HC Deb 29 April 1805 vol 4 cc484-92
The Chancellor of the Exchequer

moved the reading the act appointing the commissioners of naval enquiry, and the act being read accordingly, the right hon. gent. rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill for the further continuance of that act for a time to be limited. In a former part of the sessions, he observed, that it was his intention to bring forward this motion, if it should appear that the commission of naval enquiry should be unable in the course of the sessions to fully discharge the duty assigned to them on their original appointment. This inability was now apparent, as several objects still remained for investigation which would necessarily occupy much time. It therefore became proper to prolong their continuance. With respect to the conduct and character of this commission, he was as willing as any man to admit, that it had produced much useful and important information. At the same time, however, he would say, that there were several parts of the conduct of this commission of which he could not approve, but still their investigation had been productive of many results that would conduce to the public service, and on this ground he felt it his duty to submit this motion.—The motion being put,

Mr. Whitbread

thought it extraordi- nary that the right hon. gent. should select the very time he was moving for leave to bring in a bill to prolong the existence et the naval commission, in order to cast a slur upon the conduct of that commission. Such a reflection from any man in the house would excite surprise, but from the right hon. gent. on such an occasion too, it must he peculiarly surprising. Not only that he was quite sure it was decidedly opposite to the general opinion of that house, and the universally received sentiment of the country, that those commissioners were in any part of their conduct deserving of censure. So far from it, that there could be no doubt that the public feeling was warmly in their favour, too much so indeed to afford any thing like a gracious reception to the right hon. gent.'s remarks. Those commissioners, in his judgment, and he believed there were very few who really differed from him, had discharged their duty with peculiar moderation and justice. If the right hon. gent. thought that they had in any instance deviated from that duty, or made an improper exercise of the power intrusted to them, it was incumbent on him to have stated it, and not to have dealt in loose insinuation. Persuaded of the merits of this commission, and that where the results of its enquiry were in any case imperfect, that imperfection did not proceed from any want of diligence or capacity on their part, but from a deficiency in the powers with which they were invested, he should move an amendment, the object of which would be to remove that deficiency. The first point upon which he would propose to extend the power of the commissioners, would be to compel public officers to furnish them with accounts or documents in such form as they might think proper to specify. Thus, no treasurer of the navy, or other public officer, or deputy, would be permitted to thwart or delay the proceedings of this meritorious commission. The next amendment he would submit would go to repeal or new-model the 5th clause, which appeared to have been so improperly made use of to prevent the full disclosure of public delinquency, and to protect delinquents. These effects, which were notorious, and which occasioned general regret, must impress the mind of every man who was really anxious for the success of this enquiry, with a strong conviction of the necessity for this amendment. No objection could be made to a further extension of the pow- ers of those commissioners from any apprehension that that power was likely to be abused; for against such an apprehension the discreet and moderate manner in which they had heretofore acted must afford sufficient security. According to the act, as it now stands, every person had, it seems, a right to decline to answer any question which he chose to think might tend to criminate himself. This afforded such a latitude as was calculated completely to defeat all enquiry, and he would appeal to the learned gent. on the other side (the attorney general), whether any man would be permitted in a court of law to decline answering a question merely upon his own conception that the answer might tend to criminate him. The practice, on the contrary, was, he apprehended, that if a man declined, upon such an allegation, to give an answer, the court was competent to say, that it did not appear likely the answer would produce such an effect, and that therefore the witness must answer. If, however, the answer should tend to criminate the witness, the common law would protect him against the consequences. Now, it was his wish to invest the naval commissioners with a discretion of the same nature as that possessed by the judges—that they should have the power of compelling reluctant witnesses to answer —that such witnesses should be protected by this act, not against the answer, but against the consequences of such answer. With this view the hon. gent. moved an amendment to the motion—that the word "amend" should be inserted after the word continued.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed upon the allusions which the hon. gent. had made to what he thought proper to call a slur thrown out by him upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. Surely the hon. gent. could not suppose that because he felt it his duty to bring forward this motion, that he was therefore divested of the liberty of speech, or that he was to be held out to the odium of that house or the country, because he had thought proper to animadvert upon the conduct of the naval commissioners. He certainly did think that those commissioners had in certain instances executed their powers in a very unbecoming manner. But still he was ready to say that their services were productive of public utility, and in consequence of that opinion he brought forward the motion before the house. With regard to the new provisions recommended by the hon. gent., he did not conceive that there were grounds for their adoption. They were at all events of such a nature as to require much deliberation, and therefore he should oppose their introduction into the original frame of the bill. If, however, they should appear upon future consideration to he necessary, it would be competent to the hon. gent. to propose them in a future stage, when there would be a better opportunity for discussing them, than on the present occasion; namely, in the shape of a motion for an instruction to the committee to receive such clause. Into the merits of these amendments he would for the present decline to enter at any length. But as to the last point respecting the 5th clause of the act as it stood, he would say, that it would appear to him a breach of common equity, and a most dangerous innovation upon the old constitutional practice, to oblige a man to criminate himself. It was such a proposition as he trusted the house would feel to be at least deserving of too much serious consideration, at once to give a sort of opinion by the adoption of the honourable gentleman's motion that such an amendment was necessary.

