Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

was brought forward by the learned member for Winchelsea, who was not now present. But, suppose the whole of that case, as charged, fully proved; because an individual had acted erroneously in one instance, was he to be condemned altogether? That would be unjust to lord Charles Somerset. That case was only one of many charges against that noble lord's government. Conduct was imputed to him, for a long-continued period, which demanded inquiry. But not only did the hon. gentleman ask him to go on with this case, but he wished to father on him a book, purporting to be the answer of Mr. Bishop Burnett to the report of the commissioners. Was the conduct and character of lord C. Somerset to rest on that single case? He would answer, no; and would state his reason for demanding an inquiry. He held in his hand a list of several persons who had been banished from the colony, and who were now seeking for redress. He had stated the case of Mr. Edwards; and he was told that, having been a convict, no inquiry could take place with respect to him. But his having been a convict at one time of his life, had nothing to do with his afterconduct. With respect to Mr. Bishop Burnett, was it just to him, when he entreated leave to go back to the colony, to refuse him? Yet such was the fact. He was refused by the department with which the hon. gentleman was connected. Surely, the government could not rest contented with this half-mangled case. The cases of D'Escary and Gregg, individuals who had been banished, called loudly for inquiry. Documents had, indeed, been laid on the table, but no statement of the grounds on which these persons had been banished. There were also the cases of Mr. Francis, of lieutenants White and Clarke, of Dr. Geary, and of several other persons, and amongst them a lady, the whole of whom complained of acts of gross oppression. These complaints, coming from so many quarters, demanded a strict investigation. But this was not all. The conduct of lord Charles Somerset, with respect to his financial proceedings in the colony, deserved to be inquired into. That extravagant and wasteful expenditure which had almost ruined the colony, was a fit subject for parliamentary inquiry. Without pledging himself as to the course which he might pursue after the recess, he thought it was

[ocr errors]

incumbent on ministers to bring home from the Cape many witnesses who could give important evidence in this business. He understood, that, in September last, two of the commissioners had left the Cape, and one continued there to des patch the remaining business. He supposed, therefore, that those gentlemen had arrived in this country, and that from them government would receive much additional information. This was another reason for instituting an inquiry as soon as possible. The instructions in conformity with which the commissioners were to act at the Cape directed, that they should not inquire into any cases, except those sent out from the department here, or those which were of a special nature. This, he contended, operated decidedly against a full and impartial inquiry. The commissioners ought to have been empowered to hear, generally, the complaints of the inhabitants; but that was impossible under this very partial instruction. He meant to move for the following papers :-"1. Copy of lieutenant-colonel Bird's examination, and correspondence, if any, with the Commissioners of Inquiry. 2. Correspondence between the Colonial Department and the Commissioners of Inquiry, in reference to all complaints preferred against lord Charles Somerset's Government. 3. Reports of the Commissioners on all special cases referred to their investigation.

4. List of all persons banished from the Cape of Good Hope during the government of Lord Charles Somerset. 5. Copies of Mr. D'Escary's correspondence with the Colonial Department, and the Commissioners of Inquiry."

Mr. Ord said, he felt it to be his duty to vindicate, as far as his abilities would allow him, the conduct of the commissioners of inquiry. He possessed no materials that would enable him to enter into a laboured defence of those gentlemen; but he must say, that the hon. member had just as little ground for making an attack on them. Nearly connected as he was, in relationship, with one of those commissioners, Mr. Biggs, any thing he might say in his favour might be attributed to partiality. He should, therefore, only state, that Mr. Biggs was as incapable of being actuated by any unworthy motive as the hon. gentleman himself. That gentleman had been employed, for many years, in important publie situations, and he was admitted to have discharged the

