Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

one of these two results. Ministers having tried the inclination of the enemy, would come back to the house and say, "We have tried him, and find him averse to negotiation; or, in such a state of irritation, that it is in vain to expect him to treat on any thing like honourable terms." This, of course, they would assert, and was the effect of the passing of this resolution. Or, again, if they did enter into terms, and a dishonourable peace should be the consequence, they would say, "the reproach does not lie on us; blame yourselves, you were too impatient." There was another reason which operated strongly with him. The house was every day receiving petitions for peace, stating the pressure under which the petitioners laboured, from the markets on the continent being shut against them. If we were, in consequence of agreeing to the present proposition, to send an ambassador to France, might not Buonaparté say, "It is not six weeks since you sent away the Austrian ambassador, whose mediation you rejected. You talk, however, of a pressure on your manufactures. Is it so? Then I will persevere in following up the measures I have adopted; and, taking advantage of this pressure, will force you to accept any sort of peace I choose to grant you." If it were once to be laid down as a maxim, that on acco, nt of a pressure on any one branch or part of the community, the whole nation must give way, he could not look on England in any other light than as a conquered country. If his honourable friend, therefore, would not withdraw his motion, he should move the previous question.

Mr. Wilberforce agreed entirely

with Mr. Ponsonby in his opinion on the last proposition of the honourable mover, but for different reasons. He did not see that the house was called on to interfere in the conduct of the executive power, unless it appeared that the servants of the crown had misconducted themselves in regard to what was passed. The third proposition could not be agreed to without agreeing also to the two former. But he was so far from agreeing to these, that he thought ministers actedwith becomingcircumspection in doubting that the mediation of Russia and Austria would have. been impartially exerted towards this country. It by no means followed that, because neither of these powers could be supposed to hold France in a higher regard than they did this country, they might not, to serve their own purposes, have sacrificed our interests.

Lord Milton, though he agreed to the two first propositions, could not go the length of the third; not being satisfied that there was yet ground to address his majesty to remove his ministers, as being disinclined to peace, which must necessarily accompany that proposition.

Mr. J. W. Ward gave his decided support to the whole of the resolutions of his honourable friend. Among other remarks, he said, there was now no point of contact where war could be carried on. We had destroyed all the fleets that had been opposed to us. Buonaparté had discomfited all the armies that had been sent against him. The war, in fact, had died a natural death. It had been like a fire going out for want of fuel. The propositions were also supported

by

by lord Mahon and Mr. J. Smith, who spoke with great enthusiasm in praise of the talents and independence of Mr. Whitbread.

Mr. Canning, giving Mr. Whitbread full credit for being sincere in the opinion he had expressed, contended that, admitting negotia tion to be desirable and good when there was a prospect of its leading to peace, it was a mischief when it did not afford that prospect. It tended to excite deceitful hope, and to paralyze exertion. The honourable gentleman was satisfied, that when Russia said we might have honourable terms, the fact was so. But why, in that case, did not Russia state those terms? What Russia might have looked upon as honourable terms, might not be so looked upon in this country. The manner in which Russia acted respecting Prussia; that in which she surrendered the guaranteed republic of the Seven Isles; the phrase of "maritime peace," always used by France in a sense wholly inconsistent with the maritime power and strength of Great Britain; and in that sense forced into all the diplo. matic papers of the powers reduced under the control of Buonaparté; the apparent compromise of the in dependence of Sicily;-all these were grounds for suspecting that the terms which Russia described as honourable, might, in fact, be very far from being so on the principles that a British government was bound to act upon. A very material fact, tending to show the disposition of Russia, and her devotion to France, was, that the inclination of the Russian government to complete the commercial treaty with Britain, ceased on account of the influence of France, and was not concluded.

