Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

abandon Walcheren under all these considerations? He would answer, In consequence of the second report of sir Richard Strachan, which was among the documents on the table. In a former report of the 13th of September, which was also before the house, this gallant officer stated that Walcheren was quite tenable; that a plan for its complete defence was drawing up, and that it ought not to be given up. But in the latter report, the gallant officer communicated his opinion, that in consequence of the cessation of the war with Austria the enemy would be enabled to bring such a force to act against Walcheren, as it would not be in the power of this country, with any reasonable proportion of its means, to withstand. Ministers therefore determined upon the evacuation of the island. The right honourable gentleman next proceeded to advert to that part of the question affecting the retention of Walcheren, And here he would aşk it of the candour of honourable gentlemen, if the evacuation of Walcheren was that which could be done as soon as it had been resolved upon;-if it was or could be made the operation of a day? Supposing that evacuation to have been determined upon at a given timethat it had been determined upon by his majesty's ministers, as a wise measure, to evacuate that islandwas there nothing worthy of consideration as to the propriety of the means by which that desirable object was to be carried into effect? The first object of their proceedings must be that of the removal of their sick. Would the precipitate abandonment of the island have been the best way to secure that object? Or, in order to secure the safe and tranquil re-embarkation of the sick, was it not expedient that the healthy

troops should be in undisputed pos session of the island? Or would it have been a more summary way to have called off the healthy troops at once, and abandoned the sick to their fate? Well, then, it is admitted that we should have first brought home our sick; and now let those gentlemen who have been so fine in their random flights at speculative censure, come down for a moment to the simple sobriety of fact. The navy could not bring home our sick

transports must of course have been employed in that melancholy service. After the transports had arrived, they must necessarily have undergone the process of fumiga. tion, and after that returned to convey the remainder; for we could not command the means of tonnage to convey them all home at once; and then after the sick had been brought home, and not before, commences the evacuation by the healthy part of the troops: even this slight summons was, he believed, sufficient to show that it was not possible to evacuate Walcheren at the time that it might be thought expedient to evacuate it. And this brought him to another question, involving still more conclusive reasons for the subsequent delay in the retention, than those arising from mere practical difficulties. Would it have been right, under existing circumstances, to have evacuated Walcheren so precipitately, independently of the physical impracti cability of doing so? And now he would state to the house one fact: on the 10th of October the govern ment had received intelligence, to their minds satisfactory, that hostilities were on the eve of commencing between Austria and France. Now, suppose ministers, after having received that intelligence, had ` nevertheless determined upon the abandonment

[ocr errors]

abandonment of Walcheren, and that hostilities upon the continent had actually re-commenced, how easy was it to anticipate the torrent of invective that would have poured upon ministers from the honourable gentlemen opposite for abandoning at such a period a conquest before so dearly bought, and then so critically important? Was it a rash supposition to imagine at that time the breaking out of hostilities between Austria and France? Was there nothing in the wavering and uneasy alternations that preceded the treaty of Vienna, to countenance the belief that the contending powers might again rush to arms, and another battle be fought for the political existence of the continent? And if there were grounds for an expectation so anxious, would Walcheren have been nothing in our hands against the common enemy? Or would it not have been a most desirable, a most important means of annoyance?. But there is yet another ground upon which, conjointly with the preceding, he thought the retention defensible. On the 10th of October, for the reasons he had stated, it would have been wrong to have given it up, comparing fairly the good and evil arising out of the act of retention. He thanked the house for the candour, of their attention, and he should sit down with simply stating, that it was his anxious and earnest wish to retain Walcheren, if its retention could have been practicable; and that his greatest regret was, that it was not possible to retain a conquest which, if retained, would have proved very valuable. The right honourable gentleman then sat down amidst a cry of Hear, hear!

