HC Deb 27 April 1809 vol 14 cc262-6
Mr. Eden

rose to move for certain Papers relating to Mr. Frere's mission. After some preliminary observations, he stated, that Mr. Frere had written to sir J. Moore on the 23d of November, advising him to advance with his army. In answer to this letter of Mr. Frere's, sir J. Moore writes "I last night received a letter from the Supreme Junta. I have commanded sir David Baird to march back to Astorga, and have stopped the preparations for retreating." And this, it appeared, had been done at a period when there could, in fact, be no prospect of the British army being able to exert itself with effect. At this juncture, two persons (Thomas de Morla and the duke del Castell Franco) calling themselves the Supreme Junta, wrote a letter to sir J. Moore, dated the 1st of December, in which they stated, that they were much threatened by the enemy, that Castanos, with 25,000 men, and another army of 10,000 were falling back, and that they hoped he (sir John Moore) would fall back, and unite with their force. It had since appeared, that on the very day on which that letter was written, Morla had an interview with the French commanders; three days after from his conduct it should appear he considered all resistance as useless, and on the 5th (the day on which sir John Moore received the letter) the French were in quiet possession of Madrid. If it had been the wish of Morla to decoy the British army into the power of the French, he could not have wished for an instrument more likely to forward his wishes than the letter which had been written to sir John Moore by Mr. Frere. And the subsequent conduct of Morla was such as to justify a suspicion that that was the fact. The situation of sir John Moore at that period was truly distressing: he found himself at the head of a British army in a foreign country, placed in such circumstances (though no fault of his) that he could not be cheered with any reasonable prospect of success He knew the extravagant notions of Spanish enthusiasm that at that time so generally pervaded this country, and was aware of the censure he must, in all probability, incur if he consulted the safety of his army, by quitting the country without making any further effort in the cause. Yet happily superior to all these afflicting reflections, the gallant general determined to brave the transient obloquy that menaced him, by preserving his men. To this resolve we might attribute his avoiding the snare; but though the whole of his army were not decoyed into the power of the French, the disastrous battle of Corunna might be ascribed to the circumstances he had spoken of. The right hon. Secretary opposite certainly could not mean to say, at a time when Mr. Frere was so confident of the success of the Spanish cause, when he was so confident in the soundness of his own judgment, that, he in a manner superseded the commanding officer, in a case which involved the fate of the finest body of troops that had ever sailed from England, that he never wrote in explanation of his conduct; it could not be supposed that he had failed to communicate to government his reasons for acting as he did, and if such an explanation had been transmitted, it was highly proper that it should be produced. The hon. gent. concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house, a copy of the Letter from the Junta at Madrid, referred to by lieut.-gen sir John Moore in his letter to the right hon. John Hookham Frere, dated Salamanca, 6th December 1808, and any information of which his majesty's government may be in possession relative thereto, or relative to the two Letters of the right hon. John Hookham Frere to sir John Moore, dated Talavera de la Reyna, the 3d of December 1808, and to the message which is stated to have accompanied those Letters."

Mr. Secretary Canning

had already communicated to the hon. gent, that it was impossible to comply with his motion, because government had no such papers as he had moved for to produce. He left the house to judge of the candour of the hon. gent. under these circumstances, who seemed to have taken this occasion to throw out insinuations against Mr. Frere before the time for discussing the subject altogether had arrived. He had heard this with feelings which he would not trust himself to express. When the proper moment came he would endeavour to discharge his public duties and those of private friendship. He was surprised the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Tierney) had not called the hon. gent. to order when he was reading the extract from the letter of the Junta; he who had on a former occasion made so much noise about garbled extracts. That letter, however, was not in the possession of government; and as to the other part of the motion, all the communications of Mr. Frere on the subject were on the table.

Mr. Tierney

observed, that the offence of his hon. friend had not deserved the wrath of the right honourable secretary. It was extremely proper to move for these papers, and to state the grounds of the motion, even though government had them not to produce; for it was very important to know that there were no such documents; and this fact did not operate much in favour of Mr. Frere. As to his calling his hon. friend to order, the right hon. gent. ought to be aware that there was a difference between reading an extract of a letter in moving for a paper, and the production of garbled extracts to form a foundation for a vote of the house. This was what they had complained of; for a Secretary of State might by this means give any complexion to the documents that would best suit his own purposes.

Mr. Canning

stated that Mr. Frere had accompanied the Junta when they left Madrid, and could have known nothing of Charmilly, or the letter of Morla, had it not been that the Junta stopped at Talavera de la Reyna, on their way to Seville. Here Charmilly found him, when on his way to sir John Moore, with a direct communication, never intended to be forwarded through Mr. Frere.

Lord H. Petty

did not know whether the right hon. gent. had attended to the extent of his hon. friend's motion. He wished he would state whether there was any communication from Mr. Frere relative to the two letters which he had sent to sir John Moore, and which had been received by him when Charmilly arrived?

Mr. Canning

did not know of any.

Lord Castlereagh

said, there were no documents at his office on the subject, cither from Mr. Frere or sir John Moore. He wished to correct a mistake, which, he understood, to have prevailed. It had been said, that Charmilly went to Spain recommended by him. There was no foundation for the report. Charmilly had applied to him to be sent, but he had told him that he did not know of any service in which he would be wanted, and he really never knew that the gentleman was in Spain till the mention of this transaction.

Mr. Whitbread

would reserve what he had to say on the subject of Mr. Frere's conduct till the proper time, but he supposed the right hon. secretary could not expect that any one would be prevented from saying of Mr. Frere whatever he would have said if he had not had the protection of the right hon. gent.'s friendship. There were two important facts, however, ascertained by this discussion; first, that Charmilly was the messenger to sir John Moore; and next, that the noble lord (Castlereagh) was still in office, in the face of a minority of 167. Many greater men had been driven out by a less formidable minority. But while the sturdy oak was rooted up by the storm, the pliant bulrush bent its head and recovered the shock.

Lord Castlereagh

said, that he certainly was not disposed to retire on any suggestion of the hon. gent. As to Charmilly's being the messenger alluded to, he did not officially know any thing about the matter.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the majority of the house had voted that there was no reason why his noble friend should retire, and that the judgment of the house was to be regulated by its majority, and not by the minority.

General Tarleton

observed, that what had been applied to Buonaparté might, with the alteration of a word, be applied to the noble lord. Buonaparté had been called the child and champion of Jacobinism: The noble lord was the child and champion of office. In order to shew how utterly unworthy of any trust or credit Charmilly was, he stated that he had refused to pay to a Mr. Devereux some money which he had lost to him at play, upon the pretence that he was a ruined man; although as had been afterwards ascertained, he certainly had the means of paying.

Mr. Yorke

called the hon. general to order, on the ground that this had nothing to do with the question.

The Speaker

said that it was difficult to know precisely, in some cases, the exact limits of order. The gallant general would use his own discretion.

General Tarleton

proceeded. It appeared that this colonel Charmilly, had been the bearer of the dispatch to sir J. Moore; he therefore came before the house in that kind of military diplomatic character. Now when this colonel Charmilly was charged with his conduct to Mr. Devereux, what did he do? Why, simply denied ever having played with Mr. D. at all. The business was not proceeded in, owing to the interference of a very respectable man, the Compte de Vandreuil, who represented the total ruin in which it must involve colonel Charmilly. Such was the man whom Mr. Frere chose to authorise to interfere with sir John Moore!

Mr. Whitbread and Mr. Canning mutually explained; after which the motion was put and negatived without a division.

Forward to