Sitting of 19 February 1810

PRISONS IN IRELAND.
On the motion of Mr. W. Pole a correspondence was ordered to be laid before the House, respecting the state of the Irish prisons, which correspondence Mr. Pole immediately presented.
Mr. W. Polethen rose to make his promised motion on the state of the prisons and on the prison laws of Ireland. He observed that the report of the commissioners who had been appointed to investigate this subject, sufficiently shewed the lamentable state of the prisons in Dublin. It was shocking to humanity, that the evils detailed in that report had so long been permitted to exist without any steps having been taken to remove them. A considerable part of those evils originated in the crouded state of the prisons; a circumstance which arose from the accumulation in them of persons sentenced to transportation, but whom it had been found impossible to send to Botany Bay. By the correspondence just laid upon the table, it would however appear, that since the report to which he alluded had been made, the condition of the prisoners had been considerably ameliorated. The prison laws of Ireland were contained in 14 acts of parliament. It had been thought advisable to compress these into one. The subject had been referred to the consideration of the great law officers, and particularly to the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench, in Dublin, who was at present engaged in digesting a system of prison law, for the purpose of its being introduced into the bill, which he hoped the House would allow him to bring in. He concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the laws respecting prisons in Ireland, for the purpose of reenacting several of them, with amendments.
Mr. Fosterseconded the motion.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldhad intended to take up the subject, but he was glad that it would now be done more effectually: particularly as the chief justice had made the digest, that eminent individual being no less distinguished for his humanity than his legal knowledge. A penitentiary for prisoners merely he approved; but, he hoped, it was not intended as a prelude to the establishment there of the poor laws of England, than which nothing could be more injurious to all ranks of people in

469
Ireland. Leave was then given to bring in the bill.

ABUSES IN THE ADMIRALTY COURT.
Lord Cochranerose, pursuant to notice, to move for several papers, with a view to expose abuses prevalent in the Admiralty Court. The proposition he was about to submit would be found worthy of the most serious attention of the House. Had the navy alone been concerned, he believed he should not have obtruded himself upon the House, as he might be considered as a person interested. The habits of his life would have prevented him from coming forward, except in cases where, he thought, the interests of his country were deeply involved; as there were many others more acquainted with the mode of conducting business in that House, to whom ordinary subjects might be left. But there were cases in which it was the duly of every man to come forward, and such a case he conceived the present to be. The interests, the dearest interests of his country, he considered as most materially involved in the event of the proposition he was about to bring forward. If the papers he intended to move for should be granted he would expose a system of abuse unparalleled in this country, beyond any thing that existed in Spain, under the administration of the Prince of Peace. Whether the subject was considered with a view to the saving of the sums of which the public was pilfered; or with a view to the better performance of the duty: whether with a view to the destruction of the commerce carried on to so large an extent on the enemy's coast; or with a view to the encouragement and security of our own trade: whether with a view to the termination of the war by distressing the enemy; or to the terms on which we should be enabled to conclude a peace. In all these points of view this was a matter of primary importance; for in all these repects were the abuses of the Admiralty of the most injurious description. His lordship complained heavily of the monopoly of practice, which was in itself a principal abuse, and the cause of others, and maintained, that an immense saving might be produced by the correction of this and other abuses in the Admiralty Court. There were other minor abuses, which called for the attention of the House, by which the seamen of Greenwich Hospital were defrauded of their just claims. The droits of the Admiralty had been sometimes compromised for comparatively
470
small sums; and he mentioned an instance in which 32,000 l. was given up in this way to a person at Liverpool, for 1,053 l. This must have been by open injustice, or by favouritism; for he did not know of any law which authorised the Admiralty to compromise in this manner, where the interests of Greenwich Hospital and the captors were concerned. There was another abuse, which called loudly for a remedy. The captors were absolutely compelled to pay sums for the condemnation of vessels. This was the way in which they were often rewarded for their vigilance and valour. These things might be denied by the gentlemen on the other side, but they could not be disproved. He promised to prove them true, if the documents should be granted. It was not by denials of this kind, that these things were to be got over. Every man in that House was bound to decide upon his own judgment, and not on that of another; and he saw no reason to believe that there would be any more difficulty in counting the ayes and noes, if every one were to decide for himself, than there would be if gentlemen were to follow a leader. Could it be considered as at all consistent with common justice, that the whole navy of England should be obliged to employ a single individual to carry on its business before the Admiralty Court? A person, perhaps, in whose competency they might have no confidence; but allowing ability and integrity to be unquestionable, still the thing was preposterous. How would the gentleman on one side like to be obliged to employ an attorney, who, at the same time did business for the other side? Was this consistent with equity or common sense? The personal liberty of the officers of the navy were answerable for some seizures, the produce of which went, notwithstanding, to the crown, and the most abominable compromises sometimes took place. Whether the profits of these compromises found their way into the pockets of any particular individual, he was not absolutely sure, but he thought he had evidence to shew this to be the fact. He could not conceive what could be the design of confining the captors to one proctor, except that the secrecy so suited to these transactions, might thereby be better preserved. Vessels were sometimes condemned for the captors, upon their paying a sum commanded by the Admiralty Court, which ought not to have been condemned. There were other papers of great conse-