Mr. Brougham expressed his most perfect conviction, that when

a subject embracing the vital interests of the empire, one in which every man was anxious to ascertain the exercise of that duty which the house of commons owed its constituents, was in discussion, he could not satisfy his feelings, even by vot- • ing for the original resolutions, if the matter was to rest there. He had a confidence that those who felt for the country's calamities would first support the present resolutions; looking forward to the ulterior consideration, which could alone afford the country justice for the past, and guard against similar delinquencies in the future. Those who, on the other hand, could limit their sense of duty to the present resolution, would, of course, support them, inadequate as in his mind they were to any other purpose but the salvation of ministers.

Several other members, besides those noticed, took part in the debate; and when the house came to a division, the first question was on the first set of the original resolu tions of lord Porchester, conveying a censure on ministers, on the ground of the impolicy of the expedition. On this question the numbers were,

For the original motion
Against it

227

275

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Majority for ministers 21 Adjourned.

bound to oblige the treasurer, before he was allowed to proceed upon the duties of his office, to find securities for 10,0001. such as the board should think eligible, and as the treasury should approve, But although Mr. Hunt had, for the second time, been appointed to this office so far back as 1807, he was never obliged by the board to enter into any sureties, and he absconded from his office, and left the country with a deficit in his accounts, as appeared from the ordnance returns, of 93,2967. It appeared from the report on the table, that a letter had been written to Mr. Hunt by Mr. Crewe, secretary of the board, and dated April 22, 1867, shortly after the appointment of Mr. Hunt, requiring him to enter into the sureties prescribed ; but from that time forth it did not appear, by any document accompanying the report, or by any evidence whatever, that any further steps were taken by the board to oblige Mr. Hunt to give the necessary se curities. Now this was so palpable a breach of duty on the part of the board as it was impossible to pass by without censure, consistently with any attention to the responsibility of public officers trusted with the money of the country. If the board had any defence to offer for this flagrant omission, he should be glad to hear it. He had searched and inquired for a motive in every quarter, but could find none. The board of ordnance were amply paid for their own services, they were amply aided by subordinate officers: they sat but three days in a week, and therefore could have no plea of being so overwhelmed with busi

April 12. Mr. Calcraft rose. He had, he said, given notice of two motions, the one respecting the very reprehensible conduct of the board of ordnance, in not taking securities for the fidelity of Mr. Hunt in the responsible situation he filled; the other for the cxpulsion of Mr. Hunt, as a member of that house. The latter motion he should postpone for the present, as certain documents necessary to be in the hands of members were not yet printed. The former motion he should bring on now; in doing which, he felt it quite unnecessary to trouble the house at any length; the facts were in themselves so simple, and the duty for the house to pass a strong censure on the parties implicated, so obvious and so urgent. It appeared from the ge neral orders in the reign of Charles II. that a regulation was imposed upon the board of ordnance, by the neglect of which, in the case of Mr. Hunt, that board had been guilty of a great and reprehensible omission, whereby the public had sustained a loss of 10,0001. and for which, according to every principleness as not to have time to attend of justice, they ought to be responsible. Under the general order to which he alluded, the board were

to their duty in this case: in fact, they could have no excuse. There was something peculiarly indulgent

in the conduct of the board to this gentleman, Mr. Hunt, on the ground of surety, for which he(Mr. Calcraft) was totally at a loss to account. Upon Mr. Hunt's first appointment to the treasurership, in 1803, he was suffered to remain eighteen months in his office with out producing his sureties; and after his second appointment, three whole years passed without obliging him to produce any. Having stated these facts, he felt nothing more now necessary than to state to the house the resolutions he had to offer. It might be said that that regulation laid down in the general order of Charles the Second was only imperative upon the master of the ordnance. But every one knew, that for a long series of years the official management of the ordnance business devolved upon the board. At present, he believed, there was no such officer as the master-general of the òrdnance; and he did not mean to impute the slightest blame to lord Chatham, who, he believed, knew nothing whatever of the transaction. The honourable member then read his resolutions, as follow:-

1st. Resolved, "That it appears to this house, that Joseph Hunt, esq. member of this house, has been twice treasurer of his majesty's board of ordnance. That he was nearly eighteen months in that office on his first appointment in 1863, before any security was obtained; and that on his second appointment in 1807, it is not recorded in the ordnance department that any security whatever was given by him. 2. "Thatit appears to this house, there is a balance of 93,2967. against the said Joseph Hunt, esq. as late treasurer of the ordnance.