duties of those situations with credit to | first preferred against the noble lord, had himself, and advantage to the country. been referred for investigation to gentleHe had, for a considerable time, acted as men of high character, and every way judge in the island of Trinidad; he was qualified to conduct such an inquiry, who afterwards employed on the inquiry into had reported thereon, the House should the state of New South Wales; and, he now, instead of taking into consideration believed, in both situations his labours the full and minute report furnished by were beneficial to the public. Circum- those gentlemen, throw it altogether aside, stances of ill health had prevented his and receive fresh accusations against the recent labours from being so expeditious noble lord. If the hon. member would as some gentlemen might wish. He had show any parliamentary ground for calling met with a dangerous accident, which had for these documents, he would at once for a long time confined him to his bed, either consent to their being furnished, or and had latterly obliged him to use state his reasons for withholding them; crutches. This might account for the but the hon. member, instead of showing delay. It was, he thought, due to Mr. any such grounds, had contented himself Biggs, and the other commissioners, to with running over a list of names, and suspend any opinion on their conduct calling for evidence as to the cases of a until their reports were before the House variety of individuals, who had incurred [hear]. He was as willing as any man the censure of the government at the that they should be tried by their deeds, Cape, because, forsooth, by possibility, when the necessary documents were in some of these persons might have been readiness; and when that time came, he ill-treated. No doubt charges had been believed there would be found as little made by individuals against the noble reason to condemn those commissioners lord, and there was no wish on the part as to condemn any other set of persons. of government to throw any unfair obstacle in the way of their being fully investigated. All that was desired was, that they should be brought forward in some intelligible manner, so that the House, in entering upon the consideration of them, might know what it was called upon to investigate and decide upon. The hon. member had said, that it would be requisite to go back to the period when the commission was appointed, for the purpose of investigating the charges against the noble lord. He would remind the hon. member, that the Cape of Good Hope had been annexed to the Crown during the late war; that Dutch laws and Dutch customs prevailed there. To bring about a change in this respect, and to anglicize the colony, was, of course, a most desirable object; and it was to this that the commission owed its origin; for one system of law could not all at once be made to supersede another. This could only be effected progressively, and was a work which required great caution; and what better means could be devised for carrying it into execution without risk, than intrusting the management of it to a commission composed of gentlemen of high character and known ability? This measure was not merely confined to the Cape; it extended to the Mauritius, and to the isle of Ceylon. This was the origin and object of the commission. It was

General Grosvenor was surprised at the manner in which the hon. member for Aberdeen had disclaimed the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett. It was true that he did not present that petition; but then he spoke upon it with a warmth, and in terms, which were not called for at the time. As for the story itself, which he might fairly describe as "Bishop Burnett's History of his own Times," he thought it ought to be disposed of first.

Mr. Wilmot Horton said, that as the hon. member for Aberdeen appeared to have misunderstood him, it would be necessary for him to repeat a few of the observations which he had submitted to the House. That hon. member was totally mistaken if he supposed that it was his wish to get rid of this investigation with the half-mangled case, as he termed it, of Bishop Burnett. He had merely mentioned to the House the very great expense which had been imposed on the country in collecting materials for coming to a decision on this case, and he would now pledge himself, that if gentlemen would take the trouble to wade through the report on their table, they would find ample and conclusive evidence to enable them to come to a determination on this case, and it did appear to him to be a most cruel and unjust mode of proceeding that, after the charges which had been

of valuable service to the country; and, as to the government not detaining him in this country to give evidence, he would merely observe that it had no power to do so. He was not prepared to produce this officer's correspondence; for it seemed to

after their appointment that special grievances were referred to their consideration. The hon. member had thought proper to impute partial and improper motives to the government, with regard to the instructions given to the commissioners. It certainly was not the intention of govern-him that it would be unjust to lay a priment-indeed it would have been highly absurd in them-to unfurl a standard in a new colony for all the disaffected to rally round. They never intended to set up a mart for grievances; but if the House would take the trouble to look over the number of cases which had been referred to, and reported on, by these commissioners, no one would regret that more ample powers had not been given them. The noble lord had been placed in a most perplexing and difficult situation. According to the oath he had taken, he was bound to govern the colony according to a law totally different, and very much inferior, to that of his native country. All the defects attendant on this system had been laid to his charge. The commission had been specially appointed for the amelioration of this law; and any communication from them relating to this object he had no objection to lay on the table; but when the hon. gentleman called for all the cor-it, no one should be found to bring it respondence between these commissioners and the government, relating to various unconnected subjects, he could not but oppose so sweeping a demand.