471
quence, beyond those of which he had given notice; and, if he could get these, he thought he could lay open a system of corruption such as never had been heard of, nor even conceived in this country—a sink of abuse such as never existed in Spain, even under the infamous Godoy, who betrayed his king, and was the cause of his being dethroned, far less under the Supreme Junta, which ministers seemed to have no disinclination to vilify. He had been in habits of intimacy with some of the members of the Junta, and he could take upon himself to say, that they were, at least, equal in ability to the ministers who now governed this country, if government it might be called. (Hear, hear!) The documents which he would move for, would not rest the matter upon two or three blundering cases. His object was to expose the general system, and to prove that corruption was at the head of it. He pledged himself to prove that the navy was paralysed by this corrupt system. He would shew, that the most trifling vessels were condemned at an expence equal to that of the largest—that the condemnation of a fishing boat might be swelled up to the expence of condemning an Indiaman, and that, consequently, in many cases, the captors had no other immediate interest in condemning, except that of putting money into the pockets of the proctor. He adverted to an instance in which one Moses, Griffin, a Jew, an agent at one of the out-ports, had received two-thirds out of the produce of a vessel, the remaining third being the whole share distributed for admiral, captain, inferior officers, petty officers, seamen, and marines. He also adverted to a bill which had been brought in for establishing certain regulations in these proceedings, which was of no use whatever, but to bring more money into the Admiralty Court. Was it necessary to have 120 ships of the line in commission to blockade 23 ships of the enemy? Certainly not, if proper exertions were made. On this point an increase of pay would be of no use. To insure alacrity in harrassing the commerce and shipping of the enemy, the abuses of the Admiralty Court must be done away. Nothing else could be effectual. The navy ought to have the largest share of that which was produced by its vigilance and valour. This was the proper mode of proceeding, and no other would completely answer the purpose. His lordship
472
then mentioned, that he himself had captured 13 vessels laden with corn, for Barcelona, protected by two small ships of war, which were sunk. If he had taken these, and carried them into Malta, and got them condemned, he must have put his hand in his pocket and paid for it. Perhaps he spoke more warmly on this subject from the opportunities he had of being acquainted with these abuses—but not only the navy was injured by these abuses, but the country also. His lordship then adverted to a regulation, by which six privateers, if taken within three months of each other, were to be included in one libel for condemnation: a regulation perfectly futile, and a mere humbug upon the navy and the country. His lordship next stated, that the commerce of the enemy was carried on to an immense amount by our licences, which were an article of common sale in Hamburgh and other places. The enemy's ships were seen by hundreds, coasting along by means of these licences, in perfect security, and even filled the river Thames, contrary to the Navigation Act: thus raising sailors for Napoleon, to whose commerce and navy our ministers were the best friends. He concluded by moving for a Copy of the Agent's Accounts from the Registrar's Office, for a certain period, respecting a number of ships which his lordship specified; together with several other papers. He would call the attention of the House to the subject of Greenwich Hospital at another opportunity.
Sir W. Scottasked how the Court of Admiralty could possibly be answerable for such accounts of the agents? What ground could there be then for the indiscriminate charge made by the noble lord? And yet the contents of papers or accounts for which the Court of Admiralty could not be held responsible, had been the ground on which the noble lord founded all his invective. The noble lord was a prompt accuser. He had been an accuser not alone of individuals, but an accuser of courts of justice. He had, however, been an unfortunate accuser; and he (sir W. Scott) pledged himself, by all the credit which he might have obtained during the many years that he had sat in that House, that the noble lord would prove as unfortunate in this accusation as in any preceding one.
Mr. Rosewould assure the noble lord and the House, that no man was more dis-

473
posed than himself to agree to the production of any papers by which the interests of the Navy might be benefited. He was satisfied, however, that when the papers moved for should be produced, the conduct of the High Court of Admiralty would be found most unobjectionable. The noble lord had poured out a torrent of abuse most unprecedented on a motion for papers only, and before the House had the documents before them that could enable it to form a correct judgment upon the subject. This was a subject which he had investigated with a care and attention for which he supposed the noble lord would not give him credit. He had bestowed upon it many days and many nights, and he was convinced that if the noble lord were to succeed in throwing abroad into other hands the business which was now confined to the King's Proctor, he would extremely injure the interests of the Navy, depreciate the character of the country, unnecessarily annoy the neutral trader, and very much embarrass the British merchant. He defied the noble lord to find a single instance in which the charges made by the King's Proctor were higher than those which would have been made by any other Proctor in Doctors' Commons. As to Agents' accounts, it certainly did happen, that after those accounts were made up, Naval officers seldom took any trouble to examine them. Soon after he became Treasurer of the Navy, it had been strongly represented to him that many abuses existed in this respect. He had consequently inquired into the subject, and had had no less than 153 of these cases before him, nine of which were now before the Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, in consequence of the enormous charges which the accounts contained. In one case, the charges of an Agent at Portsmouth, who had 62,000 l. to distribute, amounted to 9,462 l. of which sum 1,200 l. was stated to be for postage! In another instance, 1,250 l. had been charged by an agent when not a shilling had been paid. Large sums too were kept in hand by these agents for many years, the accumulated interest of which was lost to the rightful owners. Feeling sensibly that the navy suffered deeply for want of somebody to look to their interests, he had after the last session of Parliament proposed that a person should be appointed for that purpose. He did not wish that a place should be created,
474
but a gentleman who had made the business his study having written to him, and having been very respectably recommended, particularly by two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, he had accepted that gentleman's services, and he was now going through the cases in the most satisfactory manner. With respect to the seamen, he (Mr. Rose) had completely succeeded in getting justice secured to them. Since the Act of the last session only one complaint had been made to him by a sailor of his having been cheated by his agent. A suit was in consequence instituted against the agent, and out of the penalty the sailor had got his money. In the investigation of the cases to which he alluded, although there were many exceptionable charges, the law charges were lower than those of the Proctors employed by privateers. He had read a pamphlet on the subject of the noble lord's speech, and he declared, that after making all possible inquiry, he was satisfied that not a single statement in that pamphlet was founded in truth. He regretted that the noble lord, instead of making a desultory complaint of abuse, had not put his finger on a single case where he would have found him (Mr. R.) as ready as himself to bring it under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Stephenrose to enter his protest against the speech of the noble lord. He would ask of the House whether it was proper, upon a mere motion for papers, to enter into a wide and unrestricted animadversion upon public characters, as if they were actually under an impeachment, without the regular institution of any charge against them, or any evidence which the accuser himself had taken the trouble to examine. If the noble lord was desirous of preferring a charge against the Court of Admiralty, he should have first maturely considered the nature of the allegation he was about to make, and of the information he should ask for, in order to elucidate the facts he had to urge. The papers for which the noble lord moved, would contain more matter than the whole Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Scheldt Expedition; and while these immense piles of information remained unread, the characters of public men might labour under the effects of this unprecedented attack. If he understood the noble lord right, he did not mean to pledge himself that the papers for which he had moved, would at all