3. "That it appears to this house, the master-general of his

majesty's ordnance is directed in the original instructions of king Charles II. under which he and the board now act, to take from the treasurer, upon his first entrance on the execution of his place, security to such an amount as he may judge necessary, and as shall be approved of by the treasury.

4. That it appears to this house, the security taken in the first treasurership of Joseph Hunt, esq. nearly eighteen months after his entrance on the execution of his place, was 10,0007.

5. "That it appears to this house, no security was taken on the second appointment of Joseph Hunt, esq.

6. "That it is the opinion of this house, the master-general and the board of ordnance have been guilty of a breach of the instructions under which they act, and by which they ought to be formed, in neglecting to take security from Joseph Hunt, a member of this house; and are responsible to answer as to this omission of duty, which, from the state of the balances against the said Joseph Hunt, has actually occasioned a loss of 10,000l. to the public.”

Mr. A. Cooper intended no opposition to the main part of the resolutions; but it appeared that the board at least had not been de ficient in their duty. A minute had been made to direct Mr. Hunt's securities to be called for, with which it turned out that he had not complied; but this involved no culpability of the board. He (Mr. A. Cooper) remembered when a similar charge had been brought in the case of sir J. Mildmay's com pensation against the treasury board; but on its appearing that the error was the work of inferior officers, and that his honourable friend (the chancellor of the exchequer)had no share of that error, the censure of

the

the house did not attach to the proceeding, as the general negligence of the board of treasury. It would be in the present instance an unnecessary and unusual act of their judgement to censure the board of ordnance, which lay under similar circumstances; but to obviate a similar occurrence, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the security to be taken for the discharge of public offices, and for vacating such offices, unless security should be given within a limited time. The board did not know that a balance of 11,000 stood against Mr. Hunt, after his first resignation of office. He must on the whole deprecate so severe a censure as that proposed by the honourable gentleman on the opposite side.

After some debate, the question was put on the several resolutions. The first five were adopted.

In place of the sixth, the following resolution was moved and agreed to:

"That it is the opinion of this house, the master-general and board of ordnance have been guilty of an omission of duty, in neglecting to take security from Joseph Hunt, esquire, member of this house, and late treasurer of the ordnance, in conformity to the instructions under which they act.”

April 13. The speaker acquainted the house that he had received a letter signed" Francis Burdett," on which he wished to know the pleasure of the house. On a cry of Read read! he read as follows:

"To the right honourable Charles Abbot, speaker of the house of

commons.

"Sir-You having on or about the ninth of April inst. as speaker of the house of commons, forcibly broken and entered the dwelling

[ocr errors]

house of me, the undersigned Francis Burdett, situate in Piccadilly, in the parish of St. James, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex ; and having also, on the said ninth day of April, caused me to be apprehended, and unlawfully committed to a certain prison called his majesty's Tower of London, and to be there imprisoned, and as yet kept and detained in prison there, without any reasonable or probable cause whatever: I do therefore, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, hereby give you notice, that I shall, at or soon after the expiration of one calendar month, from the time of your being served with, this notice, cause a bill to be filed against you in his majesty's court of king's bench at Westminster, and a writ of summons to be thereupon sued out of his majesty's said court of king's bench at Westminster against you, at my suit, for these said trespass and false imprisonment, and shall proceed against you thereupon according to law. "I am, &c.

"FRANCIS Burdett,” "Dated 12th of April, 1810." The speaker said it was at the option of the house whether the lettershould be entered on the journals.

The letter was then ordered to be inserted on the journals.

April 16th. Sir Samuel Romilly rose, in consequence of his notice of a motion for the discharge of Mr. Jones from his confinement for a contempt of that house. Though the opinions which he (sir Samuel) had expressed on the legality of the warrant under which Mr. Jones now suffered were still perfectly unaltered by any thing which he had heard, his present motion was to rest on the plain and single ground that the punishment had

been

1

« ZurückWeiter »