Mr. Fox

entirely concurred with his hon. friend in thinking the insinuation thrown out against the naval commissioners by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, a most extraordinary circumstance indeed, particularly when the time at which the right hon. gent. expressed his disapprobation was taken into view. If the ground of this disapprobation was of a serious and important nature, it was highly inconsistent in him to bring forward the motion before the house. For if the commissioners were deserving of such censure, how could the right hon. gent. reconcile it with a just sense of public duty, to propose the continuance of their power? But if, on the contrary, the grounds of the right hon. gent.'s disapprobation were of a trifling or comparatively unimportant nature, how strange was the opportunity chosen for declaring, it! There was something peculiarly remarkable in the conduct of the right hon. gent. respecting this commission. At such a time, what could he mean by alluding to trivial errors— Just hint a fault and hesitate dislike, Anxious to wound, and yet afraid to strike. Those two lines appeared to be quite appropriate to express the disposition of the right hon. gent., they seemed to be made for him. With respect to the proposition of his hon. friend, gentlemen would consider that the adoption of it would not go to bind the house to any subsidiary amendments that might be hereafter submitted. He merely proposed that as an amendment was obviously necessary in this act, that the original title of the bill should correspond with the desired object. If the amendments recommended by his hon. friend were calculated to entrench on the great and fundamental principles of common law, he would not, from any degree of regard or gratitude to the commissioners of naval enquiry, and no man respected them more than he did, be induced to assent to their adoption. He wished not that any man should be bound to criminate himself; but, in any act which had for its object to compel public officers to account for their conduct of the public money, he was very unwilling that a clause should exist, calculated to shelter any public officer from rendering such account, if he chose to decline it. At least, any officer who should avail himself of such a clause, and thus explicitly declare an apprehension of the discovery of his guilt, ought not to be allowed, for one moment afterwards, to retain his office. The case was different with respect to private individuals. But, when the public thought proper to appoint a commission to enquire into the conduct of its stewards or agents, was it to be borne that any one of such servants should refuse to answer the questions of such a commission; but, still more, was it tolerable that after such refusal he should remain in office? If a public officer were innocent, why should he wish to be silent, and, if he were guilty, why should the legislature protect him in his silence? He did not mean of course that any officer should be forced to furnish grounds of prosecution against himself, but that, if he persisted in that conduct which clearly implied a consciousness of delinquency, he should be dismissed from office. Gentlemen often appeared to forget the nature of these commissions. They were in fact, to be considered as the representatives of the public, examining the conduct of public servants. If a master were to appoint any person to enquire into the affairs of his family, and a servant were to refuse to answer such questions as might be put to him, from a fear of criminating himself, would such a servant be permitted to retain his place? Certainly not. Why, then, should a treasurer of the navy, or his clerk, or any other public servant, however high, he allowed to remain in office after refusing to answer to the agent of their master for the manner in which they had managed his concerns, particularly when their refusal betrayed a sense of guilt? Whether public officers should be compellable to answer such commissions or not, it ought, surely, in common sense and equity, be understood that a refusal to answer should be immediately followed by dismissal. If that were understood, then the refusal of the 5th clause would not be so essentially necessary, although still a provision to meet such a case as that of Mark Sprott would be called for. That person declined to answer, on the ground that he was not, being no public officer, compellable to answer questions under the act. So he was advised by the lawyers whom he consulted. Perhaps those lawyers were Bright, but whether or not, it was proper to extend and explain the powers of the commissioners so as to leave no room for doubt or cavil, and to enable them fully to execute the purpose of their appointment. The hon. member repeated, that it was desirable to be understood that such a commission as that under consideration was not to be viewed by public officers as a hostile court of enquiry, but as a representative of the public, to which they are as much obliged to account, as any servants are to the enquiry of their masters.

The Attorney-General

opposed the amendment. If it were adopted, he would put it to the consideration of the house how the bill was to be framed agreeable to its title, unless there was a private communication between the hon. gent. and his right hon. friend before the bill should be drawn up, and that the objections existing in the mind of his sight hon. friend against those amendments should be removed. If the objections prevailing against those amendments, which objections he himself felt strongly, should not be done away by future discussion, the house, if the amendment now proposed were acceded to, might be placed in the dilemma of having prefixed a title to a bill, with which the bill itself may prove to be inconsistent. It was manifest to him that it would be much better to postpone the adoption of a title to the bill, which would imply an alteration of the existing act, until that change itself should be determined on.