475
bear him out in imputing any thing criminal to the Judge of the Admiralty Court, or any other person; yet if the papers were refused, in all probability their non-production would be quoted as a reason for his lordship being precluded from making good his assertions. The noble lord had allowed that he had not examined nor had time to examine them, and yet he built on them an accusation against the officers of the High Court of Admiralty of corruption, and a sacrifice of the interests of the navy. The papers were to be produced just to give a chance that there might, by extreme possibility, be something in them to justify the accusation. He (Mr. Stephen) would not affront the high characters so wantonly calumniated—characters respected, not alone by this country, but by the civilized world, for their talents and integrity—he would not affront such characters by becoming their apologist, in answer to such an attack as this. The noble lord was a distinguished ornament of his profession; for his part, he confessed that he would rather hear of him than hear him, and that he would rather read a report of his actions in his commander's letters in the gazette than a report of his speeches in the House of Commons or elsewhere in the columns of a newspaper. The House ought at all times to respect the liberty of speech; but the speech of the noble lord was completely an abuse of that liberty. He had got up, and in the most unqualified manner attacked the characters of individuals, declaring at the same time that he had not examined the sources which were to confirm his accusations. Much as the noble lord knew of the navy he could not believe that he appreciated the character of that gallant class of men justly, when he declared that if the fees of the Court of Admiralty were diminished the hundred sail of the line now employed might be reduced to forty, or when he intimated that they required any other stimulus to exertion than their sense of public duty. Adverting to the attack made by the noble lord upon a learned friend of his, who was judge of the Vice Court of Admiralty, at Malta, he defended the conduct of his learned friend, in the case alluded to, which Mr. S. was able from memory to explain. That judge had condemned the noble lord to pay costs, but under circumstances which justified such a sentence, and shewed the conduct of the learned judge to be as free from blame
476
as that of the other high and respectable characters who had incurred the censure of the noble lord.
Sir C. Polesaid, that amongst the charges promulgated in the book alluded to by the right hon. gent. on the opposite side of the House, it was positively asserted that 30 per cent. was charged for the condemnation of a prize; and also, that an officer commanding a frigate, who had taken a prize, and who had objected to pay this exorbitant demand, was told by the proctor, if he did not pay the sum demanded, the ship would be condemned as a droit of Admiralty to the King. When such charges as these went forth, it was highly important to the interests of the public, and he should therefore ask the House if it was not necessary the subject should be looked into, the papers produced, and the calumnies (if such they were) refuted? The King's proctor, in the case of Copenhagen, was first employed by the captors, who had sent in 200 sail of merchant vessels to the ports of England, previous to the commencement of hostilities, and in order to enable him to prove that the ships belonged to the enemy, all the necessary papers were transmitted. In the course of a few days however, hostilities commenced, and the property was declared to belong to the Danes, and in the course of three days, was given by the Admiralty Court to the King as a droit. Under such complicated circumstances, the argument that only one proctor should be employed, was ridiculous, as one man would be advocating the cause of two individuals, of opposite interests, at the same time. He hoped the noble lord would persevere in moving for the papers, but confine himself as much as possible to those documents which were most easily furnished, and most likely to attain the object he had in view.
Mr. Rosehad a proposition to make. Though he objected to the production of the papers relating to the whole of the ships named in the motion, if the noble lord would move for those relating to any one of them, he should have no objection to the motion, and he thought to bring forward any one case would be quite as fair, but less inconvenient, than the whole.
Sir J Nichols,alluding to the pamphlet that had been mentioned, said it contained gross and palpable misstatements. The emoluments of the King's advocate were therein stated to amount to from 25,000 l.

