their hands ample powers for the prevention of such attacks upon them. They, or either of them, can, in the first place, prevent their speeches from being heard by any persons but themselves; if they indulge us with the hearing, they can prevent us from taking down their speeches; and, they can punish, at their discretion, any one who publishes a report of any speech or speeches delivered in either House. Is any thing more wanted to preserve their proceedings from the rude touch of the press? They have only to enforce their own standing orders, and then no one can comment on their speeches, without becoming liable to punishment at their own discretion; but, while those orders are not enforced, while people are suffered to take down and to publish the speeches, and while the-means of taking them down, while admission to the gallery of the House of ComFanons, is sold, and sold, too, at a very high

price; while this is the case, shall we be forbidden to comment upon publications this produced, especially when we consider, that these publications frequently contain very vere animadversions upon individuals as well as upon bodies of men? The truth, is, that the speeches have, for so long a time, beer suffered to be taken down and published, that there is now little reason to suppose, that the practice will ever be put a stop to; and, the right of commenting upon what has been printed and published is so evident, that it is not likely it should ever be seriously called in question. The same rules, therefore, that are observed with respect to other publications will, of course, be observed with respect to comments upon proceedings in parliament. If they be neither seditious nor libellous, in the eye of the law, as that law is interpreted in other cases, they ought to be regarded as innocent; and if they be sedi tious or libellous, they ought to be regarded as criminal; the only difference being, that each House possesses, as it ought to possess, the right of inflicting immediate punishment, without having recourse to any other tribunal. Here, then, we come, Sir, to the point in view, namely, whether the libel published by Mr. Stuart, and inserted in p. 673, was, or was not, libellous, and whe ther it did, or did not, exhibit a wide departure from the practice which those who con duct the press of this country have generally observed with regard to the decisions of parlia ment as well as to the speeches, or imputed speeches, of its members. It was no ordinary measure, on which the writer in the Oraci was commenting: it was not on a regulation or law, the expediency or inexpediency of which had become matter of dispute; it was a decision upon a most important subject, a solemn décision of the House of Commons, and that, too, let it be remembered, in the judicial capacity of that House. The majo rity of the House were termed " intempertie judges;" their decision was called a presumptuous" one, "directed and eft

[ocr errors]

* This circumstance is not introduced for the purpose of swelling out an enumeration. I am ready to prove the fact I here allude to I am ready to prove, not only that the doorkeepers of the House of Commons take money for admitting persons into the gal lery, but, that they demand money for such admission, and that they turn persons duty who refuse to come up to their demands. Whether these practices be sanctioned by, or known to, the superiors of these door-keepers, I know not, but of their existence Lam cer« tain, and am ready to produce proof.

« PreviousContinue »