Mr. Hume observed, that he only asked for the correspondence relating to the 'special cases which had been referred to the commissioners.

vate paper, received from colonel Bird, before the House, until his examination taken before the commissioners should also be adduced. With regard to Mr. D'Escary's correspondence, he could see no reason why it ought to be produced, unless it was intended to bring forward some specific charge on that case. Government were fully satisfied upon it, and did not intend to do any thing with regard to it. If the hon. member thought something ought to be done, let him bring forward some definite proposition respecting it. With regard to Burnett's case, it had been mentioned four or five times in the House, and represented as a case of the greatest hardship and oppression. That case had been fully investigated, and the House had all the materials before it for coming to a decision upon it. If it should be now thrown aside, and after the high tone which had been assumed respecting

forward, he for one should certainly consider it as admitted, that it had been preferred without any foundation.

Mr. Hume asked, to what particular motion the hon. gentleman objected.

Mr. Wilmot Horton replied, that he should resist, in the first place, the production of colonel Bird's examination.

Mr. Hume said, that as the report of the commissioners containing it was about to be laid upon the table, he would withdraw that motion. He hoped, however, that the hon. gentleman would consent to lay upon the table the correspondence respecting the special cases against lord C. Somerset. It was idle to call upon a member to bring forward a special case, when the very means of investigating it were denied. Justice could not be done without the production of the correspondence on the particular charges.

Mr. Wilmot Horton continued. He could not accede to this indefinite demand. If the hon. member would state a specific case-if he would pledge his character that he had examined into it, and that he thought it required the attention of the House--he would then either consent to produce the papers, or assign such reasons for withholding them as he thought would satisfy the House. But it would be a most inconvenient mode of proceeding in this particular case, and set a very bad precedent, to accumulate and huddle together a host of fresh charges, whilst Mr. Wilmot Horton contended, that they threw aside and abandoned those there was not the slightest ground for the which had been preferred in the first in-presumption that ministers meant to imstance, and on which a report had been already made. The hon. member was likewise mistaken as to the reason why a pension had been granted to colonel Bird. It had been granted him for many years

pede the course of justice by refusing the papers. The charges against lord C. Somerset at present were sweeping and general. Let them be made particular; and, if sufficient arguments could be

offered, nothing should be withheld that could throw light upon the case. Government were not disposed to lay all the documents upon the table, in order that particular charges might be picked out of them.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that if the House should resolve itself into a court to enter upon the consideration of every individual case, although no imputation had been cast on the report of the commissioners, it was impossible to say what papers they might be called upon to print. He would put it to the hon. member, whether it would be at all consistent with that economy of the public money which he so much advocated, to adopt this course. But it would be in the highest degree unjust to the commissioners, whom he believed to be most impartial and able men; for it would assume, that they had conducted themselves with partiality and injustice, and would consequently lower them in the estimation of the public, and embarrass them in the exercise of their functions. His hon. friend had very fairly offered, if the hon. member would take upon himself to bring forward any specific charge, either to produce the papers relating to it, or to assign a satisfactory reason for refusing them.

Mr. Hume said, he must admit that the proposition which had been made by the hon. gentleman was a very reasonable one; and if he had understood at first that this would have been conceded to, he would not have pressed his motion, which he would now withdraw.

ARIGNA MINING COMPANY.] Mr. R. Martin said, that he had a motion to make relating to a petition which had been referred to a select committee of the House against the directors of the Arigna Mining Company. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Brogden) had been one of the directors of this company, and as such, along with the other directors, had been charged by the petitioners with purchasing property for 10,000Z., and charging the parties for whom they purchased 25,000l. for it. Had his hon. friend acted in this manner, he not only deserved to lose his seat in that House, but to be sent out of the country. But he was convinced that he was incapable of having acted in such a manner. Still, this petition would have the effect of producing a prejudice against

him in the public mind, which could not be removed until the committee had made their report. In order, however, to obviate this prejudice, he wished it to be known, that the number of the petitioners only amounted to four, although the subscribers to the company exceeded a thousand. That the public should know who they were, he would move, "That the names subscribed to the Petition be printed."

Mr. Wynn said, that if the names were printed in this instance, impartial justice required that they should be omitted in no others. At present the expense of putting petitions into type was sufficiently heavy; and if the signatures were appended, the votes would soon be as voluminous as the statutes at large. He recommended the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion, which was now unnecessary, as the House had appointed a committee to investigate the charges against the hon. member. If it turned out that there was no foundation for the accusation, those who had brought it forward would, of course, meet with merited disgrace.