He had himself no doubt that the declaration on the subject of Copenhagen, was forced on Russia by France. It was thought strange, that while the mediation of Russia was deemed suspicious as between Britain and France, the mediation of that power was solicited as between Britain and Denmark. But this application was perfectly consistent with the character of l'rotector of the north; and by preserving any part of the independence of that state, there might yet be room to hope that all was not irrecoverably lost. The first offer of mediation from Austria was immediately subsequent to the battle of Eylau, described in the gazette, published by the late ministers, as a complete victory on the part of the allies. It was accepted without any other condition, than that it should be accepted equally by all the belligerent powers. The offer was made accordingly, but accepted by France in terms so offensive to Britain, that it would have been a question whether any negotiation upon it could have been instituted. But before this question could be brought to an issue, the battle of Friedland had totally destroyed the hopes of the allies; and when lord Pembroke mentioned the matter at Vienna, he was told that things were so changed that nothing could be done. A second offer of mediation, on the part of Austria, was afterwards made, 28th November, by prince Stahremberg. But the whole of the proceedings, on the part of Austria, respecting this second offer, wore evident marks of French dictation.

Mr. Sheridan was determined to support the whole of the three resolutions; which he would have done

had

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. Adam requested his right honourable friend to withdraw his motion, and let the house decide upon the resolutions; for every one of which he meant to vote affirmatively. His opinion was, that ministers, by their conduct, had put a bar to any expectation of peace being proposed by them, or to them; and until that bar should be removed by a declaration of the sentiments of that house, he very much feared there could be no hope of peace for the country. Mr. Sheridan withdrew his motion; and after a few words from Mr. J. Smith and Mr. Wilberforce, and a reply to the latter by Mr. Whitbread, the house divided upon each of the resolutions. Upon the first the numbers were, Ayes 70-Noes 210.-Upon the second, Ayes 67-Noes 211.Upon the third, Ayes 58-Noes 217.

To the debates concerning our relations to the northern powers, several resolutions moved in the house of commons by Mr. Adam, 4th of March, respecting the law of parliament, formed a kind of natural episode. Before stating the terms of his motion, he found it necessary to enter into some discussion of general principles, and to state

On

On

the facts on which he pretended to found it. His object was, to prevent the repetition of a practice which the house had witnessed on the 3rd of February last, and which stood recorded on the Journals of the house on the 8th of February, he hoped for the last time. the 3rd of February, certain papers had been moved for by a right honourable friend of his, Mr. Ponsonby; and in the debate which took place, the discussion embraced not only the motion for papers, but the conduct of the individuals to which those papers referred. that occasion, the secretary of state for the foreign department read extracts from two of those papers which had been moved for, for the purpose of putting the house in possession of the information necessary to enable it to form a judgment respecting the propriety of the hostile proceedings which government had adopted against Denmark. On the 8th of February, another honourable friend of his, Mr. Whitbread, moved for the production of those very papers, from which the secretary had read extracts on the 3rd of February, on the ground that the extracts conveyed a different impression from that which the writers of those dispatches, lord Howick and Mr. Garlicke, intended to convey. On the 3rd of February, the reason given for not producing the whole of the papers was, that their contents could not be disclosed without detriment to the public service. And on the 8th of February, the secretary persisted in opposing their production, on the pretence that, in the extracts he had made from them, he had not misrepresented the opinions of lord Howick and Mr. Garlicke. On the

26th of February, however, the right honourable secretary had come down to the house himself, for the purpose, as he stated, of vindicating his own character, and moved for the production of those very papers, which, on the 3rd of February,he contended could not be disclosed with safety, and the production of which, on the 8th of February, he had resisted on another: so that, according to Mr. Canning, the public convenience and safety were not to be put in the balance with his personal feelings and interests! The reading of extracts on the 3rd of February, was not preparatory to a proceeding, but on the very model of a proceeding that was to terminate in adjudication. And it was upon this ground that he pronounced the secretary Canning's conduct to be wholly irregular and highly censurable. If a libel was published on any member of the house, he might move that the libel should be read in the house; but the house would not grant any proceedings upon the libel till it was on their table. That this practice had been invariably adhered to, and that it was irregular in debate to quote any paper which had not been regularly submitted to parliament, Mr. Adam proved by many precedents, and a uniform analogy. But if there were no precedent for what he was about to propose, he reminded the house, that the circumstances were also altogether novel, and on this ground he hoped, that the house would create a precedent. Mr. Adam having pointed out a great variety of prejudicial consequences that might arise from the practice of quoting partial extracts, if not checked,