477
to 30,000 l. per annum. Such unfounded reports going abroad, could not fail to excite discontent among the people, and dissatisfaction in the navy. The whole of the emoluments of the King's advocate did not exceed 7,000 l. per annum; and a large portion of that did not arise from the navy, but from business for the crown relating to the excise, customs, &c. So that he thought he should be pretty nearly correct if he were to state the amount of his emoluments arising from the navy at 4,000 l. But if the income arising from matters relating to the navy were as great as the sum he had first named, it would hardly be thought too much, when it was considered that great abilities were necessary in the person holding the situation, when vigilance, assiduity, and method were requisite, and the most unremitting attention of mind, while at the same time a great responsibility was incurred. The gross misrepresentation in this instance contained in the book alluded to, was sufficient to enable them to form some judgment of the other parts of it and he could take upon himself to say, that in no instance did it approach so near to the truth as it did in that. The King's proctor received no emolument but what he officially received from the board. It was a singular circumstance, but not more singular than true, that his fees were actually less than they were in the American war. The charges of the King's proctor were not greater than those of any other proctor, and he did not think they ought to be; he ought to act with liberality; but, admitting his charges were exorbitant, the course the aggrieved party ought to pursue was obvious. Why not appeal to the judge? The omission to adopt this remedy was a pretty strong proof of the non-existence of the abuse. Government certainly ought at all events to indemnify those who captured the vessels.—He then went into a detail of the circumstances under which 30 per cent. was granted from the captors for the condemnation of prizes. A number of vessels had been detained. They were under Prussian colours, and no means were possessed of proving they belonged to the enemy, when a person abroad offered to prove that they did. The party was directed to appear with his documents to prove the fact. He did so, his proofs were satisfactory, and the vessels were condemned. He claimed an allowance of 30 per cent. for his services. It was thought advisable to keep on good terms with him,
478
at all events, as otherwise no further information could be expected fróm that quarter, his demand was complied with. How could they do better for the captors? had they not availed themselves of his services, they could not have gained for the captors the 70 per cent. they received, as they could not have proved that the vessels in question were not neutral bat enemy's property. Nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the navy itself, than permission to the captors of ships to choose their own proctor, and nothing could be more fatal to the commercial interests of the country. The judge advocate on such occasions had not the power of influencing or of keeping back evidence, nor had he an interest either way, It was no matter to him to whom the prizes were condemned. Lest the court should have an improper bias in favour of the Crown, the papers were given to the junior advocate, who, if his interference became necessary, spoke in behalf of the captors. He concluded by desiring the noble lord to look carefully over the documents relating to the subject, before he preferred a charge so serious against any one, as after being accused (however honourably the party might be acquitted) no character stood so high as before accusation.
Lord Cochrane,in reply, said he only wished the act of parliament on the subject to be complied with. If other proctors were as exorbitant in their demands as the king's, it was because their situation, in consequence of what the other exclusively enjoyed, obliged them to be so. The only way ministers had left to them to justify those he had accused was to shew that the charges he had brought forward were unfounded. He had taken 180 pipes of wine, for which he received 450 l. He bought in 16 of them, and paid 670 l. duty on them. If proper encouragement were given a much greater number of prizes would be sent in. At present the commerce of France was almost uninterrupted. The cause originated in the admiralty Court. Our navy cost us annually twenty millions. Six might be saved, and the commerce of France destroyed. He expected that the gentleman opposite would defend such abuses, but from their known abilities he expected they would defend them better than they did. The King's proctor did not receive less than 40,000 l. per annum: he did not think it right that he should receive more than the Speaker did for sitting in the chair of that House.

479
The noble lord then justified his conduct at Malta, and concluded by enforcing his former arguments.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,thought bringing forward one of the cases would answer every purpose. If there were a distinction of cases he could bring forward two. It would be better than encumbering the House with the whole. He was anxious the calumnies should be met and refuted, but wished the noble lord would seek better information than that contained in the book alluded to. As the falsehood of that work in some parts had been shewn, he hoped the noble lord would be careful what credit he gave to the rest of it.
Mr. Fremantlewas of opinion the noble lord would have done well to have corrected himself with respect to the income of the King's proctor. The noble lord had said it amounted to 40,000 l. a year if he inspected the report delivered into the Committee of Finance, he would find it did not exceed 7 or 8,000 l.
Lord Cochraneagreed to the proposition of the right hon. gent. and accordingly moved for documents relating to two of the vessels named in the original motion.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—J. DEAN.
Mr. Yorkerose to call the attention of the House to what he thought a gross violation of their privileges. If it should appear to the House as it did to him he was persuaded that no opposition would be made to his motion. Either those privileges existed, or they did not. If they did exist, it was the bounden duty of that House to defend them from those gross end wanton attacks, which not only invaded them but went in a great degree to question, whether they had such privileges or not. The attack, of which he now complained, was not a mere newspaper paragraph, it was a placard stuck upon the walls of the metropolis, challenging the eye of the passenger, and openly defying all consequences. A grosser breach of privilege than the matter contained in that placard, he could not readily imagine; but before he would read to the House the contents of that paper, which he then held in his hand, he could not help making one observation. If that House had privileges to maintain, he thought in his heart it was now high time to assert them. If that House should not take steps speedily to vindicate their privileges which were daily and hourly violated, they would be supposed not to possess them or to want spirit to assert them. He, though the authors of the
480
placard did him the honour of mentioning his name, was not influenced by personal considerations; and he felt confident, that the House would do him the justice to believe, that he was influenced, in the present instance, solely by a sense of public duty.—For the liberty that had been taken with his name, by these persons, he felt nothing but the most profound contempt.—The placard to which he alluded, was headed with the names of a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Windham), and himself. He must be at all times proud to have his name coupled with that of the right hon. gent. and so far he must acknowledge himself indebted to the authors of the paper in question. As to the objectionable matter contained in that paper, he should merely read it to the House, and leave it to their consideration without any comment. This same placard, which announced itself as the journal of a sort of speaking club, called "The British Forum," stated to the public, that "Last Monday, after an interesting discussion, it was unanimously decided, that the enforcement of the standing orders, by shutting out strangers from the gallery of the House of Commons, ought to be censured as an insiduous and ill-timed attack upon the liberty of the press, as tending to aggravate the discontents of the people, and to render their representatives objects of jealous suspicion." Here they had their most valued privileges attacked at once, their standing orders were censued, and they themselves were menaced; for the question upon the propriety of enforcing those orders had been recently before the House, and the propriety of that proceeding was confirmed by a very considerable majority. He had been bred up in those habits of veneration for the constitution, that he must of necessity revere the liberty of the press as one of the most efficient guardians of that constitution. But he thought that the liberty of the press had no more formidable enemy than the licentiousness of the press, and as a sincere and zealous advocate for the former, he trusted he should never be wanting in his efforts to punish and restrain the latter. His first proposition would he, to deliver in the paper at the table; next, that it should be read by the clerk, and that the clause in the Bill of Rights relative to the privilege of freedom of debate, should be also read; and lastly, he should move that the printer should be required to attend at the bar of

481
the House tomorrow. Mr. Yorke then delivered in the paper, which was read by the clerk, and was as follows:—
"WINDHAM AND YORKE. BRITISH FORUM, 33, BEDFORD-STREET, COVENT-GARDEN. MONDAY, FEB. 19, 1810. Question:—Which was a greater out-rage upon the public feeling, Mr. Yorke's enforcement of the standing order to exclude strangers from the House of Commons, on Mr. Windham's recent attack upon the liberty of the press? Last Monday" [for the rest of this clause "see the former part of Mr. Yorke's speech] "The great anxiety manifested by the public at this critical period to "become acquainted with the proceedings of the House of Commons, and to ascertain who were the authors and promoters of the late calamitous expedition to the Scheldt, together with the violent attacks made by Mr. Windham on the newspaper reporters (whom he represents as 'bankrupts, lottery office keepers, footmen, and decayed tradesmen,') have stirred up the public feeling, and excited universal attention. The present question is therefore brought forward as a comparative inquiry, and may be justly expected to furnish a con-tested and interesting debate. Printed by J. Dean, 57, Wardour-street." Mr. Yorke next moved, that that clause of the bill of rights, affecting privilege of speech in that House, be now read. It was read accordingly, stating, in substance, that the speeches or debates of members in that House, ought not to be impeached or questioned by any authority or in any place out of that House.—Mr. Yorke then moved, that J. Dean, printer, 57 Wardour-street, do attend at the bar of that House, tomorrow.—Ordered.

EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.
The order of the day being moved, for going into a Committee of inquiry respecting the Expedition to the Scheldt.
Lord Folkestonestrongly recommended the propriety of devising some means to promote dispatch in the progress of this inquiry. From the length of time to which it had already extended, and from the manner in which it languished, he was really at a loss to calculate upon the period of its termination, unless there should be considerably more of diligence and activity employed than had yet appeared; unless more of the time of the House were devoted to it. With this view he would propose that the enquiry should take pre-
482
cedency of all notices of motion, or that the House should proceed upon this inquiry at an earlier hour of the day than that at which they usually commenced business. The latter course he would himself be disposed to prefer. But there was a subject of much more consequence to which he thought it his duty, upon this occasion, to call the attention of the House. Amongst the papers on the table he found a most extraordinary letter referring to the matter of this inquiry. He confessed that when this letter was originally moved for, he felt strong doubt as to the regularity of the motion and the propriety of producing it, but upon further consideration, that doubt was removed, and he now had no hesitation in declaring his decided opinion, that it was such a document as that House ought not to receive or allow to remain on the table. For what did this paper purport to be—a Narrative of the Expedition to the Scheldt, signed by lord Chatham, and presented to his Majesty without the intervention of any responsible minister—There were therefore several points connected with this paper which appeared to demand explanation. How did the House know that it was a true copy of the document said to have been presented to his Majesty? Through what office had it passed; for it did not bear the signature of any official person; and by what accident did it come into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by whom it had been laid on the table? Another remarkable feature about it was this, that although it was two or three months ago announced in the newspapers, known, or supposed, to have some understanding with the ministry, that lord Chatham had presented a Narrative of this description to his Majesty; yet, the paper to which he now referred bore date only upon the 14th inst. But his main objection to this paper was of a constitutional character— Lord Chatham had, it appeared, not in his character of a peer, or privy counsellor, but, in that of a military commander, presented to the King in person, an account of his military, proceedings, although directed, under the sign manual, by which he was appointed, to make such communications through the proper officer, the Secretary of State, whom the constitution recognized. This account too, had been brought before that House in a most unconstitutional, irregular, and questionable shape. This paper seeming to have been presented to his Majesty in his private

483
closet, he could not know through what officer it found its way to that House. It might contain very important matter, and it might be proper to have it laid upon the table, but from the irregularity which he had remarked about it and in its mode of introduction to that House, he thought it right to submit his opinion to the consideration of the House.
Mr. Canningapprehended, if he was correct in what he had collected from the noble lord's statement, that the paper to which the noble lord referred was not presented through any official minister, but personally to his Majesty. If so, it was a question well worthy of grave and deliberate consideration, whether the objection applying to the form in which the paper was brought before that House, was not such as could not be removed, or qualified by the substance of that paper, whatever that substance might be. He should suppose that all orders from that House, relative to public documents, were addressed to some responsible minister, who was officially answerable for their production; and that all papers of the nature of that under consideration were generally presented to his Majesty through some responsible minister. Great inconveniences, indeed, must obviously result from a different course. But the error, in point of form, with respect to the production of this paper to that House, might, he thought, be easily corrected. To avoid going into any mixed consideration of the form objected to, and the substance of this paper, the simple course was, to correct the form before the paper was read. That course was by withdrawing the paper, and presenting it in a regular way, stating whether the document, of which it purported to be a copy, was presented to his Majesty by the Secretary of State for the war department, or by the noble lord whose signature it bore; and in what capacity, whether as a cabinet minister, or as the Commander in Chief of the Expedition of which it professed to be a Narrative. This line of conduct he humbly submitted to the consideration of the House, as in his judgment, their becoming acquainted with the contents of the paper might, instead of simplifying, tend to make the business more complex than it would otherwise be. The course he proposed appeared therefore to him to be a simple remedy by which they might avoid inconveniences of considerable magnitude.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercon-
484
curred with his right hon. friend who spoke last, as to the propriety of avoiding any mixture of the form and substance of this paper. It was rather unfortunate, however, he observed, that the doubts urged on this occasion had not been mentioned at the time this paper was moved for, in order to its being laid on the table. Notice was regularly given of the intention to move for it; and at the time of the notice, as well as on the bringing forward of the motion, the nature of the paper was fully described; and at neither period did any of those objections occur which were now pressed, and pressed rather too late in his judgment. As to the manner in which he had obtained this paper, he would state shortly. In compliance with the order of that House, to which, of course, it was his duty to attend, he instituted an inquiry as to where this paper was, and found it to be in the hands of the Secretary of State for the war department, lord Liverpool, to whom it was delivered by his Majesty. From lord Liverpool he received the copy which he had laid on the table, and so far he felt himself answerable for its production.
Mr. Canningagreed with his right hon. friend, that the objection applying to form upon this subject would have been more in time if brought forward before, adding, that he remembered it to have been in contemplation, before he resigned his place in the cabinet, to call upon the naval and military commanders for an account of the proceedings of the campaign. Therefore, the papers before the House being dated only upon the 14th instant, it was calculated to excite some surprize in his mind to see that account come so late.
General Lofthad no intention of taking the House by surprise, on the contrary, he had given notice of the motion for producing the paper.
The Paper was here read by the Clerk, it was entitled, "Copy of the Earl of "Chatham's Statement of his Proceedings, "dated 15th October, 1809: Presented to "the King, 14th February, 1810:" and will be found in the Appendix.
Lord Folkestonedeclared, that the objections which he felt to this paper, were considerably aggravated by a knowledge of its contents. It now appeared to be a special address from the commander of one part of the Expedition, appealing to the judgment of his Majesty without the intervention of any responsible minister,

485
and actually reflecting upon the conduct of his colleague in the command. He really did not know how the House should proceed to get rid of such a paper; but it seemed highly desirable that it should do so. To entertain such a document would be not only inconsistent with the constitution; but, in his opinion, with common justice. He was sorry the hon. member had called for its production, and he was sorry also that the right hon. gent. had produced it, because the paper had found its way to the royal presence in a most unconstitutional manner, and for which no minister was responsible. The noble lord would be glad to hear from the chair in what manner it could be disposed of.
Mr. Yorkethought the proper time for discussing the question would have been when the motion was made for referring the papers to the Committee. He could not see any objection to its being so referred. The noble lord had found fault with the manner in which the paper had been presented to the House, but he would ask, did not the House call for it by their unanimous vote? With respect to the manner in which the paper was conveyed to the royal presence, my lord Chatham, in his opinion, could not have done less than what he did, for at the time the paper was written, he believed there was no Secretary of State for the war department. (Hear! hear! from the Opposition side, and, What not on the 14th of February?) The right hon. gent. then admitted his mistake. But he would ask, what was there unconstitutional if the paper was presented in the regular way to the King by a cabinet minister, who was also Master General of Ordnance, and a peer of the realm? If ministers had laid the papers on the table uncalled for, then indeed gentlemen might talk of its being presented unconstitutionally (Hear! hear!) The right hon. gent. declared that he did not know what gentlemen meant by the exclamation of hear! hear! If they meant that he did not understand the constitution of his country, they were deceived. If they meant more, why then no expressions of scorn and disdain that he could use to repel such insinuations would be strong enough. (Hear! hear!)
Mr. Tierneydeclared, he must expect to come in for his share of his right hon. friend's scorn and disdain, for he certainly should contend, that not only was the paper introduced into the royal presence
486
unconstitutionally, but, as the House must have gathered from its contents, the character of the navy had been clandestinely undermined. He wished to know how it came into the possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? (From lord Liverpool's office, was the answer across the table.) Was, then, lord Liverpool the carrier of the paper? If so, degraded indeed was the situation to which the noble lord was reduced, and no terms could express sufficiently strong the humiliation of ministers. Had the paper in question been presented in the ordinary and constitutional mode, through the Secretary of State for the war department, with whom alone the noble earl was directed, by his instructions, to correspond, it would, no doubt, have been communicated, by ministers, to the first lord of the Admiralty, who would have felt it equally his duty to have communicated its contents to sir Richard Strachan, and have apprized him that he was to be inculpated by the commander in chief of the land part of the armament for the failure of the Expedition, and the gallant admiral would thus be enabled to justify his character and conduct to his Sovereign and his country. But this secret practice of poisoning the royal breast with doubts and suspicions of his most approved and zealous servants, while it deprived them of the knowledge, and, of course, the means of repelling them, merited, in his opinion, impeachment. He trusted that the paper, though objectionable, and, therefore, inadmissible for its present object, would be forthcoming on a future day for that purpose. For his part he had no proposition to offer upon the present occasion, but he trusted, the House would come to some resolution, conveying, in the strongest terms of censure, their disapprobation of the conduct of ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercontended, that there was no one circumstance connected with this paper for which there was not an adequate responsibility. If there was any thing culpable in the character or construction of the paper, was not lord Chatham responsible for it, and was not he himself responsible for the production of the copy to that House? Why then, what could be pointed out that was in any degree unconstitutional in the whole proceedings? Had not lord Chatham or any other individual a right to lay a paper before his Majesty? Nay, had not any peer or privy counsellor a right to

487
demand an audience of his Majesty? Then where was the unconstitutionallity complained of in this transaction? As to the allusion which the last speaker had thought proper to make to impeachment, that he regarded merely as a bye word. He could assure the right hon. gent. and others, that neither in that House, nor out, would such allusions tend in any degree to promote the object which they had in view, in prosecuting this inquiry.
Mr. Ponsonbywas decidedly of opinion, that the proceeding under discussion was extremely unconstitutional. (A laugh on the ministerial benches.) This laugh was perfectly natural from those who were every day in the habit of treating the constitution with contempt. But what could be conceived more unconstitutional or unfair, than that of a military commander going into the king's closet, without the knowledge of any minister, and presenting his majesty a paper justificatory of his own conduct, and criminatory of the conduct of his naval colleague? If such a paper had been in the regular way presented through a responsible minister, it would be by him, as was his duty, submitted to the consideration of his colleagues, who, if they did their duty, would not present it to his Majesty, at least, without apprizing sir Richard Strachan of its contents, and affording him an opportunity to defend himself. What, he would ask, was the course likely to be pursued by the first lord of the admiralty upon such a consultation? He hoped that no man on either side of the House could have a doubt that lord Mulgrave would have immediately communicated with sir Richard Strachan upon the subject of such a paper. If, then, the present case was to serve as a precedent, every man might do what lord Chatham had done, and there was an end of the responsibility of ministers. He submitted it to the wisdom of the Speaker, if any paper of this kind ought to go to the king, save through the constitutional organ? By the constitution, the king could not see a minister on his return from a foreign court, but in the presence of his secretary for foreign affairs; and he appealed to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) if an interview of that description had been advised, while he held the office, whether he would not have resigned? Why, then, should the commander of an expedition on his return have the privilege of going into his Majesty's closet secretly to asperse the character of
488
the other officers associated with him in the expedition? Why should he communicate with his Majesty upon such a subject but through the constitutional channel, the office of the secretary of state: But it was said his Majesty had delivered the narrative to lord Liverpool. He would presume that his Majesty had read and formed an opinion on it. His cabinet might hold an opinion directly the reverse, either that the army or that the navy was to blame. What, then, would be the consequence, if the cabinet had to advise their sovereign directly against the opinion they knew he had formed? What became of that respect to his Majesty; that decency and attention prescribed by the constitution? The order of the House was also urged. But it did not follow that they, when they made that order, understood that the paper was presented in any other but the ordinary constitutional way, through the Secretary of State, or the Commander in Chief. At any rate, it was not fair to bind the House down to what, on consideration, they found to be pregnant with mischief. On most important points, they rescinded their orders, when they saw that evil consequences would result from them, not at first contemplated. He had no resolution ready to submit, but humbly referred to the Speaker to say, whether this matter was conformable to the constitution and usages of parliament.
Mr. Secretary Ryderdid not think the matter of sufficient importance, to call on the Speaker for a decision, which only seemed to be the forlorn hope of gentlemen, who found their arguments could not bear them out in what they wished. It was impossible to ground a single constitutional argument on their view of the case; and if statements against the navy were contained in the narrative, the navy might gainsay them by a counter statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained. He was prepared to declare himself responsible, that this was the paper called for by the House.
Mr. Windhamsuggested that there were two distinct questions involved in the present discussion: the one was, the contents of the paper now before them, with which he apprehended they had for the present nothing to do, though the time he trusted was not far distant, when they would form the subject of their most serious consideration; the other, with which alone he conceived they had to do at present, was the

489
mode and form in which this paper came before them. This he did not hesitate to say was wholly repugnant to every practice which past experience and the principles of the constitution would be found to warrant; for instance, they knew by what means the paper had come to them from the king; but could they say who was the author, by what organ, or through what channel, it had reached the royal presence. Suppose, upon the first part of the case, they should come to the resolution of impeaching lord Chatham as the supposed author, with what testimony, and upon what evidence, could they support their charge at the bar of the House of Lords? The paper appeared on the face of it to be unofficial, and to have been delivered privately into the king's closet, and they could neither constitutionally, nor with decency, look for evidence from that august quarter. Who, then, should say that the noble earl was neither the author nor deliverer of the paper? If it were to be found deserving of censure, it would be said the noble lord was that night to be examined at their bar, and the difficulty could be solved by asking him the question. But what if his lordship refused to be examined? The fact was, they were now called upon to decide upon the admissibility of the paper upon the evidence now before them; and he contended, it came in so questionable a shape, so contrary to every precedent and practice grounded on the principles of the constitution, that the House was bound not merely to reject, but to censure it.
Mr. Whitbreadand lord Cochrane rose at the same time.
Mr. Whitbreadwas anxious to speak before the noble lord, whose feelings, as a naval man, must be much agitated by what they had heard. He understood from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) that he, while in his Majesty's service, had suggested a call on lord Chatham, for a narrative of the Expedition. This would have been the proper course; but it was evident the idea had not been persevered in. Upon the face of the paper, it appeared to him that there was not only a condemnation of ministers, but of the noble lord himself. Now was the communication of the noble lord known, or unknown, to ministers? It must have been unknown. It was written in October, and presented in February; between which dates an Address had been presented to his Majesty,
490
from the City of London, to which his Majesty was advised to answer, that he judged no inquiry necessary—Lord Chatham could not have been consulted as a minister upon this answer, for he must have said, that inquiry into the naval part of the Expedition, at least, was necessary.—How, then, did he stand as one of his Majesty's responsible advisers? If ministers did not know of this communication, then they deserved impeachment for advising such an answer to the metropolis of the empire. If they did know of it, and lord Chatham was a party to that answer, then his conduct was reprehensible in the extreme. It was said the navy might gainsay any accusation against them. How could they gainsay this private poison secretly instilled into the ear of their royal master?—The paper was moved for by a private friend of lord Chatham, and it did seem as if it was formed for the purpose to which it was applied, of throwing blame from lord Chatham upon sir R. Strachan and the navy. A right hon. gent. had said that every man might have access to his Majesty; why, then, was not the city of London admitted?—Lord Chatham, as a favourite, might do what others could not, and ministers might try to persuade that House of their responsibility, when they knew that the very way in which they got into power was by means of their irresponsibility. Did ministers know of this paper or not?—Did they know of this underhand accusation of Sir R. Strachan, who was called as a witness before them, without knowing that a paper containing insinuations against him, was lying in the king's closet? He was most ready to defer to the decision of the Speaker, but a question like this ought to be decided by the House itself. The right hon. gent. spoke lightly of impeachment; but if the House did not impeach him and his colleagues, then all their rights and privileges were, indeed, gone. The right hon. gent. accused them of envying him the possession of his place. "For all the gold, that human sinews, bought and sold, could ever earn," he would not be in his situation. They did, indeed, wish to turn him out, for the salvation of the country; but even out of office, he trusted punishment would follow him. The way in which the paper came before the king, was unconstitutional, and ministers were not responsible, as they ought to be.
Mr. Canningin explanation, said, that when he was in office, he understood a narrative was to be delivered to his Majesty, but that it was to comprehend both the military and navy; he assured the House it was not his suggestion.
Sir Home Pophamcould not help considering the contents of this paper as a direct reflection upon the Commander in Chief of the naval part of the Expedition, who, would, he was satisfied, be found fully able to vindicate his conduct. As to the change which had taken place in the original plan of attack upon Walcheren, he was enabled to state, that that change was determined upon at Deal, in consequence of information there obtained; and the determination, with the causes which recommended it, was communicated to lord Chatham, who fully approved of it. Therefore, if there was any blame imputable to the change, the noble lord must take his full share of it. The honourable officer dwelt upon the zeal, energy, and judgment displayed by Sir Richard Strachan, throughout the whole of the Expedition—upon his eagerness to consult, and his wishes to forward every suggestion of the noble earl from whom this statement proceeded. After such experience, he was surprised and sorry now to see the apple of discord thrown down. But neither the gallant admiral nor any member of the profession to which he had the honour to belong, could possibly allow such charges as this paper contained to pass unanswered or without the most scrupulous and comprehensive inquiry.
General Loftdisclaimed any intention, on the part of his noble friend (lord Chatham,) to reflect upon the navy, whose exertions he always applauded. But the Address referred to, his noble friend was impelled to present in consequence of the unfortunate letter from sir R. Strachan, dated the 27th August.
Mr. R. Dundasobserved, that it could not be unconstitutional for a minister to deliver a paper to his Majesty, or for a peer of the kingdom to go into the Royal closet. Lord Chatham was the only person responsible, and he could not shrink from that, as the House would make him so.
Mr. C. W. Wynncould not agree in the principle laid down by the right hon. gent. who last spoke, as to the responsibility of lord Chatham. If the House thought proper to impeach the noble lord, what evidence of the narrative could they pro-
492
duce to the House of Lords? The cases of lord Bristol, and that of the seven Bishops, were exactly in point; there the difficulty was found. And where the House, having those precedents before their eyes, going to put themselves in the same situation? The precedent in itself was dangerous, for it was laying down one for all general officers. The circumstances in themselves were ludicrous. Here was a minister, sent by the king's ministers, as Commander in Chief of the greatest Expedition ever sent out of the country, keeping up a correspondence with the king unknown to his ministry. As a minister he did not doubt his right of having an easy access to the royal ear, and of giving advice as to his department; but here it was different; for as Commander in Chief, he had no such right; but, contrary to all constitutional precedent, he delivered the narrative to his Majesty, hiding it from the secretary of state carefully. After using the most just and complimentary epithets on the excellent, upright, and impartial conduct of the Speaker, he concluded by saying, that there never was an occasion in which the House stood so much in want of his assistance, and called upon him to give his opinion.
Mr. Bathurstwas of opinion, on constitutional grounds, that the narrative should be put out of sight, or that it should lie dormant on the table; and when lord Chatham came as a witness before the Committee, let it be put in his hand, and if he identified it, the Committee could act upon it.
Sir John Ordwas sorry that the observations which he had heard that night, had been made use of, as they might tend to injure the reputation of officers, who were liable to be brought to court martial.
Mr. G. Johnstonesaid, as the paper was before them, it was expedient that they should take it into consideration; but the manner in which it came before them, was to be deplored, and he should for ever lament that it was called for at all.
The Speakerrose, and said, he trusted the House would not be surprised at his delay in giving his opinion; as to his right, it could not be doubted. He had kept back with the intention of forming and giving the best opinion his judgment and ability would allow. The motion of the hon. member, (general Loft) was correct. It had been the custom of that House to believe the averment of any

493
hon. member. There were precedents in the year 1776, when the House thought proper to call for a Memorial delivered to his Majesty, in his private closet, by an Imperial Resident. In that, as in the present case, his Majesty had graciously condescended to send, by the proper channel, one of his privy council, the paper asked for, to which the House was entitled to give full credit. On his first opening the narrative before them, he found the name of Chatham; yet he felt doubtful at first whether it ought to be received and acknowledged by that House on account of its not bearing the signature, of any of his Majesty's secretaries of state: but considering by whom it was presented, and knowing that he was accountable to that hon. House for its authenticity, he waved his doubts until he sent for some papers, which, on perusing, he found that lord North had presented several similar papers, and that he was considered prima facie accountable, a circumstance, which, in his opinion, left the House at full liberty to discuss the merits of the Narrative. The Speaker concluded by saying, the House would bear in their recollection that he did not presume to touch on the consequences or the merits of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen moved, That it should be referred to the Commitee of the whole House on the Expedition to the Scheldt, which was agreed to.
On the Order of the Day being read, for the House going into a Committee on the Expedition to the Scheldt, Mr. Yorke moved the Standing Order, and strangers were of course excluded.