Mr. Alderman Waithman termed the advice given by the right hon. gentleman lenient towards the hon. mover, but argued, that it would degrade the character and dignity of the House, to allow the motion to be withdrawn. If he had attended to one branch of history more than another, it was that which related to the constitutional principles of parliament and the country, and he would venture to say, that since the Revolution, a more atrocious attack had never been made upon the rights and liberties of the subject. This was the first time he had heard, that the value of what was stated in a petition depended upon the number of the signatures, or even upon the characters of the parties. To require their publication was most improperly to obstruct the right of petitioning, and to encroach upon one of our dearest privileges. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the expulsion of sir John Trevor, in 1695, in consequence of the circulation of a pamphlet in the lobby, by one Crosfield, which complained of a gross misapplication of the public money, and quoted the Parliamentary History of the time upon the subject. The investigation went on, and one thing came out after another, until

they led to the expulsion of several members.* Again, in 1680—

Mr. Wynn rose to order. The hon. alderman, he said, seemed to misunderstand the question before the House, which was merely whether certain names should or should not be printed. There had been no attempt made to throw obstruction in the way of inquiry. In fact, the House had already determined, that an inquiry should take place.

Mr. Alderman Waithman maintained, that he was perfectly in order. He meant to conclude with moving an amendment. An attempt had been made to obstruct the right of petitioning. It was wished that the names of certain persons who had brought a serious charge against a member of that House should be published, in order to let the world know how few they were in number, and also how much they were wanting in respectability. It mattered not whether a petition was signed by one person or by one hundred, so that the facts contained in it were correct. It was an attempt to obstruct the right of petitioning, to propose to hold up petitioners to ridicule, or to expose them in any way. The hon. member had stated, that the petitioners were not persons of respectability. With respect to the privilege of petitioning, the poorest man stood upon the same footing as the richest. Previous to the revolution it was asserted, that all attempts to obstruct petitioning were illegal. The obstructing of petitioning was declared to be illegal in the bill of rights. If members were allowed to cast reflections on the characters of petitioners, and to hold them up to public contempt, the doors of the House would be barred against petitions. In 1680, the House of Commons resolved, "That it was, and ever had been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances." In pursuance of this resolution, sir F. Withins and sir George Jeffreys were expelled the House, for throwing obstructions in the way of petitioning. Another objection had been made to one of the petitioners, Mr. William Clarke; namely, that he had been running about the streets, collecting information relative to this Jointstock company. So much the better. He was, on that account, the more likely

Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 881.

to be well informed on the subject, and his petition deserved so much the more attention. But be he what he might, even if he were under sentence of death in Newgate, he had a right to petition the House to make inquiry into any grievance which he might think worthy of its attention. But he himself happened to know something of this gentleman, and he could affirm that, on the Stock Exchange, he bore a very fair character; and he would mention a fact, which was of itself no small evidence of good character. Having lost a great deal of money in these Joint-stock companies, he was not able to meet the demands of his creditors at the time, but afterwards he paid them every shilling of their debts. would move, as an amendment, "That it is, and ever has been, the undoubted right of the subject to petition parliament for the redress of grievances, and that to publish the names of the petitioners, with the view of bringing discredit on them, tends to obstruct that right, and to deter the subject from bringing his grievances before parliament, and is subversive of the liberties of the subject."

He

He

Mr. R. Martin said, that he would not have been very anxious to press his motion, if the hon. alderman had named the other three petitioners, as he had named Mr. Clarke; for walls had ears, and if the hon. alderman had done so, they would be known all over London to-morrow morning. He denied that his object was to hold up the petitioners to ridicule. His object was, to show the public, that out of a thousand persons interested, only four had petitioned against his hon. friend. There was nothing in this which went to impugn the right of petitioning. asked, why the petition had been printed without the names of the petitioners? It was wrong-it was monstrously wrongto print that petition without the names of the petitioners, so long before the investigation could be gone into. It had been said, that if the charges were unfounded, his hon. friend would have an opportunity of clearing himself. So he would. But when? Why, in two months from this time; and during the whole of that time these allegations were hanging over him; so that his hon. friend was punished before he was tried. The process was, to punish him first and hear him afterwards; which was exactly the same as hanging a

« ForrigeFortsæt »