VOL. L.

concluded with moving the following resolutions:

That it appears to this house, that one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state did read to this house dispatches and other communications to and from the accredited ministers of this country at foreign courts, relative to the subjects of their mission; and that he has stated and read other matters respecting the transactions of this country with foreign powers, none of which were communicated to this house by his majesty's commands, and some of which this house has determined to be unfit to be produced.

"That such conduct is subversive of the ancient and approved usages of parliament, is destructive of fair discussion and decision, and has a direct tendency to injure the public interest, by making the resolutions of this house proceed on inaccurate statements, which it cannot correct by reference to the documents from which those statements are made; or to force on the consideration of this house,' papers which, in its wisdom, it may deem unfit for public production.

"And further, that such conduct is contrary to the trust reposed by the constitution in the confidential servants of the crown."

Mr. Canning spoke at considerable length in his own defence. The substance of his speech was, a statement of precedents for quoting partial extracts on the part of former ministers; an inquiry into some of the statements that had been made by Mr. Adam; and a claim to the right of using, as one of his majesty's ministers, a discretionary power. Was the honour[F]

able

able and learned gentleman, who had moved the resolutions, prepared to say that no information was given to parliament, but that which came in the more regular and authentic shape of a message from his majesty? In this case, no minister could ever afford satisfactory information to either house of parliament. But, it might be said, the question might be fair, but the answer not correct! How was correctness, or incorrectness, in such a case, to be judged of? Was it proper to tell whence you borrowed the intelligence? Through what channel it came? Was it to be communicated by extract or in detail? To all these modes of communication objections were started, yet no reason had been started, why one should be preferred to another. By partial statements, it was said, great mischief might be committed, and much injury done, to our diplomatic agents. To a detail of the information, equally strong objections were offered. What, then, could be the guide of a minister's conduct, but his own discretion? And where could that discretion reside, but with the very person whose discretion the learned and honourable gentleman moved resolutions to criminate? Mr. Canning, having concluded his speech, withdrew, not thinking himself competent to vote when a criminal charge was brought against his own conduct. A debate ensued, in which Mr. Adam's motion was supported by Mr. Windham and Mr. Whitbread; and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Mr.Adam replied to all the arguments that had been used against his motion, and insisted that the conduct of the

right honourable secretary, which he called in question, was against the usage of parliament: that this was proved by its never appearing to have been the practice of the house, and by its being checked each time when it was resorted to. As to modern practice, whatever it might be, he cared not, because that did not defeat the ancient usage founded on the principles that formed the common law of the country, the practice of the house, and the acquiescence of the people. And he contended, that his doctrine was confirmed and established by the entries of the 8th of February, which he had read to the house, the only entries of the sort to be found on their journals. He was perfectly satisfied that he had discharged a most important duty in bringing this most important law and constitution of parliament, into discussion; both to counteract the entries on the journals, and to check a course of proceeding which placed the means of swaying the decisions and acts of that house, by misrepresenting facts, and by withholding and detaining the evidence of them entirely in the hands of the ministers of the crown. On the previous question, which had been moved by the chancellor of the exchequer, the house divided: Ayes 168-Noes 67.

While the great question respecting our seizure of the Danish fleet, and in consequence of this, as was alleged by the members of parliament in opposition to the present ministers, the alienation and hostility of the emperor Alexander to this country, was the grand topic; the attention of parliament was also called to the late unfortunate expedition to the Dardanelles, and to Alexandria.

« VorigeDoorgaan »