Mr. Sheridan

supported the amendment, and observed, that although he agreed with the right hon. gent. that this was not the proper stage for going into detail or discussion upon the nature of such amendments as might be necessary, yet he agreed with his hon. friend, that some amendments for the purpose of enlarging the powers of the board of naval enquiry were necessary, from the embarrassing impediments those commissioners had already experienced in the course of their proceedings. The right hon. gent.'s leading objections were directed against the suggestions of his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), for enabling the board to enforce answers to such interrogatories as they should deem necessary, from the witnesses brought before them, without having the objects of their enquiry defeated by pretences that those persons were not bound to answer interrogatories, tending to their own crimination. His hon. friend never meant, he was confident, to expose any man to the severity of criminal proceedings, in consequence of any testimony extorted from him by the authority of the commissioners; and the law of the land would protect him in such a case. The house, certainly, in appointing the board of commissioners for the purpose of naval enquiry, did not surrender any of its own privileges; neither did he conceive the house to have warranted any individual to direct his censures against the conduct of those commissioners which it had so highly approved: and before the right hon. gent. proceeded to direct such heavy censures against that board, it was incumbent upon him to have pointed out those parts of their conduct which called for his reprobation. He had himself given notice of an intention to move for the thanks of that house to the commissioners of naval enquiry, for that conduct which had already excited the universal gratitude of the country without doors; and when he should have the honour of bringing that motion forward in a day or two, he should hope, if not for the concurrence of the right hon. gent., at least for some explanation of those parts of the conduct of the commissioners, which he had taken so untimely and unqualified an occasion to censure. The commissioners of enquiry had complained that their powers were defective, inasmuch as they had no power to enforce the answers to which his hon. friend alluded; and the right hon. gent. was all alarm, lest public officers should be placed in the liability of criminating their conduct, by telling the truth. It did not appear however, from the existing state of things, that self-crimination was much the order of the day But he would beg leave to ask the right hon. gent. if he was always so much alive to constitutional feelings on this point or whether he had forgotten the bill introduced by himself into that house in 1785. for the express purpose of enquiring into abuses which had obtained in the fees of the public offices of government, by which bill, the commissioners appointed under it were invested with such powers as completely stripped all persons brought before them of those rights now so warmly and pertinaciously contended for by the right hon. gent.? Did the right hon. gent. on that occasion plead Magna Charta in support of his arguments, when he gave the most decided resistance to the admission of a clause moved by him (Mr. Sheridan), for the protection of persons aginst the extortion of answers tending to their own crimination? Did the right hon, gent. forget that the identical Mr. Trotter, of whose rights he was now so jealous, was, under the former bill, compelled to answer interrogatories similar to those which he had refused answering to the commissioners of naval enquiry? which circumstance is alluded to in the appendix to the tenth report. So far, however, from agreeing with the unqualified censures thrown by the right hon. gent. upon the commissioners of naval enquiry, he thought the house was bound to them by every sentiment of the most unlimited gratitude; and when he should have the honour of calling for the expression of that gratitude, by a motion of thanks, he should frame his motion, so as either to make it impossible for the right hon. gent. to dissent from him, or compel him to shew some reasonable cause for his dissent. He agreed with the right hon. and learned gent. that there was no very great likelihood of frequent or confidential intercourse between his hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread), and, the right hon. gent. who introduced the original motion. If, however, the right hon. gent. wished to have any suggestion as to the amendments which were deemed necessary in the bill, as by courtesy of the house he had the nomination of the committee to prepare and bring it in, perhaps he would act wisely in nominating on that committee his hon. friend. and some of those near him.

Mr. Rose

perfectly coincided with the motives. of his right hon. friend, in opposing the amendment; though he had been a decided friend to enquiries, of this kind, ever since be had the honour of a seat in parliament—[a laugh]. Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased, but he would boldly look them in the face, and say, without fear of refutation, that there was not amongst them one who was more disposed than he had ever been to the strietest economy in every branch of the public expenditure. He well remembered the bill alluded to, and how warmly it was opposed, as well by an hon. member unfortunately no more, as by the last and preceding hon. members who spoke, but who were this night such strenuous advocates for opposite principles. It was felt on that occasion, that it would be necessary to examine many public officers long in the habit of taking large sums of the public money, and who would never be induced to answer interrogatories, if not compelled to it. It was then objected from the other side of the house, that it 'was unconstitutional to force men to answers that would criminate themselves, and expose them to prosecutions, and that a particular clause was necessary to guard against such consequences; but the introduction of such a clause was resisted by his right hon. friend, upon the ground that the law of the land gave ample protection in such cases, and rendered such a clause wholly needless.

Mr. Banker

supported the amendment, because it was obvious, from the complaints of the naval commissioners, that their powers were defective, and their enquiries, therefore, in many instances, inefficient; but this defect might not arise from any imperfection in the act itself, or in its construction by the commissioners, If, upon due investigation in the proper stage of discussing the bill, an amendment should appear necessary, he should support it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer,

in answer to what had fallen from Mr. Sheridan, respecting his bill of 1785, said, if hon. gentlemen would take the trouble of referring to the bill itself, they would find it contained no one of the obnoxious or unconstitutional principles which the hon. member had thought fit to impute to it. —The question was then put on Mr. Whitbread's amendment, and negatived without a division; and the original motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried.